Intro
I just hijacked... my own thread! Maybe it will help somebody.
I'm posting pictures from both
K30, and
K3.
The biggest difference is probably in the micro details
in the spot-lit-stone
(picture 1) K30.
BUT that picture is taken on a pod, with
MUP, or what
substitutes for
MUP on the
K30 (timer). The
K3 images
are all handheld, without anything to brace myself against.
Basically, all
K3 images are spontaneous walkabouts.
I've tried the
K3 vs the
K30 with banknotes, because of the minute details
(also, I'm printing alien money, with my face on every bill!).
Obviously, with
MUP K3 has a lot more detail than the
K30. Also, the blurring/smearing of a banknote is interesting to see, without
MUP that is.
Me, me and ME! K3 What I like: The AF: a lot faster.
The new light metering: you don't have to customize (WB), or end up with a weird starting point (PP).
LCD screen: better details, and more neutral in its depiction. The over-the-top approach on the K30
made it a lot harder to evaluate images, fast.
What don't I like on the
K3? Well I did say I wished for a CAD like anti-shake simulator...but to be realistic.
The
manual is terrible, I prefer the more in-detail
K30 or
k5 manuals. The new-awful placement of the ISO button.
Conclusion.
I'm guessing that with extensive knowledge of the camera, the;
K5,
K5 II, and
K5 II's can be better, in some cases.
Better dynamic range (HDR, to compensate), and less noise, plus the ISO 80 (anybody even able to see the difference
ISO 80 vs ISO 100?).
So, landscape and low-light photography benefits, IF you're on a high enough level (experience/skill).
The rest doubtful,
IF you don't have something specific that's essential for
YOUR workflow. I, however, fail on all accounts here
Pictures bellow: aka shameless self-promotion! Good show by the way, shameless, that is.