[ElJamoquio]

If someone offered me a K-3 instead of a K-5, I'd take the K-3.

For some pics, though, it'd be a tough call. Print larger with the 24 MP? Print better with the DR of the K-5?

It's a shame that the K-3 can't match or beat the K-5 at everything, people will hiccup just a little.

[normhead]

As, I've been saying all along, marginally worse than a K-5 in DR, better in resolution.. probably not worth it for the resolution, unless you are shooting wildlife and will almost certainly need to crop, and for wildlife and macro's more magnification.

Add the better AF, which is pretty much a joy to use, the faster burst rate, and it's a winner. It does what I bought it for. I

[monochrome]

Is it true the Ricoh intends to keep the K5II/s in production? If so, perhaps they realize the benefits of the 16Mp sensor for certain users vs. the 24Mp sensor (plus wildlife- and action-oriented features) for other users.

[ElJamoquio]

It isn't that different. As has been stated multiple times, the presence of iso 80 on the K5 II is the difference in dynamic range.

"The" difference? I wouldn't say that, personally, as there's a ~1/2 a stop difference at 1600 ISO, or roughly, the K-3 has the same DR at 1400 ISO that the K-5 has at 2400 ISO.

[Kunzite]

Is it true the Ricoh intends to keep the K5II/s in production? If so, perhaps they realize the benefits of the 16Mp sensor for certain users vs. the 24Mp sensor (plus wildlife- and action-oriented features) for other users.

At least for a while, AFAIK.

[normhead]

"The" difference? I wouldn't say that, personally, as there's a ~1/2 a stop difference at 1600 ISO, or roughly, the K-3 has the same DR at 1400 ISO that the K-5 has at 2400 ISO.

I guess the fact that they both shoot about the same at 100-400 ISO doesn't matter to you.

[RonHendriks1966]

I guess the fact that they both shoot about the same at 100-400 ISO doesn't matter to you.

Offcourse not if you are forced into high-iso. For sports in stadium's I will still keep using the K-5 with iso6400 as that will be the better camera. But that is no surprise to me, since that was to be expected from the higher pixelcount.

Wich makes me wanting more an update to K-5 iii

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/239192-k-5-iii.html

[normhead]

The issue then becomes, what's better, a half stop or better auto-focus and frame rate. You still don't have a clear cut winner for sports. Especially since their low light focusing capability is about the same, and the K-3 with better tracking. If you reduce the issue to one dimension you can come to that type of decision, but it's might not be the same decision you'd come to if you took the camera out and used it. My own test showed the K-3 to be useable but noisy to 64000 ISO, but the loss of DR made the pictures flat 12800 and above. You might still think 6400 is OK. I require images without noise so for me 800 is safe on both systems. I'd go to 1600, on a K-3 and 3200 on K-5, reluctantly, for action type images. For my images, usually 6400 is un-acceptable on either system, although I might go there for a bird in flight if it was dramatic enough.

[Rondec]

"The" difference? I wouldn't say that, personally, as there's a ~1/2 a stop difference at 1600 ISO, or roughly, the K-3 has the same DR at 1400 ISO that the K-5 has at 2400 ISO.

I don't believe you can tell a difference. I looked at the K-01/K30 dynamic range curves on DXO Mark and they exactly overlap the K3 curve. But I would tell you as well that I cannot tell the difference between a K-01 and a K5 file when it comes to processing. Not at high iso and not at low iso. They are close enough that if I don't know which camera took a photo I couldn't tell just by looking. In addition, DXO Mark says that at iso 1600, the K3 file will have 9.85 EVs of dynamic range, the K5 will have 10.02 EVs. That isn't "half a stop" of dynamic range difference is it? If you can really tell the difference between .15 EVs of dynamic range, you have amazing eyes.

Oddly, the sports iso score for the K3 is actually higher than for a K5 II for what it is worth -- that is the number at which dynamic range drops below 9.

The only thing I can think is that you have the screen and not the print button checked on the DXO Mark graphs, but that screen button is pretty worthless in my opinion.

And the difference between iso 1400 and 2400 is closer to three quarters of a stop, not a half stop, but as I said above, not sure where that number came from in the first place...

[audiobomber]

A score of 80 vs. 82 is irrelevant in practical terms. DXOMark measured a 30-50% increase in resolution for the D7100 over the D7000, and the increased resolution was found in consumer lenses as well as pro lenses. The K-3 will boost the resolution of every lens in your bag, make your screw drive lenses faster and quieter, allow you to track moving subjects far more consistently, and fire off extended raw bursts while doing it. Dual cards for backup or extended shooting, faster processing, wi-fi capability, fast CDAF, focus peaking, a larger LCD, consistent flash and more, all with virtually no increase in size, and a lower MSRP at release. I am over the moon.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't believe you can tell a difference.

Might not.

In addition, DXO Mark says that at iso 1600, the K3 file will have 9.85 EVs of dynamic range, the K5 will have 10.02 EVs. That isn't "half a stop" of dynamic range difference is it? If you can really tell the difference between .15 EVs of dynamic range, you have amazing eyes.

My DxOMark says 10.35 at ~1450 and 9.85 at ~1450. that's half a stop.

that screen button is pretty worthless in my opinion.

I agree. I never look at screen.

And the difference between iso 1400 and 2400 is closer to three quarters of a stop, not a half stop, but as I said above, not sure where that number came from in the first place...

That was me eyeball interpolating on a log plot which is difficult.

[Rondec]

Might not.



My DxOMark says 10.35 at ~1450 and 9.85 at ~1450. that's half a stop.




I agree. I never look at screen.




That was me eyeball interpolating on a log plot which is difficult.

The biggest gap in dynamic range is at iso 400 between the K3 and K5 II and it is under 0.5 EVs. At higher EVs the graph for the K5 II and K3 overlap exactly.

[monochrome]

I shudder to think what people will find to argue about on the FF when it comes.

[audiobomber]

I shudder to think what people will find to argue about on the FF when it comes.

#1 complaint will be the price.

[kenyee]

I shudder to think what people will find to argue about on the FF when it comes.

The D600 has better DR and costs less. No, the A7 has better DR. No, the 6D has better DR. No, the EM-1 has less noise and is lighter. No, the K-5 has better DR. No, my puppy has better DR. No, my cat has less noise.
Sound about right?

I'd actually like to hear more discussion on the theory that the K-3 uses the NEX-7's sensor...seems to make the most sense to me as well since I bet Sony has bunch of them with the lackluster NEX-7 sales