The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Testing out a Pentax K5

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,
you are even worse than me.
What do you want to get from the Pentax which you do not get from the Sonys?
erm . .. well, my most loved dSLR was always the E1 - the K5 seems to be it's obvious successor . . . except that it's
1. smaller
2. has a quieter shutter
3. has a better viewfinder
4. shoots decent pictures at 6400 ISO
5. has a range of wonderful, and very small, prime lenses . . .
(It's missing nothing other than the fab Zuiko zooms)
I have to use it until I realise why it's not as good!






 

jonoslack

Active member
Oh boy, this is going to cost me, LOL
I have not given in yet though.
Joe
Hi Joe
You don't have to do it . . . times have changed, and maybe a small, weatherproof dSLR with a quiet shutter, 16mp and great 6400 ISO is no longer what we all want?

Maybe!
 

Amin

Active member
I'm looking at those deep shadows in the lovely images you just posted, Jono, and I'm reminded of this insane demonstration of K-5 sensor dynamic range in the DPR forums.

There are shadows in your pictures which look blocked up/black on my display, which of course is normal for viewing photos on an LCD and says nothing about that sensor. In the back of my mind I know that if you "pushed" those files in RAW and showed me the recovered shadow detail, my mind would probably be blown. Please don't do that :D.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm looking at those deep shadows in the lovely images you just posted, Jono, and I'm reminded of this insane demonstration of K-5 sensor dynamic range in the DPR forums.

There are shadows in your pictures which look blocked up/black on my display, which of course is normal for viewing photos on an LCD and says nothing about that sensor. In the back of my mind I know that if you "pushed" those files in RAW and showed me the recovered shadow detail, my mind would probably be blown. Please don't do that :D.
Hi Amin
Well, you're quite right, but most of them actually have the sun in the frame too, so it's understandable.

Hey - I saw a demonstration like that one years ago with another camera (can't remember which, and probably it wasn't as impressive). The camera is no kind of miracle (live view is slightly clunky for instance).
To be honest, I bought it on a nostalgia trip (I really did love the E1). It was enlightening comparing it with Silas' E1 (the Pentax is smaller and has a quieter shutter!!!). But of course it's no miracle, as far as I can see so far the files don't compare that well with either the A900 or the M9 (why would they).
. . . . but . . . .but . . . the limited lenses really do seem to be good - the build quality 'feels' like Leica lenses, and results so far are pretty un-criticisable (the kit lens is really badly shown up). The camera is not as small or as slick as a Sony A55 (but the build quality, feel and ergonomics are in another world, and the shutter is quieter, despite the static mirror of the A55).

Whatever - I don't have a great history of keeping my 'second grade' cameras - at least this one has real charm, and (unlike the K7) has passed the 'does it go back to the shop' test with flying colours.

The next test is how it does with the Zeiss 50 f1.5 ZK (got one new from Popflash for $537!) It's due to arrive tomorrow.

I'll keep y'all posted.
 

Amin

Active member
Hi Amin
Well, you're quite right, but most of them actually have the sun in the frame too, so it's understandable.
I like them just as they are and didn't mean any criticism whatsoever. Seeing shadows just reminded me of that demonstration of how much detail can be dug out of a K-5 shadow.

Thanks for sharing your ongoing impressions and samples. The K-5 is to me the most interesting DSLR to come out in years.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I like them just as they are and didn't mean any criticism whatsoever. Seeing shadows just reminded me of that demonstration of how much detail can be dug out of a K-5 shadow.

Thanks for sharing your ongoing impressions and samples. The K-5 is to me the most interesting DSLR to come out in years.
Well, I'm glad you agree about the camera - I'm desperately trying to avoid multiple lens purchases - I got a Zeiss 50 1.4 for a very good price - so I'll use that for a few days and see. I don't see how I can avoid the 15 and 77 limited lenses (can you give me a reason not to buy them?) :eek:

I think I should have my name changed by deed poll to GUY :ROTFL:
 

Amin

Active member
Well, I'm glad you agree about the camera - I'm desperately trying to avoid multiple lens purchases - I got a Zeiss 50 1.4 for a very good price - so I'll use that for a few days and see. I don't see how I can avoid the 15 and 77 limited lenses (can you give me a reason not to buy them?) :eek:

I think I should have my name changed by deed poll to GUY :ROTFL:
:D

The only reason I can offer to hold off on the 15 and 77 is a personal one, which is that to me, the one to get is the FA 31/1.8. I realize that isn't so helpful!
 

jonoslack

Active member
:D

The only reason I can offer to hold off on the 15 and 77 is a personal one, which is that to me, the one to get is the FA 31/1.8. I realize that isn't so helpful!
:ROTFL:
Well, that one I don't want (mainly because I got the 35 f2.8 - it's slower, but I like the macro, and everything else about it seems fine) Buying a 31 to go with my 35 really would be overkill!

I do wish there was a lovely 24-120 equivalent zoom (like the Olympus 12-60), but I guess you can't have everything.

Still, I don't feel so bad - I've just been reading the Phase/Pentax LULA shootout, and realise that I'm not as profligate as some people :eek:
 

Amin

Active member
I had to look up "profligate", so pardon if I'm misusing it when I say that, without a doubt, this forum brings out the profligate in each of us :D.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I had to look up "profligate", so pardon if I'm misusing it when I say that, without a doubt, this forum brings out the profligate in each of us :D.
Terrible isn't it . . . I'm just rather proud that I've managed to avoid MF all these years:thumbup:

It's an odd world we live in when the proceeds of a 10 year old Leica tri-elmar (even if it is in mint condition) will fund a K5 with a kit lens, a 35 f2.8 limited macro and a Zeiss 50 f1.4 ZK.
 

