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
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
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
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:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Folks,
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 .....
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.
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.
One addendum re AF at night -- autofocusing through live view (i.e. contrast detect), the camera has been able to obtain correct focus on basically all of the shots I've tried. Just a little bit slower, but very reliable. Having tried high ISO a bit more now, I am as impressed as everyone else.
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?
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:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Same here!
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 !!!!
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.
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.
ecsh
New member
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.
Joe
Joe
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.
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.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I think this is a good decision. D700 can be beaten by small number of cameras if it comes to functionality, IQ and AF speed. Downsides as we know are weight etc.
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.
I think thats not a fair comparison. You would have to equalize lenses IMO. Put f2.8 lenses on the D7000 and then compare to the D700 and K5.
Or if you stay with Nikon I would probably rather just buy a 24-120 and a 100-300AFS lens for the D700 for travelling light.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Not sure if a fair comparison or not, but when it comes to size and weight it is fair. The qualities of the Nikkor 16-85 and 55-300 are outstanding in their own respect, especially if you consider that they are VRII, which means they will make up for 3 f stops. Of course not offer the DOF which the 2.8 Pentax glass offers.
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 think with slowish zoom lenses on a DX sensor one is somewhat limited regarding a) DOF and 2) needs to cramk up ISO more often. I realized this when I tested the A55 and also with the Kit lens for the K5.
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.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Well, the 2 Nikkor lenses I mentioned are not fast, so I think they work pretty nicely already wide open - but I might be wrong. Unfortunately I cannot test all that glass myself and have kind of to believe in somehow serious tests on the Internet.
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 ....
http://www.nikon.at/tmp/AT/24198652...697474408/3648979021/836273688/2404482255.pdf
In the end I think it is more clever to stay with one brand (as you do).
I am still quite satisfied so far with the K5 overall package- nice small primes, a (hopefully) usefull 50-135 lens, good color and nice handling.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
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.