Reading mode: Light Dark

$350 budget - weather resistant "beater" used Pentax?

Go to last post
G

GarageBoy

Leading Member
Messages
931
Reaction score
54
Location
US
So I'm working with a $250-350 budget for a used, secondary body that's weather sealed. I see some K-5 MKIs in that price range

Is there anything newer? I'm willing to work with a more "entry level" body

Thanks
 
KEH, K5 - cond EX 432$, cond LN- 468$

K7 - cond EX 299$

online auction site, K30 360$ Japan - other K30s found also

Search for K5, K7, K30, K50, K10, K20, I believe these are all weather sealed.

Cheers.
 
You can certainly set any criteria you like, but from my experience with Pentax (starting with a K200D and now a K-5II) I would make a Sony sensor be my Numero Uno priority. With your budget I can recommend the K-x for a Sony sensor with great high ISO capabilities, but it isn't weather sealed. (Not that I had any problem with that with the one I owned, a "Stormtrooper" white edition. Great camera - but it if you can find a K-5 for your price I would definitely go with that model.
 
Based on what you've said, if there is a choice between a K-30 and a K-5, I would go with the K-30. It's a more entry level body that's going to give you sharper images due to a weaker AA filter. If you need added dynamic range, then the K-5 should be your choice. There are about another 50 differences between the two cameras, so it's hard to make a more specific suggestion without knowing your priorities.
 
K-5 every time, better built better controls, just plain better.
 
Alan Granger said:
K-5 every time, better built better controls, just plain better.
Click to expand...
Most simple truths are wrong. In terms of weather sealing, the K-30 is just as good - in fact, it has more seals than the K-5. In terms of controls, the main difference is the faster access to the AF weighting switch in the K-5. But it's hard to argue against the additional sharpness of the K-30 sensor assembly.

--
No amount of perceived entitlement can replace actual expertise.
 
Last edited:
I think the K-5 being a 14-bit machine is the most significant difference. I haven't really looked at the used market, but it seems like $350 for a K-5 is going to be hard to do.
 
pixelsmithy said:
YMMV:
--http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/185506-k-01-vs-k-5-14bit-vs-12bit.html

In any event one person's "negligible" may not be another's.

Check out my (small) Gallery! http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/355548730/photos/slideshow
Click to expand...
+1, K3, 14 bit, 7D, 14 bit, D800 14 bit, D7100 14 bit. Give me options and I'll decide whether to make use of the data or not. (645Z 14 bit raw or 16 bit tiff, tiff is uncompressed must be huge file)
 
pixelsmithy said:
YMMV:
--http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/185506-k-01-vs-k-5-14bit-vs-12bit.html

In any event one person's "negligible" may not be another's.
Click to expand...
I was earlier trying to find a piece that I remembered reading which argued that the SNR of the sensors we have does not allow for those two additional bits to make a difference. In any case, I'm not sure that your statement,

"I think the K-5 being a 14-bit machine is the most significant difference."

should be accepted unfiltered, especially when giving purchase advice to someone who may be new to the system. If there's debate over a fact, it might be fair to mention that.
 
Petroglyph said:
pixelsmithy said:
YMMV:
--http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/185506-k-01-vs-k-5-14bit-vs-12bit.html

In any event one person's "negligible" may not be another's.

Check out my (small) Gallery! http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/355548730/photos/slideshow
Click to expand...
+1, K3, 14 bit, 7D, 14 bit, D800 14 bit, D7100 14 bit.
Click to expand...
That doesn't necessarily mean anything. Could just be marketing hype.
Petroglyph said:
Give me options and I'll decide whether to make use of the data or not. (645Z 14 bit raw or 16 bit tiff, tiff is uncompressed must be huge file)
Click to expand...
Ah, you see, why 14 bits? Why not 16 or 18? Because at some point, due to the SNR of the sensor, you're just recording noise. And it's expensive noise because it's impossible to compress and hence inflates file size. Now, when you look at typical file sizes from the K-30 and K-5 II (DNG), to keep AA filters comparable, you'll see the K-5 II files are more than 2/12=1/6=~17% larger. Quite a bit larger than that, in fact. With no blown highlights to blame, the likely culprit is either noise or unfortunate encoding (i.e. the reason ETTR was originally proposed).
 
Leandros S said:
I was earlier trying to find a piece that I remembered reading which argued that the SNR of the sensors we have does not allow for those two additional bits to make a difference.

--
Click to expand...
You can find such statements all over the internet, but they really don't apply to the Sony EXMOR sensors, which may be why Pentax (and other makers using that sensor) decided to make their cameras 14-bits for the first time. EXMOR sensors have A/D Converters on each column of pixels on the sensor, which drastically reduces their signal to noise ratios.

In any event, your point is taken that many people are more than happy with their 12-bit cameras.

I had forgotten that the other main difference between the K-30 and the K-5 is that the K-30 has the PRIME-M image processing engine, while the flagship K-5 has the earlier PRIME II. "Compared to the PRIME II chip in the K-5, PRIME M allows a faster live view refresh rate of 60 fps, and H.264 compression instead of Motion JPEG for high-def video. Burst shooting is slightly slower than the K-5, at six frames per second for 8 raw or 30 JPEG frames."

