The K-x was my first DSLR (purchased about when it came out) and decided to upgrade to a K-5ii late last year. I got mine for 500CAD locally (used) and I am very happy I did. If I had to do it again, I'd probably get a K-5iis instead, but it's not a "problem". Anyway, as far as upgrade and differences go, I think the K-x handling was actually very good, and the K-5ii is just as good. It has more options so in the end, once you get used to the layouts and all, its handling gets better than what the K-x offered. I obviously use the dual dials quite a bit and the Tav mode is godly for my shooting style (the K-x didn't have it).
The top screen is useless for me, it seems like I never actually got around to force myself to use it. I always look at my settings either at the back of the camera or in the viewfinder. I should probably just turn off the back screen for a month or so to force myself to learn to use the top lcd, but in the end, I don't care much.
Image quality wise, the K-x gave me pictures that I really, really liked. The viewfinder was very good as well. However, the K-5ii is, again, better in those area. The viewfinder is a little better and the focussing system is substantially better for me. For one, you see the points in the viewfinder, which makes it a lot easier and convenient to use other points (with my K-x, I always used the center point and then recompose). I now uses all of the focussing points on my K-5ii and believe to have sharper picture as a result. Focussing is faster with all of my lenses and I can now do focus adjustment for all of my lenses individually, which is a very important feature!
One thing I found annoying when I switched to the K-5ii from the K-x was the "processing" speed. The K-5ii actually felt a little slow compared to my K-x. I'm talking about reviewing images after a shot, the delay when pressing the delete button (before the message actually shows on the screen) and small things like that. It is a subtle thing, but it still annoyed me. I have a second K-5ii body and they both do the same thing (so I doubt it's only my bodies that are "slow").
Finally, about high iso performance, I'm processing some wedding pictures I took a while ago (I should have been done with them a long time ago... sigh) and It's the first time that I can really compare high iso performance and dr in real work between my old K-x and K-5ii. I'd say the K-5ii is doing an even better job at high iso, which surprised me a little, considering the K-x was so good. I have some shots at iso 8000, 1/125 or so (could be 1/80, I don't remember from the top of my head) and f2.8 - so yeah, it was quite dark - and I actually pushed the exposure up for some of those shots as well for as far as 1 stop. Those pictures aren't perfect, and they won't be printed large I assume, but they still perfectly show the moment, they even show a fair amount of color accuracy and with some sliders adjustment, I'm fine keeping them in color (while I would convert almost any shot taken at iso 5000 or above to black and white with my K-x). The skin isn't so natural looking and all, but we are talking iso 8000...
Anyway, if you can spring the K-3, I'd go for it. Otherwise, if I had to do it again, I think I'd still go for the K-5ii, just because you can get one for about 400$, which is a very good price for such camera. At this point, I'm looking mostly at AF improvement, so my future camera purchase will mostly depend on that criteria alone (meaning I don't crave for better high iso performance or better handling or stuff like that...). Pure resolution for cropping capacity would be the other feature that I'd like to have. (So yeah, the K-3 would make a lot of sense right now, but I still want to keep my K-5ii(s) for a year or so before I upgrade).
Anyway, good luck with your choice!
Karl
|