[jpzk]

So, a bit tedious for a title but I couldn't find a better way to "announce" my question(s):

Since the K3 allows for "better cropping" while using a given lens,
what would make more sense:

1. Keep the K5 and buy longer glass?
2. Buy the K3 and keep using the DA*300/4 and crop ?

In terms of cost/quality of the final results, what do you think?

Thanks.

JP

[hks_kansei]

What are the prices in your area for each option?

Would you need to replace anything else for the K3? (battery packs, battery attachment thingo (whatever a motorwind is called now it's not a motorwind), cases, etc)

Would you sell the K5?



I'd personally just get a longer lens, the K5 is a great camera so there's no rush to get rid of it. Plus, I always prefer to do things optically rather than digitally.

It also means that in future, when you ineveitably replace the body, you've got a longer lens in the stash.

[tromboads]

woooo there!!

Cropping is no substitute for depth relationship!

Changing the field of view is not a zoom!

[stormtech]

The thought of having to crop all or most images sounds tedious to me. When shooting wildlife, I try very hard to live by the words "fill the viewfinder the best you can". That can mean a longer lens, or in my case most of the time, do what ever it takes to get closer.

[Andi Lo]

So, a bit tedious for a title but I couldn't find a better way to "announce" my question(s):

Since the K3 allows for "better cropping" while using a given lens,
what would make more sense:

1. Keep the K5 and buy longer glass?
2. Buy the K3 and keep using the DA*300/4 and crop ?

In terms of cost/quality of the final results, what do you think?

Thanks.

JP

There are some good discussions on this regarding D7000 and D7100, exactly same question and same sensor. I remember that the conclusion is "it depends, but in general, more MP does not trump glass." Seems like the conclusion is that Glass > TC > MP, except when you move up from very low to very high MP. I dont read it that in depth though, so perhaps you could look it up. Apologies I can't be helpful more directly....

IMO one of the big selling points of K-3 is AF though, so if K-5 AF ever make you miss shots at all, I think it's worth to buy the K-3 at some point.

@tromboads: OP is thinking long glass, and probably not worrying too much about DOF.

[Miguel]

JP, for the subject matter that you photograph (wildlife) to me it is a no-brainer to get the K-3. You'll get better and more configurable AF, and an improved frame rate. Plus more pixels to hack away. Sell your K-5 and recycle the money. Life's too short.

M

[stormtech]

IMO one of the big selling points of K-3 is AF though, so if K-5 AF ever make you miss shots at all, I think it's worth to buy the K-3 at some point.

Not trying to take away from all the great reviews so far about the K-3 AF, since JP is currently using a K-5, I must say that my upgrade from the K-5 to the K-5IIs was a BIG improvement in AF. Probably not as much of an improvement if one was going from a K-5 directly to a K-3, but I feel it worth noting.

So just to mix this all up for you some more JP, a middle ground solution might be the K-5IIs. You would get much better decisive AF, plus add the benefit of no AA filter which I love. There of course are a couple showing up in the Marketplace with very little use for good prices.

I guess the question for JP (the OP) would be - what do you feel you are lacking with your current setup?

[Bob from Aus]

Having the Bigma and a sigma 500. I would suggest the only option is a prime - the sigma 500 or the pentax 560. I think the pentax 300 on a K3 would murder any of the long sigma zooms on a k5. the leap between the bigma and the sigma 500 is massive. I am assuming the pentax 300 is at least as good as my pentax 60-250 which is a brilliant piece of glass.

[jbinpg]

JP - You may want to wait for the Ricoh/Pentax 1.4 TC which according to the just updated roadmap is due out in 2014. This would give you a 420/5.6 lens with your DA*300 attached. Ricoh has made this an HD TC and hopefully will add WR as well.

Jack

[tromboads]

@tromboads: OP is thinking long glass, and probably not worrying too much about DOF.

I'm not talking about depth of field either. I'm talking about what happens to perspective.

I.e the relationship between near and far items regardless of what depth of field you have chosen.

I feel I need to repeat and say cropping is not a zoom.

I worry op is confused that somehow the 24mp sensor will give him more zoom outof his 300mm lens.

[Andi Lo]

I'm not talking about depth of field either. I'm talking about what happens to perspective.

I.e the relationship between near and far items regardless of what depth of field you have chosen.

I feel I need to repeat and say cropping is not a zoom.

I worry op is confused that somehow the 24mp sensor will give him more zoom outof his 300mm lens.

Changing focal lengths does not change perspective in a meaningful manner. Perspective can only change from subject to camera distance.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/184570-lens...l-frame-2.html

By buying K-3 and keeping his current stable of lenses, he intends to acquire higher FL by cropping, but I'm guessing he doesn't intend to move closer to his subjects (or farther). When DOF is taken out of the equation, cropping is exactly the same as zooming. Try out the example posted in that thread, shoot at 200mm then at 10mm, but dont move your camera, then crop the 10mm image to look like 200mm. Resolution and DOF aside the images will look exactly the same.

When you change FL, perspective only changes because you have moved your camera in order to keep the same framing, not because the FL changed

[Sandy Hancock]

I am assuming the pentax 300 is at least as good as my pentax 60-250 which is a brilliant piece of glass.

In my humble experience, the DA*300 is a bajillion times better than the DA*60-250. I can't wait to see how it goes on the K-3, and comparing images cropped to match the same lens on the Q7.

[audiobomber]

When DOF is taken out of the equation, cropping is exactly the same as zooming. Try out the example posted in that thread, shoot at 200mm then at 10mm, but dont move your camera, then crop the 10mm image to look like 200mm. Resolution and DOF aside the images will look exactly the same.

When you change FL, perspective only changes because you have moved your camera in order to keep the same framing, not because the FL changed

I agree with you, except you neglected to mention that cropping decreases the signal to noise ratio.

To JP's original question, it depends on how you feel about the K-5's AF. Is it doing the job for you? I like having 24mp for sure, but the K-3's fast AF-C and tracking were even more alluring.
(Note: I am coming for a K20D and K-x. I did not have a K-5 for long. The one I bought had AF issues and I returned it).

My intended solution for longer glass is the Pentax HD TC for my DA*300. It is coming, that's why they updated its name yesterday. In the meantime, I'm making due with a Kenko 1.5X, which has great IQ but slow and random AF.

[bdery]

To the original poster. Your question is good, however you should also put in the equation whether the other improvements of the K-3 have value for you. It's safe to assume that the 24 MP sensor will be the new baseline, when you eventually replace your K-3 (if you get it) you will not go back to a 10 M camera. So the future proofing is moot. But if you're interested in the new AF, new WB, etc, then this should be taken into account. If not, then disregard it.

[halfspin]

Option 1: upgrade to a Sigma 500mm F/4.5 @ $5000 Option 2: upgrade to a K-3 @ $1300. Pretty easy maths.