15, 31, 77, 100.
Thanks for all the info on which lens. This helps a lot! However, it looks like I may have to look into the K7 due to $. Is there THAT much difference in IQ between the K7 and K5?
OR should I look at the A55 or A580?
I haven't kept up with the Sony models. I've stayed in touch with the Pentax gear because I have a lot of connections to Pentax gear from my endeavors with Pentax USA.
Sorry for not posting images (yet) ...however I now have to say the 16-50 seems to allow to see the capability of the K5 sensor.
Images now seem sharp as those from my D700.
The high ISO (1600 and upward) seems fully usable but definatly more noise than the D700 specially in the shaddows (which I expected and which doesnt bother me, as long as it is good enough for me)
Anyways, I have decided to keep the K5 and now hope that I can resist to buy too many lenses.
Maybe you should stick with what you have?
I bought the K7 earlier in the year, because it pressed all my buttons (small, quiet, weather sealed, primes etc.).
I loved using it, but I didn't like the image quality (at least, the DR / Noise characteristics didn't seem that great), so I just took it all back (5% restocking seemed reasonable).
When I saw the DxO test for the K5, and after playing with the same sensor in a Sony A55, I realised the potential. I think it's a great camera, but it's the sum of it's parts, and I thing that the K7 has a serious part missing! (i.e the sensor).
Just this guy you know
Nice to watch the present vitality of Pentax, one of the few dedicated optical and photographic companies left. Real cameras like 645D, and K-5, and what's next ...
Enticing The Light has a Pentax K-5 review going for the next month or so. Chapter one is up with introduction, first impressions and the like.
SO far I have used LR3 but I wondered which would be the raw converted of choice for Pentax files.
Anybody here using both Nikon and Pentax? I've been watching Pentax closely for a few years, and the K5 seems to be the perfect entry point. After changing from Fuji S5 to Nikon D300 as my main camera, I'm left with a body that is an excellent machine for producing photos, but that gives me some strange colours, particularly in direct sunlight, even if I shoot RAW only.
Changing brands would be a major operation, so it would be interesting to know if anybody has used the D300 as well as the K5, and how the colours compare. D7000 obviously comes into play as well, but not many have that one yet.
I can't help really, I did use a D300 when it first came out, but far too long ago to do a comparison.
I guess that the AF on the Pentax will be considerably more lugubrious than the Nikon (seems okay to me though). The old Nikon colours issue used to haunt me (I found it worst in evening light), but lots of people don't seem to recognise it.
Seems to me that if you're looking to ditch Nikon then the Pentax is a bit of a no-brainer, but that if you aren't, then the D7000 (which seems like a very similar camera to the K5) is the obvious way to go.
head and heart stuff!
all the best
Just this guy you know
First imression is that the Nikon colors are a bit more yellowish in skin for example-when I compare DNG vs K5-DNG in LR.
I have not used the K5 enough to give a solid statement on colors, but first impression is that I personally might prefer Pentax colors. I posted a link in the Pentax-lens thread to a thread with many many Pentax images and I do like coors of those. I also read that it depends on the lens line and the Pentax DA lenses draw a little colder vs the FA primes.
What particular problem do you have with D300 colors and how do you process them and in which converter?
Other than that I believe the Nikon 17-55/2.8 ( i used it before with D2x and a D300) is better than the Pentax 16-50, at least at f2.8.
But then Pentax offers more nice primes designed for dx and offering a nice size-quality ratio.
The D300 has more AF sensors in a more usefull position than the Pentax, and while the K5 user interface is veray good for my taste the D300 layout is still better. I dont know about AF accurancy of the K5 yet, but my Nikons (d2x, then D3 then d300 then d3x, back to the D700) were all extremly accurate and reliable. Much better than what experienced with journeys into Canon land (5d, 7d).
I hope the K5 is as good and first impressions are quite good regarding this point.
Pentax offers the 50-135/2.8 - which is half the weight of a Nikon 70-200VRII (excellent lens).
Sorry, I forgot you just asked about the colors.
Jorgen, with regards to your D300 colors try the menu choice Set Picture Control >> D2Xmode1, it's a really nice and accurate color profile.
