[jgnfld]

So your K70 with 18-55mm f/5.6 get you better low light and better rendering, better sharpness than you sigma 17-50 f/2.8 at f/2.8 or f/4 on K50 as I get it.

No. The results of mounting the 17-50 on the K-50 are not quite the results of mounting it on the K-70 in low light, and I get sharper images and in particular more croppable images--important given my usual photography--as well on the K-70. Apples to apples.

I love my K-50. The K-70 with the same lenses is just plain a clear upgrade for my applications, at least.

---

Last edited by jgnfld; 11-03-2016 at 02:20 PM.

[surfar]

K70 provides double the buffer to the KS2, maybe important to some buyers.

[reh321]

I'm guessing that 10% of the pictures I take with my K-30 would be significantly better if I had a K-70.

And maybe 50% with K3... For all you know, you'd need to test it first

Mine was a conservative guess based on the number of pictures I take at uncomfortably high {to me} ISO levels; I'm quite sure that the K-70 would improve all of those images, and would make me more comfortable at taking more of them; I don't have any reason to expect a K-3 to provide that same improvement at high ISO. The question I was responding to was suggesting that there is little to recommend a K-70 over a K-S2, and I was strongly disagreeing with that suggestion in one particular area, which is an area of importance to me. Perhaps a K-3 could provide improvements in other areas, but the reports indicate that the K-70 should provide most of the same improvements also. And, no, I'm not going to buy one of each camera and test it for myself; I tend not to be an early adopter, because I am quite comfortable depending on what others report.

[Doundounba]

K-70 also has bulb timer for long exposure - currently the only Pentax DLSR with that feature, I believe...

[dr100hr]

well i mean 5mpix ,and that was nothing for me ,pix war is for dorks / kids,,
iso well how i see on my pics 1200 iso is max i go ,and only 2-3 x only rest 800 and under .s2 go nice there
that pix shift is for buildings how it's demonstrated ,i don't do buildings
and fps in no good af for starter is useless ,buffer ? for what if u cant use af on it?
and yes it use 12 bit --don't see dif from s2 on any pics i see from 70
same processor inside same af ,bit more pix (for me useless i can do crop on 20 mpix just fine if i want ,but i do 3-4 pics of same so no need)
iso ?,only for specs rly .i dont see much dif on iso 400 s2 vs 70
,well i don't see any dif beside more pix to smooth pic even more(hate that it's canon crap to smooth pics and kill details)

so in short ,, 5 mpix ,12bit ,kinda iso to flash out 600 for "same" body is lol
you can advertise how much you want ,on your site all is great but if you look on neutral you see same cam with more pix
but thanks i will wait crop k4

---------- Post added 11-04-2016 at 08:35 AM ----------

oh yea ,you get better pic using same lens on k70 from using on s2 is lie and bull
dxo say best iq .. lol
last year yo u say dxo lie on k3 test

[shiner]

K50 has more difference: low pass filter, 12bits. The biggest change apparently is more the low pass filter than between 16 and 24MP. That's what Dxo is finding anyway. But I certainly found some difference when cropping between K5 and K3.

There also the articulated screen.

But still if you get a K50 with a 17-50 f/2.8 you'll get better rendering overall and much better low light performance than getting a K70 wiht a 18-55.

If you get a K70 with a kit lens, you will eventually acquire other lenses, and at that point you will have a superior camera with your new lens. Or just get a DA50 1.8 with the camera instead. There is no reason to buy a lesser feature and IQ retro body if you don't have to, really.

---------- Post added 11-04-16 at 04:12 AM ----------

well i mean 5mpix ,and that was nothing for me ,pix war is for dorks / kids,,
iso well how i see on my pics 1200 iso is max i go ,and only 2-3 x only rest 800 and under .s2 go nice there
that pix shift is for buildings how it's demonstrated ,i don't do buildings
and fps in no good af for starter is useless ,buffer ? for what if u cant use af on it?
and yes it use 12 bit --don't see dif from s2 on any pics i see from 70
same processor inside same af ,bit more pix (for me useless i can do crop on 20 mpix just fine if i want ,but i do 3-4 pics of same so no need)
iso ?,only for specs rly .i dont see much dif on iso 400 s2 vs 70
,well i don't see any dif beside more pix to smooth pic even more(hate that it's canon crap to smooth pics and kill details)

so in short ,, 5 mpix ,12bit ,kinda iso to flash out 600 for "same" body is lol
you can advertise how much you want ,on your site all is great but if you look on neutral you see same cam with more pix
but thanks i will wait crop k4

---------- Post added 11-04-2016 at 08:35 AM ----------

oh yea ,you get better pic using same lens on k70 from using on s2 is lie and bull
dxo say best iq .. lol
last year yo u say dxo lie on k3 test

Huh? I have a K-3, a KS2, and a K70. K70 is better in almost every way than the KS2- and the KS2 is a very nice camera. I get better high ISO from my K70 compared to my K3, and prefer it to the K3 for night and astro. The night vision feature is awesome.

[Nicolas06]

If you get a K70 with a kit lens, you will eventually acquire other lenses, and at that point you will have a superior camera with your new lens. Or just get a DA50 1.8 with the camera instead. There is no reason to buy a lesser feature and IQ retro body if you don't have to, really.

Depend how much you want to spend and also the objective. In statistics, half people never buy lenses outside the initial kit.

But the lens keep their price longer. A 17-50 f/2.8 costing $300 new now is going to be still at least $300 in 5 year new, $200 used. But a K70 worth $650 now, in 5 years is going to be about $250 used.

The thing is also "gear" importance is quite exagerated. Reality is if you take a photographer, gime him a K50, K70 or K3, he will get the same photos. What will count is basically where he go, his habilities as photographer, the subject.

The K3 will be the most conveniant to use with more direct access controls, quite better reactivity and AF and much more durable too. Kxx familly of camera tend to last about 30K shots on average. The K70 would help with its articulated screen mostly even if the 24MP can help if you have sharp long lenses for wildlife.

But if you get an f/2.8 zoom and/or a few primes, you'll see the difference in subject separation and low light photography all the time.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-04-2016 at 01:23 AM.

[reh321]

Depend how much you want to spend and also the objective. In statistics, half people never buy lenses outside the initial kit.

But the lens keep their price longer. A 17-50 f/2.8 costing $300 new now is going to be still at least $300 in 5 year new, $200 used. But a K70 worth $650 now, in 5 years is going to be about $250 used.

The thing is also "gear" importance is quite exaggerated. Reality is if you take a photographer, give him a K50, K70 or K3, he will get the same photos. What will count is basically where he go, his abilities as photographer, the subject.

The K3 will be the most convenient to use with more direct access controls, quite better reactivity and AF and much more durable too. Kxx familly of camera tend to last about 30K shots on average. The K70 would help with its articulated screen mostly even if the 24MP can help if you have sharp long lenses for wildlife.

But if you get an f/2.8 zoom and/or a few primes, you'll see the difference in subject separation and low light photography all the time.

This is 2010 wisdom. I'm not sure it is 2020 wisdom.
Part of the question is how much you value "separation". I keep coming back to the most recent {USA} college basketball championship game, where pictures were taken with ISO=8000 so the photographer could use f/6.3 and get away from so much isolation. I believe this may become the new normal. Also, having used Canon gear for twenty years because I liked their USM lenses so much, I believe Pentax may find KAF4 lenses to be useful in their marketing, and if that happens, older lenses will not retain their value as we have become accustomed to.

[planteater]

I'm consistently getting much sharper pictures with my K70 than I did with my K30 (which was no slouch). Until DXo publish the results of the their tests there is no hard evidence for the OCD brigade but K30 to K70 is worth the investment for me. I don't think I would upgrade from KS2 in such a short period of time unless the new camera offered something I really needed/wanted

[AldaCZ]

The KS2 buffer is good enough for studio...strobes needs to reload

[Tatouzou]

Mine was a conservative guess based on the number of pictures I take at uncomfortably high {to me} ISO levels; I'm quite sure that the K-70 would improve all of those images, and would make me more comfortable at taking more of them; I don't have any reason to expect a K-3 to provide that same improvement at high ISO. The question I was responding to was suggesting that there is little to recommend a K-70 over a K-S2, and I was strongly disagreeing with that suggestion in one particular area, which is an area of importance to me. Perhaps a K-3 could provide improvements in other areas, but the reports indicate that the K-70 should provide most of the same improvements also. And, no, I'm not going to buy one of each camera and test it for myself; I tend not to be an early adopter, because I am quite comfortable depending on what others report.

From my own experience with K3 and K30, and Nicolas06 experience with K5 and K3, K3 has a much better AF performance than K5, and, IMO, I think K70 AF is closer to K5 AF or K30/K50AF.
AF system are expensive, and AF performance is a very important everyday feature, as you cannot improve a misfocused picture in PP.

