New PENTAX - K-3

<p>Norman, I do know that the K range has IBIS. I also have a Nikon D7000 (as a back-up for weddings) and a bad back and arthritic knee. When out and about, it's the OMD every time. I cannot say that the D7000 produces better quality images than the OMD - mainly because it doesn't. I'm in contact with many OM-D users here in the UK, several of whom have ditched their APS-C and full frame Nikon and Canon kits in favour of the Olympus m4/3 system - and I'm talking professional wedding and portrait photographers here. One great feature the E-M5 offers is real-time under/over exposure on the EVF BEFORE taking the picture, allowing easy one finger exposure compensation or manual exposure adjustment to be set. I cannot say I've encountered any real world situation where the D7000 would have produced a better image than the E-M5.</p>

<p>For an alternative comparison of dynamic range, try dpreview and set the E-M5 gradation setting to 'auto'. I'm afraid the E-M5 betters the K5-2s in both shadows and highlights & significantly so in the former.</p>

<p>I use Imaging Resource for these kinds of comparisons.. I don't see a lot of difference in dynamic range. The K-5 IIs would seem to have perhaps a little better colour, the M5 is surprisingly good though, and despite there being little difference in the test scores, the M5 looks a little bit cleaner. Interesting. I saw no discernible difference in dynamic range. The images are very close. However, I'd expect the 30%-60% additional lw/kh that's been measured on the K-3 will take it way beyond the M5. Very good images from the M5 though. Almost up in foveon country in terms of sharpness. I notice they had no images tested below 200 ISO. For a landscape guy, the richer colours and lower ISO setting might give the K-5 the edge, but the M5 was certainly has it's strengths, well beyond my expectations. I don't see anyone being unhappy with those images. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>

<p>Yes, ISO 200 is the base on the E-M5 - which is a real PITA when trying fill flash as diffraction sets well in above f11 (hence the D7000 for when I use flash thanks to the excellent TTL flash system on Nikons) and nornal flash sync is 1/160th. At the other end, I tend to max out at ISO 2500.</p>

<p>BTW, how good is the P-TTL flash system on the K5 series? I'm particularly thinking of the pre-flash in TTL mode. I find TTL flash unusable on the E-M5 for people shots due to the pre-flash delay causing quite a lot of 'blinkies'. If it's negligible, I can forsee a switch to Pentax as my second system to take advantage of IBIS with prime lenses. I can deal with exposure variations and flash compensation.</p>

<p>I don't use flash much myself, but just from reading a lot of forum posts, I've gathered that the flash is probably the weakest part of the K-5 system, and so far I've heard the K-3 isn't any better. Of the wedding guys who own multiple systems, none that I know of use their K series cameras for flash work... although the guys who use just a k-5 seem to be able to make do. People switch to Nikon just to get the more capable flash system. I would never advise one to switch to Pentax for the way it handles flash. In fact I'd say don't even think of switching to Pentax for it's utility with flash, unless you've tried the system and can live with it. It's one of the big reasons people complain about Pentax cameras. For my purposes it's fine. But I use flash for fill light in images, maybe once in every 10,000 images, never use multiple flash units, in fact the built in flash on the camera is all I've ever used. I've never seen a post discussing TTL that said "this works great" on any Pentax K series camera. Sorry I don't have a more positive answer.</p>

<p>Thanks Norman. Looks like I'll have to stick with Nikon for this and get some image stabilised lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These are the current facts. Using 36 Mp camera the crop mode is about 15 Mp, not even as much as K-5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well if you want to count every pixel, yes, the K-5 has 1MP extra. But do you think it is critical enough to drop the FF advantages just to jump on the APS-C bandwagon?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A D7100 or K-3 will give you 24 Mp in the same crop area. You can try and spin that any way you want.. but that doesn't change it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I don't have to change it. It is still a weak argument, because, you see - if you really care about reach, why stop at APS-C? A 24MP cropped to MFT size gives you 14.6MP - why not just get an E-M5 and milk an extra 1.4 MP from that one (since you're so keen on counting 1 MP as a bonus).</p>

<p>The problem with your argument is that you're not following it earnestly to its conclusion. You can try to rationalize the existence of APS-C but the fact is that it was introduced as a cost-cutting budget format. Same as MFT, except MFT was built from the ground up rather than as a stepping stone on the way to FF, and it made a better IQ/size compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Strange that practically every test by every lab I have seen, of every APS-C model with a 24mp sensor, a higher degree of noise accompanied by a greater loss of detail by comparison to the K-5 or K-r has been the case.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Careful there Michael, or you're going to deliver another kick to Norman's argument about the benefit of these 24MP APS-C sensors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An EVF can be made to any size, since it is essentially a digital electronic screen. It is of course still a secondary representation, not a direct view of the actual subject through the lens as is the case with an OVF, as found on a DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An advantage in my opinion because what you are going to capture is what the sensor sees, not what you are seeing through an OVF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Much has been made of the APS-C MILC or ILC having a more compact design over a DSLR, although in reality not that much smaller than a compact DSLR model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are clearly not speaking from experience. Or maybe you are speaking from the experience of the K-01 - I keep forgetting about that Pentax foray into MILCs. Most people that moved from an APS-C DSLR to a MILC appreciate the size advantage. You cannot fit even just the K-01 body into a P&S bag like I can do with the E-PL2 and its 14mm lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That reduction in size necessitates loss of a full set of control features.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A full set? Sounds like you lost control of your hyperbole there.<br>

<br>

What control features are you missing on the E-M5 or E-M1? It's not like the K-5 fills its surface with buttons - it actually even wastes space with the top LCD screen. It's also not like every MILC has to be small. You seem indifferent to the ability of switching between a small combo and a larger one <strong>on the same system</strong>, but it is a significant advantage (in terms of both finance and convenience) to be able to invest in a single system where you can use cameras ranging in size from GM1 to GH3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Such a camera is simply a far more effective machine for making fast adjustments and readings than one with few on-body controls. Sorry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, but you're making a strawman argument here and you should be sorry for doing such things in what should be an honest conversation about technology. The E-M5 is not a camera with few on-body controls. And it allows functional customization of those controls in ways that put Pentax cameras to shame.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon and Canon are doing as they are doing because they recognize the fact of there being a significant market out there of new customers who are interested in the APS-C DSLR for the above reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That market dropped 18% just like the MILC one did. You probably missed that. It was very nice to contrast that drop with the earlier statements of continued DSLR growth.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Looking at the OM-D-E-M5 on DxO I don't see it measuring up to my K-5 in any category, performance wise. It would seem to be at the level just above my old K20D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The sensor itself appears to actually be more comparable to the K-x, which caused furors among Pentax users for the incredible improvement it represented over the K20D/K-7. And if you check the graphs, it is similar to K-x in all aspects except in DR where it exceeds it within ISO 400-1600 settings (camera settings not dxomark measured ones). Did you notice that twist I just mentioned: dxomark measures ISO in a different way than manufacturers do and so when they show an E-M5 result at ISO 800, it is what the camera produces when you would select ISO 1600. This is why users rave about the E-M5 performance being comparable to K-5, but the dxomark scores won't reflect it- you'll have to check <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/793%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/639%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/213%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax">the graphs</a> to see it. If you think that is unholy, the D800 does something similar - ISO 1100 in dxomark graphs corresponds to ISO 1600 selected in camera. So getting back to the comparison of E-M5 with Pentax cameras, the E-M5 would perform well above your old K20D at same camera settings. Is it as good as the K-5, does it come close to it? I don't know, but it is good enough that I don't have to ask such questions. And when I look at dpreview's ISO 6400 samples, I don't see anything to make me wish for a different sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I simply could never go back to a camera that has a dynamic range with a number in the 12s.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? I doubt you ever get to use those 14Ev of the K-5 except for correcting really bad exposures. And this is where an EVF and 12Ev can do the work just as well, because they make it harder to miss exposures.</p>

<p>In the end, this is the difference between arguments made for the sake of rationalizing an equipment choice and the reality of what one needs to be effective as a photographer or as a photographic company. We can count the extra Ev fractions that the K-5 provides over the D7000 and the amazing ergonomic controls without which one cannot dare to press the shutter for fear of utter failure, but at the end of the day more people will spend their money on an E-M5 with a smaller 12.3 Ev sensor than they will do on the gloriously spec-ed K-5. But when this fact is pointed out, most Pentax users are in denial and show themselves to be ignorant or indifferent to all advantages provided by the competition. Sadly, this is the state of the Pentax management as well - they don't understand why they are unsuccessful and in turn they cannot take the actions required to be successful, so they're just continuing on this death spiral they're in.</p>

