Is the K-5 Really Worth it????
Posted 23/03/2012 - 20:51
Link
Hi, I've always been told it's the glass that matters most.
I owned the KX and upgraded to the MUCH BETTER KR which will I assume have another replacement very soon.
Currently the K5 body at around £700 is £300 dearer than the KR one. I'm tempted as I'm sure the K5 is now a bargain for such a pro finish camera. I'm just not sure I need 70 weather seals and magnesium alloy. I certainly don't miss top LCD's and two wheels. I do like the K5 for a real pentaprism and a MUCH quieter shutter.
I've just spent my current spare money on another lens (50mm macro) as I get excellent results with the KR which is neat and small, very quick with 6 frame a second rate, better AF speed than my KX and high ISO quality at 1600. It has 1/6000th max shutter speed by the way.
I owned the KX and upgraded to the MUCH BETTER KR which will I assume have another replacement very soon.
Currently the K5 body at around £700 is £300 dearer than the KR one. I'm tempted as I'm sure the K5 is now a bargain for such a pro finish camera. I'm just not sure I need 70 weather seals and magnesium alloy. I certainly don't miss top LCD's and two wheels. I do like the K5 for a real pentaprism and a MUCH quieter shutter.
I've just spent my current spare money on another lens (50mm macro) as I get excellent results with the KR which is neat and small, very quick with 6 frame a second rate, better AF speed than my KX and high ISO quality at 1600. It has 1/6000th max shutter speed by the way.
Posted 23/03/2012 - 21:37
Link
Having the same dilemma at the moment. Looking
DO I upgrade to a K5 with Pentax 55-300 or do I move to Canon/Nikon
Currently weighing up my options but reckon it will be easier and cheaper to stay Pentax.
Also eyeing up a Sigma 150-500 for holiday use and sell on my return.
SO many decisions. Ahhhhh
DO I upgrade to a K5 with Pentax 55-300 or do I move to Canon/Nikon
Currently weighing up my options but reckon it will be easier and cheaper to stay Pentax.
Also eyeing up a Sigma 150-500 for holiday use and sell on my return.
SO many decisions. Ahhhhh
Posted 23/03/2012 - 22:01
Link
I had the K-X and upgraded to K-7.
Love it- the top lcd panel and two wheels (opposite to wvbarns) and the extra external controls- iso, focus area etc.
I find that the easier controls are to access the more you think about them and therefore use them.
It is heavier but I'm very happy (expect for the ISO, for which I'm upgrading to K-5).
Hey, why not save money and buy m K-7! A hell of a lot cheaper than the K-5...
@Darkman- why thinking of changing? I'd like to have a rotation lcd screen and focus during video but Pentax has in body stabilisation...
cheers,
Pa.
Love it- the top lcd panel and two wheels (opposite to wvbarns) and the extra external controls- iso, focus area etc.
I find that the easier controls are to access the more you think about them and therefore use them.
It is heavier but I'm very happy (expect for the ISO, for which I'm upgrading to K-5).
Hey, why not save money and buy m K-7! A hell of a lot cheaper than the K-5...
@Darkman- why thinking of changing? I'd like to have a rotation lcd screen and focus during video but Pentax has in body stabilisation...
cheers,
Pa.
Posted 23/03/2012 - 22:26
Link
Hi Alistair, I have owned a K-x for about a year and I have recently bought a K-5 so I think I can give you some unbiased feedback. BTW, I have no intention of selling the K-x as I like to carry two cameras with me and the K-x is a brilliant piece of kit.
Firstly, the K-5 is an entirely different beast to the excellent K-x. Better build, faster, brighter viewfinder, more flexible, better dynamic range, better rear screen etc.
However, I suspect your main criteria will be image quality. In terms of K-5 vs. K-x, the higher pixel count yields more detail, but you will need to have some serious quality glass to make this a deal-maker for you. The K-x, as you already know, is capable of taking magnificent images. The main advantage I have found personally with the K-5 is the increased dynamic range and better colour depth. Colours really shine on the K-5 and if you are shooting in tricky light, you can recover so much more detail with K-5, especially when shooting in RAW and processing carefully afterwards.