Amin

Active member
That is pretty cool. Even better if you bought the Tri-Elmar 10 years ago and sold it at a profit :).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Terrible isn't it . . . I'm just rather proud that I've managed to avoid MF all these years.

It's an odd world we live in when the proceeds of a 10 year old Leica tri-elmar (even if it is in mint condition) will fund a K5 with a kit lens, a 35 f2.8 limited macro and a Zeiss 50 f1.4 ZK.
LOL!

The K5 does seem to be a fine performer.

If you don't already have one, the smc-Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 Limited is a wonderful lens, my absolute favorite of all the Pentax lenses in general and the Limiteds in specific. Once I had it, I sold my 28, 35 and 50 mm lenses as I never bothered to put them on the camera again... ;-) It pairs brilliantly with the DA21/3.2 Limited too, another very nice performer.

I almost kept the Pentax K10D body just to have a camera to use with that lens.
 

cam

Active member
LOL!

The K5 does seem to be a fine performer.

If you don't already have one, the smc-Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 Limited is a wonderful lens, my absolute favorite of all the Pentax lenses in general and the Limiteds in specific. Once I had it, I sold my 28, 35 and 50 mm lenses as I never bothered to put them on the camera again... ;-) It pairs brilliantly with the DA21/3.2 Limited too, another very nice performer.

I almost kept the Pentax K10D body just to have a camera to use with that lens.
listen to Godfrey, Jono. he has deadly taste in glass :p
 

jonoslack

Active member
LOL!

The K5 does seem to be a fine performer.

If you don't already have one, the smc-Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 Limited is a wonderful lens, my absolute favorite of all the Pentax lenses in general and the Limiteds in specific. Once I had it, I sold my 28, 35 and 50 mm lenses as I never bothered to put them on the camera again... ;-) It pairs brilliantly with the DA21/3.2 Limited too, another very nice performer.

I almost kept the Pentax K10D body just to have a camera to use with that lens.
Ah yes indeed.
I was dithering about whether to buy the FA43 or the Zeiss 50 f1.4, but as 75 really is my favorite focal length, and I always loved the 50 on the Contax, that won the battle (not to mention that it was about £100 cheaper and I already have the 35 macro).

I'm hoping to get the 15 at some point, I can see that the 21 and the 43 go nicely together . . . but I guess that would already need some serious re-organisation. I'll see how I get on with what I've already got. Right now this isn't a main system, but an interesting detour. the 35 f2.8 limited macro is proving to be a lovely lens - nice bokeh, close focus (which is one of the disadvantages of the FA43).
 

jonoslack

Active member
That is pretty cool. Even better if you bought the Tri-Elmar 10 years ago and sold it at a profit :).
Wouldn't that be nice! Actually, I did buy one 4 years ago for a price I don't care to think of. This one is breaking even, but that's okay, just moving the camera fund around!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Great images. and good reasons. dont do this to me...Now I want to have a look at it. I have decided that the A55 is NOT for me (nothing to do with the K5). The Zeiss zoom doesnt seem any better to me than other zooms in that range, the AF is fast but not allways as accurate as that of my D700, but most important I still feel that I prefer optical viewfinders over EVF. Beeing used to fast glass (often primes or the f2.8 pro zooms) I also find that a lens with f3.5-4.5 which also works best when stopped down a little bit more means one has to crank up ISO quite often even during daytime. I think lenses which are slower than f2.8 are just not for me (with maybe some exceptions) if it should work as a general purpose lens.

How fast and more important how accurate do you find the AF of the K5?
Have you any portrait images you could post? I am allways interested in skin tones and also in micro detail - how "real" does skin look?
Early Pentax cameras where said to have relativly strong AA filter. How you judge the K5 in this regard?
Thanks, Tom



erm . .. well, my most loved dSLR was always the E1 - the K5 seems to be it's obvious successor . . . except that it's
1. smaller
2. has a quieter shutter
3. has a better viewfinder
4. shoots decent pictures at 6400 ISO
5. has a range of wonderful, and very small, prime lenses . . .
(It's missing nothing other than the fab Zuiko zooms)
I have to use it until I realise why it's not as good!






 

jonoslack

Active member
Great images. and good reasons. dont do this to me...Now I want to have a look at it. I have decided that the A55 is NOT for me (nothing to do with the K5). The Zeiss zoom doesnt seem any better to me than other zooms in that range, the AF is fast but not allways as accurate as that of my D700, but most important I still feel that I prefer optical viewfinders over EVF.

Being used to fast glass (often primes or the f2.8 pro zooms) I also find that a lens with f3.5-4.5 which also works best when stopped down a little bit more means one has to crank up ISO quite often even during daytime. I think lenses which are slower than f2.8 are just not for me (with maybe some exceptions) if it should work as a general purpose lens.
Ho Hum
Well, I just bought the 16-50 Pentax f2.8 zoom - it's nicely compact (but not as much as the Zony Zeiss of course, it's also well built, weathersealed and very smooth and quiet.
How fast and more important how accurate do you find the AF of the K5?
Have you any portrait images you could post? I am allways interested in skin tones and also in micro detail - how "real" does skin look?
Early Pentax cameras where said to have relativly strong AA filter. How you judge the K5 in this regard?
Thanks, Tom
It certainly does have an AA filter, more so than the A900, but probably no more than the D700 - Skin tones look nicer than the D700 to me (but that's not saying much :ROTFL:)
Autofocus seems very accurate (it has lens by lens adjustment as well).
The shutter on the D700 sounds like stamping on a tin can in comparison with the K5 shutter (which is quieter than the Sony and even than the E1 (we tested it)).

comparison with Nikon D7000 FWIW

I think you should go try it somewhere!
 
Top