[stevebrot]

Well, this is a bummer. Got the K-3 today. I bought it on the Pentax forum from a seller (who apparently is a professional photographer) who said it had 9600 some actuations. He had noted that it was scuffed up a bit (and showed the marks in the pics), but he indicated that it still functioned perfectly. (It also was dirtier than I expected for 9600 pics, and the labels on the Info and Menu buttons are mostly worn off.)
It does function fine, and when I took a pic, the pic number is K3K9136, but when I ran it through the shutter actuation counter, it said 51,605. Checking the serial number (484xxxx), it looks like it was probably new in 2013, so 51000 makes more sense than 9600 for a pro photographer. I only take 10,000-12,000 pics / year, so the difference is about 4 years worth of use to me.
I am asking whether he wants me to ship it back at his expense or else reduce the price considerably. (Paid $450; I suggested $325.) I was pretty psyched for this camera, so this is disappointing. I'm counting on him to do the right thing.

Also sorry to hear this. I find it strange that the previous owner did not know that the file numbering had rolled over* and does not represent the shutter count. If I were you, I would find ask for a full refund and find a different camera. You should be able to find one with less wear and lower shutter count in the same price range. For example, my K-3 (made 26 Nov 2013) has very few marks and shutter count of 15837. If I were to list it today, I would ask about $450 USD, body only.


Steve

* Filename numbering rolls over at 9999

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Incorrect! The truth is the exact opposite. The pixel density on the K3 is actually higher than the pixel density of the K1.

Also, I have shot over 50 old manual-focus lenses (many over 40 years old) on my K1 camera. Many have better IQ on my K1 then they have on my K3 !

Please read my entire post, and pay attention both to my explanation that the K-1 pixel density is similar to the 16 mp crop (less dense), as well as the differences when considering comparison to FF. You have corrected me in such way that you are confirming what I originally stated.

[Jonathan Mac]

The easiest way to compare sensors is to use DXOmark, see the link below.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Penta...___914_811_639

However, that doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. It doesn't include colour rendering, attractiveness of grain or all other factors. Here we see the K3 gets a slightly better score than the K30 and both score significantly better than the K-x. I, and many others, don't worry about megapixels at all. I was happy with the ten megapixels of my K200D and don't worry when using my 16MP Fuji camera even though it has a third less than my K3.

There's MUCH more to comparing sensors than megapixels. The point I wanted to make is that you don't necessarily get a better sensor in a more expensive camera, even if it's a "pro" level camera. "Better" is also open to interpretation - high ISO image quality is useless to someone who always shoots in good light or in a studio with a full lighting rig. What you get with a better camera is a more solid build, more options, more controls to be able to change settings without menus, better AF system etc etc. However, none of that means that you need better lenses to put on it. Good lenses are always good no matter what camera they're on.