You will also find the K-5 better at high ISO settings, but it is not leagues ahead of the K-x in this respect as the K-x is already very good.
K-5 has a very quiet shutter - this may be important for you.
Finally, and maybe significantly, the K-5 focusses much faster and more reliably than the K-x in tricky situations and especially with longer lenses. I don't know if you use AF or MF for your bird shots, but if using AF you would find the K-5 a lot better.
I can't say whether or not it is worth you upgrading, but I certainly have not regretted it. The K-5 is a simply superb camera.
Regards
David
Firstly, the K-5 is an entirely different beast to the excellent K-x. Better build, faster, brighter viewfinder, more flexible, better dynamic range, better rear screen etc.
However, I suspect your main criteria will be image quality. In terms of K-5 vs. K-x, the higher pixel count yields more detail, but you will need to have some serious quality glass to make this a deal-maker for you. The K-x, as you already know, is capable of taking magnificent images. The main advantage I have found personally with the K-5 is the increased dynamic range and better colour depth. Colours really shine on the K-5 and if you are shooting in tricky light, you can recover so much more detail with K-5, especially when shooting in RAW and processing carefully afterwards.
You will also find the K-5 better at high ISO settings, but it is not leagues ahead of the K-x in this respect as the K-x is already very good.
K-5 has a very quiet shutter - this may be important for you.
Finally, and maybe significantly, the K-5 focusses much faster and more reliably than the K-x in tricky situations and especially with longer lenses. I don't know if you use AF or MF for your bird shots, but if using AF you would find the K-5 a lot better.
I can't say whether or not it is worth you upgrading, but I certainly have not regretted it. The K-5 is a simply superb camera.
Regards
David
Posted 23/03/2012 - 22:37
Link
dinneenp wrote:
I had the K-X and upgraded to K-7.
Love it- the top lcd panel and two wheels (opposite to wvbarns) and the extra external controls- iso, focus area etc.
I find that the easier controls are to access the more you think about them and therefore use them.
It is heavier but I'm very happy (expect for the ISO, for which I'm upgrading to K-5).
Hey, why not save money and buy m K-7! A hell of a lot cheaper than the K-5...
@Darkman- why thinking of changing? I'd like to have a rotation lcd screen and focus during video but Pentax has in body stabilisation...
cheers,
Pa.
Mainly thinking out loud. Looking to upgrade but uncertain which way to go.
I had the K-X and upgraded to K-7.
Love it- the top lcd panel and two wheels (opposite to wvbarns) and the extra external controls- iso, focus area etc.
I find that the easier controls are to access the more you think about them and therefore use them.
It is heavier but I'm very happy (expect for the ISO, for which I'm upgrading to K-5).
Hey, why not save money and buy m K-7! A hell of a lot cheaper than the K-5...
@Darkman- why thinking of changing? I'd like to have a rotation lcd screen and focus during video but Pentax has in body stabilisation...
cheers,
Pa.
Posted 23/03/2012 - 22:47
Link
Changing systems is a big and expensive step. I tried it in my film days when I decided my Z-1 AF was too slow, the AF illuminator required the flash to be popped-up and it lacked a vertical shooting grip.
I ended up buying an EOS 5, vertical grip and 28-135 IS lens (and a secondhand EOS Adaptall2 mount for my Tamron lenses). I sold the 28-135 (too bulky, heavy & slow) and replaced it with a 50/1.8 which I found much better. All of this cost me a huge amount of cash (more £££s than a K-5 costs now), I didn't get on with it and was pleased I still had my Z-1.
The benefit of staying in a system is that you can add/upgrade as your needs/budget allows, selling bits when you've upgraded them and don't have a huge outlay in a single hit (and value lost when trading the old stuff). If switching, I think you need to sell everything in one hit, because trying to use two systems fragments your budgets.
