Originally posted by waterfall Well, if you shoot Jpeg you could always save files in the 12-14 mp range (Mid quality). That is what I have already been doing on business related shots where the viewers don't have any taste. But for large prints, really large prints, like 24"x26" I will use the full megapickle range. I find the K-3 menus strangely familiar and simple after using the K-30. Oops, off-topic! There may be Vegemite in my laptop keyboard creating hazardous Auto-Correct conditions.
I don't shoot jpeg anymore except for toss off web pics of stuff I'm selling on CL etc. I use the full range of MP's of the cameras that I have and shoot only RAW, but 16MP is plenty for me. I just don't see the point of 24MP unless you're into making billboard sized prints, and I don't. You can do a nice poster sized print with 16MP. 24MP just seems kind of redundant to me, but some people they like that so if they want to pay for it be my guest. I just don't think it's worth the extra bucks that the K-3 costs vs as K5/K5II really. I do kind of want a K5II vs a K5 if I can get one, better AF would be really nice, but other than that I don't really care, and the K-3's supposedly even better AF just isn't worth another $600 to me.
A K-5II is what I am aiming for pretty much though I might settle for a K5 if I must. I only have about a $400-500 budget for whatever camera I am going to buy later this year. A K-3 is simply out of my budget range anyhow. I'm going to pop for one in July or August most likely. A K-5/K5II used or a K-30 new or used. Then next year whichever one I don't have by then, a K5/K5II or a K-30, I am likely going to get as my second body so I can retire my K-x finally. That will give me 2 WR bodies to swap out and work with, give me a good backup camera system that I can use for work no matter what. This year I mean to get one or the other and the 18-135WR. That's the goal anyway...