[btnapa]

Picking up first Pentax - need help deciding

I have owned and used the K3 and the K5IIs (Not K5). In terms of image quality, they both can deliver the goods. You will be more than happy with wither of your choices. For me it comes down to the ergonomics and the features. I still have my K5IIs and it is a fantastic image making machine. However, having used more recent bodies, the image saving and previewing of the K5IIs is slow and to me annoying. My K3 and K1 are much faster in saving the file after the image is taken and the preview process is almost instantaneous. I am not sure if the K5 has the same issue. Just sharing my experiences.

[wadge22]

Welcome to the forums!
I agree with what others are saying, either would be good but the K5 with the nice Limited lens is probably slightly better for the money, especially as a "try out the brand" setup.
I would also suggest, like VictorDA said, to skip over the 18-55 and head straight to the 18-135, which gets much better reviews and isn't a whole lot more money in the scheme of things. This is especially true if the 18-55 you're looking at isn't the version with WR. Having at least one WR lens is definitely nice, and one of the big benefits of a Pentax kit.

[UncleVanya]

If you can push the budget to add a lens or two in the near future I suggest the k-3. I say this because it has 50% higher resolution plus no antialiasing filter which can be a significant improvement in sharpness. On top of this the K-3 is compatible with the newer 55-300 PLM lens. I would suggest however that if you have very limited funds the k-5 is plenty of camera. I owned the k-50 which had some improvements over the k-5 (liveview and focus related) but also some reduced specs (lower shutter rating, lower bit depth to files, less durable build, etc. ). The k-50 to k-3 change was a big one mostly around ergonomics (top lcd, grip, battery life) most of which were available on the k-5 as well.

The da 40 is a favorite lens of mine:

IMGP4375_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

IMGP4268_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

IMGP4257_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

[officiousbystander]

Pentax K5 at 210 bucks (with 18-55 and 40mm limited)

Looks like you're getting one good and one outstanding lens with a free camera with that deal.

[normhead]

HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE

That's not actually accurate. We have hundreds of K-5 images taken with the 55-300. As long as you're happy with shooting wide open (which at 300mm is ƒ6.3) you get good images.

Based on my ownership of both the K-5, K-5ii and K-3, and having used all three cameras extensively, I'd say go for the K-5 and the 40, for the same reasons BigMac posted. We have own our K-5 for ~10 years now, and it still works flawlessly.

[Wheatfield]

Hi all,

I’m trying to decide between the following on MPB:
-Pentax K5 at 210 bucks (with 18-55 and 40mm limited)
Total of 435 USD

Or

- K3 classic at 480 (18-55 to go with)
Total of 520 USD

I picked up a k70 in store, which I can pick up for 400 USD (no warranty) and although I liked the lower weight it just felt a tad cramped for my taste.

Thanks!

Note the early runs of K5s were plagued by a variety of problems. I'm not sure if there is any way to tell if you are getting an early run K5 or a later one. With that in mind, I would go for the K3, which was the first 100% Ricoh built Pentax and actually had adults in the room from design to build rather than risk buying a camera that might very well be the end of happiness.

[Des]

If you can push the budget to add a lens or two in the near future I suggest the k-3. I say this because it has 50% higher resolution plus no antialiasing filter which can be a significant improvement in sharpness. On top of this the K-3 is compatible with the newer 55-300 PLM lens.

I agree completely (having had two K-30 cameras as well, which had the same sensor as the K-5). The K-3 was a big upgrade, particularly for situations where you often need to crop (e.g. wildlife), but also because it doesn't have an AA filter (resulting in sharper images). And it really is worth having the capacity to use KAF4 lenses with full functionality (as Norm said, you have no control of the aperture of a KAF4 lens with the K-5). The DA 55-300 f4.5-6.3 PLM is such a fine lens (at an affordable price) it's worth it for that alone. And many lenses released from now on will be KAF4.

The main limitation with either of these cameras is high-ISO performance. For that a K-70 would be better. It also gives you a flippy screen, which I find useful on my K-S2. It's a generation on from the K-3. But if the feel of it is a deal-breaker, I can understand that - I also loved the ergonomics and robustness of the K-3 (quiet shutter too and many small but premium features).

[BigMackCam]

The main limitation with either of these cameras is high-ISO performance. For that a K-70 would be better.

For sure, and I'd absolutely agree that the K-70 (and, of course, the KP) offer somewhat better high ISO performance, both for noise and - more importantly - dynamic range. Having said that, I've taken raw DNG shots with my K-3 at ISO 12,800 and above that - with a little judicious colour noise-reduction in raw conversion software - are perfectly useable at reasonable reproduction sizes... In fact, they look great at screen-filling size on my 17" HD laptop, and quite acceptable on my 24" QHD monitor. They should look even better printed at the same physical dimensions. It all depends on one's appetite for some luminance noise (or "grain"), as decent raw conversion software can deal with colour noise very effectively. ISO 6400 is a no-brainer on either the K-5 or K-3 when shooting raw and using a good raw converter with decent colour noise-reduction, such as Lightroom, RawTherapee, Darktable etc. That's a lot of latitude for most day-to-day shooting requirements...

[mikesbike]

I say this because it has 50% higher resolution plus no antialiasing filter which can be a significant improvement in sharpness. On top of this the K-3 is compatible with the newer 55-300 PLM lens

This is the nitty-gritty, and it is the truth.

I shot with the original K-5 for a few years, then got the K-5 IIs, both new at great prices as the next model came. The K-5 IIs does not have the AA filter, and other than its most significant upgrade of AF performance, especially with certain lenses, it is otherwise essentially the same camera. The "II" stands for the upgrades, the "s" stands for the AA filter having been removed. All subsequent Pentax DSLR models omit this AA filter. They have a different AA system that can be switched in if needed, if moire is present, otherwise they are free of this filtration, which can slightly blur fine detail in images. I can tell you this made a difference in fine detail in many images comparing my original K-5 with the K-5 IIs. Resolution is then very good indeed, but my KP's resolution is superb. Both it and the K-3 having a 24mp sensor and no AA filter indicate resolution will be similar. (but the more recent KP will be superior for lower noise and better image quality at higher ISO settings).

So between the two you are considering, the original K-5 and the K-3, I recommend the K-3 hands down. But do check for degree of usage and condition. Keep in mind, these are both flagship models and built for long-term durability. Compared to the K-70, these models will have a much better build and a much better system of on-body controls for quicker adjustments without having to go into menus. These open the door better to learning techniques in photography to advance yourself. You can even get fine results right out of the camera with highest quality JPEG's as you learn the ropes in dealing with different conditions. Just be sure to implement "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menus and leave it there.

And do avoid setting the "Auto green mode" on your mode dial, as this will freeze most control features eliminating your ability to make adjustments and the camera will make all decisions. If you want full automation by the camera for setting the exposure, set the mode dial to the "P" (Program) mode, which will allow you access to make adjustments, include setting the "Fine Sharpening".

[Des]

ISO 6400 is a no-brainer on either the K-5 or K-3 when shooting raw and using a good raw converter with decent colour noise-reduction

I have a different view about this Mike - which might be a different tolerance for noise. With the K-3, I tried to keep to 3200 or less. I got some low light shots with the K-3 at 6400 ISO that have turned out alright with lots of treatment with DxO DeepPrime AI noise reduction (which is one of the best around), like this:

But if you look closely there is still plenty of noise visible.

The KP (similar performance to the K-70) is a stop or two better. You start with a cleaner image. Here's 6400 with the KP:

It stands up to closer scrutiny. This is what could be expected from the K-70 as well.

[mikesbike]

I'm definitely with Des regarding the KP.... if the OP's finances can manage it. There is also a degradation in the compared image from the K-3 of a certain flatness, while the KP image is much more 3-D and sharper. But the OP might not need higher ISO all that often, keeping below ISO 3200, for better quality with the K-3. Then there's the K-70, but it is not in the same league as to dependability or long term durability, let alone control features, though its articulating rear screen can be useful for some circumstances. I have it on my little K-S2, which is rigged for selfies, but I am happy enough with my KP's pull-out rear screen, which is great for lower level tripod use so you don't have to bend over, or for waist-level shooting, or for an over head angle.

