AngryCorgi: Why is it that waterproof cameras always produce images that appear to have been taken underwater even when they are not?!? Is waterproofing THAT detrimental to optical lens performance??
The TG-2 is also a folded optic.
Marcin 3M: Any news about CaptureOne competitive upgrade from LR?
Cloud subscription is not required for Lightroom 4 or 5.
Class A: Dear Shawn,
could you please explain why "in-body image stabilization" is not listed as one of the "Pros"? Is that feature counted towards the K-5 II score at all?
I know that many, many Pentaxians made a decision for Pentax because of this feature.
Given that every reader of your reviews must make up their mind anyhow whether a "Pro" or "Con" really applies to them, would it not be in the best interest of your readers to be given the chance to check whether they feel it is a "Pro" or not?
You know as well as I do that the majority of readers skips to the "Conclusions" page directly and just skim through the "Pros" and "Cons" and then compare the numerical score to other cameras. I've written reviews myself and have the Google Analytics numbers to prove that.
I'm afraid that for many users of your site, generous comments and praise for a camera somewhere in the review will not repair any damage any inadequate summary will cause.
You're right, that's an important feature we should have mentioned, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Added. (Breathe.)
HubertChen: Asking the dpReview community to be nice:
I was very sad that for a long time I have not really seen a dpreview staff participate in discussions in comments. Now one reviewer did. And what happened to him?
* He is greeted with cynicism* It is suggested he is part of a conspiracy against Pentax* Bad intentions are suggested in many occasions
No surprise dpReview staff was not really present in comments and maybe after today will not be again.
I am not asking you to agree. I am asking you to write politely and accurately when you disagree. Always believe the Author has good intention and never suggest otherwise. If you believe you found a mistake or misjudgment by the Author, point it out and provide fact or reasoning why this shall be a mistake / misjudgment.
Following these rules will turn this place to be much more pleasurable and will attract more competent and more knowledgeable posters too. So you will be rewarded with more information in comments and more joy reading them
You have been disrespectful, actually. Re-read your own posts. I did respond in those threads on the day the review was posted, look again. But I've been busy here lately trying to respectfully respond to you, among others.
MikePursey: Quote: The battery door has a tendency to open during normal operation. Taping it shut when working in wet conditions might be prudent ....
I have to say I have had the K-7 (same body as the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs), the K-5 MKI and now the K-5II and have taken thousands of shots with each camera. The only time the battery door has opened is when I was changing the battery, not once has it done it otherwise.
Heie2, sounds about right. For you, the score is critical. I get that. It must go up, never down. I get that too, and disagree with the notion, even as i understand your point. But you won't respond to evidence that it's a very positive review. The person you stand to defend, who reads only the bars in the score, apparently can't read the very first lines of the Overall Conclusion, which I quoted. Or the review summary, which is right in the same box as the bars.
I frankly expected to be fried by fans of other camera platforms for being so positive about the K-5 II and K-5 IIS, not by its fans.
For more on our scoring system, read this rather comprehensive document: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained
The review is quite objective and quite positive. If you can't see that a new camera with few changes should be re-evaluated when it is reviewed again several years later, I can't convince you. Your insults are ill-aimed at someone who did his level best to judge the cameras fairly and give people good advice.
Re-evaluating a camera based on the evidence and comparing it to the current market is objectivity. Some of the scores even went up relative to the K-5, which is hard to see with the bars. You put too much importance in numerical increase, when our intent for the scores has always been stated as relative to the current market, not as judgments set in stone for all time. So your expectation that they should always go up is based on a mistaken impression. You can disagree with that, but you needn't be so concerned with it. Most people who can read will understand my words more than minor nudges in green bars in a score chart: The K-5 II is a very good camera.
maxola67: "Pentax cameras are great, but Pentax as system seriously lacks lenses. Beside several excellent primes (which still do not cover the whole range), there is literally no good zooms for the system."For Pentax-K there are about 80 different lenses in the current production line.Isn't it enough?I've got DA*16-50 and 55-300 and those are very good lenses.Why to propagate info trash?!
To be clear, the review doesn't say that. He's responding to something ThePhilips said further down, a paraphrase of something someone else said.
Zvonimir Tosic: If DPR didn't wait 9 months, the K5II(S) would have scored better — according to DPR's own words of balancing expectations of a camera relative to its current situation and peers.So where is the logic in that — be late to make a review for 9 months, and honour it with "today's relative value"? Someone could even think that you have waited for a new model of Nikon to come out, so that the K5II would not look as good as its newer peer, from a brand you'll always favour with timely reviews (as Simon acknowledged few weeks ago).In a way, you guys on DPR do protect Nikon's interests. You care more about Nikon. If this Pentax camera is often overlooked even if full of unique treats for photographers, to paraphrase your words from the review, you do contribute a great deal to it, by writing damn late reviews, when camera is almost to be replaced with a new model.
Okay. You're obviously inconsolable. Every review has cons. Try not to take them personally. I really liked the Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIS and strongly recommend them to fans of cameras and photography. I said so in a fairly detailed review, offering photographic evidence. If you prefer to see me as saying something else, I clearly can't change your mind.
