[ALiEN|PoV]

Hi Earthlings, Penthaxians and canikons! (canikonians?)

This is both an introductory post and a question. I’ll also post a few pictures, rather than writing about my photography (deja vu!). Bear with me; I'm just a newborn in this world of photography. It will get better...eventually.

APS-C is more demanding in terms of high quality glass to resolve per unit of sensor than FF. FF are more forgiving in terms of glass quality than APS-C.

With this quote in mind I'm unsure if I should upgrade to the K3 or the K5 II's. SMC F70-210/4-5.6 , SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro, SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7, SMC/Super-/Auto-Takumar 55mm F2. These are my main lenses for now, and the K30.

Would my setup benefit from the extra resolution of the K3? Or, is the K5II's a more solid choice, when you're not pushing all limited edition lenses?


Comments and suggestions are most welcome. Battery-grip, mirror lockup, and a few other features are among the reason why I want to upgrade. Although, it's possible to achieve mirror lockup on the K30 unintuitively.

Attached Images

   

[Na Horuk]

Cool examples of your work.
So you have the K-30 right now?
See, the K-30 and K-5II have fairly similar performance if you look at just the sensor. The upgrade will be minimal. But there is a difference in features, like burst mode speed, bracketing options, buttons and layout of controls..
The K-5IIs would be a slightly more noticeable improvement, because it doesn't have an AA filter.
The K-3 should be a more substantial improvement, but again, only if you use its potentials. The extra IQ might only show itself if you make large prints - for website jpegs the difference between K-3 and K-30 might be insignificant. But for prints, for action photography, in terms of features, for heavy post-processing, for top-notch quality, the K-3 should outdo the K-30 and K-5II.

The lenses you list should be good enough, and besides, you will be post processing and resizing your photos anyway, so a small 'imperfection' won't ruin a photo. The K-3 is not FF btw, it is APS-C just like K-5, but it is missing the AA filter (like the K-5IIs) and has more megapixels.

[daacon]

I agree with Na Horuk - there is no real answer to this question. For landscape shots you'd be hard pressed to find significant differences between the K5iIIs and the K3 unless you blow them up and pixcel peep. From what I have read (I do own a K5 IIs - not a K3) the AF improvement may or may not be noticeable. There are features of the K3 that do surpass the K5 IIs (burst mode , video, more mega pixels allowing more cropping , and others). I would suggest you read the recent review on the K3 on the forum home page and see if those new features are important to you.

Personally if money is not the biggest concern I would get a K3 as it is the latest and greatest. I will be staying with my K5 IIs for the time being. I may upgrade in the spring , but for now the K5 IIs does everything I ask of it.

[jimr-pdx]

I'm in your spot, though the budget is the main factor right now. Your brighter lenses will like the f/2.8 precision AF point(s) of the newer models, and I would be surprised if the 24Mpxl sensor would make your lenses look bad. It's the many extra features beyond the sensor that make the K-3 valuable or less so, and those you must puzzle out yourself and balance against the extra expense. At least you have incredible models to choose from, so you won't really go wrong

[bdery]

I disagree with your quote. It is an inaccurate choice of words, leading to inaccurate conclusions.

Pixels that are larger are better at capturing light, all things being equal.

Sensors with more resolution are less forgiving to lens flaws.

Full frame vs APS in itself has no link to image quality. Just field of view.

a full frame sensor with the same resolution than an APS sensor will likely provide better images especially at higher ISO.

With that in mind, your K30 has the same sensor as the K-5 iis, except for the removal of the AA filter. The K-3 has a sensor with much more resolution, a dynamic AA filter, and comparable per-pixel noise performances than the K-5, ii, iis.

If course the K-5 has more external controls than the K-30 but also an older processor. The K-3 is an improvement on everything peripheral to the actual sensor.

Do you find your K30 lacking in resolution? Then the K-3 would be a good choice. If you like its output, then upgrade if its ergonomics are a bad match for you.

The F70-210 is clearly the weakest link in your lineup even though it's not bad. On the K-3 the lens will probably be the limiting factor. I don't know about the Takumar. The macro and A50 will probably limit the sensor but not in an easy to discern way.

[Adam]

Hi Earthlings, Penthaxians and canikons! (canikonians?)

This is both an introductory post and a question. I’ll also post a few pictures, rather than writing about my photography (deja vu!). Bear with me; I'm just a newborn in this world of photography. It will get better...eventually.

