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!

Fun with the Pentax K5

jonoslack

Active member
We had a heavy wet snow last night that made it easy for the deer to browse the low hanging tree branches. K5 with 18-135 WR.

HI Carl
That's wonderful - bit more picturesque than our drab gray.

I see that your 18-135 does CA a bit, just like mine. I find it'd really easy to get rid of it with the CA slider in Aperture (I guess other software has the same tool). It's my only real criticism of the lens.

all the best
 

scho

Well-known member
HI Carl
That's wonderful - bit more picturesque than our drab gray.

I see that your 18-135 does CA a bit, just like mine. I find it'd really easy to get rid of it with the CA slider in Aperture (I guess other software has the same tool). It's my only real criticism of the lens.

all the best
Thanks Jono. Yes, this lens does have some CA. Lightroom has the same set of sliders for correcting CA manually (I forgot to correct this image, but fixed it and re-uploaded to pbase) and also if automatic lens correction is enabled and there is a lens profile available this is done on the fly. Unfortiunately, there is no profile for the 18-135, but all of my primes have profiles available in LR 3.3.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Thanks Jono. Yes, this lens does have some CA. Lightroom has the same set of sliders for correcting CA manually (I forgot to correct this image, but fixed it and re-uploaded to pbase) and also if automatic lens correction is enabled and there is a lens profile available this is done on the fly. Unfortiunately, there is no profile for the 18-135, but all of my primes have profiles available in LR 3.3.
Now you've fixed it I look really stupid!:ROTFL:
 

JMaher

New member
Size in Real Life

I'm close to taking the plunge and buying a K5 with probably a 18-135 and a 43 to start. I currently shoot a Canon 5D2. I can do the math:
The K5 is 30% smaller than a 5D2 and the K5 with the 18-135 is 28% lighter than a 5D2 with a 24-105. However subjectively have much smaller is this? How much smaller a pack to carry? I'm looking for opinions not facts. There are no K5's to see or touch anywhere near where I live (Tampa, FL).

Jim
 

scho

Well-known member
Re: Size in Real Life

I'm close to taking the plunge and buying a K5 with probably a 18-135 and a 43 to start. I currently shoot a Canon 5D2. I can do the math:
The K5 is 30% smaller than a 5D2 and the K5 with the 18-135 is 28% lighter than a 5D2 with a 24-105. However subjectively have much smaller is this? How much smaller a pack to carry? I'm looking for opinions not facts. There are no K5's to see or touch anywhere near where I live (Tampa, FL).

Jim
Hi Jim,

My daypack/travel kit consists of the K5 with a 21 limited mounted on the camera, 70 and/or 35 limited, and 18-135 zoom, all in the little Domke F-5XB shoulder bag. I can carry that kit around all day with no stress. I wouldn't think of doing any walkabout shooting with my 5D2 and a comparable lens kit, which would require a much larger, heavier, and bulky bag. The 5D2 usually goes out on driving trips for landscape work with a tripod and the 24 TS-E II. I rarely use it for anything else.
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
Hi Jono:

I registered with this forum for the express purpose of thanking you for posting your images. I spend too much time at forums where resolution and dynamic range are the major topics and no one posts the images that are the point of photography.

Tom.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Images

Hi Jono:

I registered with this forum for the express purpose of thanking you for posting your images. I spend too much time at forums where resolution and dynamic range are the major topics and no one posts the images that are the point of photography.

Tom.
Welcome Tom. You know what to do next then ...:D
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono:

I registered with this forum for the express purpose of thanking you for posting your images. I spend too much time at forums where resolution and dynamic range are the major topics and no one posts the images that are the point of photography.

Tom.
HI Tom
Thank you - I'm most flattered. . . . . and Welcome! . . and as Michael says . . . . . Now we will have to see some of yours!
Mind you, I can bore for england on the basis of dynamic range and resolution :ROTFL:

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Re: Size in Real Life

I'm close to taking the plunge and buying a K5 with probably a 18-135 and a 43 to start. I currently shoot a Canon 5D2. I can do the math:
The K5 is 30% smaller than a 5D2 and the K5 with the 18-135 is 28% lighter than a 5D2 with a 24-105. However subjectively have much smaller is this? How much smaller a pack to carry? I'm looking for opinions not facts. There are no K5's to see or touch anywhere near where I live (Tampa, FL).

