Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

Started May 9, 2012 | Discussions
The Skipper Contributing Member • Posts: 872
Re: CDAF is usually more accurate

Everdog wrote:

I owned Canons for years, but the PDAF focusing always had issues. I sent my T2i in to get "adjusted" 3 times.

With CDAF you do not have to adjust the camera for every lens. This is why so many people claim they get a higher "hit-rate" of focused shots.

That has been the opposite of my experience. It's gotten to the point where I don't trust the AF on the E-PL2, whereas it is dead-on with my Nikon D70.

The E-PL2 AF is fast, but its accuracy leaves much to be desired.

TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
Who said it was?

That would depend entirely upon the owner's situation.

Pentax has those beautiful DA* primes, M43 has quite a few top rate primes now, too.

The Pentax zooms are a bit weak. So are the slower M43 zooms.

The Pentax/Sony sensor might preserve a bit more detail as compared to the Olympus/mystery sensor, or it might not, depending on who is using what.

Both are weathersealed.

EM5 can AF native glass very quickly, K5 is supposed to be okay but no speed demon on AF.

K5 has a couple of fast teles, EM5 does not unless you go to HG ZD.

K5 is one of the best midrange dslr's on the market today for image quality. EM5 is the best M43 body on the market today for image quality.

I suppose the EM5 is better if you already own some M43 glass. The K5 is better if you already own Pentax glass. If you don't own glass for either... it's your call.

OP Promit Senior Member • Posts: 2,011
Re: Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

I'm an engineer and I get to do things like configure Linux servers when I'm not writing code. Olympus has another thing coming if they can make the configuration difficult enough to scare me

 Promit's gear list:Promit's gear list
Sony a77 II Sony a99 II Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +6 more
Laszlo13
Laszlo13 Contributing Member • Posts: 887
Re: Why do birds suddenly appear...

hellocrowley wrote:

Honestly, I was interested in the OM-D until I saw that thread. It got me interested in the K5 and I started doing research about it.

The K5 is indeed small and lightweight (compared to other DSLR), the pancake lenses are crazily small and sharp. Great high ISO and DR beats FF cameras. For under $2000 I can get a body with 3 very nice pancakes. I dont know why it's not more popular.

Hmmm ... which pancakes?
a. they're expensive
b. they're not really fast
c. they're not really that fantastic

I've looked at Pentax a number of times. I really like their mentality in camera body design. But - I find their lens selection not that well thought out. Example: 15m f4 limited, it's about $800, comparable to the Oly 9-18 in size (closed) and weight - as well as image quality and speed. Yes it looks nicer, but I'd rather have the 9-18 zoom. Or for the same money, you can get the Oly 12mm with equal build quality and feel, but far better performance. The Panny 20mm 1.7 will beat the normal range pancakes in price, size and performance. The 70mm 2.4 looks nice - but here again the Oly 45mm 1.8 is probably better on all fronts. You'll loose the slightly bigger sensor advantage once the lenses are compared. If you're happy with the $2000 kit you've assembled on a wishlist, then by all means go for it (again, I always wanted either the K-7 or K-5) - but I was never satisfied with what I put together on B&H shopping list.

 Laszlo13's gear list:Laszlo13's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7
zxaar Veteran Member • Posts: 4,346
Re: Why do birds suddenly appear...

Laszlo13 wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

Honestly, I was interested in the OM-D until I saw that thread. It got me interested in the K5 and I started doing research about it.

The K5 is indeed small and lightweight (compared to other DSLR), the pancake lenses are crazily small and sharp. Great high ISO and DR beats FF cameras. For under $2000 I can get a body with 3 very nice pancakes. I dont know why it's not more popular.

Hmmm ... which pancakes?
a. they're expensive
b. they're not really fast
c. they're not really that fantastic

I've looked at Pentax a number of times. I really like their mentality in camera body design. But - I find their lens selection not that well thought out. Example: 15m f4 limited, it's about $800, comparable to the Oly 9-18 in size (closed) and weight - as well as image quality and speed. Yes it looks nicer, but I'd rather have the 9-18 zoom. Or for the same money, you can get the Oly 12mm with equal build quality and feel, but far better performance. The Panny 20mm 1.7 will beat the normal range pancakes in price, size and performance. The 70mm 2.4 looks nice - but here again the Oly 45mm 1.8 is probably better on all fronts. You'll loose the slightly bigger sensor advantage once the lenses are compared. If you're happy with the $2000 kit you've assembled on a wishlist, then by all means go for it (again, I always wanted either the K-7 or K-5) - but I was never satisfied with what I put together on B&H shopping list.

you are deluded.