With this quote in mind I'm unsure if I should upgrade to the K3 or the K5 II's. SMC F70-210/4-5.6 , SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro, SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7, SMC/Super-/Auto-Takumar 55mm F2. These are my main lenses for now, and the K30.

Would my setup benefit from the extra resolution of the K3? Or, is the K5II's a more solid choice, when you're not pushing all limited edition lenses?


Comments and suggestions are most welcome. Battery-grip, mirror lockup, and a few other features are among the reason why I want to upgrade. Although, it's possible to achieve mirror lockup on the K30 unintuitively.

If you've already got a K-30, I'd say the K-3 would be a more reasonable upgrade path. No matter what lens you use you will observe an increase in resolution, but whether or not you need or want that resolution depends on how much you crop and how big you print (or how little you scale ).

[ALiEN|PoV]

Glad you liked it Na Horuk. Thanks for the info daacon, one feature I've seen that the K5 II's got is the
ISO 80 vs the ISO 100 K3.

jimr-pdx, Let's hope on Santa this year!

You could be right bdery.

The F70-210 is clearly the weakest link in your lineup even though it's not bad. On the K-3 the lens will probably be the limiting factor. I don't know about the Takumar. The macro and A50 will probably limit the sensor but not in an easy to discern way.

How much of a limiting factor will the lenses be? That is my one big question with the K3 at the moment. In all else, post-production etc like Na Horuk said: I'm guessing the extra resolution will be beneficial.

If you've already got a K-30, I'd say the K-3 would be a more reasonable upgrade path. No matter what lens you use you will observe an increase in resolution, but whether or not you need or want that resolution depends on how much you crop and how big you print (or how little you scale ).

Adam, yes the extra resolution in one of the biggest pros (but I haven't seen any tests with older lenses, yet). Bigger is better, err, well

[ALiEN|PoV]

UPPDATE!

After what seemed like a Las Vegas wedding, me and the K3 are settling down.
Ofc, we're planning out the full-format (FF), for the children of the future!

The only thing I've disliked, in this short time, is the user-manual. K30 has an in-depth manual.
The K3 manual is very basic, and I find myself using the K30 one more than not.

I took my K3 out for a first 30-minute-spin, results in the: Photo Critique section.

[Odovacar]

UPPDATE!

After what seemed like a Las Vegas wedding, me and the K3 are settling down.
Ofc, we're planning out the full-format (FF), for the children of the future!

The only thing I've disliked, in this short time, is the user-manual. K30 has an in-depth manual.
The K3 manual is very basic, and I find myself using the K30 one more than not.

I took my K3 out for a first 30-minute-spin, results in the: Photo Critique section.

A bit to late i comment this.

Im sure u got a splendid camera with the K-3, but I need to tell about my own experience. I bought the K-5 just two months before the K-5II was released. The K-5II seemed like a significant update with much (in my wiew) better autofocusing in bad light conditions, so I was a bit titter of that. I will now wait and see if they do the same with K-3, releasing a K-3II in late autumn. In such case Pentax (Richo) is walking the path of apple marketing releasing upgrades of flagships between new modells (probably after learning the setbacks with the first release). In that case its good to buy the updates in the future, but I will wait and see if this is really the trend.

[Pål Jensen]

APS is more demanding on lenses than FF at the same output size. If you buy FF in order to be able to print larger than with APS they are equally demanding on lenses...

[Rite]

EDIT - LoL, I see you went for the K-3.

If yours does not have mirror flutter and autofocuses to you satisfaction, then you have a real gem.

Otherwise, the following is directed to potential owners:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're getting some very valuable pointers on this thread, ALiEN|PoV.

While the K-3 is a masterpiece in terms of features and specs in comparison to similar bodies from Canon and Nikon, I am finding several concerns with it.

The two largest are the uncontrollable mirror flutter (machinegun effect), and a 'borderline' autofocus capability.

I have the K10-D, K-x, K30, Nikon D7000 and am reviewing the K-3. I skipped the K-7 and K-5 series because the K10D and K-x were solid enough performers to allow waiting to see what came after the K-7 and K-5. The K-5IIs is arguably the better camera right now, since it has had the lifespan and support from Pentax to iron out the bugs. (Note: ALL CAMERAS have growing pains.)

My best advice for right now is wait to see if the mirror flutter issue get ironed out with firmware fixes before you go with the K-3. That anomaly surfaced in this K-3 less than an hour after it was unwrapped, so it DOES exist. The firmware has been updated to the latest (1.03) and I have yet to duplicate it, but others have had it reoccur after the firmware flash.