HubertChen: @ Shawn Barnett
I very much appreciate you take the time and reply so many comments. Thank you so much! I am hoping this will become a dpreview standard mode of operation.
Thanks. I'm trying.
Heie2: And how about this gem from the first paragraph of the conclusion:
"Though they don't represent hugely significant upgrades to the original K-5, the Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIS still hold their own in the current SLR market, with excellent image quality, solid build, and a proven interface. We appreciate the tight, simple design of the K-5 II, one that offers quick access to a rich feature-set. Where the K-5 II shines, though, is its quality sensor, which seems essentially unchanged from its predecessor."
And a little further down: "Thanks to the sensor we liked so much in the K-5 and Nikon D7000, the Pentax K-5 II still turns out excellent images with a wide dynamic range and low noise, while maintaining good shadow and highlight detail."
Heie2, had you read the review, you'd see statements like these: "Much as other manufacturers generally update internal components of their professional SLRs while leaving the controls untouched, Pentax focused on what needed updating in the K-5 - namely the autofocus and sensor - and left the rest alone. That leaves less to talk about in a review of this sort, but most of the camera's old tricks - dating back to the K-7 - are unique enough that they still seem new."
"As far as the number and arrangements of control points are concerned, there are no external differences whatsoever. This is good news - as far as operational handling is concerned, these cameras are quite pleasurable to use."
So Gold isn't good enough for you.
"Could it be a testament to being ahead of its time in the first place, and then having the smarts to keep what works?"
Its high score is reflective of that sentiment. Please don't hold me accountable for the parts of the review you didn't read.
RStyga: @ DPR:What is the PDAF accuracy of K-5 II/IIs, especially in artificial light??? Have you tested it? This has been a major problem with SAFOX.
See Page 7, "Low light image quality and AF." When I did the extreme low light AF test my light source was reflected fluorescent light, which I did not mention in the review.
Now it's my comments on the card door that are causing a problem and drawing conspiracy theories. You really are sensitive. It happened. More than once. Maybe it's how I hold the camera. Ever consider that someone else's experience might be different from yours? The camera got a GOLD award. You prefer reviews, I'm perceiving, where only good things are said about cameras you've invested in? We won't publish those about any camera because there are always cons to consider.
Look at the cons list for the last two Nikons we reviewed. There are eight cons. There are only seven in this K-5 II/IIS review. If it's a conspiracy, Nikon users have a better argument.
Last I checked, the Pentax K-5 II offers video. It is not just a stills camera. I'm personally in agreement that a movie start button isn't a deal-breaker for me, but we think it's important to say it for the sake of those for whom it would be.
Your comment about the Pentax C-AF system makes me think you're a Nikonian after all.
You're over-thinking it. It was a busy Fall filled with new cameras and many conflicting priorities. We've done the best we can. It's not a conspiracy. Both cameras got gold awards because we think they're worthy. Gold's not good enough? What difference does it make if the camera scores better? Will our score help it take better pictures? Nikon's interests? I'm pretty sure Nikon can take care of itself.
As for the K-5 II's score, it's a little lower because it didn't change much after more than two years. It isn't a contest, it's a relative judgment based on changes in the market. This review was overwhelmingly positive on a camera that's very little different from its 2010 predecessor; where are you finding offense?
Yep, miscue on my part. Card door is the correct answer.
mark25: sadly, another camera review with horrible sample photos... i'm afraid no one pays attention to the samples anymore here on dpreview.com... back in the day, when most reviews were done by Phil Askey, the samples were so much better in terms of content and composition...
Sorry to not meet your expectations, Mark. I take my gallery shots to demonstrate the camera's features, primarily its sensor, and I post them uncropped and unmodified. As such, I frame elements that interest me and show some detail and color. That's tougher to do here in Seattle, where sunny days are rare. In the future, don't look to our gallery shots for great art. They are demonstrations of what sensor and lens can achieve; we'll leave the art to you.
vodanh1982: I don't see any low light AF/accuracy tests. The different between K-5 and K-5II(s) is concentrated on new AF sensor.
The K-5 II has this one: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2580397/imgp2076?inalbum=pentax-k5-iiWhen I went out specifically for night images I took only the K-5 IIS, so you'll see a couple more there.
RichRMA: Studio shots illustrate Nikon D7100 image issues. It has higher resolution than the Pentax, but in some of the segments of the scene, the Nikon shows what looks like chromatic aberration on bright-dark edges and artifacts that add fake detail. In the RAW studio scene, at 100 ISO, look at the brush on the left, the back end of the Volkswagen, and in the Arabian sea on the globe. Of the four default cameras, the Nikon displays some weird things; jagged lines, cross-thatched lines. The Pentax images are un-artifacted. Same with the Olympus and Canon. I thought at first the artifacts were screen-related, but they show up in prints.
The fake details you mention are due to the D7100's lack of an AA filter. They should look similar to what you see from the K-5 IIS, only they'll occur at different pattern frequencies due to the higher resolution.