Pentax is originally a optics company. You think they can't design good lenses. Seek a doctor.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,937
Re: Why do birds suddenly appear...

Careful

Sounds like it is open warfare, with Pentax die-hards coming to its defence.

Sure Pentax used to be an optics company and can make good lenses. I am not sure however how much of the original Pentax is left now, when spit out by Hoya. and sold only for $125 million to Ricoh. Patents got sold or transferred to others, staff slashed, experts/know-how and valuables stripped by Hoya, etc. And with another crazy price hike for its lenses, when they are already so high for a brand struggling to attract much needed new buyers, looks like suicide to me.

exdeejjjaaaa
exdeejjjaaaa Veteran Member • Posts: 8,263
Re: Why do birds suddenly appear...

zxaar wrote:

Pentax is originally a optics company. You think they can't design good lenses. Seek a doctor.

a lot of companies can design good lenses...

 exdeejjjaaaa's gear list:exdeejjjaaaa's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Phase One Capture One Pro +25 more
Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 13,143
Re: Who said it was?

TrapperJohn wrote:

I suppose the EM5 is better if you already own some M43 glass. The K5 is better if you already own Pentax glass. If you don't own glass for either... it's your call.

Best Post Yet.

I've been invested in Pentax for well over 30 years. As the other posters have mentioned most of the Pentax Limited primes are unsurpassed. Pentax is also the only DSLR manufacturer that still maintains full mount compatibility for virtually all of its bayonet-mount lenses - that kind of customer support is unique in the industry.

Nonetheless, I expect to switch to M43 when the GH3 comes out for a couple of reasons:

  • better video, including (almost certainly) 1080p60 capability.

  • a single camera system that include a camera/kit lens small enough to carry in a belt pouch so I can take it with me everywhere, yet will share lenses with the other, more capable cameras in the system.

So it's video and size that are steering me to M43.

Aleo Veuliah
MOD Aleo Veuliah Forum Pro • Posts: 14,740
Re: Oh please

Dolan Halbrook wrote:

Yes, Pentax has had its blunders (K-01, Q), but it's also had home runs (K10D, K-5, 645D..) and puts out some fantastic glass as well.

The reason the K-5 is selling for 2/3 its original price is that the MSRP was too high to begin with, and that it's near the end of its lifecycle. It's no different than most other bodies in that regard. Are you going seriously going to argue that the GX1 and EP-3 suck because they've recently started sliding in price?

I agree, Pentax is a good brand, good cameras and good lenses

-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +7 more
Robgo2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,050
Re: Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Promit wrote:

Honest question, I am not trying to troll. I've never shot Pentax, though a good friend is very happy with them. I've just got a lot of money wrapped up in m43, an OM-D order, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe I've gone crazy. By the spec sheets, they seem like awfully similar cameras with the hard numbers tipped in favor of the K-5.

Is it just down to (good) live view and size?

There are a couple of simple fundamental question to ask yourself. Do you feel safe with Pentax? Do you want to buy an APS-C DSLR now?

Unless you have a lot of K-mount lenses already, there is not a lot of reason to take such risk with a company with an uncertain future. Pentax has been sold twice already and there is little left in that camera company now in Ricoh's hands. For example, no new models for DSLR now. There is only one DSLR model, the K-5, left and it is so out of date in AF, flash and other support.

Even those with many K-mount lenses are switching to other brands, taking advantage of the current high price of K-mount lenses.

There is also an issue with the future of APS-C DSLRs, as mirrorless cameras are going to take over.

So, putting Pentax + DSLR together, means even more risk for your investment as a camera system.

Assuming you still think it is OK and safe, then consider this. The K-5 is no more than an very old K-7 with a Sony sensor and some trivial update. The same old and inadequate 11-point AF system, the same out of date flashes, the same problems in lens lineup and the dreaded SDM lens motor problem and even worse, independent lens makers keep dropping support for Pentax K-mount, e.g. no new Tamron, Tokina, and others. The Nikon D7000 is much safer bet if it has to be a DSLR.

