K5 just isn't really cutting it in low light

I love my K5, - it has taken some fanstastic shots for me.

However, it does get frustrating when it starts to hunt in (not even very) low light.

I recently got to use an older, but higher-specc'ed Nikon, and it did seem to get better pictures and take less time doing so.

So, my quandry: do I stick with the K5? Stick with Pentax and go for the K5ii or the K3, stick with Pentax and die of old age before a full frame option is released, or jump ship for Nikon or Canon!

As an aside - what sort of Nikon and Canon models would you say are the equivalent of the K5, K5ii and K3?

I went for the K-3 from K5iiS, and the improvements are huge -)
The AF is outstanding, and at least from my experience easily equal or better than the Nikon offerings.
The Nikon D7000 is comparable to the K5/K5ii etc and the D7100 to the K-3
The build quality compared to the K series is horrible, cheap feeling plastic bodies, i think to get to the build of the K's you'd need to go for on of the more expensive full frame models.
Good luck

I was there too and jumped ship. On reflection I should maybe have gone for a K3.
Not saying I made the wrong decision at all but I sometimes wonder what if....

I have friends that shoot with the Nikon D7000 and Canon 7D. Both considered the Nikon/Canon equivalents to the K5. In my opinion (they don't agree by the way) neither camera can hold a candle to the K5 for build, options, button feel and layout.
My K5 will hunt around in low light, which is frustrating sometimes. Regardless of the lens i'm using.

Is it hunting with all lenses or just the zooms? 55-300 will hunt at the best of times. K-5II is vastly more assured focusing wise in lower light compared to the classic version.

Just a reminder that this is Pentax User and advising on which Nikon or Canon to buy is off topic for the forums. You need a Canon or Nikon forum for that.

The grass is not always greener....it depends very much on the lenses chosen, but people very successfully take images of fast cars, wildlife and lots of other moving subjects. A lot of it is technique, and manual focus cameras can be used as well, taking a lot of good technique to do so of course.

The first step is to make sure you're not using a filter on that 55-300mm as it doesn't like them and it is a lens that can hunt a bit sometimes. On the other hand, a 400mm f/5.6 Tokina I tried didn't seem to hunt at all. So maybe the Pentax 300mm could be the lens you are looking for, or the 60-250mm zoom. The latter is very smooth and fast, or at least the one I had was.

You don't expect impartial advice, do you

If the focusing of your K5 is a concern to you, any one of the upgrade/moving across options is going to offer improvement in that respect.

Leaving Pentax will presumably have a price attached to it (ie you may not get back for your lenses what you paid for them), which you will want to factor in; but I doubt that will be decisive.

The Nikon and Canon are good cameras if the reviews are reliable. But so is the Pentax. You will get broadly the same results, with broadly the same ease, from any of them. So, which do you prefer? Have you handled them all?

If you like the K5 (focusing apart), the K5 II is the most cost-effective change.

I have to agree with John, my camera route in the last twelve months has gone from K5 to K5iis to Nikon D600 to Sony A7 back to K5iis and then finally my K-3 or what I like to call The End.
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and find out for yourself like I have, I mean I now know I will never buy another Nikon camera again due to its build quality when put next to a Pentax and it's over complicated menu system.

I have used Pentax for decades now. I think I may have tried everything but I always seem to return.

I did stray over to Canon in 2011 and bought a 500D, followed by a 40D. I was looking for something that was faster than my K10D with better low light capabilities. 4 months later i was no longer a Canon owner and happy to be back with my beloved K10D. Which i changed to a K5 last year. John and Matt are right, the grass always seems greener but rarely is. Sticking with the K5 until K5II secondhand prices fall significantly.
My only remaining grievance of being a Pentax owner is i feel we sometimes get a rough deal from lens manufacturers. Either we don't get the latest lenses with the latest tech, or they strip out features or they over charge us. Or all of the above.

I use a K-5II and a 7D and would say that they are very similar in performance and build in all but one area. The Canon has much faster AF and more focus points (addressed by the K-3) has better tracking (apparently not really addressed by the K-3) and (for me) a better range of lenses.

After that you would think that the Pentax gets left home 99% of the time but actually it's the other way around ... the K-5II goes everywhere and the Canon only comes out at airshows and suchlike. I much prefer the output of the Pentax and I struggle to get the same sort of look with my Canon pictures (even though they are normally sharp as a razor).

If you want the build of the K-3 in the Nikon DX range - you have to go for the elderly 12MP D300s - no news of D400, so those APS-C users will have a lens upgrade path to contend with when going from DX to FX

For Canon - their top APS-C camera is of course the 7D, I hear most owners moaning about the low light performance and clamouring for a 7D2.

I bought a D3 4 years ago, I still prefer using my Pentax gear.

Simple answer, get the K5ii/S or K3 - grass ain't greener on the other side

I do a large amount of low light near dark gig photography. The K5ii never hunts at all. Its a superb performer in this respect.

I switched from K-5 to K-5 II for dimly lit nighttime motorsport and I can say that the low light performance of the K-5 II is vastly superior to the K-5.

I also believe the same improvement applies to the K-3 over the K-5II/s.

To answer your quandary, if you have the money, K-3 is a no brainer. K-5 II's are dropping in price so if money is tight, upgrade to a used K-5 II/s.

If Money really isn't a problem . . . got any lenses going cheap?

This shot taken with the K-5 II + Sigma 70-200mm lens would have been impossible with my K-5. 1/25th sec, f8, ISO 800. (Yes, 1/25th sec, it's not a typo).

The car is travelling at about 50-60 mph at this point. It took me almost 2 years of practice, and spending money on the right gear to get decent shots in rubbish conditions.

The blown out blob in the background is the reflective vest of a marshal.

Thanks a lot for the replies, especially from forumites with cameras made by Nikon and Canon.

I guess my first real disappointment was when I used a friend's 6D and it was so quick to focus, much quicker than the K5 in all lights.

I know it's unfair to compare the 2. It made me want to spend more and to get something better though...

On SRS the prices are currently:-

K5ii £579
K511s £698
K3 £889

To me it seems like the K3 isn't much more and seems impressively specc'ed...