Somebody talk me out of swapping my D90 for a Pentax K-5

[elliot1]

<p>Being curious, I took a look at the K5's performance Vs. the D90 Vs. the D7000 on the DXO Mark site. The K5 has superior dynamic range of 14.1 EV to that of the D90 and D7000 (in fact higher than all Nikon bodies included the D3X). It has basically the same 'stats' and Nikon's brand new D7000.</p>

<p>I am fully satisfied with my Nikon gear but there sure doesn't seem to be anything terribly wrong with the Pentax line either.</p>

[jgredline]

<p><strong>Elliot</strong>,I have been saying for years that ''all'' companies will have problems. The issue is how the company handles the problem. If you spend some time in the Pentax forum, you will see how happy people are with image quality as I am, but how extremely disappointed we who have Pentax gear are with Customer service and warranty issues. As far as that Address, that ''was'' when Pentax repaired things in house. Now that dept is closed and all repairs go to Pep Boys. </p>

<p><strong>Andrew</strong>, I am extremely happy with my three Pentax zooms and I can shoot them wide open @F/2.8 with out a doubt. Worth every bit of the left arm and part of my leg I had to give up to pay for them. As far as the 28F/2.8 i have goes, yes, I know it is an old lens, but then some of the Pentax primes and after market primes I have are even older and tak sharp wide open. I think what Pentax did was optimize them for use wide open, because after you stop them down past F/8 they are not so good. Check that, F/11. As far as my 35f/1.8, that lens is really decent wide open and af F/2.0 is really sharp. I was really pleasantly surprised by it. As far as the Nikon 24F/1.4 goes, I just can't see paying 2K for a 24F/2.0 (Which is what the 24f/1.4 really is), I can't do it when I paid $600.00 for my Pentax FA*24F/2.0 that I use wide open. This is not a knock on Nikon, just stating what I have found to be true in my case. Having said this, Pentax zooms do not come close to the Nikon zooms. But boy, do I love primes. </p>

[marius_mirea]

<p>AS someone who switched from Pentax to Nikon, I can tell you my main reasons:<br>

- AF performance (I had a K7, now the K5 seems improved but I believe it's still below D90, not even comparing with D7000)<br>

- flash capabilities - Nikon highly superior to Pentax<br>

- availability, service, warranty<br>

- better price/quality ratio<br>

What I liked in Pentax:<br>

- higher grade body, slightly better controls (I had a K7 which has the same body as K5)<br>

- the feel of the limited primes, truly work of art <br>

What I particularly disliked in Pentax<br>

- SDM issue (google it and you'll see or better go to pentaxforums.com) and the handling of it by Pentax<br>

- weak warranty (1 year) and long service times<br>

Currently I am very satisfied with my Nikon setup (D7000/35 f1.8/18-200/70-300/SB600)</p>

 

[bkpix]

<p>Interesting discussion. I'm a Pentax shooter who moved from Canon for the better-built, weather sealed gear and the ease of use of Pentax.<br>

Some remarks here I don't quite grasp. For example:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The price premium on Pentax lenses is horrendous. You'd think with in body vibration reduction they'd be cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Current B&H new prices on a couple basic useful zooms:</p>

<ul>

<li>Pentax 12-24/4 $699.95</li>

<li>Nikon 12-24/4 $899.95</li>

<li>Pentax 16-50/2.8: $1029.95</li>

<li>Nikon 17-55/2.8 $1359.95</li>

</ul>

<p>And, yes, you get stabilization with the Pentax, none with the Nikon.<br>

I have had one repair issue with a body (K-7), which was a faulty sensor that gave faint jaggies in the image; it was handled quickly (10 days including shipping both ways) by CRIS under warranty.<br>

In general, the issues that I think separate Pentax and Nikon are these: Nikon has a much larger current lens line-up. Pentax is smaller and easier to carry. Nikon has better flash and auto focus. Pentax is more intuitive to use. Image quality, at this point, between the D7000 and K-5 seems to be a wash.<br>

Weather sealing in Pentax is excellent. I have literally washed mud off my cameras and lenses under the kitchen tap. I can't speak to Nikon sealing.<br>

The tiny, excellent Pentax Limited primes have no equivalent at all from Nikon or Canon.<br>

Nikon has full-frame capability. Pentax's idea of full frame is the new 40-something mp 645D.<br>

Basically both systems are great.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Current B&H new prices on a couple basic useful zooms:</p>

