Convince me to buy a K-3

ShaunW · 12-25-2017, 01:24 PM

Currently I have a K-5. I would like to purchase a new camera. I would mainly purchase a K-3 for the increased resolution. I am looking at a used one for around $500. Would this be a significant upgrade? Would the K-3 II be a better deal if I am paying $200-$300 more for a new one? Also rumors for the "K-3 III" have resurfaced. Would it be wiser to wait for its release? If the K-3 is a worthy upgrade with noticeable improvements in performance, it should be good enough.

Bad Boy · 12-25-2017, 01:42 PM - **1 Like**

I am investing in lenses first and keep using my K-5. Do you have all your lenses and accessories? Better lenses usually are better than a better body.

**twilhelm** · 12-25-2017, 02:44 PM - **1 Like**

I have both, and here’s a bit that I can tell you. Yes the files are bigger, but the K5 is still more than able. I think the K5 is a little bit better at high ISO. On the other hand, the K3 has a much improved auto focus. I say that because of my DA 17-70 and DA* 50-135. On the K5 they would hunt a bit, and the 17-70 would occasionally not lock focus from 60-70. I just shot a wedding last weekend and the 17-70 was like a different lens. It hit every time.
The K3II of course gives you pixel shift and Astro tracer, but no flash. To some that’s worth the money.

For me, the K3 was worth buying. And right now there has been no substantial announcement regarding a timeline for a replacement. Plus, I would expect it to launch well over $1500.

**clickclick** · 12-25-2017, 02:45 PM

What type of shooting do you do? If you think things like improved AF speed might make a difference to you, then I'd suggest waiting. While it's all speculation, I think it a fair guess to assume improvements in this area. Also, if you think you want to do low light shooting, including indoors and just getting away from having a flash, it might be worth waiting. The KP and K70 certainly do better in low light than the K3 does. so this is something else to consider. Of course, there is no indication at this point of when a K3II replacement might appear, and to throw out a date is just speculation. It may or may not be a long wait.

**Alex645** · 12-25-2017, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by ShaunW

Currently I have a K-5. I would like to purchase a new camera. I would mainly purchase a K-3 for the increased resolution. I am looking at a used one for around $500. Would this be a significant upgrade? Would the K-3 II be a better deal if I am paying $200-$300 more for a new one? Also rumors for the "K-3 III" have resurfaced. Would it be wiser to wait for its release? If the K-3 is a worthy upgrade with noticeable improvements in performance, it should be good enough.

Shaun,
Here's a good link to help make your decision of the pros and cons for the K-3:
Pentax K-5 vs Pentax K-3 Detailed Comparison

The K-3 has better resolution and with the AA filter, is sharper, but the K-5 does have better dynamic range in high contrast situations.

How often do you use the built-in flash? Do you have an external flash? That's an additional con for the K3II, but a new one will last for years:
Pentax K-5 vs Pentax K-3 II Detailed Comparison

And then to compare the K-3 vs. K3II:
Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-3 II Detailed Comparison

The K3II pixel shift and astrotracer are great features IF you're going to use either.

heinamj · 12-25-2017, 03:34 PM

If you live near North NJ, there is a K3ii for sale on Craigslist in Iselin, NJ

K3 ii with 50mm 1.8 - electronics - by owner - sale

I got my K3 on Craigslist in September with only 755 clicks on the shutter. I love it but I was upgrading from a K30 & K50.

C_Jones · 12-25-2017, 03:36 PM

K-3ii.

**BigMackCam** · 12-25-2017, 03:42 PM - **1 Like**

I also have both the K-5 and K-3 (and the K-3II, actually).

