[carrrlangas]

I currently own a K-5IIs and I am doing mostly studio (product, art reproduction) and on location (product, some sports/dance setups) work now but I really like landscape, hiking, trekking when there´s time and I get to travel. So I am not that interested in the new AF system, FPS, buffer, etc. But I´d like to know your findings / thoughts about the following:

• Screen size, visibility in bright light and color accuracy. When I switched from K-5 to K-5IIs I was impressed by how much better the screen is on the IIs. Sharper, better in sunlight and color accurate enough. How field relevant is the new 3:2 aspect and is the screen as good as that in the K-5II?
• Viewfinder brightness and magniification. Ricoh says the new vewfinder is 15% brighter because of new coutings and 95% vs 93% maginifation. Anyone could compare both?
• Mirror / shutter mechanism. I guess the new design is needed for the greater pixel density. Is it noticeable when using 55-300 for example? I mean, does it vibrate less than K-5?
• Performance speed. Does the instant preview appears faster after taking the shot? Playback navigating works faster? cycling through histogram / info?
• Liveview magnification When manual focusing, K-5IIs is a bit slow to magnify x2, x4, x6, etc. Is the K-3 better?

Thanks in advance

[Adam]

How field relevant is the new 3:2 aspect and is the screen as good as that in the K-5II?

It's the same from a viewability standpoint, just bigger. The aspect ratio change is very nice as your images fill the whole screen in playback/live view.

Ricoh says the new viewfinder is 15% brighter because of new coatings and 95% vs 93% magnification. Anyone could compare both?

No practical significance. I put one camera to each eye at the same time...

I guess the new design is needed for the greater pixel density. Is it noticeable when using 55-300 for example? I mean, does it vibrate less than K-5?

Again, this isn't something you'll really be able to take advantage of in practice. The shutter is a bit quieter and the new design facilitates a faster burst framerate, though.

Does the instant preview appears faster after taking the shot? Playback navigating works faster? cycling through histogram / info?

See specific details here:
Pentax K-3 Review - Performance and Burst Mode - PF Reviews

Even with a high-performance memory card, the K-3 is slower to instant review in RAW mode because of the size of its files. Playback speed depends on your card speed but it's generally faster.

The most notable improvement in the K-3 is that lens corrections are carried out 3x faster.

Liveview magnification When manual focusing, K-5IIs is a bit slow to magnify x2, x4, x6, etc. Is the K-3 better?

Endlessly better! Live view overall has been much improved.

[bwDraco]

In my limited experience with the K-3 (don't own one, only tried it a few times), the viewfinder is noticeably larger than that of the K-5 but did not seem much brighter. It's not huge like full frame, but it's pretty close. As for the display, the seemingly slight 0.2" difference is in fact huge in reality; it's astounding how much of a difference an extra 80 pixels of width (720x480 vs 640x480) makes.

For some reason, the vibration from the shutter and mirror actually felt stronger to me compared to that of my K-5. When shooting continuously, it actually feels more like a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV than a K-5 with the shutter and mirror running upwards of 8 fps, though it's nowhere near as harsh as the Canon.

Camera responsiveness is definitely improved, everything just works faster on the K-3. However, I have no experience with live view on the K-3.

--DragonLord

[halfspin]

Even with a high-performance memory card, the K-3 is slower to instant review in RAW mode because of the size of its files. Playback speed depends on your card speed but it's generally faster

This has been my only complaint about the K-5IIs - playback speed is brutally slow even with a freshly formatted fastish card. I was hoping the K-3 would be noticeably better even tho the file size is larger. In my mind this is the ONLY advantage of canikons expect for of course AF accuracy and speed.

[RonHendriks1966]

I suggest you get an O-ME53 eyecup magnifier for your OVF and you have a bigger screen to look at. It is about 1.19x magnification and that does work out very nice.

[carrrlangas]

the K-3 is slower to instant review in RAW mode because of the size of its files. Playback speed depends on your card speed but it's generally faster.

Thanks for your detailed answers. What a bummer about the instant review delay! It make sense since they are bigger files but... I wouldn´t like to wait even longer than I do now to see the histogram

I suggest you get an O-ME53 eyecup magnifier for your OVF and you have a bigger screen to look at. It is about 1.19x magnification and that does work out very nice.

I am using one right now. It is quite good and since I am left eye dominant I also like that it is longer than the stock eye cup so my nose has a little more room. But if I am not shooting at aye level it gets difficult to see the hole viewfinder at once..

[sadatoni]

Performance speed. Does the instant preview appears faster after taking the shot? Playback navigating works faster? cycling through histogram / info?

I find the review after taking a shot on the K3 is much faster than it is on the K5. The K5 is painfully slow (maybe it's the SD card I'm using in it). The K3 for me seems almost instantaneous (I shoot RAW+).

[jbinpg]

Time to display the shot will depend on how many in-camera corrections/effects you have enabled. But in my experience, the K-3 even with all in-camera corrections enabled is noticeably faster to display than my K5-IIs.

