[jimr-pdx]

I've been dabbling in several camera types recently, and yet again was confronted a budget crunch so away went most of it. I turn 59½ tomorrow and the IRA can be tapped to get us out of a major medically-induced financial hole - and perhaps bring me one more, small pile of camera gear.

I tried the micro-43 route for the third time, and learned a few things. I hadn't tried Olympus before, and other than their absolutely bizarre menu system the gear itself worked nicely. I had two sets planned, an EM10 for myself and ePL5 for my wife (both use the same battery) - but she really wants to learn the NX300 so I won't dissuade her, as it has many great features for a smaller body (and their 16-50pz is excellent). I tried to sell one micro43 set but both sold a day apart, so nothing really keeps me there. I also have some older 4Thirds lenses that could be adapted, but they were ultra slow which means an EM1 and its on-chip PDAF is the only worthwhile option. Using the E500 is fun but I need 2015-age responsiveness or better, so it cannot justify itself. And spending $600 on the EM1 to use lenses I might not like on such a tiny body sounds sillier than most other things I've done in this 'hobby' -- so never mind, the 4Thirds stuff can go too.

In the end I'm a PDAF addict and nothing else can provide the speed I need. A viewfinder is indispensable too, and while the EM10 was quite good it wasn't often in play compared to the tilt-LCD screen. It's time to look back on when taking great images was a joy and the gear didn't stress me out: in other words, back to Pentax.

I love the K-1 as a concept, and its many unique features would get lots of use - but to be honest that's about $1k more than I should spend any time soon. The K-5ii series gave me a great value kit, but at times a denser AF region would have been nice. So that's puts me squarely in K-3 / ii territory, to my surprise. I believe that body with a 20-40 Limited zoom and probably another 55-300wr is my dream team, though unliss I capture a bargain the 50-200wr is more likely in the short term.

Yes I posted in the "why I won't.." thread, so I feel that I can use this thread title despite the lack of references to cheese or bacon (and only an oblique refence to beer).

[C_Jones]

I have s K-3II. The AF and image quality are nice. The 24 mp provides for croppable images while retaining detail. I have a K-5IIS and the K-3II AF is improved in tracking and spotting distant objects.

[victormeldrew]

Unless you're a fan of pop-up flash, the K-3 II is the way forward IMO. If you don't mind lens shadows and point-source light in your images and hate speedlights, save the money and get the K-3.
Either way it's a cracking camera.

[Nickrs]

I can't speak highly enough of my K3, tis a wonderful camera.

I must confess I don't use the flash at all on my K3 so the K3ii would have been the better option for me except for the fact that it hadn't been released when I bought mine, it doesn't pay to be an early adopter sometimes.

Bear in mind that the K70 is about to become available and looks to have an amazing spec.

[jimr-pdx]

I'd use the astrotracer now and then, but the flash is handy more often I suspect. I see Adorama throws in a free flash with the original, a curious choice..

Part of what aided my gear-tossing decision was carrying the E500 and 18-180 superduperzoom a few days ago. I passed pond full of pelicans in waning light, and not a single shot came out. Both the aged AF and iso400-max CCD sensor were unable to manage it. The EM10 would have done pretty well, but if we keep the NX300 there's no point in having a second mirrorless. The Samsung NX series is quite talented but very lacking in telephotos (bargain slowpoke 50-200 or spendy 50-150/2.8) and being orphaned did not help much.

[monochrome]

K-3 would have made that shot if you pulled up shadows in post.

(K-1 would have just made the shot outright - !!

[biz-engineer]

K3 is good to buy now , especially second hand for a very good price, since there must be a number of them in very good condition up for sale.

[jimr-pdx]

The K-1 is definitely forcing a few more K-3 into the open. Even at its bargain price K-1 owners cannot keep all their gear.
Hopefully a few more 20-40 Limited zooms will become expendable too

[nomadkng]

The K-1 is definitely forcing a few more K-3 into the open. Even at its bargain price K-1 owners cannot keep all their gear.
Hopefully a few more 20-40 Limited zooms will become expendable too

It's not even a matter of wanting to keep it....lol

I tried for 3 months to rationalize holding on to it, because I'm selling it at such a loss. But I'm just not going to use it... ever.... again.

[biz-engineer]

Even at its bargain price K-1 owners cannot keep all their gear.

Well, it's not really the issue, after owning the K1, I did not use the K3 anymore , I sold the K3 to prevent it to depreciate further.

[microlight]

I have a K-3II plus 20-40 Ltd and 55-300 (the non-WR version) and am very happy with what I get from it.

[slip]

if you don't need all the extra bells and whistles of the K3ii, I would get the K3. Adams initial review of the K3ii suggested that there isn't a whole lot of differences in the autofocus speed.

Randy

[monochrome]

The K-3 is absolutely, positively a fabulous camera once you learn the technique to manage the sensor.

What K-1 did was attach itself to my right hand in such a way that I just don't want to pick up any other camera.

[mnaah]

The K-3 is absolutely, positively a fabulous camera once you learn the technique to manage the sensor.

Hey monochrome - could you expand a bit on this, what do you mean 'technique to manage the sensor'?

[monochrome]

Hey monochrome - could you expand a bit on this, what do you mean 'technique to manage the sensor'?

The pixel density makes the K-3 (for me anyway) more sensitive to poor technique than I found using the 16Mp sensor cameras (K-5 and K-01). The resolution is fabulous but I always struggled with higher ISO shots (at and above 3200) in dim surroundings, or too-shallow DoF for my focusing skill when opening the aperture. After quite some time I was able to handhold 1/40 at 800 most of the time, and get sharp images at 100 yards with a 400mm manual lens hand held (or monopod) - but it took a long time.

Given the plethora of outstanding K-3 images here by better photographers the issue is me, ergo 'mastering the sensor'.. FWIW, I don't have the same issues with K-1, especially using manual focus legacy lenses. The sensor pixel density is close to the 16Mp APSc.