<ul>

<li>Pentax 12-24/4 $699.95</li>

<li>Nikon 12-24/4 $899.95</li>

<li>Pentax 16-50/2.8: $1029.95</li>

<li>Nikon 17-55/2.8 $1359.95</li>

</ul>

 

</blockquote>

<p>okay, but you fail to mention that both those Pentax zooms you list are available in Nikon mount as Tokina-branded for several hundred dollars cheaper. the Pentax 16-50 does have SDM, but AFAIK, there's little difference between the Pentax and Tokina 12-24s.</p>

<p>also, if anyone is lusting over the Pentax primes, the Tokina-branded 35/2.8 macro is $279 compared to $539 for the Pentax version.</p>

<ul>

</ul>

[james_donahue]

<p>It is the Picture that counts.. Will the Pentax give you a better image? Or does the Nut behind the viewfinder of your D90 need adjusting.</p>

[bkpix]

<p>Eric:<br>

While the Pentax and Tokina 16-50 lenses may have the same optical formula, there are substantial differences; the most important to me is weather sealing in the Pentax, which the Tokina lacks. (I live in the Northwest.)<br>

I'm not interested in a brand war, but do want to put out accurate information.<br>

Bob</p>

[julio_marcos]

<p>Although I switched from Pentax to Nikon (which is funny since I started with Nikon film cameras), the new K5 looks nice, so if the original poster wants to go for it, why not? Just make sure the lenses needed are there.<br>

<br /> Are things wonderful in the other side? Well, a lot has been said of the great pancakes, and yes they are small and very nicely made, but after enduring (for example) a Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2, at the end of the day you pay a high price for a slow lens that has quite a bit of distortion (considering that I was using it for a field of view close to the equivalent 35mm and not a wide angle). I would accept that for a fast lens, but really, a normal-wide? In contrast, I use the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 on a full frame body (I know, it vignettes a bit) yet it is amazingly sharp wide open, has a lot of pop, and even though it also does distort more than it should, for the super-low price I'm OK with having Lightroom 3 correct it automatically. And it autofocuses beautifully in continuous mode (AF-C)!<br>

<br /> My favorite Pentax primes were the old FA limiteds, the 43mm (lot of comma wide open at mid-long distances, but exceptional otherwise) and the 77mm which I kept (beautiful rendering, although it made the CCD sensor bloom a lot). So you are not getting Leica M or R lenses for cheap, but it should satisfy in many areas.<br>

<br /> My main problem with Pentax is that they dropped the optical assembly they had in Japan. Haven't kept-up to see if they changed course, but that made me lose a lot of confidence in the company; the premium products should be kept 'at home' where the expertise has been developed for years and the manufacturing is close to the heart of the design team.</p>

[marius_mirea]

<p>this is likely the best you can get from the Pentax stable, but it will set you back at least 2000 USD. I had them and sold them because, even they are outstanding lenses by all means, they just did not justify the cost against the equally outstanding (IQ wise) alternative in Nikon mount: 35mm f1.8+85mm f1.8. The feel and looks are truly exquisite but I've passed that stage. In an ideal world, I'd have them mounted on a K5 as a dual system ;)<br>

<img src="http://kytra.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v15/p24620015-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Javier - thanks, it's interesting to get the perspective of a Pentax shooter; without having first-hand experience of the system, it's nice to see how the other half live. :-) I'll bear the system in mind, especially if I see a cheap Pentax film body floating past, but since I promised my other half that I wouldn't switch again when I went from Canon to Nikon, I don't think I'll be jumping ship soon! (Now, to start building my 5x4 collection...)</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>For me ergonomics is just about the most important thing when I'm using a camera for hours on end without a break. For me the D90 was a dream, but the D300 is much better. OTOH, I would never go to a D7000 because of the way it fits in my hand. If I were you I'd go into a shop that carries Nikon and Pentax, (if you still have one in your area) and handle the D90 and K5...then handle the D7000. </p>

<p>Just my 2 cents, maybe it'll save you from jumping the Nikon ship while still satisfying your craving for something new.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[DickArnold]

As a longtime Canon user I would say stick with your Nikon. I say that because when I had my business, being interested in the bottom line, I had two tests. One; only buy or change equipment when absolutely essential to service the customer; or, two, if equipment as a matter of increased efficiency could pay for itself in a reasonable period of time (lightroom is a great example). I don't know which is better, Canon, Nikon, or Pentax and don't really care as what I have currently does the job I expect it to do.. Another test is will all those bells and whistles make your pictures any better. I have had Canon for 22 years because I don't think a change of brand would have improved my ability to make money or make better pictures. I have upgraded equipment within the Canon line but for me it was a lot less costly to stay with Canon. I have had the same L lenses for as long as twelve years. They still work fine on at least the eighth or tenth body. All those factors are dependent upon me as a photographer not on my equipment as long as it is adequate to the task. The last test is will what I am going to buy make me any happier. No, only I can do that.

