I'm also a little baffled by your observations Andrew and also those of the OP as I've never found the K-5 images to be two dimensional and lifeless. What WB settings are you using, are you shooting JPEG or RAW and if shooting JPEG which profile?

The K10 will no doubt produce a warmer image, but this is easily remedied on the K-5 by setting the WB to a warmer setting (as mentioned previously, mine is usually on 'Daylight' or 'Cloudy', with an additional 1 position adjustment towards Amber). My feeling is that all of the required quality, sparkle and 3 dimensionality is present there in the RAW files and just needs bringing out. I agree with you that David Trout's images are anything but dull and lifeless and I don't think mine are either!

I also wonder whether any of the lenses you are using are a contributory factor? I know you use a lot of older glass, much of it not 'Pentax' glass. Like one of the previous posters I find the Pentax lenses produce the most pleasing colours and this holds true in general for older lenses as well as modern ones.

Regards
David

It depends to some extent on the lens and aperture being used. If it's a wide angle lens, focus peaking would be of no use at almost any aperture as most of the image will be in focus anyway. If you're using a short telephoto (which I often do) then it may be of marginal use, but even then I don't think I would use it.

Landscape photography is more about composition, skill with exposure, skill with use of correct aperture etc.

If you were asking about portrait work, still life etc. than I would say that focus peaking is very useful for this.

Regards
David

I know it's no consolation, but there are no issues with my K-01 at all, around 7,000 shutter actuations so far.

Regards
David

Hi Bill

The Pentaxes are renowned for producing RAW files that can look a bit 'flat' straight out of the camera, but that respond very well to processing. I don't know if you shoot RAW or JPEG, if it's the latter try changing the default to 'Bright' or one of the other pre-sets. I prefer 'Natural', but this is personal choice.

I'm sure that there is nothing wrong with your camera and it is just a case of you becoming comfortable and familiar with getting the setup of your camera how you want it and how it works best for you.

Also, try tweaking the white balance as the K-5's can be a little bit 'cool'. I leave mine on either Daylight or Cloudy most of the time, with an extra adjustment one place to Amber, especially for Landscape shots.

Regards
David

Have you visited Adobe's website and downloaded the most recent version of Adobe Camera RAW that is compatible with CS3? As I mentioned earlier, I have CS3 and the files open with no issues. I have Windows 8, but I don't think the Windows version would have any bearing on this.

Regards
David

I have an Asus N56VZ - fantastic full HD screen, great for processing images, Core i7 ivybridge processor, 1tb Hard Drive, dedicated graphics card, plus as a bonus it has Bang & Olufsen speakers built in for the best sound I've ever heard from a laptop - not a benefit for photography, but I like it!

It swallows up all my photo processing tasks with ease. It's not cheap, but it is bloody good!

Regards
David

I'm very flattered too Don, I didn't know anyone was a fan of my work

I can't wait to find out how you shot this image!

Cheers
David

I am little confused about this as I can open a K-3 DNG file downloaded from Imaging Resource with no issues in Adobe Camera RAW and can then import it into CS3 with no problems at all.

Regards
David

That's a 'WOW' from me Don, really superb. I presume the model was face-down on a large glass pane?

Regards
David

Thanks for your observations Steve, I think this is getting to the point where it is 'old news' now, but it may actually be more relevant now than it has been for some time due to the introduction of the K-3. I think that there will be a lot of people looking to buy a K-5, K-5ii or K-5iis as these cameras represent a much cheaper alternative to the K-3 and if initial feedback is anything to go by, the K-5iis can hold its head high in terms of IQ in comparison with the K-3, particularly when the ISO gets to 1600 or above.

Smeggy has included a link to a set of my images shot in the Mediterranean this year, some with the K-5 and some with the K-5iis and has used this to imply that there is no IQ difference. These images prove nothing as they are compressed 800px wide versions of originals I have processed, so there are no controls, no consistency in conditions, no consistency in processing methods, different lenses used etc. The K-5 images have had different processing and a higher level of sharpening than the K-5iis images have.

I agree with your conclusions Steve to the point where I'm seriously considering selling my K-5 and getting another K-5iis. I'll probably skip the K-3 and wait for a full frame.

Regards
David