K7 - K5 - worthwhile upgrade???

Hi there,

As the proud owner of a fantastic ME Super back in 1985 (which I still have), I subsequently upgraded to a K7 just a couple of years ago after some time away from the cameras and then been photographing anything I can... I've been toying with the idea of another upgrade - primarily for the expanded ISO range available...

Due to the usual constraints of wife/kids/house etc, budgets are limited, but I'm thinking about trading in my K7 for something along the lines of a K5, which I think I can do for a (very) modest outlay.

Any more experienced opinions on this idea - am I mad, or are there other, better options available to me?

Thanks
H

Looking at those two models ...well, they look exactly the same to me!

Hi Mark, Yes they do look very similar. The K5 will bring you excellent low light performance due to its better sensor and there are some bargain ones around. Otherwise if you are happy with your K7 though perhaps you might look to expand your lens set depending on your interests.

If the Budget will stretch I would go for the K5 lls, same sensor as the K5 so the same high ISO performance, but the removal of the aliasing filter brings so much more detail.

me personaly would skip the k5 and go for the k5ii or the k5iis
dont get me wrong the k5 is a good camera but you may as well just go the extra mile as there is some good bargins out there you just have to find them

Joking aside, it's well known that I value the superb image capture control aids, handling, strength etc that the K7 shares with its successors, just as much as the sensor performance.

I'm still getting so much out of my K7 and am very satisfied with its results, so the advice to look at better glass is always very valid .

But, if I had 300-400 pounds that HAD to be spent on a camera upgrade, then definitely I would go for a K5II. The improved AF is a worthwhile step up. I would not pay more for the 's' non -AA filter version as my own detailed image testing showed me that for my particular processing workflow the difference was not significant.

I'd second that view

I upgraded rom the K5 to the K5iis and it improved what was already a superb camera into an almost perfect one (for me at least). The lack of the AA filter brings out the extra detail superbly, I don't doubt that much of that details can be "coaxed" out of the K5 or K5ii with post processing, but I like to spend less time in the virtual darkroom and more on taking the photos

As a side note (and again this is just my personal opinion) I also upgraded from a K5iis to a K3 but found it too much for me so "downgraded" to a K5iis again. At present there is nothing more I want from a DSLR.

We are still using the K-5 and will continue to do so for the time being. It is a worthwhile step up from the K-7, so I'd go for it.

Nigel, are you not tempted while the prices are so low?

I've just bagged a new AF-540FGZ WRII bargain from SRS That's the upgrade funds used for now .... Really though, for my personal 'low-light' photography needs, that 2nd wirelessly controlled flashgun will offer far more image quality improvement than any new cameras higher sensor capability !

Regarding the aa-filter issue and processing. It mis-represents the realities to equate processing time and effort to the outcomes ... For many people the processing steps will be identical in order to get equal results ... Just a small (approx 30% on average higher sharpening settings, with no visible degradation) .... How much longer does it take to pull a software slider 30% more over its travel ... ??

I'm not mis-representing anything Greg - I'm expressing my views. I also don't have the same skill set as you as I was never able to get the same level of sharpness from the K5 as the K5iis - certainly increasing sharpening did not give as good an image as I get from the K5iis. My reality is that I spend far less time on processing now than I ever did with the K5, K20D, K10D, etc.

I've just tried to explain what the improvements have been for me, and why, Many others have similar views and I'm sure many others don't

My turn to second that. Did the same

I love my K3 but was very tempted by the K5 II. The K5 should give you a much better sensor than in the K7, but I understand the K5 AF was still not great and that this was vastly improved in the K5 II.

I had a K5 for three years before upgrading to the K3 this year. It was a brilliant camera AND the AF was fine for me on most lenses so I can not agree. They upgraded it with a bigger, lens array for AF for the MkII and put the same in the K3 whcih gave it better (very) low light capability where it used to hunt around (I used to turn to manual for night shots). Now -3EV which I gather is officially candle light. My K3 can mostly focus in near dark.

another who agrees with Lennybloke, K5 11s is a big improvement over K7 and K5 in terms of image clarity and detail straight from camera with the bulk of shots not requiring sharpening at all plus the thing will focus in almost total darkness , which with some of the Churches i have done it has had to.

Also agree with Redbusa99 and Lennybloke, I was shooting the River Tyne in Newcastle earlier this week, hand held cos of so many walkers / joggers on the Millennium Bridge that it was moving toooo much for a long exposure, you could feel the bridge bouncing and see the supporting cables flexing

K5 iis at 1/2 second F8 1600 iso




K5 iis at 1/25 second F5.6 800 iso