|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-07-2010, 05:01 PM
|
| |
Hi There
actually, there's 3 dust bunnies, but not the stains that others have (I really have looked).
The dust bunnies only show above f22, so I think I'll keep house for them while the camera settles down.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-19-2010, 02:45 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-18-2010, 10:19 AM
|
| |
Well, I'm not 'switching' but I've bought a K5, because I'm interested in the size/weather sealing/quiet shutter - and some of the Pentax lenses. I went through the same exercise a few months back with the K7, and returned everything because I didn't like the sensor output.
Of course lenses are the most important part, but if there isn't a body to take advantage of them, then there's not much point!
As for the OP - I think it's sad that there isn't really a 24-105 equivalent, I guess the nearest is the 17-70, which is only a little short on the wide angle end - or the 16-50 which has the weathersealing and is f2.8. You pays your money!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-18-2010, 02:33 AM
|
| |
Hi Oz (and Peter)
Well, just to compound my crime, I also have an M9 (certainly my most used camera).
I think the prints look discernibly different - even at 12x16 . . . . . it's not just to do with the sensor, it's also to do with the lenses and the processing . . . However, I'm not sure which I like best - different in itself doesn't confer a value!
Depending on the subject, I'm sure you can print right up to A1 size with the K5 without needing to worry, and, let's face it, if you really want to see every detail on every leaf at that size, you need to go to medium format and shouldn't be messing with any of these 'little' cameras.
I think the K5 has a stronger AA filter than the A900 (and of course the M9 doesn't have one), so if you care to pixel peep at 100% it probably is the least impressive . . . but that doesn't have much to do with big prints!
No - I think all the discussion of 'best' 'as good as' etc. is a bit arbitrary - what really does matter is the characteristics of the different lenses, and (to me at least) the different shooting experience.
The K5 is a lovely camera and the limited lenses are lovely too, comparing it with the A900 or the M9 is obviously valid and useful, but deciding on a winner seems a little pointless.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-17-2010, 11:05 AM
|
| |
Hi Dave
I've just grabbed a K5 (I also shoot Sony A900 and Leica M9), but I have also owned a G1.
Well, the K5 is heavier than the G1 (closer to the D300), so if it's just weight you're considering . . .
But, it's much closer to the size of the G1, and a K5 with a 35 and a 50 would be much smaller (and nicer) than a D300 equivalent. Added to which it's really quiet, and lovely to use
In terms of Image Quality I think It's pretty much a different league - the K5 really is excellent, as is the high ISO. I'm currently using a 35 f2.8 limited / macro, which is lovely, the lightweight 18-55 kit (less so) and I'm waiting for a Zeiss 50 f1.4 to arrive.
all the best
Jonathan Slack
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-17-2010, 10:47 AM
|
| |
HI There - I've been shooting with the A900 for two years (since it came out). I've recently added a K5, and I'm loving it.
But don't imagine that two years is enough time for sensor technology to come on far enough that a 16mp APSc sensor will outperform a 25mp FF sensor.
The colour rolloff and the tone transitions in the A900/A850 sensor really are in a different league. Added to which the extra resolution has a real effect on landscape work and big prints. Of course, the High ISO of the K5 is much much better (but if you downsize A900 images they do really well).
Don't get me wrong, I think the K5 is great, as well as the high ISO it is much smaller (and so are the lenses), better made, weathersealed, quieter, and has slightly better dynamic range. Added to that, the Pentax primes are pretty much equivalent (if different) from the Zeiss lenses. . . . . . and it doesn't say Sony on it ;)
But don't imagine that the sensor on the A850 is outlcassed, as it certainly isn't!
All the best
Jonathan Slack
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-16-2010, 01:37 PM
|
| |
Yes, but you wouldn't rather carry two bodies and 6 lenses on a 20 mile trek at 40C . . . at least, I suppose you might, but most people wouldn't.
The beauty of the M9 is not that it's 'the best', but that it's the best way of getting a small package with fine lenses - the K5 doesn't do too bad in the same area!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-16-2010, 01:34 PM
|
| |
I quite agree that the M6 is not ideal - but it's a different animal altogether. The point being that with a film M you really can't be sure 'what you've got', and poor though the LCD of the M9 may be (is), you can at least see whether the composition and exposure is right, and a little common sense can deal with the focus as well.
I really like the K5, but the AA filter and the smaller sensor definitely amount to less resolution when compared to the M9 . . . .