[reh321]

From my own experience with K3 and K30, and Nicolas06 experience with K5 and K3, K3 has a much better AF performance than K5, and, IMO, I think K70 AF is closer to K5 AF or K30/K50AF.
AF system are expensive, and AF performance is a very important everyday feature, as you cannot improve a misfocused picture in PP.

My original comment {#383} was that maybe 10% of the pictures I've taken recently were at ISO values where my K-30 "struggles", so I personally look forward to the significantly better high-ISO performance of the K-70, as already documented by various users. I don't see how your words respond to that original comment - I've had very few pictures ruined, or even degraded, by K-30 AF.

[Nicolas06]

My original comment {#383} was that maybe 10% of the pictures I've taken recently were at ISO values where my K-30 "struggles", so I personally look forward to the significantly better high-ISO performance of the K-70, as already documented by various users. I don't see how your words respond to that original comment - I've had very few pictures ruined, or even degraded, by K-30 AF.

Simple, K3 would improve you experience as as a photographer, not for high iso (well against K30/K50 it still does it significantly) but for all shots by being much more accurate and much faster for AF.

As for K3 high isos, this isn't as terrible some want us to think:

iso 2500, K3



iso 1600, K3



iso 1600, K3



iso 3200, K3



iso 6400, K3



The difference may be more visible at 25600 iso, K70 clearly taking the lead, but both camera aren't good enough in that case anyway...

[Nicolas06]

This is 2010 wisdom. I'm not sure it is 2020 wisdom.
Part of the question is how much you value "separation". I keep coming back to the most recent {USA} college basketball championship game, where pictures were taken with ISO=8000 so the photographer could use f/6.3 and get away from so much isolation. I believe this may become the new normal. Also, having used Canon gear for twenty years because I liked their USM lenses so much, I believe Pentax may find KAF4 lenses to be useful in their marketing, and if that happens, older lenses will not retain their value as we have become accustomed to.

Well the lenses I mention are screwdrive, they are already cheap, they'll only disapear so you'll have to buy a $600 replacement in 2020... That's more an increase in price actually. The same thing costing twice as much.

[reh321]

Well the lenses I mention are screwdrive, they are already cheap, they'll only disappear so you'll have to buy a $600 replacement in 2020... That's more an increase in price actually. The same thing costing twice as much.

There you go again. I was being unfair when I referred to this as "2010 thinking"; screw-drive drove me to Canon's USM in 1995 - by 2010, only a true Pentax fan would think this way ... this is 1990 thinking. The petition to have KAF4 extended to K3, even K5 cameras, is still going strong; apparently lots of people see the value in going that direction.

---------- Post added 11-06-16 at 08:40 AM ----------

Simple, K3 would improve you experience as as a photographer, not for high iso (well against K30/K50 it still does it significantly) but for all shots by being much more accurate and much faster for AF.
The difference may be more visible at 25600 iso, K70 clearly taking the lead, but both camera aren't good enough in that case anyway...

Ironically, in parallel to this thread, I've been following a thread at a generic photography discussion forum, where a Nikon user asked about getting new lenses. The unanimous advice from other Nikon users was to buy a D500 instead - they see higher ISO as a much better solution than heavy, expensive constant f/2.8 lenses.

And, no, more accurate and faster AF would not improve my experience as a photographer. I have already stated that I have had very few pictures ruined or degraded by AF issues, but I have had a number degraded as my K-30 struggled with higher ISO values.

And, yes, sometimes any camera at 25600 would be good enough if the picture is of Sasquatch; sometimes any picture is better than nothing.

Oh, and another thing; I have become very tired of the T-90 look of the K-3; when I get a K-70 {unless Pentax comes out with something more pleasing to me in the meantime}, I will get the silver version.

added: I posted this picture last week. I took it with an old AdaptAll lens(*), so any focusing issues are me, not the camera. This guy wasn't going anywhere; any modern camera could have focused easily on him, but he was in the shade and I had to take the picture at ISO = 6400, which was lower than I had used on earlier ones of him. If I had posted a 16MP copy of this image, you could have zoomed in and seen a lot of noise. A camera which gracefully handles higher ISO would have been very nice at this point.



(*) if I had known he would be so cooperative, I would have used my DA 55-300 lens, but I used the AdaptAll lens + AdaptAll TC, which effectively gives me a 120-600mm lens