[dmjjr]

Really appreciate that answer. I own (2) K5lls-one with 11000 shutter count & one new in the box. IMHO the K3ll sensor is not better than the K5lls.-so that is the reluctance for the K3lll & the price.

[vector]

This is where it gets interesting though, the K3/K3ii use the same 24mp sensor with no accelerator. The K3iii has a new 26mp sensor with the accelerator. At low iso I can't see a difference, but at 1600+ iso there is a big difference with the accelerator. So it really depends on how you shoot. If you are a low light shooter then it will matter, plus if you need action, tracking, broader coverage then the K3iii easily wins, even over a K1ii. If you shoot landscapes or just mainly in good light, then yeah the difference is minimal. Between my K5 and K3 I get better images from the K3 until the noise goes up. I don't have the K5ii though so my K5 still has the low pass filter that is gone from the K5ii and K3 - which makes them just a bit sharper. If you don't crop a lot then yeah the difference is really minimal. I use my K3 mainly with for super telephoto, like birds, where they are tiny in the frame and even a good shot gets cropped. In that scenario the resolution advantage is very noticeable and the 24mp sensor easily wins. That use case may not be applicable to you, only you can know that.