Regarding the K-3:

- AF performance is definitely better, especially under low tungsten lighting
- Placement of the AF button (for back-button focusing) is *much* better (at least, it is for me)
- Resolution is, of course, better - which I find most useful in terms of cropping range
- the lack of AA filter makes a noticeable, positive difference
- Dynamic range is, allegedly, slightly worse than the K-5 - but in normal shooting conditions, I haven't noticed any significant difference (YMMV)
- As for high ISO performance... I've heard several people say that the K-5 has a slight edge on noise. That may be, but it's because of in-camera RAW noise reduction kicking in sooner (this has been proven by one of our members some time ago). If you shoot RAW and process with Lightroom or similar with careful noise reduction, the difference in high ISO performance is frankly negligible in my experience, especially when the K-3's higher-resolution files are down-sampled to the same physical size as the K-5's
- More on high ISO - the K-3 is genuinely usable by another stop of ISO sensitivity, subject to careful noise reduction in post-processing (I base this primarily on accurate / acceptable colour reproduction)
- Focus peaking in LiveView can be useful with manual lenses (though I still prefer to magnify the view for ultra-precise focusing)
- Shake reduction is improved, though in practice I find both the K-3 and K-5 very good in this respect

Given typical used prices for a good, low-use K-3, I think it's a worthy upgrade if the factors above are important to you. That said... I still use my K-5 fairly often, and I remain delighted with the image quality. If, by some unfortunate turn of events, I found myself without my K-3 and K-3II, I'd have no qualms using the K-5 as my main body again. It's still a phenomenal camera.

Finally... The "K-3III" (for want of a better model name) is still some way off, and when it's released we can guess that it won't be cheap (given pricing of the KP). If you really feel you need to upgrade from your K-5, and if the K-3 specification has your requirements well-covered, I see no benefit in waiting almost a year for a new model... That's a lot of shooting time to lose out on

**BigMackCam** · 12-25-2017, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by C_Jones

K-3ii.

For the OP's benefit, might you be able to expand on that? I ask, because I shoot both K-3 and K-3II, and - whilst I'm fully aware of the differences - based on my own requirements, I find them pretty much interchangeable.

Na Horuk · 12-25-2017, 04:09 PM

Make a list of what you need. Need high ISO, low noise? Get KP. Need fast burst rate? Get K-3. Need GPS? Get K-3II.
Then get the cheapest option that fills all your needs. IF you only need resolution, then something like K-S2 or K-70 might be enough. No AA filter, more MP, will give you more detail than the K-5 classic

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-cameras-compared/?c1=Pentax+KP&c2...&c3=Pentax+K-3

**beachgardener** · 12-25-2017, 04:27 PM

Go for it, I don't think we will see a K-3/II replacement any time soon, maybe later next year or earlier the year after, plenty of time to get stuck into a K-3. I have both and glad of it. I will without a doubt get the next flagship APS-C what ever it is called, not early adopter but soon after, does depend on specs. though.
edit: might even get the KP as well but that is a different camera, different purposes.

pakinjapan · 12-25-2017, 04:41 PM - **1 Like**

I used to have a K-5, now a K-3. This is my take.

I can say that I like K-3 more than K-5 now but, I wouldn't switch to K-3 if I didn't drop and destroyed my K-5 in the process. Photography is only a hobby for me, and K5 is a very capable camera.

What I like about K-3:
it has higher pixel count.
2 SD slot: I also like using a fluecard which allow me to do extreme low angle photo. I could never do that without the card or with a K-5.
Way way better autofocus in low light: low light and night street photo is an enjoyable experience with K-3, the opposite for the K-5.
Higher rear LCD resolution: On K-5 it was very hard to tell at night if things are in focus even at 100% magnification. It is not a problem on K-3 LCD.

What I don't like about K-3:
I like button's layout on K-5 a lot more. and buttons on K-3 seems to be more sensitive than K-5.
on K-3, I accidentally chang my setting, turn on my rear lcd and so on... very often.
but theyare something I can live with. just annoying sometime.

K3 Vs K3II, "I think" it is more of ... do you want a pop-up flash (K-3) or pixel-shift feature (K-3II). A few $$$ differences between the two can be spent on a GPS unit. I go with pop up flash option because a GPS unit is a pocket-size (smaller than flash) and it is a lifesaver when need.

my conclusion: Even over all experience on K-3 is better (must better) for me but If my K-5 were still in a working condition, I would keep on using it until the new flagship comes out and see if I want to get the latest one or if I want a K-3 which should be even cheaper by then.

**dadipentak** · 12-25-2017, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by ShaunW

Would this [K-5>K-3] be a significant upgrade?

Yes! But I wouldn't recommend the K-3II over the K-3 unless you will make serious use of pixel-shift.

**UncleVanya** · 12-25-2017, 04:53 PM

I went from the k-50 to the k-3 and choose to not buy the k3ii despite a minor price difference at the time. I did so because on camera flash built in was more important to me than pixel shift.

The upgrade from 16-24mp is subtle. The dual card slots are awesome. The af is better than my k50 also.

Just do it. You won't regret it.

**aslyfox** · 12-25-2017, 05:12 PM - **1 Like**

If the original poster wants to buy a new K 3 II ( basically giving up the built in flash and gaining a built in GPS unit ) as opposed to buying a new K 3 ( built in flash, no built in GPS unit )

there is something to consider

speed - if the OP wants the accessory battery grip with the K 3 II that is

on November 8, I found this deal offered by B & H

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?InitialSearch=yes&N=0&Ntt=Pentax+K-3+I...tax+K-3+II%2Cp

you can buy a combo K 3 II plus the battery grip for an additional amount ( less than $ 7 ) $836.95

the K 3 II by itself is $829.95

the deal appears to still be good:

Pentax K-3 II | B&H Photo Video

no telling how much longer the deal will be offered.

12-25-2017, 01:24 PM	#1
ShaunW Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 60	Convince me to buy a K-3 Currently I have a K-5. I would like to purchase a new camera. I would mainly purchase a K-3 for the increased resolution. I am looking at a used one for around $500. Would this be a significant upgrade? Would the K-3 II be a better deal if I am paying $200-$300 more for a new one? Also rumors for the "K-3 III" have resurfaced. Would it be wiser to wait for its release? If the K-3 is a worthy upgrade with noticeable improvements in performance, it should be good enough.

12-25-2017, 03:42 PM - 1 Like	#8
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	I also have both the K-5 and K-3 (and the K-3II, actually). Regarding the K-3: - AF performance is definitely better, especially under low tungsten lighting - Placement of the AF button (for back-button focusing) is much better (at least, it is for me) - Resolution is, of course, better - which I find most useful in terms of cropping range - the lack of AA filter makes a noticeable, positive difference - Dynamic range is, allegedly, slightly worse than the K-5 - but in normal shooting conditions, I haven't noticed any significant difference (YMMV) - As for high ISO performance... I've heard several people say that the K-5 has a slight edge on noise. That may be, but it's because of in-camera RAW noise reduction kicking in sooner (this has been proven by one of our members some time ago). If you shoot RAW and process with Lightroom or similar with careful noise reduction, the difference in high ISO performance is frankly negligible in my experience, especially when the K-3's higher-resolution files are down-sampled to the same physical size as the K-5's - More on high ISO - the K-3 is genuinely usable by another stop of ISO sensitivity, subject to careful noise reduction in post-processing (I base this primarily on accurate / acceptable colour reproduction) - Focus peaking in LiveView can be useful with manual lenses (though I still prefer to magnify the view for ultra-precise focusing) - Shake reduction is improved, though in practice I find both the K-3 and K-5 very good in this respect Given typical used prices for a good, low-use K-3, I think it's a worthy upgrade if the factors above are important to you. That said... I still use my K-5 fairly often, and I remain delighted with the image quality. If, by some unfortunate turn of events, I found myself without my K-3 and K-3II, I'd have no qualms using the K-5 as my main body again. It's still a phenomenal camera. Finally... The "K-3III" (for want of a better model name) is still some way off, and when it's released we can guess that it won't be cheap (given pricing of the KP). If you really feel you need to upgrade from your K-5, and if the K-3 specification has your requirements well-covered, I see no benefit in waiting almost a year for a new model... That's a lot of shooting time to lose out on Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-25-2017 at 04:12 PM.