At this point, the autofocus capabilities of the K-30 are at least as sharp (if not sharper) than the K-3, and I have tested all of the lenses you have mentioned on the K-3 and have found it 'borderline' in many cases. Especially in burst shoots, where the K-3 doesn't keep the subject in focus, which is one of it's strong advertising and selling points.

The K-3 build is second to none, especially with the WR lenses. Once the 'bugs' are ironed out, it will be a stellar and world-class performer, which presently I cannot confirm that it is with the production sample I have been going over the past week.

Hope this helps.

Rite ..

[gord lucas]

I come at things from a bit different angle. To me, the final arbitrar of quality is a framed print.

If you simply look at pictures on a computer screen, and now a handheld device, you don't need anything more than the K100 could deliver. But if you are printing and displaying, it is a different game.

I use as a rule of thumb, 6 megapixels as equivalent to Fujicolor 400, 10 megapixels as equivalent to Fujicolor 200, and 12-14 about Fujicolor 100. 16 is going to get you an enlargment roughly like Kodachrome at 11x14, and 20 is entering medium format territory.

I came up with this guide from actual printing experience, and it is roughly accurate.

If you are going to be satisfied with 11x14 prints, you don't need the K3. If you want to enlarge to 16x20, you want all you can get, so go the K3.

I find the cropping excuse somewhat sloppy - a good photographer should be using as much of the frame as possible, allowing for as little cropping as possible. IMHO. Yes, there will be exceptions. And my old K100 at 6 megapixels . . . . well, I had to use every bit of that frame for a marginally acceptable 8x10.

Just one guy's opinion.

[stens]

A bit to late i comment this.

Im sure u got a splendid camera with the K-3, but I need to tell about my own experience. I bought the K-5 just two months before the K-5II was released. The K-5II seemed like a significant update with much (in my wiew) better autofocusing in bad light conditions, so I was a bit titter of that. I will now wait and see if they do the same with K-3, releasing a K-3II in late autumn. In such case Pentax (Richo) is walking the path of apple marketing releasing upgrades of flagships between new modells (probably after learning the setbacks with the first release). In that case its good to buy the updates in the future, but I will wait and see if this is really the trend.

I wouldn't hold my breath. You purchased late in the K-5 cycle (shipped in October 2010). K-5II/IIs were announced in September 2012 (2years between announcements). I wouldn't be bitter about an upgrade to a camera that was almost 2 years old when you bought it...at nearly it's price nadir. I've got great photos from my K-5, you probably have also. That's what counts.

K-3 was announced October 2013. Given that K-5 II was an incremental upgrade, this doesn't indicate an accelerating product cycle. It could, but there's not enough data points. If Pentax perform as per history, K-3II would come out in late 2015. I'd hope for a full on successor for K-3, then, but, who knows (FF, anyone?). Maybe Ricoh will pick up the product pace, but that seems unlikely in the camera arena.

If you're happy with the K-5, stick with it and take lots of great photos. If not, buy what you think is best. But don't bog down in gear stats when what matters is the pictures (I note that camo won the last PF photo contest with a photo taken with a K-5...and it's outstanding).

[Steve.Ledger]

If you simply look at pictures on a computer screen, and now a handheld device, you don't need anything more than the K100 could deliver.

A reasonable consideration but not an absolute rule,
Perhaps you haven't taken into account crop-ability ?
I used to think the same thing about the 6mp *istDS. For a 24" monitor wallpaper or posting on flikr and so on, you don't need more than a 2Mp image.
But you have no leeway to crop and resize for your screen (or even prints) with smaller sensors. (I don't go along with the purists view about never cropping what comes out of the camera)

Having said that, I would chose the K-5IIs but not because the 16Mp sensor but because there's features (and failures) to the K-3 I just don't want.
And there's every likely hood I'd not want a K-1 because I can't see Ricoh dropping some of those new K-3 features once introduced (like dual SD slots)

[Rite]

And there's every likely hood I'd not want a K-1 because I can't see Ricoh dropping some of those new K-3 features once introduced (like dual SD slots)

---------------------------------------------

Actually the dual SD slot is a great bonus feature which doubles storage options tremendously.

With the option to store RAW on one and JPG on the other, it makes editing much easier in the final cut because you know where most of your work is going to be (on the RAW SD).

It doubles your storage space, and makes it easier finding where your video will be as it is stored in a dedicated location.

Pentax simply went with a positive market trend, and it works very effectively.

Rite ..