[bxf]

Although I was about to make the jump to the K-3 II, realistically, I don't need anything better than the K-5 that I already have, except for the fact its AF behaviour, particularly under some artificial lights, has been inconsistent from the beginning.

I believe it has been adequately established that the K-3 AF is far superior to that of the K-5. The K-3 Review Pentax K-3 Review - Autofocus | PentaxForums.com Reviews gives the impression that PDAF differences between the K-3 and the K-5 II are not significant. Also, AF comparisons tend to discuss speed more than precision.

I don't often use Liveview, and I normally use only centre point AF. I am not particularly concerned with AF tracking, or even extreme AF speed (though hunting is a nuisance). I am after AF precision (i.e. accuracy and consistency), at reasonable speed.

So, although I'd like something with more consistent AF than my K-5, I'm also keen to not spend more money than I must. Which leads to the question: is the PDAF on the K-5 II good enough so that there is no need for me to spend more money on something I don't need?

I'd like to hear from people who have owned both the K-5 II and K-3 and get their views on the relative PDAF performance of these two cameras in actual use.

All other recent models are excluded from consideration due to absence of the top LCD.

Thanks.

Bill

[savoche]

I can't speak for differences in the PDAF accuracy and speed (since I haven't used the K-5II), but the thing I noticed the most going from K-5 to K-3 was the much smaller size of the focus point(s) on the K-3 - which makes it much easier to nail the focus for smaller objects. All of a sudden it's possible to focus on a bird among branches, one thing that was very hard to do consistently with the K-5.

[Ole]

I don't often use Liveview, and I normally use only centre point AF. I am not particularly concerned with AF tracking, or even extreme AF speed (though hunting is a nuisance). I am after AF precision (i.e. accuracy and consistency), at reasonable speed.

Given what you write above I'd say the the K-5 II would be a good choice. The K-3 has superior AF over the K-5 II, but it is in the areas you're not concerned about (more AF points, more settings, better tracking). The only consideration perhaps would be - as mentioned by the previous poster - that the K-3 AF points are smaller.

Best would be to test both models under the artificial light conditions where you find that the K-5 doesn't do a good job. Just to be sure that the K-5 II is an improvement under those conditions.

I have a K-5 IIs as well as a K-3 and, like you, just use the center point, but rarely take pictures under artificial light.

[bxf]

I can't speak for differences in the PDAF accuracy and speed (since I haven't used the K-5II), but the thing I noticed the most going from K-5 to K-3 was the much smaller size of the focus point(s) on the K-3 - which makes it much easier to nail the focus for smaller objects. All of a sudden it's possible to focus on a bird among branches, one thing that was very hard to do consistently with the K-5.

Yes, thanks for the reminder.

I am in fact aware of the large focus point on the K-5, so I normally pretend the metering circle represents my AF point and try to find an area in the appropriate plane that is large enough for that. That method would not work if I were determined to focus on an eye, for example, but more often than not the DOF will takes care of things.

---------- Post added 29-05-15 at 12:55 ----------

...
Best would be to test both models under the artificial light conditions where you find that the K-5 doesn't do a good job. Just to be sure that the K-5 II is an improvement under those conditions...

I could and I would, if I had access to a K-5 II

[Blacknight659]

I'd like to hear from people who have owned both the K-5 II and K-3 and get their views on the relative PDAF performance of these two cameras in actual use.

Personally, I own the K-5 II and my sister owns the K-5 IIs. Both focus very quickly and we have been very pleased with the results. I normally use center point focus, but reserve the right to switch to full auto or selective point focus when nessisary. I can say focus tracking is great. I only hate my results with my 55-300WR lens. This lens is known for its crazy long fous throw and its constant hunting. I have no idea if this gets better when on the K-3 or K-3 II.

IMO, Purchasing the K-3 will be the best option. It will have the better focusing you want and many other features that will help prolong the life of your investment. The K-5 II is wonderful, you will get the inhanced focusing, but for a litte more money you could have that, AND, No AA filter/simulation, Higher pixel count, and two SD card slots. I would consider the recent deal on this camera new OR check the used market for unbeatable deals. Pentax K-3 + Grip Drops to $749 - Deals and Savings | PentaxForums.com

For me, I am EXCITED about what the K-3 II is bringing to the game. Internal GPS, Pixel Shift Imageing are what I am mostly excited about. I hope in a year we see the same price drop and I can snag one for a reasonable price.

[Flugelbinder]

My 2 cents...
I'm a K-5 II user and I have to say that the focus inaccuracy/inconsistency almost drove to sell it. I didn't because I just love the color rendering of the Pentax. A few months have passed and, like you, I have gotten used to the (very) large focus point, which lead to a better and more consistent focus - I am even able to focus on eyes.
That said, for what I read, I would love, and will as soon as the budget allows, get a K-3, for the improved focus ability, mostly due to the smaller focus points.

Como esta o tempo por Lisboa? Que saudades tenho da minha Costa da Caparica...

[bxf]

Como esta o tempo por Lisboa? Que saudades tenho da minha Costa da Caparica

It's summer here, which, as an ex-Montrealer, is why I am here and not where you are I'll give your best to Costa da Caparica next time I walk on its beach...

[Dan Rentea]

I owned K-5 II for about 2 years. I sold it and I bought the new K-3 II for about a week. I already took 8-900 shots with K-3 II, in various conditions (daylight, artificial light from a restaurant, night landscape and some tracking shots). Regarding focus capability, I was very pleased with the focus performance from the K-5 II, except tracking capabilities (where the focus was quite slow, compared let's say with Canon 7D).

The K-3 II focus is better. I would say 10% better when it comes to still photography and 40-50% better when it comes to tracking subjects.

Hope this information it helps.