I cannot believe that I am reading this in an Olympus forum, as if Olympus does not have serious problems of corporate governance. Does anyone really know how that mess is going to turn out and who is ultimately going to end up managing the company? I think not. As far as Pentax's management is concerned, just be aware that Ricoh has sneezes that are bigger than Olympus.

None of this has any bearing on the relative merits of the K-5 and the OM-D, but it is something that needs to be said in response to the ludicrous post quoted above.

Rob

Ben3D
Ben3D New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Not that much of a difference...
 Ben3D's gear list:Ben3D's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D750 Sony a7 III Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II +3 more
szlevi Contributing Member • Posts: 932
Re: Why do birds suddenly appear...

This is probably most hilariously idiotic comment of all... just why TF the grip should be put on? To make the Pentax look less pathetic?
Such an imbecile comment.

PerL wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

That's not really fair IMO. You should put the DA limited primes on that K5. For example the 1cm thick 40mm 2.8 or 70mm 2.4. It will be a lot thinner than the OMD + 45mm.

And put a grip on the Oly.

Thorgrem wrote:

I think it's because of the same reason 4/3's like the E-5 (or E-30, E-620) is not popular. A to small user base so it's overshadowed by Canon and Nikon. A to small users base is also a risk for people who do boy in to the system.

The K5 is a very nice camera but I would go for the m4/3's because it's the future and it's much, much smaller.

hellocrowley wrote:

Honestly, I was interested in the OM-D until I saw that thread. It got me interested in the K5 and I started doing research about it.

The K5 is indeed small and lightweight (compared to other DSLR), the pancake lenses are crazily small and sharp. Great high ISO and DR beats FF cameras. For under $2000 I can get a body with 3 very nice pancakes. I dont know why it's not more popular.

-- hide signature --

http://instagr.am/p/JvSMWFBYyl
(Now you cannot say I don't have a single pic! :P)

 szlevi's gear list:szlevi's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 +7 more
Bart Hickman Veteran Member • Posts: 7,256
Re: Not that much of a difference...

That doesn't seem like a very good comparison. 20mm-F/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 15mm-F/1.4 on m43--four times the light gathering. Need to find a picture of a Pentax 21mm-F/3.2 pancake lens for a better comparison--although I'm sure the EM-5 would still be noticeably smaller.

Bart
--
http://bhimages.zenfolio.com

 Bart Hickman's gear list:Bart Hickman's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS +10 more
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
Re: Why do birds suddenly appear...

szlevi wrote:

This is probably most hilariously idiotic comment of all... just why TF the grip should be put on? To make the Pentax look less pathetic?
Such an imbecile comment.

Because almost everyone says the handling improves a lot with a grip on the Oly. BTW I think you should learn to use a civil langauge.

PerL wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

That's not really fair IMO. You should put the DA limited primes on that K5. For example the 1cm thick 40mm 2.8 or 70mm 2.4. It will be a lot thinner than the OMD + 45mm.

And put a grip on the Oly.

Thorgrem wrote:

I think it's because of the same reason 4/3's like the E-5 (or E-30, E-620) is not popular. A to small user base so it's overshadowed by Canon and Nikon. A to small users base is also a risk for people who do boy in to the system.

The K5 is a very nice camera but I would go for the m4/3's because it's the future and it's much, much smaller.

hellocrowley wrote:

Honestly, I was interested in the OM-D until I saw that thread. It got me interested in the K5 and I started doing research about it.

The K5 is indeed small and lightweight (compared to other DSLR), the pancake lenses are crazily small and sharp. Great high ISO and DR beats FF cameras. For under $2000 I can get a body with 3 very nice pancakes. I dont know why it's not more popular.

-- hide signature --

http://instagr.am/p/JvSMWFBYyl
(Now you cannot say I don't have a single pic! :P)

Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 16,149
E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 and K-5 + 28mm f1.8

Here is an example. E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 (effective 40mm) and K-5 + 28mm f1.8 (effective 42mm):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.133,ha,t

Yes, the size/weight difference is pretty substantial and that is appreciated by some people.

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
Yes, flawed - here is a better comparision

Bart Hickman wrote:

That doesn't seem like a very good comparison. 20mm-F/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 15mm-F/1.4 on m43--four times the light gathering. Need to find a picture of a Pentax 21mm-F/3.2 pancake lens for a better comparison--although I'm sure the EM-5 would still be noticeably smaller.

