Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 1, 2010, 3:52 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

But what does making money have to do with it? I don't make anything with my pictures, but the enjoyment I get from taking them, and watching them flash across my computer screen more than pays me back for the money that I put into my cameras. Just think about how cheap a hobby photography is compared to show horses or boating? Even downhill skiing can give photography a run for your money here in California. So if you can squeeze out the bucks from the budget (understand that's not always possible), I don't see why you should not get it - your pictures "not justifying it" shouldn't enter into the decision at all. And if that driver wants to have a 4x4 but never take it off road, there's nothing wrong with that (with the price of gas I can't think when the last time I did any real off-roading was but I'm not about to sell the Wrangler any time soon).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2010, 10:11 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 248
Default

Good points I love the way you think... would you talk to my wife
Bowenp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2010, 3:45 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi dam59,

I'm primarily a birder, and use AF for just about everything, so any improvements in AF will be a benefit to me. If shutter lag is improved, that will be a bonus. Handling will be a little better with an assignable RAW button -- I can see using it for toggling a 2 shot bracket on and off, and this will help me enormously with some difficult lighting conditions. The rest of the user interface should be pretty much the same as the K-7, and this will be a plus, though I mostly shoot spring through fall, so if I get the cam during the winter, I'll have a lot of time to get used to it anyway.

I use long tele/TC combinations almost exclusively, so increased sensitivity and high ISO jpeg output will be an important plus for me, especially with a resolution bump, though slight.

The samples I've seen so far indicate as much as a 3 stop advantage in high ISO performance. If this is the case, then it will be a very significant upgrade to me. I don't count on this, as the images have been with preproduction firmware, but even a real 1 stop advantage (which seems pretty much a sure thing), along with any AF improvement will be enough to justify an upgrade for me. The improvement in AF speed seems to be considerably more significant than any previous gains from one model to the next, so I'd call it a very marked difference.

The concerns that some have with buffer size aren't relevant to my use. Neither is the increase in FPS. I've never filled the buffer in previous Pentax bodies, I use continuous bursts sparingly, and I shoot jpegs.

This is an easy decision for me. I started saving right after buying my K-7, I've already got more lenses than I could conceivably need, and the increased sensitivity of both the AF system and the sensor make what I have all the more useful in more situations.

I don't even consider the other brands. For what I shoot, 135 format doesn't offer enough advantage, and comparable models in features and performance would only mean an outrageously high cost to duplicate my collection of glass in a different mount. Canon and Nikon have only begun to become competitive with Pentax in body size in this class, and the pro spec models don't interest me since I'd lose FOV advantage of the crop sensor, in-body stabilization and be forced into considerably larger and more expensive bodies. . . and neither have a match for my most used accessory, the F1.7x AFA.

Pentax APS C bodies have worked for me in the past, and will work fine for my purposes in the foreseeable future, especially if they continue to make improvements. I'll wait this time until around Xmas, but even at $1600, the price doesn't bother me. If I can get it for a little less, all the better. . .

I'm also very good at rationalizing any photographic purchase. . . and don't have anyone to answer to for financial considerations. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2010, 4:51 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
dam59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 20
Default

Thanks to the kind people that contributed.
I gave a look to the images available [I visited also PENTAX Forum at www.pentaxforums.com <> PENTAX Cameras<> PENTAX News and Rumors<>, K-5 vs K-7 First ISO performance testing (ISO-6400)].
Amongst all other considerations, noise and, more in general, image quality at high ISO is the plus that really impressed me.
I’m also wondering if K-5 pictures were taken in JPEG, and so the quality could be also the result of a very smart de-noise algorithm, or in RAW and, if left untouched, this would be more an outstanding performance of the camera hardware.
Maybe I appreciated it twice just because I recently tried to shoot in low light with my K-10D (in some shots I also used my Sigma dedicated flash) and grain was really like snowflakes. OK, I was using a Tamron 28-300 in interiors and a 70-200 f 2.8 would have been a better solution… if I only had one available or I did not set both camera and flash in the best way but, anyway...
Leaving apart for a moment all budget issues (that I could not, anyway, escape from) the dilemma to improve performance in low light situation could be:
- Better give the priority to improve the lens quality in order to put the good ol’ K-10D in the position of yielding better image results or…
- Go for the a newer camera body like the K-5, which performance in low light could revive low aperture lenses ?
dam59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2010, 6:47 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Tachikoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,086
Default

Good question, do you invest in the body or the lenses?