If you haven't got all the D2Xmodes Optional Picture Controls installed in your camera you can find them here:
And here's a description on how to download and copy the Picture Controls to your camera:
The profiles will work with Capture NX and NX2 and I remember Stuart Richardson once mentioned that Lightroom has these modes as well, see post # 8 in this thread:
P.S. is your Nikon D300 A firmware version 1.10 - and is your B firmware 1.10 as well ?
[/end of being so off topic]
Thank you for your input all of you.
Yes, it's the yellow cast that annoys me, and it can't be corrected with WB alone. I'll try the D2Xmode1 and see how that works. The D7000 is the obvious upgrade path of course, but there are other things to consider too:
- The Pentax lenses are smaller and lighter, and the small primes simply don't exist in F-mount.
- The Pentax has IBIS
- The Pentax generates DNG-files, which means that I can open them with my ancient (CS3) Photoshop. Upgrading to CS5 would be nice, but isn't really needed for my work, and I'm not in the mood to learn more software user interfaces than strictly necessary (Capture NX etc.).
There are other options too of course, and apart from size, the E-5 is a lovely camera. I could even use my GH1 as a backup for that one and mount most of my OM lenses. They also have one of the best walkaround lenses ever designed: the 11-22.
Lens choices are indeed quite different. Pentax offering nice high quality primes in small size (limited), on the other side Nikon offers faster lenses (24/1.4 for example, also a better and cheaper 50/1.4) and IMO the better mid range zoom (17-55/2.8) as well as a very nice 18-200zoom.
it really depends.
I find the Pentax offering for dx very attractive. Those lenses are expensive though for primes with max speed of 1.9-3.2.
Busy with lens testing so no time for photography
Between testing some images from the K5 with the 35DA and 70DA:
70DA at f2.4:
Today I compared the D700 with 50 and 105 primes vs the K5 with 35Macro and 70 Limited.
Both cameras at base ISO.
At f2.8 the Nikon 50 seems to beat the 35Macro regarding sharpness at long distance, at f4.0 the difference is minimal.
The 70 Limited seems to be on par with the Nikon 105DC at f2.5.
What you see is that the ff 105DCC shows clearly less DOF than the 70/2.4 at f2.4.
Color I think I prefer the Pentax slightly.
So yes, regarding blurred background and shallow DOF the ff (as we all would expect) does allow more flexibility.
Also shooting both cameras at the same time you see the quite obvious difference in viewfinder size.
Also while the K5 is totally fine the D700 fits even better in the hand.
Conclusion for today:
Some slight disadvantage compared to the D700 in viewfinder and handling, but still very good for my taste
IQ: Same here - The D700 seems allways as good as the K5 sometimes better (less CA, more microdetail) but also here the k5 with the 35 and 70 limited hold up very well and so good that I would not have any concern
Those Pentax lenses are so nice and small-I really like those and I find portability quite a bit better with the K5.
The 35macro is a lot of fun. Definatly a keeper too.
The 16-50 which I also shot a little more my sample seems to be softer at f2.8 also in the center. Its fine at f4.0 and faster. I think for now I will give it back and first stay with the primes. I might add a 16-50 in a long term if I will see how much I shoot the Pentax.
I also think that K5 plus Pentax lens portability is better than that of the D7000.
Having said that - the D7000 seems to beat the K5 in most respects and actually is cheaper. And as a Nikon shooter it would probably be the consequent step to go - at least for me. Depends of course on the optics one uses, I would go for the 16-85, which is an excellent lens because a friend of mine uses it for pro work and is very happy with it. Adding to that the DX 70-300 (results in 105-450) which is also a great and tiny lens that would be a good combo.
Sure - not what you can get from Pentax
I think the biggest difference in bulk/weight make the lenses not the body.
Anyways-I dont know yet if m step makes any sense with having so many Nikon equipment-I still enjoy the K5 right now-specially with the 35macro.
The other thing is color where I seem to like Pentax quite good (but as others say probably something one can adjust).
Tonight we got some snow. Some images from today with the 35Macro:
and one using the internal flash:
So I had planned to wait until the K-5's sensor appeared in the NEX-7 and hope that it was weather-sealed, and use that as both a bad-weather camera and travel backup for my M lenses. But seeing some of the shots and commentary here I decided to give the K-5 a try -- bought the kit plus 31 Limited this weekend.
A few snapshots are posted below. Initial impressions:
Ergonomics: Great. Like most DSLRs, it is not a thing of beauty, but this one is relatively small, feels solid and easy to use. Why can't every camera have a shutter like this?
