Originally posted by photoptimist I suppose that if you talk about "can I resolve the barbs on a blue jay feather with a 300 mm lens" then the K-3 out-resolves both the K-1 and K-5.
You say that like there's something wrong with the barbs on Blue Jay feathers.
I guess not seeing them is better for barb haters.
That's a class of hater I was only marginally aware of, not aware at all except for one of our more prominent landscape shooters has suggested he doesn't see the point in showing feather detail.
funny, you learn how to do something that you think makes your images more interesting. Someone else who observably doesn't put the time in feels the need to tell you what you do isn't important.
To paraphrase Bob Dylan "Don't tell me what is and what isn't important in an image."
Also more magnification and resolution for macros, but for me, it's worth it just for the Blue Jay feathers. The macros are even more dramatic.
I have a K-1, I have a K-3, I know what the advantages of each are. Someone trying to tell me what's important and what isn't doesn't help anything. When I walk out the door I usually take the K-1, but when I take the K-3 I shoot a lot more exposures (much more burst mode shooting, calling the K-1 burst mode a burst is misleading. I can manually trigger the shutter that fast.) . So in terms of shutter actuations over a year they end up pretty close.
So, to further emphasize the point, there are a lot of images, not just Blue Jay feather barbs, that a K-3 does better than or at least equal to a K-1. Your feeble attempt at diminishing that is just misdirection and obfuscation. Engaging in such practices does nothing but hint at bias.
And I use the K-3 a lot more than for barbs on Blue Jays. It does many other things well. It's a shame I have to point that out.