Testing out a Pentax K5

[jonoslack]

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

Hi Peter
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.

 

[Godfrey]

... 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

This made me curious as I hadn't weighed anything.
I put together two kits from my equipment closet and weighed them, complete:

---
throw it all in the bag assignment kit:

Domke F3X bag
E-5 body
ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5
Summilux 25/1.4
ZD 35 Macro
ZD 50 Macro
EC14
FL36
8 batteries for FL36
Battery for E-5
remote cable for FL36
card wallet with 4 CF cards
remote cable and tripod plate

4.6 kg
---
usual kit (normal and tele lens bias):

Billingham Alice L2 bag
E-5 body
Summilux 25/1.4
ZD 50 Macro, EC14 (nets 50 and 70 mm options)
Battery for E-5
card wallet

2.8 kg
---

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...

 

[ptomsu]

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.

Well, I have the 2.8/70-200 VRII and so would only need to bus the 17-55.

But I am actually out for less weight ..... otherwise I would stay with D700 and FF glass.

 

[ptomsu]

Hi Peter
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.

Jono,

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.

Any suggestions?

Peter

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 ......

 

[jonoslack]

Oh Well
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.

 

[ptomsu]

Jono,

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)

Thanks

Peter

 

[Paratom]

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

 

[Amin]

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.

 

[Godfrey]

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. ...

I agree. However, is the weight listing above just those pieces or the whole bag and everything else, like what I weighed in the thread above?

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=267523&postcount=142

 

[Paratom]

K5 with 50-135 at f2.8 2500 ISO:

 

[Paratom]

Peter you ask about the AF.
I am not totally sure yet. It works fine but I would say it is not allways 100% as accurate as that of my D700.

 

[jonoslack]

K5 with 50-135 at f2.8 2500 ISO:

Lovely shot Tom . . . . do I detect that "is that another new lens" look I'm so familiar with :ROTFL:

I'm with you on the AF - it's not nearly as sophisticated as Nikon's AF, but using it on single point it's doing quite well, even in low light.

 

[Paratom]

Ja, Jono. I admit...but now this should be a pretty complete set (as long as I dont need more reach )
I am experimenting with AF fine adjustment. not so easy but ti seems I need to choose +3 for some lenses.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter you ask about the AF.
I am not totally sure yet. It works fine but I would say it is not allways 100% as accurate as that of my D700.

I am pretty sure that the AF of the D700 is better - question is how much better.

WRT the D7000 I have meanwhile found in ALL reviews that they say that the AF is excellent, but only in good light. I light gets worse then it is hunting. So obviously not on par with the D700.

What that means is that I am still very much interested in the K5 and actually looking for arguments to buy one (and not the D7000)

 

[Terry]

K5 with 50-135 at f2.8 2500 ISO:

Thomas -
One thing strikes me in this shot and it goes back to M8 days. What color is your wife's shirt? Is it a pure black or something else....if black it is almost looking like the IR from the M8.

 

[Paratom]

Thomas -
One thing strikes me in this shot and it goes back to M8 days. What color is your wife's shirt? Is it a pure black or something else....if black it is almost looking like the IR from the M8.

its not pure black-its more washed out brownish with a slight violett cast.
However I admit it comes out slightly more violett than in reality. slightly. But the skin is also a little on the purple/magenta side so I dont believe its a IR problem. I will keep an eye on it.

 

[Paratom]

I am pretty sure that the AF of the D700 is better - question is how much better.

WRT the D7000 I have meanwhile found in ALL reviews that they say that the AF is excellent, but only in good light. I light gets worse then it is hunting. So obviously not on par with the D700.

What that means is that I am still very much interested in the K5 and actually looking for arguments to buy one (and not the D7000)

I think we should make a difference between several factors:
1) AF speed until it has locked on a still subject, in either good or bad light. I find the K5 does pretty fine in this area.
2) AF accurancy when shooting still. I feel the K5 is fine but not exceptional here. The D700 (and also other Nikons I had) are like 99% spot on. Sometimes the K5 seems to be very slightly off.
3) AF tracking with one sensor (center for example). Cant tell yet.
4) AF tracking when the subject goes from one sensor to another etc. Works on the D700 but IMO the sensor of the K5 or too few so that it does not make sense with the K5.

WHichever DSLR I check out I allways realize how great the D700 works. The K5 can definatly not replace it. However the weight difference when using comparable lenses is big. I am sure there are times when one would bring the K5 but not the D700.

But then if I had to shoot something where I had to rely 100% on the camera I would just prefer the D700, faster, totally reliable AF, great metering, bigger viewfinder.

Looking at images from the x1, D700 and K5 I also still have the feeling that 12MP is the better pixel density than 16MP.

 

[jonoslack]

Looking at images from the x1, D700 and K5 I also still have the feeling that 12MP is the better pixel density than 16MP.

I had to do two wedding books together recently. One was shot with the A900, the other with the D700. Apart from the difference in high ISO, the A900 wedding was shot in much worse light (rainy October).

What was the really big surprise was that when it came down to producing a coffee table sized book, the extra pixels of the A900 more than made up for the better high ISO of the Nikon - and also allowed cropping where necessary.

Before this exercise I had assumed that I was making a compromise by swapping from Nikon to Sony - i.e. Sony better for landscape but D700 for weddings.

I know this doesn't seem relevant to the D700 / Pentax argument, but I think it is relevant that what is clearly 'better' in terms of performance may not be so good in reality.

I suspect that what's at issue here is that one really does tend to make these judgements by looking at images on screen at 100%. In which circumstances of course the D700 'big pixels' are going to look better . . . . . . but of course they represent a much larger portion of the image. This is also the case with the K5 (although to a lesser extent).

 

[Paratom]

one more.K5 with 35da Macro:

 

[Terry]

Thomas -this shot is stunning I hope you print and display it.