[DWS1]

I would suggest the K70 with the DA 18-135mm over either a K5 or K3 because of the higher resolution, better low light performance, and lighter weight. It's not as rugged as the others but is still well built and will last a long time if you don't abuse it. It may feel a little off in your hands but after using it for a week or 2 you will develop the muscle memory to the point it will feel quite comfortable.

[tibbitts]

Looks like you're getting one good and one outstanding lens with a free camera with that deal.

You read that differently than I did; I think everybody would recommend the K5 with those lenses at that price. I read $435, not $210.

But it's important to state the difference in condition and number of cycles when comparing.

[BigMackCam]

I have a different view about this Mike - which might be a different tolerance for noise. With the K-3, I tried to keep to 3200 or less. I got some low light shots with the K-3 at 6400 ISO that have turned out alright with lots of treatment with DxO DeepPrime AI noise reduction (which is one of the best around), like this:

But if you look closely there is still plenty of noise visible.

Understood, Des. Personal appetite and tolerance for noise is a very individual thing. With an ISO 6400 image from the K-3, I don't expect or need it to hold up to close scrutiny... No matter how much work I do, I know it's going to look rough at 1:1 reproduction - but I can get pleasing results for images scaled to fill my 17" HD laptop display at normal viewing distance, my 24" QHD monitor when viewed at the same distance one might look at a wall-mounted photo of similar dimensions, or my 42" TV viewed from across the living room... and that's my own personal yardstick for acceptable quality.

Looking at your excellent koala photo, it does indeed seem rather noisy and a bit washed-out at maximum reproduction size - but, respectfully, I wonder if you might be able to squeeze even more out of it. On close examination, I'd say the demosaicing algorithm is contributing to the noisy appearance. I've no experience with DxO software, but the visible maze-style artefacts suggest it may be applying an AMaZE algorithm or something similar. I use plain old RawTherapee most of the time, and for low ISO images I would apply AMaZE demosaicing in most instances, as it's great for reproducing fine detail - but with high ISO files where the priorities are rather different, I find the IGV algorithm much more effective. This, coupled with "aggressive" colour noise reduction - plus, when there are large areas of solid tone, just a little luminance noise reduction (no more than +15) - and no sharpening, typically produces results I'm quite happy with. Not as happy as I'd be with an image at base ISO, of course, but my expectations and tolerance shift to match the situation and end use-case.

My apologies to the OP for drifting off-topic, though hopefully they might find this interesting and relevant...

EDIT: See snapshot below... Not a great example, but I chose it because it has a large expanse of grey that really accentuates colour and luminance noise. The second screen capture shows the cropped image at 1:1 reproduction. This is the level of noise I would typically seek to achieve with an ISO 6400+ image from my K-3 (actually, this photo is at ISO 8,000 - but close enough, and serves its purpose here). Noisy, yes... but no maze artefacts and no washed-out appearance, due to choice of demosaicing algorithm. Scaled to fit a screen and viewed at typical distances, quite useable for my purposes. In this case, since the photo doesn't contain fine detail, a little luminance noise reduction improves things still further...



At 1:1 reproduction, with colour noise-reduction only:



... and with +10 luminance noise-reduction:

[mooksf]

Hi all,

Thanks again for all the input,

I ended up going for the K5 with the two lenses, as it is in excellent condition with less than 7k shutter count vs the K3 with 20k and the 18-55. As I'm ordering it from MPB I have a bit more faith that even the older camera will be in solid condition.

I understand the point of view to stretch my budget and go for the K-3, K-70 etc. but my current thinking is that if the K-5 should serve me well on a budget for my use case which I should have specified earlier is pretty basic as of now: Travel, Street, Family snaps.

If I do end up falling in love with the system, which I think I will from what I've read about the cameras and the premium build quality, I will then save up and use the spare cash once I sell my Olympus em1 mk II to go for a more modern body if I feel the need to, and choose between the KP or K-3 II/III.

Will let you know how I get on one it arrives tomorrow!