John, I am sorry but you have a little mistake here. K10D was 10MP not 12.
I have upgraded from K10D to K-7 and then to K-5. Here are the
advantages that K-5 has over K10D in my personal view (in random order
with only very partial sense of priority):
1. Dynamic range/High ISO performance/14-bit RAW. Although rather easily
saturated in bright areas, in dark areas the D.R. is remarkable.
The main advantage of high D.R. is that although when the ISO goes up,
the D.R goes down, since K-5 has to much to start with, it still gives
you very high D.R. when you shoot in low light. This results in better
color recovery/retention and generally better looking pictures. As for
RAW files bitness - it is hard to tell, but anyway you get two more bits
of useful recorded information - that cannot be bad.
3. 100% viewfinder. Simply very nice to know that what you see is
exactly what you're going to get, no more and no less.
4. Built-in level. I have problems with getting my shots properly
leveled. The level indicator is visible in the viewfinder and for me it
is helpful.
5. Improved AF. It is faster and more sure of itself. Not stellar, but
solid improvement over K10D. Although I seem to believe that my K-7 was
a tad more operative that K-5, still the improvement cannot go unnoticed.
6. Faster anti-shake readiness. In most cases the anti-shake icon is
lighted up just when the AF has arrived. With K10D and K-7 it was not so
- you had to wait.
7. General ergonomics. I have rather small hands and I quite like the
step down in size from K10D to K-7/K-5. Although the placement of LV
button and AF point selection mode lever is such that I now simply have
to take the camera off my eyes in order to change the AF point selection
mode - I couldn't learn how to get it done without switching to LiveView
whereupon viewfinder goes black and my mouth goes foul.
8. I have DA* 16-50/2.8 and it is weather sealed. This is probably the
solid last in the list of my priorities though it is nice to have.
Admittedly I will be replacing this lens with Sigma 17-70 or Sigma 18-50
mostly because of the price difference and projected use pattern. I
cannot really justify so expensive a lens in my stable.
9. I find that 16MP is too many to me. The files occupy disk space and
that's by the way one of the reasons I am still feeling reluctant
switching to Nikon or Canon "affordable" FF cameras - yet another big
step in disk space - means mostly wasted time in terms of backups and
other management. Personally I think that 12 MP (may be Nikon D700
then?!) is absolutely sweet spot for me now.
To summarize - K-5 offers a number of advantages over its predecessors.
The most important being sensor/image quality. Whether it justifies
spending money - I couldn't possibly tell for you.
However as a person who was absolutely happy with their K10D and who
presently shots (when it comes to SLR shooting) with K-5, I thought I
might list few things for you.
I did buy K10D, then K-7, then K-5 and then another K-5. Out of which
three first cameras were bought brand news with local taxes and other
"niceties". The latter was bought second hand off PentaxForums.
And I openly admit - I've spent too much money on camera bodies. Lesson
learned though. I am likely to switch from being early adopter to very
late train jumper. Ricoh GXR was introduced few years ago and although I
regret not buying it earlier, I am very happy having it now.
Boris
On 11/2/2012 6:24 AM, John Francis wrote:
Or, come to that, ever found yourself limited by the mere 12MP of the K10D?
Discounting a K5 because it only offers an additional 1.7MP over a K20D
implies that the extra megapixel count is a valuable feature, which I question.
I'd happily have bought my K5 even if it didn't offer more MP than the K10D;
megapixel count is the least of the things I'm concerned about.
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 11:28:26PM -0400, David Parsons wrote:
Have you actually tried using a K-5 instead of just reading the specifications?
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:21 PM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Larry Colen
On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:25 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
What, specifically, are you looking for in a DSLR? Other than that
it costs less than $800? In bright light it's pretty hard to see any
effective difference in image quality of just about any DSLR this
side of the K100.
What I want is to buy a camera (if/when one ever comes along) that
offers me sufficient improvement over what I have now to be worth the
price - whatever that price might be. I hope that camera will be offered
by Pentax.
K-5 ain't it.
I am rather puzzled by this. I can't think of a single category in
which the K-5 isn't overall a huge improvement over the K20, unless
you happen to prefer the way the larger K20 fits in your hand. What
improvements are you looking for? How much are you willing to pay? I
just find it hard to believe that anyone who has used both a K-5 and
a K20 doesn't think that it's a huge improvement.
Though seriously, if your primary concern is amount of improvement
for your dollar, pick up a used K-r. The only major advantages that
the K20 has over it are weather sealing and user interface features
(two dial wheels etc.), in just about every aspect of performance,
the K-r vastly outperforms the K20. The K-x does as well, but the
K-r has better performance, better features and can be picked up
almost as cheaply.
If you aren't in the market for a camera, there is no crime in that.
I was responding to someone's message (at this point I don't remember
who, my reply in this thread was to Colin) who had the tone that they
wanted a new camera, but that the K-5 isn't good enough, when to my
mind, the K-5 is the first DSLR Pentax has made that has been "good
enough", that although I want improvements, I don't feel the *need*
for better performance.
I have a camera that I manage to use to meet my photographic needs. I
have to work a little harder sometimes to do what I want, but so far
nothing I have wanted to do has proved impossible with the K20D.
If Pentax were to offer a new model that was ENOUGH of an improvement
over my K20D, I would probably buy one even at a $1200 - $1500 dollar
price. If it was a REALLY BIG improvement in terms of giving me
something I found valuable, I might be willing to pay more than that.
I just thought of an automotive analogy for you.
I've had my car for about three and a half years now & I only have 5
payments left. It get 28 mpg.
The dealer I bought it from wants me to trade it in now for a new car
that gets 29 mpg, but would obligate me to another 60 months of car
payments.
For me, buying a K-5 is taking on another 60 months of car payments to
get only a 1 mpg improvement in my gas mileage.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
David Parsons Photography
http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com
Aloha Photographer Photoblog
http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