IQ: Initial impressions were so-so, but then I realized two things:
One, the matrix metering overexposes somewhat in bright or mixed light; if you keep -1/3 or so in and then boost in post, or use center-weighted and eyeball it, IQ takes a step up; not just re blown highlights, but the camera does better raising shadows than turning down brighter areas. Many of the shots below were taken before I noticed the exposure issue.
Two, from what I can tell so far these files benefit from somewhat aggressive post, esp. for sharpness. I've settled for now on boosting the sharpness significantly in Lightroom and modifying the contrast and other curves (often to lower the contrast). With these two changes, when you are shooting at ISO 80 or 100, the files are starting to look very good. Notwithstanding the DXO scores, to me the results are not on level with the M9 and, on average, do not appear to have quite the tonal depth and color of the A850, but vis-a-vis the 850 it's getting into the realm where many people would not see a difference. Have not tested the higher ISOs enough yet to add to what others have said. Have been shooting only DNG.
AF: I use only center-point, out of preference. In daylight, AF seems fine, maybe 14/15 hit rate. At night, the hit rate drops. I will probably need to practice more, but I seem to be missing AF on 1 of 4/5 shots at night. Using live view and manual focusing, you can hit 100%, but you have to hold the camera out and it's a bit slower. It would be nice to figure out the AF at night given the camera's high ISO ratings.
SR: I tried the K-7 a year ago and gave up on it after two bodies had a problem where the Shake Reduction system introduced shutter blur at around 1/100. Have not seen this issue with the K-5.
Lenses: I have mostly used the 31. I think it is great. The out-of-focus rendering is very nice, the overall look a little bit different look than the M lenses I have used but lovely in its own distinct way. Very usable wide-open, better at 2.5, renders with most authority at about 5.6. Have not used the kit as much; impression is that it is fine stopped down a stop from around 24 to 40 or so, somewhat weak at full wide-angle. The 31 is clearly better, although not weather-sealed.
Overall, I am starting to feel pretty positive about the camera. Hard-pressed to think of a better bad-weather backup at this point.
31 Limited at 2.5
31 Limited at 2.5
31 Limited at 1.8
31 Limited at 5.6
31 Limited at 5.6
31 Limited at 5.6
Kit Lens at 8.0
Kit Lens at 4.5
Last edited by MPK2010; 27th November 2010 at 07:21.
the colors seem to be really great! Compare to Nikon and Sony and must say I like the K5 ones much better.
AF - have no personal experience but what you report does not seem to suggest it is better than the one in the D7000 - which should be leading in AF anyway. If one needs this? Do not know ....
Lenses, size and weight - the primes for the K5 are for sure first quality and very small - something you cannot get for the D7000. The zooms I guess are not really much smaller. IQ wise I am not sure but I think the differences will be rather small.
NEX7 with same sensor - I went out this evening and shot some 50 images in low evening light with Xmas lightning etc. All between ISO 800 and ISO 1600. There is substantial noise, of course better as from EP2, but there is. So this new sensor would definitely be a big step forward here. And the NEX is of course MUCH smaller compared to the K5 and D7000 and likes.
Still not sure if I should buy the K5 .....
Peter, mid range zoom is not much smaller but I find the 50-135/2.8 and 60-250/4.0 to be options specially for dx wit no equivalent from Canon or Nikon.
I cant comment on the optical quality of those lenses yet though.
Still a m4/3 would be even much smaller, but it would also offer even less DOF control than a DX camera.
two more with the 70Lim.
Damn I'm confused and ambivalent about this camera. I've been a Pentax user for a couple of years (bought my first DSLR back then, have two Pentax bodies now, a K20D and a K-x) and I have a few good or OK lenses (incl. 15mm, 40mm and 70mm limiteds, DFA 100mm WR macro). But I have not been 100% happy with the camera bodies and the brand. Mostly it has been about lacking AF and ISO. Every other week I think about selling all my current gear (while I hate the practical aspects of selling) and getting a Nikon D700, the next week I decide to stick with what I have. Don't get me wrong, both my current cameras run circles around me as I'm just a beginner really, but I'd like to have a camera as capable as reasonably achievable. Up to a price level.