 

<p>Laurentiu makes some interesting points. The E-M5 does indeed offer as many external controls as you need combined with class leading IBIS. I would also argue that the native m43 lens offerings are superior to those offered by Pentax (in 35mm equivalence: 24mm f2, 34mm f1.8, 40mm f1.7, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f1.8, 150mm f1.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 24-80mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8), all at lower price points than their nearest Pentax equivalents except the 50mm equiv. pana-leica.</p>

<p>The problem with mirrored APS-C is that it is stuck in the middle between the portability and lightness of m43 which has IQ close enough to the best APS-C sensors for it not to be an issue for 'real world' photography and the advantage of FF bodies with better control over DoF and better high ISO performance. In business terms being 'stuck in the middle' is not where you want to be. Until Pentax can offer a FF body and a better set of zooms both for FF and APS-C, it is destined to be a bit part player at best. Nikon and Canon users have clear upgrade paths from APS-C to FF. The new Sony twins represent a potential great leap forward, but need affordable decent quality lenses to make the system succesful isofar as they need to secure both enthusiast and professional users.</p>

<p>Some may argue that APS-C is a 'goldilocks' format and that may be true. However, it seems to me that mirrorless is the way forward for all sensor sizes. On sensor phase detect AF (like on the new Olympus OMD E-M1) just did away with the argument that m43 'cannot do action' and advances in display, processing and sensor technology must surely mean that the mirror will become increasingly pointless. The only thing now is to work on battery life - IMHO the weakest aspect of mirrorless systems. </p>

<p>The K-3 offers an interesting upgrade path for existing Pentax users and is a tempter for the new DSLR purchaser (but at too high a price point for the latter). I cannot see it attracting Canon or Nikon users into the system and as such, I see Pentax making little headway in the market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Until Pentax can offer a FF body and a better set of zooms both for FF and APS-C, it is destined to be a bit part player at best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. We got side-tracked on this APS-C vs DSLR discussion because I pointed out that Fuji has achieved as much in 2 years as Pentax did in a decade, to which I got a challenge that pulled us down this road:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am with ME in that comparing APS-C ILC systems and lens offerings with APS-C DSLR systems is like apples and bananas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But even if we leave MILCs aside, Pentax was still behind Olympus and Sony when they were all still making SLRs. Olympus looks as if they always started from scratch with some line (Pen, OM, FT, MFT) and still managed to grab a larger market share than Pentax, which was an older player in the industry. And it is disingenuous to claim that advertising and money spent on advertising would have changed things - especially since for the past 2-3 years I kept seeing Pentax advertised and reviewed in Popular Photography - it has the same coverage as any other brand. No, it is the lack of vision and understanding of market tendencies that made Pentax release products like the K-01 or like the Q. The Q was an interesting concept, but its sensor was behind the times - trailing in size that of high-end P&Ss that it was competing with. And the K-5 was/still is a great product, but there is not much you can do on top of that, as the K-5II and K-3 show. You can still do some innovations in SLR controls, but SLRs are essentially limited even when it comes to AF - there is only so much of the frame that you can cover with AF points. This is where MILCs provide more opportunities. What were the main innovations to have hit SLRs in the last decade? LiveView, video mode, and better sensors, none of which is enabled by a mirror or a rangefinder. Leica may have survived SLRs but their products may also become just high end MILCs at the end of the day. An innovative company can make more difference today by working on MILC products than they'll ever make by developing SLRs.</p>

<p>You are still on that road- MILC's vs DSLRs, as you were which prompted ME's response. I have found their controls to be cramped, and inadequate for my needs especially in view of the cramped ergonomics to operate them. Long ago, I purched the ME Super new, and shot with that for many years. Then the Super Program. These were exceptionally compact bodies having relatively few basic controls, which allowed good ergonomics despite their compact design. Much later, I acquired the Pentax PZ-1p, a large camera with many controls which were very well laid out. The PZ-1p was a very full-featured design, and its operational speed and functional efficiency were outstanding.</p>

