K-5

[Bill Pierce]

Although this is something I heard from a number of sources, it hit the web today when Kent Phelan commented on an Online Photographer article pointing out that the Pentax K-5 was called "The best APS-C (sensor) in all fields" by DxOmark.com. "I use my K-5 as I used my M8, with much of the automation turned off and with fixed DA Ltd lenses. I have been a Nikon/Leica person my whole life, but I find this camera quite compelling."

Here is a relatively small camera with a very quiet shutter with small, fixed-focal length lenses available. It differs from the digital M's in having outstanding high ISO performance. Since this is so important to so many shooters, and it seems inevitable that we will see more small cameras with good high ISO performance and small, high-speed lenses at prices lower than the Leica digital rangefinder along with the already existing small cameras that give good results at lower ISO's, are we going to see the digital Leica become a conspicuous consumption item? Perhaps we will see the Leica/Panasonic team come up with something. Any thoughts?

Here is TOP K-5 article; the article will also transfer you to the DxO tests.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/the-new-number-one.html

 

[Pickett Wilson]

You know, it's reached the point where, IMHO, it hardly matters. Much of the latest stuff is so good, any of it will work. I see, though, that it appears the DR is so great that you can take photos so badly exposed that they are totally black and pull a decent photo from them in photoshop. Can't make a "bad" shot anymore, regardless of how hard you try.

Yawn.

 

[kshapero]

What's left to accomplish? These cameras are better photographers than we will ever be.

 

[photogdave]

The K-5 (and K-7) are very nice handling cameras and, to be honest, if I felt the need for a DSLR kit I would get rid of the last of my Nikon stuff and go fully Pentax.
But it's not THAT small. It and even the limited lenses (for the most part) are still bigger than their RF equivalents. I find it kind of funny when people say they use their SLRs "like a rangefinder" because, after all, it is a completely different shooting experience.
Anyway, no Pentax is going to replace a Leica, or a Nikon or a Canon for most people because they are too narrow minded. It's amazing how many people out there won't consider a Pentax, no matter how well it stacks up to the competition (and bests it in many ares) because they aren't familiar with the brand or because all their friends have Nikon and they are scared to be different.
As for your thoughts in the second paragraph - it's already happened!

 

[rover]

What's left to accomplish? These cameras are better photographers than we will ever be.

Yes they are. The only thing left to accomplish is to make them at a lower cost. Remember when we left the film slr world the Canon Elan cameras and Nikon N80, mid range amateur cameras, were only $350. A digital body will never be that inexpensive, but a mid level camera such as the K5 should be priced under $1000. We are years away from that (other than when they are being closed out) but that should happen.

 

[kshapero]

Yes they are. The only thing left to accomplish is to make them at a lower cost. Remember when we left the film slr world the Canon Elan cameras and Nikon N80, mid range amateur cameras, were only $350. A digital body will never be that inexpensive, but a mid level camera such as the K5 should be priced under $1000. We are years away from that (other than when they are being closed out) but that should happen.

Price? That's it? Oh I am depressed.😱

 

[andrewteee]

Interestingly, I just demo'ed an M9 and subsequently decided to order a K-5. After missing my Zeiss Ikon so much I just had to see what the M9 was all about. I really like using the rangefinder viewfinders allowing me to see outside the framelines.

The M9 was truly great, but I cannot personally justify the cost.

A while ago I tried the Pentax K-7 and in general liked the camera, but the Samsung sensor performance disappointed me. The K-5 sounds perfect for tradeoffs I'm trying to balance and as a good all-around camera (even in rough weather - we're entering our rainy season in N. California). The shutter is said to be very quiet, it's not a large camera, the compact primes are excellent, yet I still have the option of general family snaps zooms.

I ordered the K-5 over the weekend, and if all works out I'll sell my Olympus DSLR and mFT cameras. I'm very interested to try the K-5 as a B&W camera since the DR is supposed to be so good.

I will miss that M9, though.

 

[rover]

Price? That's it? Oh I am depressed.😱

Price, and well, the pastel colors Pentax offers with its other bodies.

 

[Welsh_Italian]

What's left to accomplish? These cameras are better photographers than we will ever be.

Making great photographs? Having technically perfect photo doesn't mean that it's worth anything. A poor photographer is far less likely to produce a compelling picture than a good one even if there is nothing technically wrong with it. There's still plenty to do and learn - no camera can do a great composition or find an interesting subject for you or work out how to use the light best.

 

[MartinP]

Even if one buys the miracle camera, the gear needed for making good quality black-and-white prints from it costs thousands, lasts 18 months and costs bucket fulls of cash to run. The fascination with digital is weird (imho).

 

[johannielscom]

Pentax-noob question: does this still take the 'old' Pentax K-mount lenses?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What's left to accomplish? These cameras are better photographers than we will ever be.

Yes, but so is an 11x14 inch Gandolfi or Kodak Circut Panorama. Doesn't mean I'll get as good pictures out of them as from my KowaSIX or Leica M9...

