[Rondec]

The K3 does have more resolution than the K30/K50 at low iso. By the time you get iso 400, it is probably awash. The only time you will see the difference is if you are going to do serious cropping on a photo or, if you print very large sizes. For most people, the 16 megapixel sensor will be more than adequate.

[Joojoo2010]

+1 K50, it is good camera

[rumplestiltskin]

The K3 does have more resolution than the K30/K50 at low iso. By the time you get iso 400, it is probably awash. The only time you will see the difference is if you are going to do serious cropping on a photo or, if you print very large sizes. For most people, the 16 megapixel sensor will be more than adequate.

Excellent point. I downloaded a few more RAW files from I-R taken by various cameras (Fuji XE-1, Nikon P7800 & D610) in addition to the first two I DL'd (K-3 & K-50). In all cases I DL'd the ISO 400 RAW files rather than the lowest ISO's. Why? Much of what I shoot seems to be in the ISO 400 range. That's evidently why the K-3's IQ didn't seem much better than the K-50's. When I add in the Nikon and Fuji RAM files to the comparison (again, at ISO 400), only the D610 is dramatically better but, as you also said, at "very large sizes". I think I had to zoom in to almost a 3:1 ratio to see a difference,

I then DL'd a 100 ISO RAW for the K-50 and the K-3 for another comparison. Again, you have to really zoom in to see a difference but the K-3 definitely is better...but the add'l 15MB/photo and add'l $400-500 for the body are enough to offset this for me.

In the end, it matters more how you shoot than what you shoot with. As an example, I offer the attached photo which I shot with my S100fs as a jpeg. It's reproduced here at a low res but I think it makes my point. (I shot it in Fernandina Beach, south of Jacksonville.)

[rumplestiltskin]

Just an update to this thread (which I created a few weeks ago).

I was all set to buy that K-50 when the K-5IIs deal at B&H ($699) popped up. After much agonizing and evaluating the moiré issue discussed here and elsewhere on the web (which I decided was a non-issue for me), I pulled the trigger this morning and bought the K-5IIs body. I have a few older lenses to get me started until the new Sigma 18-200 is evaluated and (if it's good enough) I buy it. I'm starting with an older Pentax KA 50mmf2 and 70-210 Vivitar Series1 (not one of the really good ones) - both manual focus, and a Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 AE/AF. Obviously, none of this glass is great stuff but it's on the shelf (therefore, free) and, as they say, the best camera is the one you have with you.

After the earlier discussion about the K-3 vs K-50, I had determined that 16MP was quite sufficient and that any sort of video capability was a bonus and not something that would sway me. With the K-5IIs vs K-50 comparison, however, there were a few features that put check marks into the K-5IIs column. (I am mentioning this simply to provide my thoughts to others who might be considering this choice - as long as any K-5IIs units remain in stock.) YMMV, of course.

1. LCD panel on top - at least one member opined how important it was for him. I used my daughter's *istDS last weekend at the Bosque Del Apache and it did prove useful. I'm convinced.

2. Extended low light sensitivity compared to K-50. I'll take everything I can get here. [edit: Oops; should have been more clear about this. I am referring to the extra AF range down to -3EV, the K-50 is -1EV.]

3. X-sync terminal. I use external flash with a handle/bracket and this will be nice to have (assuming I use a flash unit that doesn't require a Wein safesync). Not a deciding factor but a bonus.

4. MJPEG video. Yes; I know this might not seem to be an advantage but, with a simple re-wrap (no re-encoding) into another container, the footage is editable without the interframe compression of H264. Frame-accurate editing without having to convert to Apple Lossless or ProRes. Not a big deal as video isn't really a reason to buy a Pentax DSLR. I considered it a bonus. 25 minute max time per clip? Way more than I need. (I know the K-50 has AF during video but I've seen and heard such videos and the result is awful IMHO. My son-in-law shoots...

You Tube

You Tube

...with his Canon and does manual focus for similar reasons. (The link is a quick one he did just for grins.)

5. Stereo mic input (MIA on the K-50) - Again, not a big deal but, should I want to get even a little more serious about video, this extends the useful life of the camera by giving me access to all sorts of audio equipment.

6. Interval video (missing in the K-5IIs) - Okay, I'll have to drop the time-lapse jpegs into Zeitraffer but that's free. Not enough of an issue to worry about.

BTW, I also bought the $20 two-extra-years warranty at B&H for the Pentax and that includes one checkup/cleaning (besides the warranty).

One thing I neglected to do, however, was to use the link here at the Forums to initiate the purchase. *darn* I'll have to remember that the next time I buy.

Barry

---

Last edited by rumplestiltskin; 01-29-2014 at 09:11 AM.

[RonHendriks1966]

Just an update to this thread (which I created a few weeks ago).

2. Extended low light sensitivity compared to K-50. I'll take everything I can get here.

Barry

Is this the Iso 51.200?

In that case you are going to be disapointed very fast

[rumplestiltskin]

Sorry, Ron; I wasn't clear. I meant the add'l "-2EV" (-3 to 18 EV) for auto-focus.

yeah; at ISO 51200 everything looks really nasty.

Barry

[rumplestiltskin]

One last thing to add to the decision-making: The K-50 can use AA batteries with the appropriate adapter (about $7 on Amazon, not a genuine Pentax item). The K-5IIs uses a higher voltage battery so AA batteries can't be used unless you buy the grip which permits an additional "original-style" battery -or- six AA's. Search Amazon for this (which includes 2 batteries and a charger). I bought this earlier today to go along with the K-5IIs I purchased from B&H. I also own this same item for the Fuji S100fs and it's perfect.

The battery grip is an interesting addition. There are bojack (non-genuine) units for about $50-60 which seem to be a bit sketchy in quality and do not seem to possess the WR seals of the genuine unit. However, at about 1/5 the cost, it might be a good thing to have if I'm not going out in the rain.

[6BQ5]

I think we'll start seeing even higher quality sensors with even more resolving power in the few years. Sony has set the bar high with their A7r FF body. I have a K-30 which is almost identical to a K-59. It's a great camera with more than enough capability for me. I look at my images on a 27" screen as if they were prints and I find nothing lacking. My recommendation would be to get a K-50 and use the saved money on lenses.

[rumplestiltskin]

Boris,

Technology marches on, for sure. At a certain point more pixels becomes more trouble - hence my decision to avoid the K-3's 24MP files. The lack of an AA filter (allegedly providing more sharpness) wasn't really a factor in my decision (other than proving to myself it would -not- be a detriment). My reasons—listed above—were the other features that, in my mind, mostly gave me more options...and that extra AF sensitivity. The almost $200 difference in price was worth it for my needs but YMMV, of course.

Perhaps a new RAW format that losslessly compressed the file sizes would negate the disadvantages of more pixels. Then we'll need more powerful cameras to accomplish the compression quickly and more powerful computers (and a new Lightroom) to de-compress/re-compress on the fly. (Then we add grain to simulate film! Arrggghhh!)

[DDoram]

You will enjoy the K5IIs as it is a great camera. Without the AA filter the K5IIs pics have great microcontast. The AF is also almost as good as the K3. While I have the K3, I have kept my K5IIs also.

Dale

[jup]

One last thing to add to the decision-making: The K-50 can use AA batteries with the appropriate adapter (about $7 on Amazon, not a genuine Pentax item). The K-5IIs uses a higher voltage battery so AA batteries can't be used unless you buy the grip which permits an additional "original-style" battery -or- six AA's.

It's not higher voltage - actually K-50 battery is rated 7.4V and K-5 is 7.2V. However, K-50 battery is slightly over half the capacity of the one in K-5 in order to accommodate for smaller size needed to fit the battery into AA battery compartment. I think that's the reason why they dropped AA battery support for higher end bodies - so they can fit in bigger OEM battery. The other, and you can test it yourself, is that screwdriven AF is faster with higher voltage. My K-30 would focus noticeably faster with OEM battery (7.4V) then with 4 NiMH batteries (4.8V). Usually it's a non-issue and something easily outweighed by flexibility offered by AA batteries, but something to keep in mind should you go somewhere where you expect to need top AF performance.

That said, I really like the ability to just pop in 4 AA batteries and it's something that kept me for a long time from getting higher end body. I now have K-3 and battery grip which works just as well but makes for much bigger package.

[Joojoo2010]

K30 handle is bigger than k5, to my hand k30 feels better. But its so much more noisy af. With 4 AA af is slower but also less noisy and also I feel af is little more accurate with AAs.