I go for the body myself, mainly because my better half doesn't wince at an £800+ body as much as she does a £300+ lens. Arguably the latter is the better investment, but as always it's down to personal reference.
__________________
http://kuma-no-kimi.deviantart.com/
Pentax K-7
Tamron 90mm SP Di Macro
Tamron Adaptall 2 - 28mm, 28-80mm, 500mm Mirror
Pentax KAF - 18-55mm WR, 28-105mm PowerZoom
Pentax K - 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 28mm f/2.2
Tachikoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2010, 8:29 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi dam59,

It is a good question.

The added AF sensitivity and higher ISO IQ will benefit slower lenses, but the higher resolution sensor could also make any optical flaws more evident, so to make the case for equivalence, they have to be optically good slower lenses.

In the case of the K10 to K-5 upgrade, I'd be tending to lean towards getting the body, since it would take at least a three, and maybe a 4 stop upgrade in lens speed to make up for the high ISO performance gained by the new sensor.

It's neither hard nor expensive to find lenses that are good shooting at f8-f11. I don't think it unrealistic to limit the K10 to ISO 400. If you get 3 stops gain from the sensor (similar noise at ISO 3200), that makes this equivalent to shooting at f2.8-f4 at the lower ISO, and 4 stops (similar noise at ISO 6400) makes this essentially the same as f2-f2.8 at ISO 400. It's not the same, of course, as you don't have the DOF control at the smaller apertures, but the fast lenses probably won't be quite as sharp and contrasty wide open either. . .and they'd be bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive. . . From the preproduction samples, it's possible that ISO 12800 on the K-5 might be a more fitting equivalent to 400 on the K10, so that's 5 stops.

If one desires the DOF control too, then Pentax's backward lens compatibility and history of very nice glass, allows for quite a few lower cost alternatives to get some good faster glass.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2010, 3:26 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
thkn777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831
Default

Hm,
I often complain about the slowish AF system of my *ist DL2. Lot's of nice moments that ended up in a blurred image OR a "too late" shot.

Coupled with me preferring availabe light (in my photobag at the moment: Vivitar 24/2.0, Pentax-A 50/1.7, M85/2, K135/2.5 ) you can also guess, that a solid high ISO performance is a strong argument for me.

I was toying with the idea to save up for a K-x. ISO performance is nice from what I saw... can't say about the AF, but I think the K-x AF would be a big jump coming from the DL2, too.

I'll wait for some more reviews.

Th.
thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2010, 8:41 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
But what does making money have to do with it? I don't make anything with my pictures, but the enjoyment I get from taking them, and watching them flash across my computer screen more than pays me back for the money that I put into my cameras. Just think about how cheap a hobby photography is compared to show horses or boating? Even downhill skiing can give photography a run for your money here in California. So if you can squeeze out the bucks from the budget (understand that's not always possible), I don't see why you should not get it - your pictures "not justifying it" shouldn't enter into the decision at all. And if that driver wants to have a 4x4 but never take it off road, there's nothing wrong with that (with the price of gas I can't think when the last time I did any real off-roading was but I'm not about to sell the Wrangler any time soon).


well put Mtngal, my friend keeps saying similar things, trying to talk me out of getting the K5, part of me thinks its jealousy. Its not that I have money to throw on gear like that when Ive already spent over several grand this year on a few different lenses and the k20, but it is my determination that will allow me the K5. I may not have yet sold any photos for high dollar but it is extremely satisfying to get nice shots. I still feel I have a long way to go but just through sharing photos with friends Ive had many people approach me with photography questions, recommendation questions, side job requests/photo session requests for various things, all because they've seen some of my work. I don't promote myself as a pro but I've heard that thrown around which I presume correlates to the high quality these pentax cameras coupled with nice lenses produce. It also helps I don't ever show my worst images! :-D

I'll be getting the K5 as I feel like I've finally explored all the weaknesses of the K20d, and while its a great camera I feel I would benefit greatly from the upgraded features, and it will only help my photography improve. To me thats worth the 1500.00, and I dont mind sellin my K20d and some of my 50mm lenses to get there.

cheers to the K5!

Last edited by NMRecording; Oct 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM.
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 AM.