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.I even suspect that I would prefer the K-5 to have an EVF
R
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!
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.I even suspect that I would prefer the K-5 to have an EVF
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.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
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.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).
I find the same and agree that this isn't the best shot for showing it.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 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?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
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 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 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
That sums up how I feel 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.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'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.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.
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.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.