<p>A couple of years ago I purchased a K-r for its compactness, which has far better operational ergonomics that the mirrorless models I have examined because it is just larger enough for a more functional design. And it takes any of my lenses, large or small. It is a sidekick to my main system when I need a smaller, lighter setup without having to go to a whole other system just for that purpose. I can even fit it into a larger jacket pocket with a small lens on it. All this fits my need also while having a real VF instead of an electronic representation. I still balk a bit, however, that it has no top LCD, which forces me to keep tilting the camera down to observe settings, an annoyance I find. And its controls are also lacking compared to the K-5, which I miss but forgive in view of the price and the fact it fulfills its subsidiary role.</p>

<p>The K-50 seems to have an attraction in the lower price range market wth its compact but tough build, WR and cold resistance, and two-dial control design with the fast-operating Pentax Hyper system. Popular Photography had high praise for the concept.</p>

<p>I used to use an ME super and still have a Program A. I have seriously considered all Pentax DSLRs since the K10, but always came down to two issues: the flash system and lenses - areas in which Nikon have a superior offering.</p>

<p>Luckily I have small hands, so the controls on the E-M5 work well for me. On the weight front, it's lens lightness that's key: e.g. 220g for the all plastic 40-150mm; 115g for the utterly stunning 45mm f1.8; 130g for the almost as good 12mm f2; 155g for the excellent 9-18mm f4-5.6 and so on. With a bad back and knee, I need all the weight reduction I can get while still keeping the flexibility and quality of an ILC.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are still on that road- MILC's vs DSLRs, as you were which prompted ME's response.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pentax has been making DSLRs for a decade and they still have holes in their lens lineup. How is pointing that out a DSLR vs MILC issue?<br>

<br>

MEs answer was:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you seriously comparing lens development quantities between a tiny manufacturer of a relatively mature APS-C platform product (Pentax) with what has been happening with multiple large competitors in a newer product market?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure I'll be comparing the holes in that "mature" APS-C platform product with what is happening with new systems in their first years. Where is the "maturity" of that platform supposed to come from? Being around for a long time doesn't necessarily make one mature, it just makes them old. This is not a MILC vs DSLR issue. I would compare with new DSLR systems if anyone would bother starting one, but no one does. Actually, I can compare with a DSLR system introduced in the past: Olympus FT, started from scratch, still gained more share than Pentax despite the famous advantage of having an existing user base for their K mount system. How did Olympus achieve that? By releasing a solid set of lenses - same thing that they and Fuji do now.</p>

<p>There is no MILC aspect in this argument. Yes, Fuji makes MILCs, but they could have just as well made DSLRs - do you think that their lens development would have been slower in that case?</p>

<p>And to this argument, you brought your insight:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am with ME in that comparing APS-C ILC systems and lens offerings with APS-C DSLR systems is like apples and bananas. It boils down to a very old discussion. Pentax throughout most of its long history has never had anything like a large market share. That requires lots of advertising, like in every monthly issue of major publications. Advertising both creates new markets and perpetuates markets.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The idea being that with advertising you can sell anything, no matter the qualities, right?</p>

<p>Well, Fuji has sold their X100 mainly through word of mouth - and it got purchased by many Canon and Nikon users. And this happened at a time when Pentax cameras were also prominently featured in ads and reviews in PopPhoto - so much for that lack of advertising (another piece of Pentax mythos). It's not like Pentax isn't advertised, but you cannot expect advertising to do all the work. How many people that buy cameras even care about what major publications say? They go online and ask around. Canon and Nikon users will know to recommend a Fuji camera now for certain requirements, but they still don't have any idea why anyone would buy Pentax. Do you think advertising will change that?</p>

 

<p>Ough... Hard to follow some of the exhaustive postings and arguments in this thread. I'd liked to have thrown in a word here <br />or there, but I just don't have the time. Meanwhile Pentax's latest and <em>greatest</em> (..?) is showing up in stores, at the launch price. No discounting yet. But that'll only be a matter of time... Weeks, maybe..? The EOS 70D has already come off its <em>High Horse</em>.<br>

If it wasn't for the continued lack of certain (long focal) lenses, teleconverters and macro adapters, I would most likely <br />go Pentax all the way. <em>Mr. Ricoh</em> however seems to prefer color over <em>substance.</em></p>