Jim
HI There Jim
It's hard to quantify these things, and of course the 18-135 is neither as fast as your 24-105, nor as wide (much longer though).
I'm in a similar situation to Carl, the A900 doesn't get taken out too much at the moment, because it's so much easier to take the K5.

I usually go out with a K5 over my shoulder with the 18-135, either the 35 f2.8 macro or the 100 f2.8 macro, and the Sigma 10-20 f4 (seems to be a nice lens, but it hasn't seen much use yet). It's an easy bag with a pretty big range.

all the best
 

JMaher

New member
Carl,

Thanks for the feedback. The Domke F-5XB seems to be a lot smaller than my normal backpack or Domke F6. From the sounds of it you really feel a significant difference when carrying the K5 versus a 5D2.

Jim
 

JMaher

New member
Jono,

Your reply posted as I was typing my message to Carl. Thanks for your input.

I wish the 18-135 was wider but I suspect it is fast enough. I am not planning to sell the 5D2 but thinking about a camera that I would just have with me more often. Something that made it over that crucial thought process of "is it worth carrying all this with me" (grin).

I tried to M4/3 route and even an E3 at one point. The E3 was great in some ways (but so ISO limited) and as heavy as the Canon. The M4/3's I tried were also great in some ways but focused slowly and just didn't do it for me. I think may of us yearn for things we used to love. I had a Nikon FE that was fast, small and seemed bulletproof that i used to carry all the time. At a later date I had a Contax T that was wonderful to use and small enough to carry almost anywhere.

Jim
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

Your reply posted as I was typing my message to Carl. Thanks for your input.

I wish the 18-135 was wider but I suspect it is fast enough. I am not planning to sell the 5D2 but thinking about a camera that I would just have with me more often. Something that made it over that crucial thought process of "is it worth carrying all this with me" (grin).

I tried to M4/3 route and even an E3 at one point. The E3 was great in some ways (but so ISO limited) and as heavy as the Canon. The M4/3's I tried were also great in some ways but focused slowly and just didn't do it for me. I think may of us yearn for things we used to love. I had a Nikon FE that was fast, small and seemed bulletproof that i used to carry all the time. At a later date I had a Contax T that was wonderful to use and small enough to carry almost anywhere.

Jim
Hi Jim
Well, it's down to your own preferences, but the K5 with the 18-135 is definitely a 'carry everywhere' camera for me. It focuses close enough for flowers or details, it focuses far enough, and although it would be nice it it started at 24 equiv. it's still fantastically useful.

For me it definitely fits into the same bracket as my FM2, and it's smaller than an E1 with a 14-54 (if that helps).
 

scho

Well-known member
Carl,

Thanks for the feedback. The Domke F-5XB seems to be a lot smaller than my normal backpack or Domke F6. From the sounds of it you really feel a significant difference when carrying the K5 versus a 5D2.

Jim
Jim,

Here is a side by side snap of the K5 with 18-135 and 5D2 with 24-105.

 

JMaher

New member
Jono & Carl.

Thanks for the comparisons and the photographs. While the K5 doesn't look small it's obvious that it is more compact all around. Now I just need to make a decision.

Jim
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono & Carl.

Thanks for the comparisons and the photographs. While the K5 doesn't look small it's obvious that it is more compact all around. Now I just need to make a decision.

Jim
Ah Jim
But if he'd done it the other way around (with the 5D in the foreground), then I think it would have looked very different.

You Know It Makes Sense :ROTFL:
 

JMaher

New member
I think it makes sense! :)

You're implying that the 5D is actually bigger than it looks or conversely in comparison the K5 is even smaller. Anyway that's what I hope is what you're saying as smaller is obviously better, in this case.

Jim
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
HI Tom
Thank you - I'm most flattered. . . . . and Welcome! . . and as Michael says . . . . . Now we will have to see some of yours!
Mind you, I can bore for england on the basis of dynamic range and resolution :ROTFL:

all the best
Thank you for the nice welcome. I don’t have a K-5; until recently, the 67II has been my “serious” camera. I do have some shots from a DS, with the much maligned kit lens, which I think is very good.. Here are a few:
 
Top