12-25-2017, 03:54 PM	#9
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by C_Jones K-3ii. For the OP's benefit, might you be able to expand on that? I ask, because I shoot both K-3 and K-3II, and - whilst I'm fully aware of the differences - based on my own requirements, I find them pretty much interchangeable. Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-25-2017 at 04:29 PM.

12-25-2017, 04:41 PM - 1 Like	#12
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	I used to have a K-5, now a K-3. This is my take. I can say that I like K-3 more than K-5 now but, I wouldn't switch to K-3 if I didn't drop and destroyed my K-5 in the process. Photography is only a hobby for me, and K5 is a very capable camera. What I like about K-3: it has higher pixel count. 2 SD slot: I also like using a fluecard which allow me to do extreme low angle photo. I could never do that without the card or with a K-5. Way way better autofocus in low light: low light and night street photo is an enjoyable experience with K-3, the opposite for the K-5. Higher rear LCD resolution: On K-5 it was very hard to tell at night if things are in focus even at 100% magnification. It is not a problem on K-3 LCD. What I don't like about K-3: I like button's layout on K-5 a lot more. and buttons on K-3 seems to be more sensitive than K-5. on K-3, I accidentally chang my setting, turn on my rear lcd and so on... very often. but theyare something I can live with. just annoying sometime. K3 Vs K3II, "I think" it is more of ... do you want a pop-up flash (K-3) or pixel-shift feature (K-3II). A few $$$ differences between the two can be spent on a GPS unit. I go with pop up flash option because a GPS unit is a pocket-size (smaller than flash) and it is a lifesaver when need. my conclusion: Even over all experience on K-3 is better (must better) for me but If my K-5 were still in a working condition, I would keep on using it until the new flagship comes out and see if I want to get the latest one or if I want a K-3 which should be even cheaper by then. Last edited by pakinjapan; 12-25-2017 at 04:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Convince me my LBA is irrational	ThorSanchez	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	68	06-13-2016 04:12 AM
Convince me to upgrade to K-5IIs	cbope	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	17	12-04-2014 05:27 AM
Last attempt to convince you to buy a K-01!	RonHendriks1966	Pentax K-01	11	11-03-2012 02:50 AM
Please convince me to go 67...	ElJamoquio	Pentax Medium Format	20	04-10-2012 09:09 PM
pentax K-01 convince me	minolta2pentax	Pentax K-01	43	03-25-2012 03:47 PM

12-25-2017, 01:42 PM - 1 Like	#2
Bad Boy Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Western Washington State Posts: 41	I am investing in lenses first and keep using my K-5. Do you have all your lenses and accessories? Better lenses usually are better than a better body.

12-25-2017, 02:44 PM - 1 Like	#3
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	I have both, and here’s a bit that I can tell you. Yes the files are bigger, but the K5 is still more than able. I think the K5 is a little bit better at high ISO. On the other hand, the K3 has a much improved auto focus. I say that because of my DA 17-70 and DA* 50-135. On the K5 they would hunt a bit, and the 17-70 would occasionally not lock focus from 60-70. I just shot a wedding last weekend and the 17-70 was like a different lens. It hit every time. The K3II of course gives you pixel shift and Astro tracer, but no flash. To some that’s worth the money. For me, the K3 was worth buying. And right now there has been no substantial announcement regarding a timeline for a replacement. Plus, I would expect it to launch well over $1500.