If you haven't done so, identify the CaNikon body you'd be buying, go to a shop, pick them up and compare them to a K-5. The twin dials and HyperManual/HyperProgram modes had me sold on the Z-1 in the '90s and the K-5 a few weeks ago. With the K-5 I was starting from scratch (it's my first DSLR) but my previous collection of lenses/flashes/IR remotes has saved me hundreds of pounds. I'd forgotten I had half of the gear.
Glass is important but your approach/technique plays a bigger part. I think only when you're getting the most out your technique will you benefit from better glass (different focal lengths is a different issue). It's the fine tuning that makes most of the difference.
I ended up buying an EOS 5, vertical grip and 28-135 IS lens (and a secondhand EOS Adaptall2 mount for my Tamron lenses). I sold the 28-135 (too bulky, heavy & slow) and replaced it with a 50/1.8 which I found much better. All of this cost me a huge amount of cash (more £££s than a K-5 costs now), I didn't get on with it and was pleased I still had my Z-1.
The benefit of staying in a system is that you can add/upgrade as your needs/budget allows, selling bits when you've upgraded them and don't have a huge outlay in a single hit (and value lost when trading the old stuff). If switching, I think you need to sell everything in one hit, because trying to use two systems fragments your budgets.
If you haven't done so, identify the CaNikon body you'd be buying, go to a shop, pick them up and compare them to a K-5. The twin dials and HyperManual/HyperProgram modes had me sold on the Z-1 in the '90s and the K-5 a few weeks ago. With the K-5 I was starting from scratch (it's my first DSLR) but my previous collection of lenses/flashes/IR remotes has saved me hundreds of pounds. I'd forgotten I had half of the gear.
Glass is important but your approach/technique plays a bigger part. I think only when you're getting the most out your technique will you benefit from better glass (different focal lengths is a different issue). It's the fine tuning that makes most of the difference.
Posted 24/03/2012 - 00:34
Link
The bottom line when asking folks what they think of a camera should be "would you buy the same one again" and in my case it would be yes!
K5, LightRoom 5
Sigma 8-16 Pentax DA 16-45 Pentax DA 55-300 Pentax 18-55WR Tamron 90 Di Macro Metz 44 AF-1
Sigma 8-16 Pentax DA 16-45 Pentax DA 55-300 Pentax 18-55WR Tamron 90 Di Macro Metz 44 AF-1
Posted 24/03/2012 - 07:21
Link
Firstly as the price of the K5 is now at about £700 you certainly won't find a better equipped camera with so many features. The quality of the images that the K5 produces is well documented on the internet and the dynamic range and ISO just have to be seen. However, the body will benefit from good glass, so you should take this into consideration when thinking about upgrading.
"I am often told that the images are great and I should upgrade to "better" equipment but what exactly"
The people who are stating that you should upgrade, are they providing any suggestions as to why or recommending what exactly?
IMHO currently Pentax does not provide a wide enough selection of lenses in terms of focal lengths for birding, although the lens roadmap looks a little more promising. However, like everything having all the gear and no idea won't enable a photographer to obtain really good images.
Changing system can be expensive, but if a current system does not meet your needs it may be worth exploring. If you have friends with equipment you are thinking about, ask if you can demo it, that way you can compare systems and get a feel for the advantages and disadvantages.
Finally back to the K5, from my experience with the K5 it will make a difference to your photography but you will need to work at it. No camera on its own will make images outstanding, thats down to the skill of the photographer, but what I can say is that the K5 is one of the best photographic tools I have ever used and since upgrading from the K7 I think it was money very well spent.
"I am often told that the images are great and I should upgrade to "better" equipment but what exactly"
The people who are stating that you should upgrade, are they providing any suggestions as to why or recommending what exactly?
IMHO currently Pentax does not provide a wide enough selection of lenses in terms of focal lengths for birding, although the lens roadmap looks a little more promising. However, like everything having all the gear and no idea won't enable a photographer to obtain really good images.
Changing system can be expensive, but if a current system does not meet your needs it may be worth exploring. If you have friends with equipment you are thinking about, ask if you can demo it, that way you can compare systems and get a feel for the advantages and disadvantages.
Finally back to the K5, from my experience with the K5 it will make a difference to your photography but you will need to work at it. No camera on its own will make images outstanding, thats down to the skill of the photographer, but what I can say is that the K5 is one of the best photographic tools I have ever used and since upgrading from the K7 I think it was money very well spent.
Fletcher8.
Posted 24/03/2012 - 08:00
Link
My main reason for the upgrade is due to my holiday plans this year. Going to RIAT and various raf sites etc so want to come away hopefully with pics I am really happy with.
Pentax 55-300 will give me better IQ than my current lenses going by opinions here and elsewhere. The k5 upgrade should assist with that more so over my k10d. Sigma 150-500 will see the longer end covered and then sell it when I come back as I don't think I can justify the cost as I don't think I would use it much except for hols
Pentax 55-300 will give me better IQ than my current lenses going by opinions here and elsewhere. The k5 upgrade should assist with that more so over my k10d. Sigma 150-500 will see the longer end covered and then sell it when I come back as I don't think I can justify the cost as I don't think I would use it much except for hols
Posted 24/03/2012 - 09:55
Link
If you upgrade to the K-5 body and replace the Tamron and Rikenon lenses with Pentax then the rest is up to practice, practice, practice.
The way to come back with pictures we are happy with is not new equipment though - it's dependent on the photographer practising and perfecting the necessary skills.
Upgrading will certainly improve some quality aspects, but the imagination is all our own.
The way to come back with pictures we are happy with is not new equipment though - it's dependent on the photographer practising and perfecting the necessary skills.
Upgrading will certainly improve some quality aspects, but the imagination is all our own.
Best regards, John
Posted 24/03/2012 - 10:21
Link
QuestionableCarrot wrote:
Or alternatively do I sell the lot and buy the 400mm 5.6 Canon that everyone raves about and then save for a Canon body (Perish the thought!)
Just a quick thought as an owner of both a K-5 with a large Sigma and a Canon with the 400mm f5.6.Or alternatively do I sell the lot and buy the 400mm 5.6 Canon that everyone raves about and then save for a Canon body (Perish the thought!)
If I had to get rid of one ... it would be the Canon.
Posted 24/03/2012 - 10:45
Link
Thanks everyone for the comprehensive replies.
Im getting the impression that the K-r might be a better camera than I first thought. Those 6 fps would be very handy and I am assuming that it would yield better IQ.
But then again I could just spend the extra and get the K-5?
Its been said that I need to put good glass in front of the K-5 to get the best out of it. Can I assume the 300mm DA F4 on this camera would be the bees knees?
MORE MONEY!
Im getting the impression that the K-r might be a better camera than I first thought. Those 6 fps would be very handy and I am assuming that it would yield better IQ.
But then again I could just spend the extra and get the K-5?
Its been said that I need to put good glass in front of the K-5 to get the best out of it. Can I assume the 300mm DA F4 on this camera would be the bees knees?
MORE MONEY!
Learn how to live and you'll know how to die; learn how to die, and you'll know how to live.
Check out ones photographs on Flickr!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/
Check out ones photographs on Flickr!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/
Posted 24/03/2012 - 12:04 - Helpful Comment
Link
QuestionableCarrot wrote:
At the moment I am taking all my wildlife (mostly bird) shots with the Pentax K-x and Sigma 150 500.
I am often told that the images are great and I should upgrade to "better" equipment but what exactly?
Is the K-5 really going to make my photos any better>? Obviously the shutter speed and zero buffering is a plus but its big money for someone who doesnt have much.
QC
"I am often told that the images are great and I should upgrade to "better" equipment but what exactly?"At the moment I am taking all my wildlife (mostly bird) shots with the Pentax K-x and Sigma 150 500.
I am often told that the images are great and I should upgrade to "better" equipment but what exactly?
Is the K-5 really going to make my photos any better>? Obviously the shutter speed and zero buffering is a plus but its big money for someone who doesnt have much.
QC
Look at this with a logical eye and ask yourself the question "if my images are great - why do i need to upgrade?"
The real question is "are you happy with your images?" If the answer to this is -yes - then the upgrade question becomes redundant.
