What are quirks and strengths of the K5ii?

Started 8 months ago | Questions thread
audiobomber
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,440Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks Dan
In reply to SirSeth, 8 months ago

SirSeth wrote:

I am making the calculations for field of view crop when I'm shopping. It's worth mentioning because I didn't state that I realize the difference. The 50-200mm on 4/3rds is pretty similar to the 60-250mm on Pentax so I think we could get along there.

You're adjusting for equivalent focal length, but you aren't adjusting for aperture. I have a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 lens for my Q. Results are not what I get with my APS-C cameras, because ISO gets ugly fast. You need to adjust aperture for crop factor, just as you do with focal length.

The pluses for the Zuiko is that it's longer (400 vs. 375),

I disagree. A lens does not change focal length when you mount it in front of a smaller sensor. The 50-200 is the shorter lens. You're just cropping it harder. If you mount a 50-200 on a K-3 and crop to 16mp, FOV will be 400mm and you lose nothing compared to an OMD EM1. The 60-250 would have longer reach if cropped to the same resolution.

faster at f2.8-3.5 vs. f4,

Not in real life use. Comparing SNR 18% scores on DXOMark reveals the following:

  • K-5 IIs SNR score; ISO 1208
  • E-5 SNR score; ISO 519
  • OM-D EM-1 SNR score; ISO 757

This means you can go up in ISO more than a stop on the K-5 vs the E-5, and almost 2/3 of a stop compared to the EM-1. You can use a higher ISO on the K-5 and get the same amount of noise, allowing a higher shutter speed. This more than nullifies the aperture advantage of the 50-200.

has really good closeup ability,

Yes, not a strength of the 60-250. That was a main reason I went with the DA*300 f4.

and it's brilliantly cheap on the used market (at about $600 for the SWD and $450 for the non-SWD), and the 1.4x is also ~$300-450 rather than $600 for the Pentax 1.4x which seems a little insane imo. So therein lies the problem. I can't sell it and afford the Pentax despite it's advantages. If good used 60-250mm lenses were sitting around on Ebay for $500-600 that would be a different story.

True, the cost differential is significant. Maybe a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would do you. Pentax also shows a 70-200 in the roadmap. I went with the DA*300 for the extra reach, close-up ability and slightly better IQ. The Pentax 1.4x is priced like premium TC's from Canon and Nikon. IMO it is good enough to carry that price, but the cost did give me pause.

The 11-22mm is a brilliant lens. Sharp corner to corner, completely sealed, and fast for a wide. (f2.8-3.5). Also really cheap on the used market. I love it and may keep it despite the move. So you see the depressing part about moving is that I'd have really great lenses and no updated DSLR body to put them on. I could sell them, but would still need about $2500+ cash after the sale to buy Pentax lenses that are their equal. Nikon and Canon are no better.

The 11-22 is not as fast as you think but switching systems would be a pinch, no doubt.

-- hide signature --

Dan

 audiobomber's gear list:audiobomber's gear list
Pentax K-3 Sony a6000 Pentax K20D Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow