vroger1: Still has that Teensy sensor?? What's the point? My results with the EOS M (yes reallythe EOS M with an Optical v/f) are so remarkable at APS-C size, that I refuse to go small. Even my Lumix m4/3 can't cut Black and White as well.
Agree that the EOS-M does not have anything special that marks it off from other mirrorless systems. On the other hand I'm thankfull Canon did not lower itself to some tiny sensor with associated IQ ...
As with any superzoom so far I expect compromises in IQ and it for sure is no lens for me. But I can think of a compact DSLR with a superzoom as alternative to superzoom bridge cameras.
The Canon 100D/SL1 + 16-300mm (25-480mm 35mm eq.) camera-lens combination for instance. Miles and miles ahead of any superzoom bridge in terms of ISO performance. Relative compact and probably still able to deliver great holiday shots for many.
garyknrd: There very soft. I think they used a cheap kit lens. Or maybe a faulty unit?But it sure does not make the Pentax look like a winner, for sure.
Sample shots do not look soft because compared to something else. They're just plain bad per se. The K-50 simply deserves a better kit lens.
Better hope this is a faulty lens and not average performance.But I'm affraid it is not. I've seen this before with Pentax zoom lenses.
iudex: Great pictures, ISO3200 is perfectly usable, I also appreciate variable environments (indoor, outdoor, portraits, landscape...).Btw. is there any DSLR taking better picture than K-500 in entry-level segment or for this price? I doubt it.
The decent viewfinder and in-body stabilization indeed make it a attractive entry level camera, if only Pentax would make an optical decent 18-55 kit lens for it iso of the crappy one used here ...