Discussions (237)

Pentax K-7 vs. the K-5

view profile

nova guy says:

I know the K-5 is supposed to the better overall performance with respect to noise at high ISO and maybe its just me but... does anybody else think the K-7's photos overall look better than the K-5's do?
7:18AM, 20 June 2011 PST (permalink)

view photostream

imadoofus123 says:

It's probably just different processing. The k5 has much better dynamic range so with default processing it might tend to be a bit less contrasty.
79 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

frankd's photos says:

they both produce great images in good lighting.

The samsung sensor was really good when it came to image quality but this new k5 sensor really is amazing.

In the end its all aobut the photographer.
79 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

John Duval says:

As with any camera, as long as you are working within its limits, the photos can be hard to distinguish. Visiting the K5 group, I was blown away by what some people were doing with the K5. There are definitely people who know how to exploit any advantage!

But what percentage of photos fall outside the K7 but inside the K5? For me, under the conditions I shoot, not nearly enough to justify the difference in cost.

Maybe the next generation will have buttery smooth images at ISO 1,000,000 and 20 stops of range. Then I will upgrade!
79 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

PentaxPastor says:

I love my K-7 but without a doubt the K-5 has better resolution, dynamic range and control of ISO noise. However, that certainly doesn't mean the K-7 isn't a great camera.

I mostly agree with John's comments. The K-7 is more than camera enough for most of us who are using it. That doesn't mean the K-5 isn't superior, just that the K-7 is still capable of taking great pictures.
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Wes-cpg says:

Beyond ISO 800 the K-5 has MUCH better image quality. At ISO 800 and below you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference unless the scene required the high DR of the K-5 sensor.

My K-7 creates VERY nice RAW files at ISO 200 with little or no NR in post. A delight to work with these files after a strobist meetup. Lots of detail.
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Heath Herring says:

Is the K-5's imporoved dynamic range is due to an improvement in the sensor or is it just based on shadow and highlight manipulation?
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Jim Purcell says:

I can say that I often shoot with two bodies. I bought two K20Ds, I bought two K-7s. But when the K-5 came around I only bought one. So I sometimes shoot the two side-by-side. I don't notice a big difference between the two, but there are times, when I pull the cameras out, I only pull one out, because of the conditions. I would say it happens 5-10% of the time. 1600 ISO and below, the K-7 works very well!
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

La.Main.Noire says:

Salut tout le monde... Les avis de chacun sont très intéressants. J'ai possédé le k7 peu de temps. De jour et en condition de bonne luminosité, le k7 produit de bons résultats. En faible lumière 1600, 2000 iso reste la limite exploitable. Le k5, selon la presse, a fait d'énormes progrès par rapport au k7 passé 1600 iso . Malgré tout, k7 et k5 possèdent tous deux des capteurs APSC. Par rapport à un capteur 24x36 (plein format), passés les 1600 iso, un capteur APSC baissera en qualité d'image...c'est logique! Donc, que ce soit le k7 ou k5, il est préférable de shooter à de faibles iso (80/800 max) si l'on veut conserver une qualité d'impression exploitable!
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

nova guy says:

One added bonus is that it's now the only completely weather-sealed DSLR selling below $1,000 in the US.
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

nova guy says:

I think at the heart of the issue is the fact that, while I agree the IQ is a little better on the K-5, the amount of color saturation applied in the Pentaxes with the Sony sensors is a little over the top. This of course can be changed... but you can most certainly tell the difference between the K-7 and K-5 in terms of color performance. I think the K-7 manages to produce punchy and vibrant colors without leading to oversaturation and overall looks little better at lower ISOs as a result (in my opinion anyway).

Of course, the K-7 cannot tangle with the K-5 in terms of high ISO performance. But I think what I'm going to do for now is just get a cheap used K-7 body and invest in some really good glass.
78 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Steve_Strassburg says:

I was looking at both, then I talked to a photographer friend of mine and he ask if the K5 was full frame and I said no. He said save your money and buy the K7.
74 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

mark woolcott says:

Steve_Strassburg: Sounds like your friend doesn't rate APS-C at all. The thing is, there are plenty of professionals out there using APS-C based cameras because the IQ is nearly as good and the lenses/bodies tend to be smaller and lighter (which is a bonus if you are carrying 2 bodies).

FF ownership is for those with plenty of spare cash. To get the best from the sensor, you need very expensive (and verg big) FF lenses. Compare the cost of a Pentax k5 with the 50-135mm lens to a Canon 5DmkII with the 70-200mm L series lens. Based on image quality alone, it would be hard to justify the huge difference in cost.

As for the K7 vs the K5, the biggest improvement is in the sensor. If you don't think you will need to go over ISO1600 and aren't swayed by the 14EV dynamic range then use the savings to get a better lens. You will probably end up keeping your lenses for years and so it makes sense to spend as much as possible on getting the best quality glass.
Originally posted 74 months ago. (permalink)
mark woolcott edited this topic 74 months ago.

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).