But I'm not here to criticise the K5 - I think it's a great camera . . . not a great camera 'for what it is' simply, it's a great camera - eye popping dynamic range, splendid colour , and my little 35 f2.8 limited is certainly making my wallet shrink away in terror!
 |
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-16-2010, 02:41 AM
|
| |
HI Steve
Well, if someone made someone make a decision between the two, then the K5 really does sound like a bit of a no brainer (forget the manual focus - manual focusing on a Leica is part of the point). If I had to make a decision . . . well, I'm afraid I might still choose the Leica, but it's because of the way I shoot, not because of any inherent superiority.
But who ever said it had to be either / or? Rangefinder cameras encourage a completely different way of shooting, and a different response from your subject (if it's a person). If you haven't shot with one, then you wouldn't know that!
I'm really enjoying the K5 - it's nicely made, great to use and the limited lenses seem to be really excellent (and great value for money). It's certainly not meant to be a substitute for my M9. On the other hand, it certainly doesn't feel like a Ford to the leica's BMW. Build quality and that lovely shutter are fantastic.
Toopy - I'm really sorry to have misread you - big apologies - but I stick to my point that the M9 makes a splendid landscape camera, and there are lots of splendid landscape shots out there to prove it!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-15-2010, 05:36 PM
|
| |
So he was :o - but the main point arises, however good the K5 may be (or the 645) the M9 makes an excellent landscape camera, and perceived reliability may be at least partly a function of increased grumpiness in people who have spent a lot of money!
Personally, 2 M8's and 2 M9's have behaved impeccably since whenever it was the M8 came out - with will over 50,000 collective presses, lots of travel, tricky circumstances (including rain / sand / snow / falling camera down on scree) - the only thing that's suffered is the paint job (brassy corners). I know this isn't a statistical sample, but I'm aware of lots of others, professional and otherwise who rely on them. Glib dismissals of something one has used a camera for continuously for over around 4 years is a little galling.
Which detracts nothing from the K5, which seems to be a lovely and well thought out camera with excellent image quality and a stunningly quiet shutter (yes, I think it's probably quieter than the M9).
Anyway - apologies for misconception - and boring qualification!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-15-2010, 04:53 PM
|
| |
Deary me
The M9 certainly has it's foibles, but it's increasingly being used as a landscape camera. The lack of an AA filter, together with the really splendid lenses make it a real winner.
'definition and quality of a ten years old P&S'? really - that's emotive, and hasn't any basis in reality. It does very well for resolutionagainst other full frame high MP cameras (D3x and A900 come to mind). I've not heard anyone defining the resolution of the D3x as being that of a 10 year old p&s.
I suppose it's possible you haven't even tried one?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-15-2010, 04:45 PM
|
| |
Hi Peter
Well, it's my first post here - and I'm afraid I can't offer anything definitive as I don't shoot with a 5D MkII. I do use a Lieca M9 for landscapes though Testing the M9- and it does a very fine job. Dynamic range is not a problem, and the lenses are fantastic (really fantastic).
I recently bought a K5, just with a couple of lenses to start with:
35 f2.8 limited
50 f1.4 Zeiss ZK
kit lens (18-55 WR).
I bought it as the natural successor to the Olympus E1, a very much loved camera (which I gave to my son years ago).
Small solid body (smaller than the E1) weather resistant, very quiet shutter (quieter than the E1).
I'm not very enamoured of the kit lens, especially for landscape (I do landscape too). but the little 35 limited is spendid - sharp and contrasty and full of character (with a good bokeh). Reminiscent, in fact of the Summicron 50 f2 on the M9.
I don't know whether the K5 is as good / better / the same as the Canon or the Lieca. What I'm absolutely and categorically certain of is that if you're shooting landscape and printing at 24x16 and you're using the limited lenses, then you will have splendid results. Add to that, every moment of shooting with this quiet and delightful little camera will be a pleasure .
Compared to the subtle and wonderfully damped shutter of the K5, the Canon sounds rather like stamping on a tin can (with all the effect that has on sharpness).
It's not all a bed of roses - some of the focusing is a bit noisy, there seems to be a shortage of real quality wide - mid range zooms (the 16-50 not withstanding). But the limiteds are fab, so is the camera body, and the high iso . . . .
I couldn't shoot in the daytime for a week after getting the camera - so I shot in the dark:
shooting in the dark in Gent and Bergen op Zoom
All the best with your decision!
|
