Jump to content

Why the K-5 II,& IIs are actually the best new models Pentax could offer-


michael_kuhne

Recommended Posts

<p>The K-5 is still in the state-of-the-art category for an APS-C DSLR at this time. That was clearly the statement made by Pentax in their new models. It was simply a matter of some tweeks. Likewise, although some new Nikon models have recently emerged, their D7000 is still in production.</p>

<p>For those expecting a 24 mp sensor in a new Pentax model as an "upgrade", it is evidently all about performance and image quality that governed Pentax' decision. Check out how well the 24 mp sensor does in the dpreview report of the Nikon D3200 regarding the noise control vs image quality section. You can select the K-5 to compare instead of the Canon, for instance, and also turn the NR settings to "on". or "auto" or "standard" depending on the model. The Pentax K-5 and K-r were obvious winners. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You're quite correct in your assessment, Michael... Because Pentax <strong>lacks</strong> in newer fixed long focals (or zooms, at that), I continue to work with several systems. If it wasn't for the choice of lenses I would <em>dump</em> Canon with their 18 mp CMOS alltogether. Pentax (and Samsung..?) did a great job in refining the (physically) slightly larger 16 mp sensor. In my humble experience the latter gives me a cleaner, more pleasing result than does the first quoted, which sometimes even produces hard to treat <em>streaky snow flakes</em>. That said, because of the missing glass in the Pentax line-up, I don't see much of an (affordable) alternative.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Personally I think many of us were concerned about the adoption of the 24mp sensor and felt that it might be foisted on us by either misguided Pentax marketing or Sony pushing it over their older 16mp design -- and based on what we've seen from NEX-7, a77, and Nikon D3200 our concerns were somewhat justified. The 24mp sensor isn't a disaster but isn't a pure win either and increases the burden on the in-camera processing.</p>

<p>Agree that K-5 II is a 'good' thing, assuming the improvements turn out to be real. Better in some respects than where the APS-C Nikon (D7000) or Canon (7D) customer is, they will soldier on with the rough equivalent of the ur-K-5 while Pentax has moved past this with a refreshed, more polished product. While Canon and Nikon can leave this still-competitive models alone for now (having obviously invested in their new D600 and 6D, respectively), Pentax has a bit less leeway, can't afford to appear to be sitting still.</p>

<p>I do think that Pentax should probably also come up with a K-01 follow up that might offer a little broader appeal -- something with less-polarizing design & more polished handling, and strongly consider WR or EVF capability. This doesn't necessarily need to be a humongous investment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pentax has already admitted these models were designed from the time of Hoya, before Ricoh took over. It looks like Ricoh left all existing designs go to market while they are restructuring the company. Rationalizing them as being the best models they could come up with is amusing in this light.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Considering that the K-5 has reached the pinnacle of what technology can now afford us, why should this be a rationalization by Ricoh, Laurentiu? Other than introducing a full-frame model, their decision seems quite logical. What else should they have done? I think it is a tribute to Ricoh and Pentax's honesty and integrity in the service of photography. </p>

<p>It seems likely that we've finally reached the point where technology has pushed on up the MP ladder to the maximum without some downside aspects imposing problems. We might have to get used to models lasting a while instead of a new replacement being produced every year. Might be quite a while. Maybe until there are breakthroughs in sensor technology, camera write speed, storage, etc. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Michael, if what you're saying is correct, then maybe Pentax can once and for all figure out how to give their cameras 21<sup>st</sup> century AF. They keep saying "improved AF" with every new model release, but they're still far behind most other brands, some of which use contrast-detect AF.</p>

<p>Other than that, I agree that it was a great move not to "upgrade" to the 24MP sensor. Then again, those who shoot at low ISO and want higher resolution are going to be unhappy. Just one more reason why we should have interchangeable sensors, no? :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Considering that the K-5 has reached the pinnacle of what technology can now afford us, why should this be a rationalization by Ricoh, Laurentiu?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(btw, I never said this was a rationalization *by Ricoh* - it is a rationalization by those that find the announcements appealing - I find them appalling)<br /> Because if the K-5 had truly reached a pinnacle of technology, it wouldn't have been discontinued and replaced with a product that Ricoh didn't have any input in. Perhaps you meant that the new cameras are the pinnacle and Ricoh couldn't think of anything else to add to them, but that sounds unlikely given that the products announced recently are weird rather than needed and Ricoh even pointed out that they, <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/199507-pentax-ricohs-reply-your-comments-our-interview.html">unlike Pentax</a>, listen to their customers:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>A side note: Ricoh, unlike Pentax, finds individual customer feedback to be integral to its product development decisions. We will be listening to your suggestions and they will not go ignored!</strong></p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The K-5 and even the new K-5 II models, are still missing many features common in other camera systems. Just off the top of my head: non-crippled mount, focus peaking, EVF, more than 11-point AF, useful predictive AF tracking, dual card slots, custom user menu, assignable function buttons. There is a lot of room for improvement. This is just typical marketing speak. We should be smarter consumers that to buy such guff.</p>

<p>I am most glad to see the AA gone. but I have no idea how the $100 premium for this feature somehow became 200 Euro.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Just off the top of my head: non-crippled mount, focus peaking, EVF, more than 11-point AF, useful predictive AF tracking, dual card slots, custom user menu, assignable function buttons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to those that shoot video, it also misses the improvements made in the K-30.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh, Nikon over the years has done the same as Pentax is now doing- a replacement model which is a tweeked version of the original. Generally having the same model name but with a suffix added, such as "n" or "s". No one found this appalling or even expressed disappointment. Also, it is quite common for a Nikon model to run for more than 2 years, without Nikon users having fits about not having a new replacement model every year. </p>

<p>Only forthcomng tests will reveal how meaningful the claimed improvements actually are in the new versions of the K-5. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Yes the Nikon 3200 doesn't have double the resolution of say a 12mp camera. The Nikon 3200 has double the resolution of a 6mp camera. So the resolution increase isn't anything to rave about. I have the KX and am waiting on a 48mp camera to double the resolution. I do want the K5 II with some limited lenses. It does look good.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
<p>Andrew,<br /><br />"I do think that Pentax should probably also come up with a K-01 follow up that might offer a little broader appeal --"<br /><br />I couldnt agree more.<br /><br />just boxed up and am returning a K-01. great idea going for the 4/3rds sensor but the miserably slow auto focus and the fact that if this camera doesnt like the light in a given setting it will not even allow the camera to shoot.<br /><br />when it did shoot it took some incredible photographs. I loved the rear LCD and the feel of the camera. to me, 500 bucks for that camera was 250 too much.<br /><br />I would love to see it redesigned based on the K1000 body but make it just a little smaller without the mirror box and it will sell like hotcakes..<br /><br />for now I am going to keep plugging along with my K100D. might pick up a X5 to check out but I think I have a K5 in my sights beginning of the new year if they dont take my advice...lol</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Christopher, if you want a digital K1000, the closest thing I've found is the Olympus E-M5. You can <a href="http://www.mu-43.com/f102/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review-31938/">read my review here</a>. AF is contrast-detect, but is faster then Pentax's phase-detect AF. It's not a DSLR, though, so I probably wouldn't use it for certain things where I'd prefer a bulkier DSLR body. What type of photography do you do?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...