This is with the 45 1.8 on the OM-D and the 43 1.9 on the K-5. With a grip on the OM-D the difference would be smaller. The E-5 has a Sigma 50 1.4 - there was not much to choose from in the widget.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.82,202.220,ha,t

BTW I know that the OM-D is smaller than the K5, what I dont agree with is the claim by a poster that the K5 is almost as big as the E-5.

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
Another biased one

Henry Richardson wrote:

Here is an example. E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 (effective 40mm) and K-5 + 28mm f1.8 (effective 42mm):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.133,ha,t

Yes, the size/weight difference is pretty substantial and that is appreciated by some people.

This is better:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.82,202.220,ha,t
And here:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,187

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

yescooling New Member • Posts: 24
Re: Why is an OM-D better than a Pentax K-5?

honestly, I think K5 is better although I am a big fan of olympus and cheer any improvement that oly did.

They are in different classes. As I usually said, photography is a system, you cant take something along into consideration. If you take camera along, I would say, everyone has his favor. It is hard to judge which one is better and in what way. For my big hands, EM5 needs extra grip. K5 is just ok. But for other people, small maybe means good?

So, for anyone who hasnt had any lenses or bodies, just pick the one you like most. A piece of advice, just go to camera shop and have a hands on shoot, then you will know which one is better. Or in another way, look at your budget, and think about how to use them to get a better result. (IQ is just a part of result, how to get an image is another part, if you shoot with pain, you'd better just let it go)

Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 16,149
Re: Another biased one

PerL wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Here is an example. E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 (effective 40mm) and K-5 + 28mm f1.8 (effective 42mm):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.133,ha,t

Yes, the size/weight difference is pretty substantial and that is appreciated by some people.

This is better:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.82,202.220,ha,t

Yes, that is a good one. Look how much smaller the E-M5 is than the K-5. Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, you chose lenses that aren't all that comparable though. The 45mm f1.8 is an effective 90mm and the 43mm f1.9 is an effective 64mm.

By the way, since the subject of this thread is the E-M5 and K-5 I don't see any relevance to adding a third camera. Might as well make that one a Nikon D4 or Canon S95 since those two are off subject as well.

And here:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,187

Assuming the cameras are of equal thickness (not shown in this photo) then one might be fooled into thinking the two cameras are almost the same size. Sadly, once you take them off the flat computer screen and hold them in your hand you discover that they are 3-dimensional and not 2-dimensional so the difference becomes substantial again.

Here's another somewhat more on point comparison. E-M5 + 9-18mm and K-5 + 10-20mm:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.96,187.146,ha,t

I bet we could go on all day with this! I might have to stop for dinner soon though...

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
I got drawn in to this...

...because I answered a poster that said that the K5 was almost as big as an E-5. Then someone included the OM-D with a pancake compared to a big Sigma lens on the K5. So I answered that one - and then yours and so on...

Anyway - the lens game as a way of showing a big size difference does not work well in the Pentax case. Of course it has some relevance as it is also about system size.

But Pentax has an unique range of very small, compact, well built primes. The widget for comparision only includes a few of them.

Henry Richardson wrote:

PerL wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Here is an example. E-M5 + 20mm f1.7 (effective 40mm) and K-5 + 28mm f1.8 (effective 42mm):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.30,187.133,ha,t

Yes, the size/weight difference is pretty substantial and that is appreciated by some people.

This is better:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.93,187.82,202.220,ha,t

Yes, that is a good one. Look how much smaller the E-M5 is than the K-5. Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, you chose lenses that aren't all that comparable though. The 45mm f1.8 is an effective 90mm and the 43mm f1.9 is an effective 64mm.

By the way, since the subject of this thread is the E-M5 and K-5 I don't see any relevance to adding a third camera. Might as well make that one a Nikon D4 or Canon S95 since those two are off subject as well.

And here:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,187

Assuming the cameras are of equal thickness (not shown in this photo) then one might be fooled into thinking the two cameras are almost the same size. Sadly, once you take them off the flat computer screen and hold them in your hand you discover that they are 3-dimensional and not 2-dimensional so the difference becomes substantial again.

Here's another somewhat more on point comparison. E-M5 + 9-18mm and K-5 + 10-20mm:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#289.96,187.146,ha,t

I bet we could go on all day with this! I might have to stop for dinner soon though...

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads