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!

K5 versus the GH2

Armanius

New member
Hehe.....me too. And how would you mount that beautiful CZ85/1.4 you shoot? The K-5 doesn't play as well with adapted lenses.

R
The CZ85/1.4 (Sony A mount one) is simply awesome. Used it one time while I still had the A55. Perhaps the best AF lens I've ever used in terms of IQ. And it's not a big hunking piece of glass either. It's relatively compact. Wish they'd make one in K mount.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Hmmm... now you start to sound like Jono :ROTFL:

Tried it, but like the ergonomics of the GH2 better, and the really good lenses for A-mount are big and made for full frame (no Zeiss 16-50mm f/2.x).
LOL. Sorry. I only mentioned it because it has a similar sensor to the K5, EVF, and those Zeiss FF lenses are really good but on the large side.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
OK,
dont have the GH2 but an EP2 and my wife has a GH1 which I have used here and then.

IMO it comes down to the following points:
1) size/weight: Of coure the GH2 is lighter and slightler smaller BUT does this really make any difference? You need a bag for both and both are not heavy enough that I would see a big difference. Eventuall when you go in the tele range the m4/3 would be quite a bit smaller/lighter with a long tele zoom
2) EVF vs OVF with all its advantages and disadvantages (Personally I prefer OVF but find the K5 one could be a little brighter)
If you shoot video too I see big advantage in an EVF
3) lenses - while Pentax offers some very nice lenses I find it impressive how good for the price the m4/3 zooms are. Both companies lack modern fast lenses IMO, but with a m4/3 its even harder to have lenses whcih allow shallow DOF. (As long as you dont want to use manual 3rd party lenses)
4)user interface. For me big thing. The K5 feels much better in my hand and I prefer build but more important the user interface.
For me the GH1 has too many buttons and too any menues and options.
5) IQ I havent compared - my overall impression is: m4/3 very sharp images, maybe even sharper than the K5 images (maybe due to more reliable AF) - K5 images, if they are right look deeper to me and very film like.
Without technical analyses I think I prefer K5 images.

But really I find it comes mostly down to user interface and lens options.

By the way when using cameras like K5 (or even better d700) size I can feel most buttons, I can do many adjustments without looking at the camera and searching because my fingers are allready there.
The GH1 I have to look at the camera all the time.
 

Amin

Active member
Amin just a note on your GH2 comparison- I do find the K-5 does have significant more DR than the GH2 but you need the subject to show this or play with the RAW. The shot you shot, the GH2 can also do.
I find the same and agree that this isn't the best shot for showing it.

Interesting thread. I have stayed away from the K-5, partly because of the distributor in this country, but there will be a new one soon, so I was thinking about it for a while. Then I went upcountry with the GH1 and the D300, only to find that I preferred the EVF of the Panasonic to the OVF of the Nikon. If somebody had suggested that a year or so ago, I would probably have had him shot :eek:

The sensor of the K-5 is better than the one on the GH2, but on the other hand, the GH2 sensor is much better than the D300 sensor which was SOTA for crop cameras, more or less, only 3-4 years ago (even the E-5 runs circles around the D300, except probably for DR).

So for me, the K-5 is the never ending temptation, but the next camera for me is the GH2 plus 100-300 and 14-35/2.0 (SHG 4/3 lens). Then, I can sell my Nikon gear and see if I miss the OVF enough to buy a K-5. But I don't think so. I even suspect that I would prefer the K-5 to have an EVF :ROTFL:
I feel the same way, Jorgen. There are some things I like better about the OVF, but on balance I prefer the EVF. Shocking, isn't it?
 

Sapphie

Member
Hi Guys

Just wondering how much better you think the GH2 EVF is compared to the one in the original G1? I find my G1 EVF often looking washed out in bright light and the K5 OVF is much more accurate in displaying what is there.

I always thought the main benefit of EVF was that it was much more WYSIWYG but I'm not sure this is the case on my G1; maybe it is better in less than full glare sunlit conditions - which we are lucky to have here at the moment!

Lee (still thinking of getting a GH2 just to see for myself, LOL!)
 

Amin

Active member
I think the GH2 EVF is very little different than the G1 EVF. I've heard of others having the same difficulty you describe but haven't experienced it for myself.

Today was my son's 8th birthday party, and he had a laser tag party. Here was the prep room (GH2 ISO 3200):



The actual room where the kids were playing laser tag was extremely dark. My K-5 with DA70 struggled (understatement) to achieve focus lock. My dad couldn't lock focus with his Canon 5D II and 24-70/2.8L either. Meanwhile, my GH2 and 14/2.5 was locking focus briskly with no troubles.

I couldn't get any useful pictures with either of the cameras because I was limited by the K-5 AF and the GH2 high ISO performance. Here's a GH2 ISO 25,600-equivalent shot taken at 14mm f/2.5 1/20s.



In retrospect I should have switched to manual focus on the K-5. Still probably couldn't have done much in that darkness.
 

Sapphie

Member
There is something about the feel of the G1 and I assume also GH2 that is really nice and I am on the verge of ordering a GH2 but every time I go back and compare my K5 pictures to my G1 pictures I think why oh why?

This one is ISO 1000. Why? Not sure, incompetence probably. I mean who needs f/16 at 1/320th? This was with 43mm Ltd



Lee
 

henningw

Member
I don't have a K5; won't get one but used one for a little and was very impressed. I think they did a fine job and if you like the system and what it offers I think you could get into it and have no regrets.

As for size, the GH2 (and G1) bodies are not much smaller, but definitely lighter. As soon as you add lenses, the advantages mount for the Panny system unless you stick to the nice primes for Pentax.

I have most of the Panny lenses, and they are very consistently good, with very even performance. I also have Canon, and compared the performance of the cropped sensor Canon (T2i and 7D) with the 100-400 zoom to the GH2 and the 100-300. At the very highest ISO's the Canon wins, but at lower ISO's the GH2 combo is actually preferable as the performance of the 100-300 is so much more consistent and even than that of the 100-400. And, while both setups have about the same reach, the GH2 and 100-300 setup is tiny in comparison. With the 7D, which has speed advantages over the T2i and GH2, the size difference is even more pronounced. With the 5DII the size comparison would of course be ridiculous, as a 600mm lens would have to be attached which I don't have and don't ever want to have to carry. The 5DII is actually used mostly with the 17 and 24 TSE lenses up to the 70-200/2.8, but they too are huge.

So, the 5DII is used mostly for work stuff and very low light with fast primes, the cropped Canons for faster action and longer reach with Canon glass and the Pannys for travel and fun when I need SLR style versatility beyond my M's. In fact I often carry the M9 and some Summiluxes and the GH2 with long, very wide and macro lenses.

The K5 would clearly be able to replace the cropped Canons and if I didn't also need the FF cameras and specialized lenses, it would be worthwhile considering.

Finally, while I can clearly see qualitative differences between the files of all the cameras and can easily rank them based on specific criteria, the actual image quality of each of them is almost always perfectly sufficient. I can make completely satisfactory 11x14's from any of them, and often larger. The camera I pick up is based more on the handling and suitability than anything else.

For my own use that is usually the M9 or GH2.

Henning
 

JMaher

New member
Who knows - I just read the article and found the results bizarre. Certainly different form my previous experiences with an EP-1 and a G1. While they were both nice cameras they certainly did not favorably compare to my K5 with the exception being their small size.

Jim
 
I don't know what to make of Carl Weese's comments here:

http://workingpictures.blogspot.com/2011/04/technical-notes-testing-pentax-k5-no.html

Not comparing K5 to GH2 but GF1. None the less, makes it sound like he had a faulty K5 but I don't think he would say that?

Lee
I have the GF1 and the GH2 and the K5... and I have not touched the GF1 since the K5 arrived. The GH2 arrived shortly after the K5 and I have not had much time to use it but I will say that both the GF1 and the GH2 do a great job but I am not sure they surpass the K5 in any area but the quickness of the auto-focus.

I plan on keeping all three but have found the K5 to be a pleasure to use and the files are very good (RAW). The JPGs are not so great but they are by no means terrible either. I just prefer RAW with the K5.

On the other hand, the JPGs from the Panasonics are really quite good.

The GF1 works well for me but the lack of a decent EVF was beginning to kill me on a number of occasions. The GH2 EVF is wonderful... actually one of the main reasons I bought the GH2. I'm not a video guy so that part of the camera's capabilities are not in the mix for me. Love the articulated LCD and wish the K5 had one as well.

There are areas in which the Panasonics shine and the same can be said for the K5... once again.. I am keeping all of them.
 