"Is the K-5 really going to make my photos any better>? "
The short answer here is - no - the K5 will not make your photos any better - at least for a period of time- your images are likely to be worse as you are upgrading to a different animal and will be on a new learning curve.
Is the K5 able to deliver better quality images than the Kx - yes - but never lose sight of the fact that all of the fundamentals remain unchanged - skill level - right place right time right lens etc etc
This may be a contentious comment but - an upgrade from a Kx to a Kr - I would lay money on you being able to see an improvement immediately in some shots as the Kr is very similar in use to a Kx. However - jumping across to a K5 means you are going to have to re-educate to some extent as it is an entirely different camera witha different pedigree.
Additionally - you know all of the arguments about the quality of glass used. Nothing wrong with your Sigma I have the OS version now and use it on my Kr and K5. In the real world I would defy anybody to accurately guess which are kr and which are K5 shots - unless shot in low light.
Which leads to another dilemma - is it worth taking bird shots in low light with a Sigma 150-500? in my experience - no it is not - regardless of which body used.
Is the Kr a better camera than the kx? - absolutely yes
Is the K5 a better camera than the Kr? In black and white terms yes - but this does not mean better results - that is down to a combination of factors. Personally - I would state that the kr is a different camera to the k5 - both excellent at what they were designed to be and do. In some circumstances I prefer to use my kr and in others - the K5.
Assuming you conclude that you are not perfectly happy with your images and like most of us - funds are not limitless (which of course is the case otherwise you would not be asking the question - you would already own everything worth having) - your options (without changing systems - which I do not think would help you) are
K5 + same glass or
Kr + 'better'/new glass or
Kx with even better glass
Given that you yourself say that you know the Kx inside out - if what you are wanting is immediate gratification - i.e. better images - I would go for the best glass I could afford every time.
The Kr and K5 will undoubtedly start appearing at very reasonable prices on the used market within the next 12 months - you can already pick up a Kr for around £300 and a K5 for around £600 mint used. Whereas the better glass will probably cost you the same now as it would next year - or could even be cheaper now.
So my advice - based purely on logic and in no way reflecting my behavior always - buy the better glass as soon as you can afford it - and buy the body when you can get it at the lowest price
Regards
Carl
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more
Posted 24/03/2012 - 20:10
Link
QC, I've just bought a K5 today as replacement for my K10D. It was a very tough decision as I was about to jump ship to the Nikon D7000 or D300 for their 'better' 3d autofocus system. However it would have meant trading in some great lenses for buttons in order to buy the equivalent Nikon lenses; and why do that? Do I really want to be a just another sheep in the Canikon herd? No I dont think so!
My K10 has had a hard life and I've worked around it's failings for sports photography so I'm expecting great things from the K5. If the K5 fails to deliver I'll be shocked!
I've come as far as I can with the K10, I've genuinely outgrown it so I bid it a fond farewell. If you've outgrown your KX get the K5.
Only you know the answer to that question. But just in case you dont - buy the K5. By all accounts you wont regret it.
Regards
Chris
My K10 has had a hard life and I've worked around it's failings for sports photography so I'm expecting great things from the K5. If the K5 fails to deliver I'll be shocked!
I've come as far as I can with the K10, I've genuinely outgrown it so I bid it a fond farewell. If you've outgrown your KX get the K5.
Only you know the answer to that question. But just in case you dont - buy the K5. By all accounts you wont regret it.
Regards
Chris
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1520 posts
15 years
For example the lens works best at F8 (unless its nice and bright)
The lens can hunt (but i sometime use manual to speed things up_
And the K-x which I now know inside out (can change aperature without even looking at the back of the camera to see if its finished buffering)and know that all its little quirks.
I am often told that the images are great and I should upgrade to "better" equipment but what exactly?
Is the K-5 really going to make my photos any better>? Obviously the shutter speed and zero buffering is a plus but its big money for someone who doesnt have much.
Or alternatively do I sell the lot and buy the 400mm 5.6 Canon that everyone raves about and then save for a Canon body (Perish the thought!)
A very confused bird photographer!
QC
Check out ones photographs on Flickr!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/