Using a camera you're happy with will normally give you better pics.

And if you're never happy... Well, maybe that's why you can't get good pics. Learn to be happy. Shane presents the argument superbly. As for image quality/sharpness, above a certain threshold they're all good. Last thing I'm concerned about in digital bodies and lenses is sharpness - how I'm holding, standing, time of day, where my exposure is at, etc, has more impact on apparent sharpness than MTF. So again, even though I think that the M9 is probably the best digital 24x36 camera out there, it doesn't fit into the intersection set of capital expenditure vs operator advantage. The Nikons do. Even the crop-sensor ones. So, I'm sure, does the K5.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rover]

Pentax-noob question: does this still take the 'old' Pentax K-mount lenses?

Yes, M42 forward, all Pentax lenses work with their digital bodies. The A, F, FA and DA lenses all work in all metering modes. Earlier lenses work in manual metering mode.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

When the price comes down, the K-5 might actually lure me back to DSLR-land. I'm pretty happy with m4/3 right now, though.

Good on Pentax. I am really, really glad they've finally put out a camera with a killer sensor. The K-7 felt great but the sensor was meh for the price...this is a new ballgame.

 

[monochromejrnl]

When the price comes down, the K-5 might actually lure me back to DSLR-land. I'm pretty happy with m4/3 right now, though.

Good on Pentax. I am really, really glad they've finally put out a camera with a killer sensor. The K-7 felt great but the sensor was meh for the price...this is a new ballgame.

The K-5 is compelling but you have to also consider the D7000 at almost $400 cheaper... about the same size.

 

[photogdave]

The K-5 is compelling but you have to also consider the D7000 at almost $400 cheaper... about the same size.

But the Nikon doesn't have weather-sealing, 100 % VF, in-body IS etc. Apples and oranges.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

In-body IS is mandatory for me--this is why I've got the E-P2 instead of the Pana m4/3 offerings. And I'm sentimental about / loyal to Pentax...my first SLR as a teenager.

The biggest regret I have about selling my pentax gear is the 31mm limited. A great lens. Although the Nokton 35/1.2 is its equal.

 

[Pablito]

Looks like a great choice if you have no investment in lenses and you want to buy today.

I have, however, a big investment in lenses that are not Pentax. Will wait and see what the competition brings.

 

[semilog]

Even if one buys the miracle camera, the gear needed for making good quality black-and-white prints from it costs thousands, lasts 18 months and costs bucket fulls of cash to run. The fascination with digital is weird (imho).

This type of blanket dismissal is shortsighted and unhelpful.

I've spent plenty of time working in (and managing) wet darkrooms. I never found wet darkroom work to be cheap, in either time or money. Just thinking about the amount of water that I alone have wasted washing FB prints is a bit depressing. The gear is cheaper now simply because there is a glut of used equipment on the market, but that was not always so.

What did a 1990 Beseler 23CII (or equivalent Omega or Durst), a cold light head, an apo-Rodagon, an archival print washer, a good grain focuser, a safe light, and all the miscellany and a place to put all of it (not to mention plumbing for a good sink) cost new, in 2010 dollars?

Answer: many thousands of dollars, not including consumables or goodies, like a reverse osmosis unit (indispensable in one darkroom that I managed) or a thermostatic temperature control for the wash water supply. I spent that money, for myself or others, several times over.

And the digital workflow allows good quality color work, which was always a PITA in the wet darkroom. Even Cibachrome was a PITA. Now digital color management is the big hassle.

It's always something.

Face it: making good prints is not easy, and it's not cheap. Full stop. For some photos (or photographers) one workflow is superior. For others, another workflow is superior. Blanket dismissals of one process or another are not useful.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Crop factor and body shape/size

Crop factor and body shape/size

Bill,
Thanks for posting this information.

I'm really happy to see the strides being made now in sensor technology. And its doubly great to see competing sensor designs making headway (back-lit sensors, foveon sensors, etc.), not to mention whatever's going on at the pixel level. These kinds of changes are convincing me that I will indeed be able to leave film behind. And for those that say you can't produce excellent b&w imagery... I still would like to see The Wall Test (Two prints side-by-side on a wall. Same image, but one made from film, one from digital. Then ask a jury to decide.) Because I'm certainly seeing GREAT black and white digital images on the web... which means nothing of course.

There are two things that still are holding me back. The crop factor of affordable APS-C sensor cameras so far is making it difficult to have fast wide-angle prime lenses. The micro 4/3 companies are getting there, but as I understand it, they're still doing it with a lot of post processing of the file in-camera. That still doesn't 'sit right' with my film-SLR bones.

And the other is the body shape and size of the DSLRs. Too big and too 'clunky' feeling. Again, the micro 4/3 and mirrorless camera companies are finding their way back to the size/shape I'm comfortable with (like my Nikon FE2).