It appears to me that the biggest difference is still the current price. I'm seeing K-30s for $250 (which is a tremendous bargain, considering what you get). The K-5 are still around the $400-425.

I'm rather superficial however, so none of these things would matter the MOST to me. I really hate that goofy prism overhang look of the K-30 and wouldn't take one if you gave it to me. :)

Check out my (small) Gallery! http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/355548730/photos/slideshow
 
Last edited:
Leandros S said:
pixelsmithy said:
YMMV:
--http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/185506-k-01-vs-k-5-14bit-vs-12bit.html

In any event one person's "negligible" may not be another's.
Click to expand...
I was earlier trying to find a piece that I remembered reading which argued that the SNR of the sensors we have does not allow for those two additional bits to make a difference. In any case, I'm not sure that your statement,

"I think the K-5 being a 14-bit machine is the most significant difference."

should be accepted unfiltered, especially when giving purchase advice to someone who may be new to the system. If there's debate over a fact, it might be fair to mention that.
Click to expand...
I think you make a valid point. Sony evidently feels 11-bit lossy compressed raws are good enough on an A7(r) and it can certainly produce some fine photos. When I PP those files something really weird or at least unusual happens to pulled highlights & shadows when printing - so it could be just down to software. Without debating the SNR argument at least I can agree that it has been posted out there. Even Canon makes a point to say the AD readout of their sensors is now 14 bit though - just was reading that also.

Cheers.
Leandros S said:
--
No amount of perceived entitlement can replace actual expertise.
Click to expand...
 
pixelsmithy said:
pixelsmithy said:
Ah, you see, why 14 bits? Why not 16 or 18?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you have revealed why no one should listen to your opinion (at least on the significance of 12-bit vs 14-bit).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is here, other than quoting selectively. Have you personally measured the noise of 14 bit output? Can you assert that the last two bits contain real information?

--
No amount of perceived entitlement can replace actual expertise.
 
Last edited:
Please read photographic engineer (and dpreview user) GordonBGood posts on the subject. You may find it edifying.

Here is one such thread, from nearly 4 years ago: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2872074

Again, pay close attention to the GordonBGood posts.

For other such nuggets, a search of "14-bit" "K-5" and "GordonBGood", limiting the search to dpreview forums URLs may lead to other insights. Enter the following into your Google search field:

14-bit K-5 GordonBGood site:www.dpreview.com/forums/

--
Check out my (small) Gallery! http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/355548730/photos/slideshow
 
Last edited:
pixelsmithy said:
Please read photographic engineer (and dpreview user) GordonBGood posts on the subject. You may find it edifying.

Here is one such thread, from nearly 4 years ago: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2872074

Again, pay close attention to the GordonBGood posts.

For other such nuggets, a search of "14-bit" "K-5" and "GordonBGood", limiting the search to dpreview forums URLs may lead to other insights. Enter the following into your Google search field:

14-bit K-5 GordonBGood site:www.dpreview.com/forums/
Click to expand...
Here's something for your "edification":

"The 14-bit A/D limit is difficult to achieve in the high speed, low power applications of a digital camera, thus current 14-bit cameras are only slightly improving over 12-bit systems [...]. Look for future DSLRs to use 16 bit A/Ds."

Loading…

www.clarkvision.com

I hope that just about covers what we've been discussing tonight.

And from GordonBGood from the very thread you've linked above:

"Yes, many companies (especially Canon) have gone to 14 bits for largely marketing reasons, and I sincerely hope that Pentax is not one of them"

"No, the 14 bits don't really matter for any current camera"

Good night!
 
I took debate. I understand that you can find quotes to support virtually ANY position. The trick to being correct (rather than scoring debate points) is to quote people who know what they are talking about. I can see that facts are wasted in this exchange.

In the immortal words of Simon & Garfunkel: "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

If nothing else, I hope those who read this thread will enjoy an excellent song:


Good night to YOU, Sir (or Miss)
 
Leandros S said:
pixelsmithy said:
Please read photographic engineer (and dpreview user) GordonBGood posts on the subject. You may find it edifying.

Here is one such thread, from nearly 4 years ago: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2872074

Again, pay close attention to the GordonBGood posts.

For other such nuggets, a search of "14-bit" "K-5" and "GordonBGood", limiting the search to dpreview forums URLs may lead to other insights. Enter the following into your Google search field:

14-bit K-5 GordonBGood site:www.dpreview.com/forums/
Click to expand...
Here's something for your "edification":

"The 14-bit A/D limit is difficult to achieve in the high speed, low power applications of a digital camera, thus current 14-bit cameras are only slightly improving over 12-bit systems [...]. Look for future DSLRs to use 16 bit A/Ds."

Loading…

www.clarkvision.com

I hope that just about covers what we've been discussing tonight.

And from GordonBGood from the very thread you've linked above:

"Yes, many companies (especially Canon) have gone to 14 bits for largely marketing reasons, and I sincerely hope that Pentax is not one of them"

"No, the 14 bits don't really matter for any current camera"

Good night!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top