[dane.dawg]

More from imaging resource..
Pentax K-3 review: Shooter’s Report Part I - Early thoughts from a K-5 owner

[nomadkng]

toward the end of the blog, when he comments how his K-5 wanted to focus on the black railing instead of the taco sign on which HE wanted it to focus, I could only shake my head and sigh, "guess I have to figure out how to afford a K3 now."

that is exactly the focus glitch that has cost me many shots recently, especially when shooting critters. if I didn't have so much invested in K-mount lenses, I seriously would be thinking about defecting because of the frustration. If the K3 finally solved this, I guess I'll have to pick one up before my next major trip in May.

[TER-OR]

Thanks, this is a very thorough treatment.

[Erictator]

I find myself liking informal, less technical, and more practical hands on reports like these more and more. Not instead of, but in addition to the techie reports.

Still sitting on an original K5 myself, and after looking through this shooters review, the light bulb finally went on, at least for me.

Personally, when I finally get around to choosing to upgrade to the K3 someday, my decision will be based on this question:

What will improve my photography more, high iso performance at 100% viewing, or higher percentage of correctly focused keepers in good and low light situations? This leads to other questions, like, what percentage of my photography requires high iso? I tend to shoot a lot of well lit outdoor subjects, and when indoors, I hate direct flash and would prefer to use available light or bounce flash.... BUT... what good is high iso performance if the shot is out of focus? I think I'd rather do a little PP do get rid of a little extra noise on a sharp photo, where as you can't ever salvage an out of focus shot, or worse yet, you miss the shot altogether because the camera never locked focus and missed the moment.

A part of my mind had been nagging at me to grab a K5IIs before they are out of production, because I might not like the high iso of the K-3...

Definitely made me start thinking a little differently. I think by the time I'm ready to deal with this decision, the concensus might be that the K-3 is the way to go.
Thanks!

[derekkite]

No camera is perfect, but my k5 to k3 move has meant that bad shots are either my fault or I'm pushing the limits of the body in very low light or low contrast situations.

I still have lots of bad shots, but I can't blame the camera. If there is a good one to be gotten, it will take it if I don't mess up.

I very much enjoyed the review and look forward to more.

[danny09]

Agreed. It was a good read. I especially liked the very criteria the reviewer was using to evaluate whether "he" needed to upgrade to the K3 It appeared from the low light high ISO pictures that K3 will do just as well as K5 II in similar conditions. K3's ISO 3200 actually looked very comparable, (or probably better due to accurate WB metering?), than a K5 at same ISO. Pretty impressive IMO.