And now this: the K-5. The camera that seems to do it all. The 14eV monster with improved AF and great ISO. Comes at a price, but what the heck. Every other week I've been planning to get one, probably with the new WR "tourist zoom". But now after the initial rush, all kinds of negative aspects start popping up on different forums. Erratic flash behaviour. Soft image - or not. Noise reduction in RAW mushing fine detail - or not. AF better, but still not quite there. EDIT: And front focusing in dim or tungsten light.
Heck, this is driving me crazy. There's still none available in town to do testing on my own, so I'd have to order it online to buy now. Not that the new zoom is available yet over here either.
Silly me, right?
Last edited by emr; 29th November 2010 at 10:05.
I am really liking this camera, but all my instinct tells me not to jump into another system, as the D7000 might perform equally well - but unfortunately is missing the high speed lenses of Pentax.
Why can't Nikon make a 2.8/14-50 and 2.8/50-200 or similar in DX format. These would be killers and make my decision much easier
I really like the K5 + Pentax lenses results !!!!
Ptomsu, if I was a Nikon shooter or was starting from scratch, I'd probably get the D7000 (or the D700), but my current crop of lenses (pun intended) ties me to Pentax pretty much. This camera seems to be pretty good like many smallish Pentax lenses are, but I'd wish to have all the support and available accessories of a bigger brand not to mention the probably still better AF. Also I could buy FF capable lenses to go with an APS-C camera today and one day upgrade to a FF camera. No such option in the case of Pentax. Of course with the evolution of sensor technology one can ask if a FF sensor is needed after all, but that's another story...
Peter-if you stick with Nikon I found the 17-55/2.8 an excellent lens and IMO even better than the Pentax 16-50 at f2.8
Regarding K5 vs D700: I prefer the K5 size/weight and like the small Limited primes. The K5 IQ is very good IMO (with the right lenses) and I prefer the color over that I get from the Nikon.
On the other side the D700 high ISO still beats the K5, and the same is valid for the AF and the larger viewfinder (of FF).
I find the Pentax the more attractive DX system, but the D700 is still a step up in AF speed and high ISO.
Personally I am not so interested in the D7000. I once had a D300 together with the D700 and allways used the FF at that time.Finally sold the Nikon DX.
Same here, got rid of Nikon DX some time ago. Got the K5 and the 15 Ltd and 77 Ltd. The 15 is on the way back, terrible at F4. The 77Ltd is great after a small in camera fine focus. The 100WR showed up today, and all indications are that its a keeper. Just a few quick snaps, and even these were sharp as a tack. I thought about the D7000 also, but its not weather proof to the degree the K5 is, and, Nikon primes are not small.
One more thing which is nice about the Pentax is the in camera anti shake.
If we say for example the 15 needs to be stopped down to get good corners this function can help.
Peter-regrading D700 vs K5: I might reduce my Nikon lens setup a little but I will keep the D700 and main lenses for now.
Did the following exercise:
D700, 24-40, 70-200 results in 3.5kg
D7000, 16-85, 55-300 all VRII results in 2kg
K5, 16-50, 50-135 results in 2.5kg
So clear winner here is a D7000 set although you do not get 2.8 but instead full VRII support, whereas the K5 has built in IS. From a price point the D7000 set is also the clear winner.
Of course one also can get the 2.8/17-55 Nikkor, which is faster, but then you do not have any IS. So I would prefer clearly the IS (called VRII). And I would have all my 2.8 FF glass to be used with the D7000 anyway if I really need or want that.
But if you really need 2.8, well I have the complete lineup from 14 - 200, even if it is FF. And then the quality can for sure not be topped, as you are using only the sweetspot of the FF on the DX sensor - so this would be really unfair, but then again I would rarely use such a combo, because then I would also use a FF body.
The beauty of the Nikon D7000 solution with the above mentioned DX glass is really the size and weight and price. For one who looks for a weatherproof system which is small and easy to carry this is the system to go.
If you have different requirements as you - need fro primes - then Nikon has almost nothing to counter - except the DX 1.8/35, which is not rocking me at all. But if you want a flexible zoom system then Nikon D7000 wins - at least for me.
I also have become more critical regarding lenses and would probably first like to see how those lenses work wide open, specially on a DX sensor packed with 16MP.