[jgredline]

<p>Andrew, <em><strong>''CORRECTION''</strong></em>. I said happy with my Pentax zooms, when I meant Nikon zooms. <br>

Having said that, I got lucky. When I bought almost all of my Pentax gear it was before the massive price hike came. As a result, when I sold most of my Pentax gear, I actually made money on it and so when it came time to buy some of my Nikon gear, I did not feel it financially. The biggest difference is that in totality, I have 30% of what I used to have. I no longer have 80+ lenses of which most never got used. When I bought into Nikon, I knew exactly what I wanted as far as focal lengths went. The only research I did was on what the best items are. I knew that the three nikon zooms, the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200 F/2.8VR lenses where a must. I also knew what Pentax primes to keep for my Pentax system. In a few months when all the bugs are out of the K-5 and the price drops below $1000.00, I will buy one. I have plenty of stuff to sell to make the purchase easy and again should be a wash. Bob Keefer is right though. As a totality, Nikon lenses are far more expensive than Pentax lenses. The divide is not as big today as it was 2 years ago before the massive Pentax price hike though. </p>

 

[bj_larsson]

<p>Like other have said, the grass is always greener.</p>

<p>If you want it, and can afford it, make the switch. Vote with your dollar (or pound / euro / yen ;) ). But I wouldn't expect to see huge differences in the quality of the photos. If you're not getting good results with the D90 / 35 1.8 / 85 1.8, I'd be surprised if the switch of brand would lead to it. And if you _are_ getting great results ... well, then you'll probably make nice photos with whatever gear you happen to be using.</p>

[bob_h]

<p>Look at it this way, you can shoot both systems for whatever reason that you like. There many Pentax lenses that I really like, the 77 Limited, the old 85 2.2 soft focus lens, the MF 70-210A zoom are some that I will hang on to. In Nikon, I loved the D5000, gave it to my son, and shoot a D300s, with a 28-70 2.8D and find this combo to be mostly bulletproof for what I do. There are pluses and minuses with every brand . Selling everything in one brand system to buy into a new system is not a financially logical way to go. Wait for the K5 to drop in price. They all do. Keep your D90, then enjoy using them both.</p>

[dmarks]

<p>Hey Martyn,if you switch,I'll buy your 85mm lens.Maybe your 35 also.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Why not keep both and decide which one you like better after a few months? I love Pentax cameras, they are equal to Nikon optically, some say even better. The K1000 is a legendary camera, still highly sought after and holding its own in the used market. The Beatles were given Pentax cameras when they arrived in the USA in 1964, they were the premium black bodies.</p>

[silverfox]

<p>Like a couple of people have mentioned, I may wait till the price drops on the K-5 and keep my Nikon also. You can buy the K-5 with 18-55mm and a 50-200mm both weather sealed for a fraction more than a body only. I know these lenses are basic but its a good range to play with at first.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>As far as i am aware, there are K-5 reports about external flash issues and greasy sensors (similar to canon 1d3) for the first production units, it may be wise to wait for things to settle.<br />secondly, the D90 is not an alternative to the K-5, the D7000 kinda is, and the upcoming D400 shurely will top it off.<br />The K5 might be a nice camera, but for the same money you could get a D700 used off the bay, and the nikon primes would make much more sense.<br />Also, the K5 has no upgrade path and the lens selection in the pentax lineup is downright poor, i would rather go sony for their incredible lenses.<br />The camera is weather sealed but there are the lenses? (none of the praised limiteds are except the 55*?), so this takes care of the weather sealing, and the lenses are generally slow, with max apertures from 1.8 to f4 for the primes and with only 2! 2.8 zooms.<br />Also, pentax lacks real wideangle (no 2,8 wideangle) and telephoto support and they allmost completely lack 1.4 fast and high quality optics.<br />Remember, you're not just buying a camera body, you have to buy some lenses and flashes to go with it.<br />The most notable aspect of the K5 is its image quality but at the end of the day it's still pentax AF and quality controll (two of the reasons for pentax's small market share) and that sony sensor can be found also in the D7000 and the A55.<br />Finally, looking at the recent DPR reviews (especially the D7000 review) i don't think i would use their arguments to make a purchase decision.<br />If i were you i would just save the cash and go on a really exciting photo trip, or spend it on a really great piece of optics (14-24, 70-200 vr, 105 micro VR, 85 1.4 AFs). A camera body will be obsolete in a short while, and all that will remain to thrill you will be the lenses that you own.</p>

<p>Merry Christmas !</p>

[adrian_nyaoi]

<p>If you post this in the Pentex Forum you may get the other side of the argument.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

 

<p>@nicolaie If you want fast lenses, Pentax isn't the system for you. But they do have a nice selection of primes, and all the lenses will be stabilized. 21/3.2? That's only a third of a stop slower than what you'd get from Nikon. On some level I can understand the desire for super fast primes. My slowest lens is a 28/2.8 Ai-S. But, the K-5 also has far superior high ISO performance and image stabilization compared to my D200. But… my ƒ/1.4 lenses are made by companies that offer the same lenses in Pentax mount. Likewise, you can still find a decent selection of third party ƒ/2.8 zooms for Pentax bodies.</p>

<p>OTOH, the upgrade path for the K-5 would be my big concern. No full-frame bodies are in the works, and who knows if Pentax will be around in the long-term.</p>

<p>In the end, it should come down to: what do you expect to fix/gain/solve by switching to Pentax?</p>

 

[michaelphelan]

<p>I'm a long-term Pentax user planning on moving to Nikon because I continue to be disappointed by Pentax product inconsistency. In my case, I tether my Pentax K20D to a laptop when shooting portraits. It works great. However, the newer Pentax DSLRs do not support the Pentax Remote Assistant software that makes tethering possible. When the K7 was introduced at a demo held in San Francisco, I asked a Pentax representative if the camera supported tethering. I was told that it would be available in a future firmware upgrade. It never was. Pentax customer support has told me there are no plans to add tethering to the K5. The remote software is only supported by cameras that are no longer in production.<br>

At Photokina 2008, Pentax announced a 1.4X rear converter. It is still not available. In the 1980's, Pentax introduced the LX pro camera, by many accounts one of the best 35mm cameras ever made. Pentax not only never marketed it, they never upgraded it to autofocus or Program during the 22 years it was in production. Yet, their lens lineup included some wonderful, long A lenses with a Program function that was only available on the cheaper cameras that didn't have mirror lock up.<br>

Pentax touts their weather-sealed bodies, which really are remarkable. However, Pentax no longer makes the long lenses typically used by many outdoor photographers, for wildlife and sports.<br>

As some of you have pointed out, all camera systems have their shortcomings. But, Pentax seems to have an additional disadvantage with their misdirected and disorganized product strategy.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>I would like to say something to those using the "lack of upgrade path" argument: I don't understand what the problem is. You see, the K-5 <em>is</em> the upgrade. Full Frame isn't an upgrade path, it's a different system—if you want to shoot FF, then buy a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D. I don't understand why someone wanting to shoot FF would start off purchasing an APS-C camera.</p>

<p>Pentax are committed to top-notch APS-C products, both cameras and lenses, and have made that position clear for years. If you appreciate the benefits of APS-C, then consider Pentax; if you simply must shoot FF, then you can rule out Pentax straight away. Please let's leave behind this "upgrade path" nonsense—consider your needs <em>now</em>, revise the specs of the body and see whether the lenses <em>you</em> need are offered, then make a decision.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>[sigh]<br>

Any swap, once you've started to accumulate lenses, is going to cost you.<br>

If you've only got a couple of easily marketable lenses, the cost problem is ameliorated a little.<br>

Aesthetics and features are both important. Nikons and Canons don't have body shake control, but the lenses made with the feature (at least on the entry level) throw it in for free anyhow. I will say that it's very hard to find a "red" body Nikon, but then that's true of the K5 too. :)</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3835437">Miserere Mei</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 02, 2011; 08:05 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to say something to those using the "lack of upgrade path" argument: I don't understand what the problem is. You see, the K-5 <em>is</em> the upgrade. Full Frame isn't an upgrade path, it's a different system—if you want to shoot FF, then buy a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D. I don't understand why someone wanting to shoot FF would start off purchasing an APS-C camera.<br>

Pentax are committed to top-notch APS-C products, both cameras and lenses, and have made that position clear for years. If you appreciate the benefits of APS-C, then consider Pentax; if you simply must shoot FF, then you can rule out Pentax straight away. Please let's leave behind this "upgrade path" nonsense—consider your needs <em>now</em>, revise the specs of the body and see whether the lenses <em>you</em> need are offered, then make a decision.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a good point. What is the upgrade path for Nikon FF?</p>