Jack

[carrrlangas]

In my limited experience with the K-3 (don't own one, only tried it a few times), the viewfinder is noticeably larger than that of the K-5 but did not seem much brighter. It's not huge like full frame, but it's pretty close. The seemingly slight 0.2" difference is in fact huge in reality; it's astounding how much of a difference an extra 80 pixels of width (720x480 vs 640x480) makes.

Are you talking about the viewfinder or LCD?

For some reason, the vibration from the shutter and mirror actually felt stronger to me compared to that of my K-5. When shooting continuously, it actually feels more like a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV than a K-5 with the shutter and mirror running upwards of 8 fps, though it's nowhere near as harsh as the Canon.

Thinking about it, it could be possible, less vibrations and bouncing during exposure doesn´t need less bouncing during the rest of the mechanical movements. reminds me of 645 without mirror lock up dind´t vibrate a bit during exposure but it felt like it.

I find the review after taking a shot on the K3 is much faster than it is on the K5.

Camera responsiveness is definitely improved, everything just works faster on the K-3.

Time to display the shot will depend on how many in-camera corrections/effects you have enabled. But in my experience, the K-3 even with all in-camera corrections enabled is noticeably faster to display than my K5-IIs.

thanks for your input guys.
@Adam, perhaps you could doublecheck your performance measurments that appear in the review? And knowing you also use Nikon, I´ve read that it was tough to get all the resolution out of D800 at certain shutter speeds because of mechanical vibrations and Nikon says they improved the mirror mechanism in D810 to reduce such vibrations. Given the higher pixel density of the K-3, is it logical to assume it would be even more challenging to reduce these vibrations? Or is the smaller sensor / mirror mechanism such an advantage that it doesn´t pose a problem? Not trying to compare D800 vs K-3, just using it as a reference.

[bwDraco]

Are you talking about the viewfinder or LCD?

Sorry for the confusion. I actually was referring to both. The post has been edited:

In my limited experience with the K-3 (don't own one, only tried it a few times), the viewfinder is noticeably larger than that of the K-5 but did not seem much brighter. It's not huge like full frame, but it's pretty close. As for the display, the seemingly slight 0.2" difference is in fact huge in reality; it's astounding how much of a difference an extra 80 pixels of width (720x480 vs 640x480) makes.

--DragonLord

[derekkite]

I currently own a K-5IIs and I am doing mostly studio (product, art reproduction) and on location (product, some sports/dance setups) work now but I really like landscape, hiking, trekking when there´s time and I get to travel. So I am not that interested in the new AF system, FPS, buffer, etc. But I´d like to know your findings / thoughts about the following:

• Screen size, visibility in bright light and color accuracy. When I switched from K-5 to K-5IIs I was impressed by how much better the screen is on the IIs. Sharper, better in sunlight and color accurate enough. How field relevant is the new 3:2 aspect and is the screen as good as that in the K-5II?
• Viewfinder brightness and magniification. Ricoh says the new vewfinder is 15% brighter because of new coutings and 95% vs 93% maginifation. Anyone could compare both?
• Mirror / shutter mechanism. I guess the new design is needed for the greater pixel density. Is it noticeable when using 55-300 for example? I mean, does it vibrate less than K-5?
• Performance speed. Does the instant preview appears faster after taking the shot? Playback navigating works faster? cycling through histogram / info?
• Liveview magnification When manual focusing, K-5IIs is a bit slow to magnify x2, x4, x6, etc. Is the K-3 better?

Thanks in advance

Last to first. Liveview is actually useful. I can see the focus peaking lines move in real time as I turn the focus ring on the lens. On the K5 there was a delay and it was very easy to overshoot. Dramatically better.

Performance. Kite's Law, I'm sure someone else has stated this, but I'll name it. Any new device that has faster performance feels slow in 15 minutes. The K-5 was slow for live view and preview, the K3 is faster, fast enough that you don't notice a delay. A filled buffer takes it's time since the buffer is very large, so there are delays experienced. I would miss shots with my K5 from time to time in situations where I would take many shots in small groups over a minute or two, but the K-3 is better. It is very easy to take lots of shots with the K3, and it takes a bit of discipline. Once full the delay is dependent on the card. When I shoot Raw+ with the flucard as second, it puts me back into K5 responsiveness.

Vibration and shake is about the same I would say, maybe a little bit worse on the K3.

Viewfinder compared to the K-5 is nicer. Quite a bit brighter. I remember the dark grainy viewfinder on the K5 and rarely run into it on the K3.

Screen size and brightness? I haven't noticed a difference. There are still situations where it isn't possible to focus due to bright light.

[rawr]

Liveview is actually useful. I can see the focus peaking lines move in real time as I turn the focus ring on the lens. On the K5 there was a delay and it was very easy to overshoot. Dramatically better.

I can confirm this. K-3 LiveView works great, a big improvement on the K-5. Now if only K-3 had a flippy screen like my NEX - or the 645Z...