But at least the 16-85 a professional photographer I know is using on a D300s and this is his bread and butter lens. So it cannot be so bad hopefully. For the 55-300 I read some tests and they pretty much speak for this lens in terms of contrast and resolution over the complete image circle. See below - unfortunately only in German ....
As far as I know, neither the Nikkor 16-85 nor the 55-300 are weatherproof. The only way to get a similar, weatherproofed range on a Nikon, is to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. If no weatherproofing is needed, the Tokina 50-135 optically more or less the same as the Pentax, but no VR.
This really isn't a fair comparison - neither Nikon lenses are likely to be in the same league as the K5 lenses.
Added to which that these days there doesn't seem to be a that much difference between in lens and sensor based IS . . . . and of course, sensor based has the advantage that it covers all lenses.
Still, with your existing kit Peter I've no doubt that the D7000 is a more sensible option.
I've just spent a (very) rainy weekend in Aix, and it was lovely to be able to have a range from 24-387 all weather sealed, and fast enough to take advantage of the dark. Everything got very wet (including me) the pictures aren't so great, but that's down to the photographer and the weather, not to the camera, which performed a sterling job in heretofor (for me) impossible conditions.
But my Sony Stuff Stays - as does (of course) the M9.
Just this guy you know
I put together two kits from my equipment closet and weighed them, complete:
throw it all in the bag assignment kit:
Domke F3X bag
ZD 35 Macro
ZD 50 Macro
8 batteries for FL36
Battery for E-5
remote cable for FL36
card wallet with 4 CF cards
remote cable and tripod plate
usual kit (normal and tele lens bias):
Billingham Alice L2 bag
ZD 50 Macro, EC14 (nets 50 and 70 mm options)
Battery for E-5
If I swap the ZD 25/2.8 + ZD 35 for the Summilux+50+EC14 in the usual kit, the weight drops to about 1.8 kg.
If I take the 11-22, 14-50 or just the Summilux 25, the weight is about 2 kg total.
That covers my usual shooting needs. It's not so big a difference from the K5 kit you list above, albeit with a little less focal length versatility. However, those are the lenses I have and use so I am not worrying about the theoretics... :-)
great you are back!
I actually read a lot of reviews about the D7000 and a lot of then say that this camera is not as sharp as it should be - some even say the D300s is sharper. I was almost ready to pull the trigger on the D7000, as I am not so keen to start another system (Pentax K5) but now I am more than confused again.
PS: maybe the comparison is not fair, but for me it would be kind of fair as I could make up the missing lens speed by VRII - right? I know of course there are other issues ......
I think it's all angels dancing on the heads of pins . . . all this stuff works properly these days. . . . . maybe it's just what one likes that matters?
Here are a couple of shots I liked with the K5. both are at 6400 ISO
the first one is with the 60-250 220mm 1/125th f4
I think the point about this shot is that the colour is lovely and subtle . . not something I've ever been able to make at ISO 6400 before.
This one was with the 35 DA macro at 1/30th (really dark restaurant).
Maybe something else would do better? but I like the camera and the lenses, and the weatherproofing, and NOBODY could dislike the lovely quiet shutter.
But still Peter - in your shoes, if I wanted something lighter I'd get the D7000 . .. unless I wanted weatherproof.
Just this guy you know
WOW - seeing these colors and the fine nuances and the fine details at ISO 6400 make me really weak
I will do some investigations on the D7000 before I decide. But I think it is not just the K5, but also the glass you are using.
How did you like the AF - fast? hunting or not? compared to Nikon (I do not care about the number of AF points, but rather how fast and accurate the AF is in single focus mode and how sensitive in low light)
just for fun: K5+15+21+35+70 Limited <1,8 kg
50-135 = 765g incl. hood => K5+15+21+35+70+50-135 roughly 2,5kg (of course you could skip 70 when you bring the 50-135 and save some weight.
Anyways - I think its more about how you like IQ and how you like handling and how lenses fir your needs than the last 100g weight difference.
Jono - I like my decision with the primes but admit I walked while it was snowing a lot and in this moment the weather proof 16-50 would have been better. Anyways-cant have anything
Great images in this thread from Jono, Tom, and MPK. If I were buying into a DSLR system today, it would start with either the K-5 or the A900. I don't care about weather sealing, but a good VF, body IS, and good primes are all high on my list.
K5 with 50-135 at f2.8 2500 ISO: