[alcstudios]

The thing I find with the K-3 is I have less wiggle-room as far as my abilities as a photographer - it is less forgiving if I'm not on my game.

It really depends on what you shoot, and I never had a K5 so take this with a grain of salt but after 3 years of shooting youth sports with a K7 using the K3 almost feels like I'm cheating . The A/F, clarity, detail frame rate, everything is just better and smoother. Hang a 70-200 or a 50-500 on the front of it and fire away, my keeper rate improved a great deal.


Again I know it depends on the type of shooting and individual techniques but for my main use the K3 is rock solid right out of the box.

[normhead]

When you nail an image with a K-3 it's second to none. If you want more forgiving, stick with your K-5… but, taken with a K-5 this image would be 20% smaller. and about 20% less resolution. Once you start working with it, it becomes a lot to give up.

[zmohie]

normhead !
this capture is some thing like a magic.
the bird seems to talk!!

[Ahab]

Looks like you quickly learned learned the ins and outs of the K3. Good Job Norm.

[frogoutofwater]

That is an incredibly beautiful photo, normhead! Truly inspiring.

[alcstudios]

This is a quick shot from a vintage mx race in Boyd Tx, very overcast on this day.

[normhead]

Thanks for the comments. It's just really hard for those of us working with this camera to hear people thinking of reasons why they can't work with it. Sure it has quirks, every camera does, but you get used to them very quickly.

[alcstudios]

Thanks for the comments. It's just really hard for those of us working with this camera to hear people thinking of reasons why they can't work with it. Sure it has quirks, every camera does, but you get used to them very quickly.

I agree with you, the K3 is a great camera and I don't regret throwing my money down for it, but you do have to shoot with it to figure things out (not directing that towards you Norm). Anyone that has any experience shooting a DSLR of any kind and especially a Pentax will love the K3 and know quite quickly that its worth every penny.

[Jeff Charles]

The thing I find with the K-3 is I have less wiggle-room as far as my abilities as a photographer - it is less forgiving if I'm not on my game..

Why would the K-3 be less forgiving? At 100% on screen, I understand that any image shortcomings will be more apparent, but at the same output size, it should be as good or better than a K-5 photo taken with identical technique.

[Sailor]

Why would the K-3 be less forgiving? At 100% on screen, I understand that any image shortcomings will be more apparent, but at the same output size, it should be as good or better than a K-5 photo taken with identical technique.

Jeff, a number of folks have described the K-3 as "less forgiving" than a K-5, but I'm not sure what "unforgiving" means in this context, either - perhaps it refers to the need for proper exposure allowing easier PP of the K-3's slightly noisier output (?). Alternatively, in the case of technically or artistically inept exposures, a small fist possibly emerges from the camera body and punches you in the nose - in which case, I'll have a heavily bruised nose should I buy a K-3 .

Jer

[zmohie]

Sorry in what terms the k3 is less forgiving camera? English is not my native language.so plz put some light to inlight me.

[normhead]

Less leeway in the exposure, a little less Dynamic Range, a little less control of noise. You're fitting your scene into a slightly smaller window. With my K-5 I could expose for highlights and still be relatively certain I could rescue any shadow detail. I'm a bit less willing to try that with the K-3.

[zmohie]

Less leeway in the exposure, a little less Dynamic Range, a little less control of noise. You're fitting your scene into a slightly smaller window. With my K-5 I could expose for highlights and still be relatively certain I could rescue any shadow detail. I'm a bit less willing to try that with the K-3.

Thanks Norm you are co operative in this forum.I like your photography style and your comments regarding the k3.
zakaria

[Class A]

Less leeway in the exposure, a little less Dynamic Range, a little less control of noise. You're fitting your scene into a slightly smaller window. With my K-5 I could expose for highlights and still be relatively certain I could rescue any shadow detail. I'm a bit less willing to try that with the K-3.

The K-3 has a little less dynamic range but the difference is marginal (there is a significant difference in published scores but that's because the K-5 offers ISO 80; starting from ISO 100, they are very close to each other).

Regarding noise, the K-3 and the K-5 are practically the same with the main deviation potentially being caused by heavier (non-optional) noise reduction in the K-5.

The DXOMark scores of the K-3 and K-5 are so close to each other that any differences in the results will be imperceptible.

Of course, you have to compare two prints of the same size, or two images scaled to 2MB, e.g., for web display. The per-pixel performance of the K-3 is worse, but that is completely normal for a 24MP sensor when compared to a 16MP sensor. One must not look at 100% views and then deduce that the higher MP camera has worse performance. Per-pixel performance does not matter unless you are trying to print huge images and actually print a K-3 image larger than a K-5 image. But then you are comparing apples to oranges.

And one must not forget that more MP have their advantages as well:

1. better resolution.
2. more cropping potential.
3. finer-grained noise.

[Class A]

Why would the K-3 be less forgiving? At 100% on screen, I understand that any image shortcomings will be more apparent, but at the same output size, it should be as good or better than a K-5 photo taken with identical technique.

Exactly.