12-25-2017, 02:45 PM	#4
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	What type of shooting do you do? If you think things like improved AF speed might make a difference to you, then I'd suggest waiting. While it's all speculation, I think it a fair guess to assume improvements in this area. Also, if you think you want to do low light shooting, including indoors and just getting away from having a flash, it might be worth waiting. The KP and K70 certainly do better in low light than the K3 does. so this is something else to consider. Of course, there is no indication at this point of when a K3II replacement might appear, and to throw out a date is just speculation. It may or may not be a long wait.

12-25-2017, 03:31 PM	#5
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by ShaunW Currently I have a K-5. I would like to purchase a new camera. I would mainly purchase a K-3 for the increased resolution. I am looking at a used one for around $500. Would this be a significant upgrade? Would the K-3 II be a better deal if I am paying $200-$300 more for a new one? Also rumors for the "K-3 III" have resurfaced. Would it be wiser to wait for its release? If the K-3 is a worthy upgrade with noticeable improvements in performance, it should be good enough. Shaun, Here's a good link to help make your decision of the pros and cons for the K-3: Pentax K-5 vs Pentax K-3 Detailed Comparison The K-3 has better resolution and with the AA filter, is sharper, but the K-5 does have better dynamic range in high contrast situations. How often do you use the built-in flash? Do you have an external flash? That's an additional con for the K3II, but a new one will last for years: Pentax K-5 vs Pentax K-3 II Detailed Comparison And then to compare the K-3 vs. K3II: Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-3 II Detailed Comparison The K3II pixel shift and astrotracer are great features IF you're going to use either.

12-25-2017, 03:34 PM	#6
heinamj Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 366	If you live near North NJ, there is a K3ii for sale on Craigslist in Iselin, NJ K3 ii with 50mm 1.8 - electronics - by owner - sale I got my K3 on Craigslist in September with only 755 clicks on the shutter. I love it but I was upgrading from a K30 & K50.

12-25-2017, 03:36 PM	#7
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,088	K-3ii.

12-25-2017, 04:09 PM	#10
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Make a list of what you need. Need high ISO, low noise? Get KP. Need fast burst rate? Get K-3. Need GPS? Get K-3II. Then get the cheapest option that fills all your needs. IF you only need resolution, then something like K-S2 or K-70 might be enough. No AA filter, more MP, will give you more detail than the K-5 classic https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-cameras-compared/?c1=Pentax+KP&c2...&c3=Pentax+K-3

12-25-2017, 04:27 PM	#11
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	Go for it, I don't think we will see a K-3/II replacement any time soon, maybe later next year or earlier the year after, plenty of time to get stuck into a K-3. I have both and glad of it. I will without a doubt get the next flagship APS-C what ever it is called, not early adopter but soon after, does depend on specs. though. edit: might even get the KP as well but that is a different camera, different purposes.

12-25-2017, 04:42 PM	#13
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by ShaunW Would this [K-5>K-3] be a significant upgrade? Yes! But I wouldn't recommend the K-3II over the K-3 unless you will make serious use of pixel-shift.

12-25-2017, 04:53 PM	#14
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	I went from the k-50 to the k-3 and choose to not buy the k3ii despite a minor price difference at the time. I did so because on camera flash built in was more important to me than pixel shift. The upgrade from 16-24mp is subtle. The dual card slots are awesome. The af is better than my k50 also. Just do it. You won't regret it.

12-25-2017, 05:12 PM - 1 Like	#15
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581	If the original poster wants to buy a new K 3 II ( basically giving up the built in flash and gaining a built in GPS unit ) as opposed to buying a new K 3 ( built in flash, no built in GPS unit ) there is something to consider speed - if the OP wants the accessory battery grip with the K 3 II that is on November 8, I found this deal offered by B & H https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?InitialSearch=yes&N=0&Ntt=Pentax+K-3+I...tax+K-3+II%2Cp you can buy a combo K 3 II plus the battery grip for an additional amount ( less than $ 7 ) $836.95 the K 3 II by itself is $829.95 the deal appears to still be good: Pentax K-3 II \| B&H Photo Video no telling how much longer the deal will be offered.