Rich M

Member
I have the GF1 and the GH2 and the K5... and I have not touched the GF1 since the K5 arrived. The GH2 arrived shortly after the K5 and I have not had much time to use it but I will say that both the GF1 and the GH2 do a great job but I am not sure they surpass the K5 in any area but the quickness of the auto-focus.

I plan on keeping all three but have found the K5 to be a pleasure to use and the files are very good (RAW). The JPGs are not so great but they are by no means terrible either. I just prefer RAW with the K5.

On the other hand, the JPGs from the Panasonics are really quite good.

The GF1 works well for me but the lack of a decent EVF was beginning to kill me on a number of occasions. The GH2 EVF is wonderful... actually one of the main reasons I bought the GH2. I'm not a video guy so that part of the camera's capabilities are not in the mix for me. Love the articulated LCD and wish the K5 had one as well.

There are areas in which the Panasonics shine and the same can be said for the K5... once again.. I am keeping all of them.
I feel exactly the same way. I have the E-PL2, GH2 and the K-5. Quite frankly, I haven't touched another camera since I got the K-5.

There is no way I would get rid of the m4/3 gear....and all those adapted lenses....BUT right now the K-5 has a "better" RAW file than the GH2...more dynamic range, significantly higher ISO capability (ISO 6400 is a no-brainer), a wider range of sharp, fast autofocus primes (this is where Panasonic and Olympus need to fill the gap) in just about any focal length you want, a weather sealed body (and select lenses), whisper quiet shutter and all in a relatively small package.

It's all about the photo, not the gear....but you have to have the gear that fits your shooting conditions and personal style.

Right now, the K-5 matches up nicely.

R
 

Sapphie

Member
Rich and Jim

I am loving my K5 but having already had a G1 + lenses it was a tough call deciding on the K5 or the GH2. I went for the K5 because I felt I was seeing better shots with it, not least those on this forum. But, curiosity got the better of me and I have just plumped for a GH2 as well. I am not really sure if I can justify two systems, so we will see how I get on. Definitely K5 better at higher ISOs but at 1600 and below, GH2 is OK.

I may start a 'Fun with the GH2' thread but for now the obligatory cat photo:



Taken with the 20mm pancake, 1600 ISO I think.

Lee
 

Armanius

New member
Very nice shot Lee!

I think the GH2 compares favorably up to ISO 800. Starts lagging behind slightly after that. At 3200 and above, K-5 is better w/o a doubt. Just my 2 cents.

I kept thinking that I'd get sharper files with the K5 starting at base ISO. I was pleasantly surprised at how the GH2 not only held its own, but appeared to provide sharper files at base ISO on a more consistent basis. I felt the same way with the GH2 vs. Sony A55. Perhaps the GH2's auto focus is more consistently accurate than the K5.
 

scho

Well-known member
Very nice shot Lee!

I think the GH2 compares favorably up to ISO 800. Starts lagging behind slightly after that. At 3200 and above, K-5 is better w/o a doubt. Just my 2 cents.

I kept thinking that I'd get sharper files with the K5 starting at base ISO. I was pleasantly surprised at how the GH2 not only held its own, but appeared to provide sharper files at base ISO on a more consistent basis. I felt the same way with the GH2 vs. Sony A55. Perhaps the GH2's auto focus is more consistently accurate than the K5.
I'm thinking that the K5 AA filter is a bit more aggressive than we think. Certainly not as bad as my 5D2, but definitely doesn't have the biting sharpness of my old M8 and my IR converted G1 (sans AA filter). I no longer have the M8 for comparison, but I have compared the G1 vs K5 and the AAless G1 (using Pentax 35 macro) seems to produce images with more apparent fine detail.
 

JMaher

New member
Lee, have a great time with the new toy. M4/3 is always fascinating and I get to play with an Epl-2 and a 9-18 next week when I do a few day camera swap with a good friend.

Jim
 

Armanius

New member
I'm thinking that the K5 AA filter is a bit more aggressive than we think. Certainly not as bad as my 5D2, but definitely doesn't have the biting sharpness of my old M8 and my IR converted G1 (sans AA filter). I no longer have the M8 for comparison, but I have compared the G1 vs K5 and the AAless G1 (using Pentax 35 macro) seems to produce images with more apparent fine detail.
The M8 files were definitely very sharp. I had it for about two weeks before I was able to get a hold of a M9, and the M8 files were sharper.

As for the K5, I thought I'd read somewhere that the AA filter on it was pretty weak. But I guess not as weak as the one on the GH2, perhaps.
 
Top