K5 = astounding = Digital Velvia

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21823

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/01/cotswolds-with-k-5.html

"but the Pentax produces images much closer to my Leica M9. A "digital Fuji Velvia" look for want of a better description."

Sounds like I need to get saving! I love my K20D though so I am having a hard time justifying moving on up.

Tiger

Start saving. The K-5 is my fave body, and then some!

I can't believe how much better it is over my K20D, words cannot describe......

Seriously, get a K-5, all those shortcomings with earlier bodies have gone.

That may be true but I find it hard to believe. The forum post seems to be mostly about the 100mm macro and there are no images there I haven't bettered with my K20D. The blog post is from someone who (apparently) has only just started using a Pentax DSLR, so who can say if they wouldn't have been just as thrilled with a K20D?

I prefer images from the K20D to my K-x though everywhere people say the later sensor is better. I don't buy it. Likewise while I would love to have a K-5 (if anyone has an extra they don't mind donating) I do not feel restricted by the K20D.

This manic frenzy to upgrade camera bodies every 12 months is more a product of marketing than photographic "need".

I have a K20D too. I was never that happy with it (inconsistent exposure) so I went the Panny G1 way. Nothing wrong with the Panny G1 but ... and I also revisited using the K20D and it is actually a great camera ... however ...

For image quality, this (K5) is the first digital camera that I think makes the pictures truly 'sing' from the screen.

Just my brief experience and opinion ...

K5 and be there.

Lee

K20D + FA77 and my images sing until I tell them to shut up, the neighbours are listening.

I appreciate the K-5 has better auto-focus (doesn't interest me much) and high ISO (always nice) but as for the basic image quality I have yet to see anything convincing. I would like to know what all these deficiencies are that the K20D supposedly has.

Well I agree with Offertonhatter


Mine was purely based upon photographic need.The K-5 has a nearly 3 stop increase in high ISO performance and a lot of my photography needs high ISO.

I had absolutely no interest in the K-7 or any of the marketing that went with it.

I still have my K10D and K20D. They are both damn good cameras but I shall sell them and get a second K-5 in the fairly near future.

Well not quite - I've owned, used and made my living from - Pentax ME Super, Pentax 645, Pentax MZ-5, Pentax MZ-50, Pentax *istD, Pentax *ist DL, Pentax *ist DS, Pentax K-10, Pentax K-7 and now a Pentax K-5.

This is not good: I keep repeating to myself every day that lenses are what I should invest in and that my K20D is perfectly fine and I do not need a K5.... You are not helping!

That's much better! Thanks rparmar! You might have saved me (for a while)

Trouble is I got my K20D at a bargain price of £480 new (Dec. 0 when it was £580 with the £100 cash back. It makes the K5 seem pricey - which I know it's not. Let's hope the price drops a bit eh?

Do you not prefer the K-5 ergonomics/build wise then - would the K-5 be as nice a camera if it was a K20d clone? I'm just saying... they did some things right with the K-7... ghastly though it is in almost every other regard

Thanks for the correction! I was basing my assumption only on what was in the article referenced. There were phrases like not having used an SLR in a long time, comparisons to Leica, references to being a micro 4/3 user etc., but nothing about other Pentax SLRs.

I have already mentioned the better high ISO performance and would certainly not diss someone for buying the latest greatest camera if they could. I would too!

What I don't grant is that the IQ is any better than the K20D. If it is, I haven't seen it demonstrated. And if anything I will believe the opposite after the evidence of the K-x. People raved about that too, but it has inferior IQ to the K20D IMO. The look is more plasticky and digitally smooth, like what I expect from a Canon (to generalise). That might only really be apparent in rare photos and usually only after digital manipulation. Also the colours are nowhere near as accurate... and that is not a subtle difference at all.

I think something was sacrificed in moving to the new CMOS sensors, but the losses are small enough to be appreciated only by a few, whereas the benefits of video and high ISO noise reduction are blindingly obvious and far more important to most.

But my own tests have shown a K20D image cleans up as nice as a K-x image (using Noise Ninja). It simply doesn't start as clean. That is, if I use an appropriate amount of NN on both, the resulting image at the same ISO is difficult to tell apart. This was contrary to expectation and not something I wanted to discover. Not after having bought the K-x for high ISO use!

I must admit I am slowly (speed increasing though) changing my views on the matter. I own a K20D and so far thought I would keep it for a long time.

The K20D's IQ is very good in my view, at least I am sure I have a long way to go before I can reach its limits, and a lot of learning to do. When taking pictures outdoors, and there is plenty of light, it is a fantastic camera (unless the subject is moving fast...:roll.

But when I am using it indoors, for the occasional family shot, or otherwise in low light, let's just say there is quite some room for improvement. I am sure that those of view with better photographic skills than me are able to make the most of it in most circumstances, but that is not the case for me.
I have had several times the opportunity to test a competitor's camera (no need to mention the name, let's just say it starts with a 7) indoors along side mine. 100% of shots are metered correctly and in focus, I do not get the same with mine...

So, after reading all the good things about the K5, especially improved AF speed and metering accuracy in low light, that is where I am heading.

I might not get better IQ, but hopefully better results overall.

Giorgio

i'm not high iso freak, so i'm sticking with my k7.

but the dynamic range at low iso's is what draws me to the k5. my k7 can be pretty noisy if i get heavy on the fill light, even at lower isos, i suspect the k5 would be much better in this regard.

also, the abiity to underexpose then correct during post-processing would also give me a smoother transition to highlights in very bright scenes.

having said that, my k7 certainly gets the job done. 50k frames on the k7 before i'm allowed to sell it on and get a k5. that's the rule. only 35k to go...

It depends on what your photo needs are.

Robin is correct that the K20D is still a very fine camera, and produces excellent images. Even my Canon Pro (1D) user friends are impressed in what it can do. However, there are a lot of circumstances where the K-5 far exceeds the K20D (not in IQ at low ISO, the difference is small) but other areas such as low light (I use a lot due to official Theatre tog where light is an issue) more accurate AF - the AF on the K20D is beginning to be a problem for me at fast apertures - probably due to the number of shots I have taken with it - 30000+.
The Dynamic range is better, less likely to be fooled by major changes in light and dark, such as a person in a black suit and white shirt.
FPS- not given it a work out on this yet, but looks good.
Mirror slap on the K20D is a concern, the K-5 is a lot better in this respect, no kickback you feel in the hand.

For studio work and Landscapes, there is little difference between the K-5 and K20D, but you are working at Low ISO and smaller apertures, and you are slowed down. but for all other aspects, the K-5 is far better.

I was in the lucky position to afford and purchase the K-5, which in one fell swoop iradicate the problems I was having with the K20D, to which for the work I was doing, became unreliable. If I bought the K-7 instead, I might not be so enthusiastic.