With K-5IIs selling so cheap, should I buy a K-3?

bonaprof · 02-23-2014, 08:33 PM

I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs?

Matthew Saville · 02-23-2014, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by bonaprof

I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs?

Is it twice as good? Probably not. Or, here's my own favorite question I like to ask myself about new cameras: Do you have enough photographic endeavors in the next 12-18 months to make it worth it for you to not wait until the K-3 costs about as much as the K-5IIs does now? ;-)

=Matt=

ElJamoquio · 02-23-2014, 09:48 PM

Yes. I mean, no. Cripes, I can't decide.

I've gone back and forth between two decisions - older cameras upgraded more frequently, or newer cameras upgraded less frequently. Eventually I decided on the latter.

derekkite · 02-23-2014, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by bonaprof

I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs?

As usual, it depends. The k5iis is a remarkable camera. I would say it depends on the lenses you shoot with. It depends whether you regularly crop your shots. Do you run into moire, wedding or fabrics? How important is responsiveness? Tethering? I don't think the bounce flash exposure was sorted out on the k5iis, correct me if I'm wrong. I was constantly fiddling with white balance on my k5. The viewfinder is better on the k3, nice and bright, the k5 was best with an after market focus screen. Metering on the k3 is quite good.

ruggiex · 02-23-2014, 10:00 PM

If you will be getting K5ii and then later K3, just go with K3. End up spending the same amount of money anyway.

raider · 02-24-2014, 03:52 AM

The way i see it, if u don't need focus peaking and a much better live view, and don't need 24mp, the k5ii is plenty good.

**Rondec** · 02-24-2014, 04:43 AM

I think there are a few things the K3 brings to the table. Better auto focus tracking, smaller auto focus points (and more of them), focus peaking and better live view, overall faster function, more megapixels (allows more cropping or larger printing size). These are the things I notice. The K5 IIs is a good camera too. As to the value you put on one feature or another, only you can say. One thing I think is very over rated is the removal of the AA filter. It just doesn't make a difference in real world shooting. I sharpen my photos from my K5 II more than I sharpen those from the K3, but I still sharpen them both. I suppose with the K3 you do have the option to have a customizable AA filter, although I just leave mine off...

(required K3 and DA 15 limited shot).

**Mikesul** · 02-24-2014, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by joelovotti

I have both.
I'm keeping my K5IIs for a low light Camera and my K3 as my prime camera.

There is no question the K3 is great and if you have the money go for it. But if you are an available light shooter you can't beet the K5IIs.

Yes, I love my K-3 most of the time and have no regrets about buying it, but I wish I could have kept the KIIs for low light situations.

ElJamoquio · 02-24-2014, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

Yes, I love my K-3 most of the time and have no regrets about buying it, but I wish I could have kept the KIIs for low light situations.

The k3 is just as good in low light.

Franky2step · 02-24-2014, 08:29 AM

K-3 has dual SD slots, a better diopter adjustment mechanism, larger rear LCD, better video capabilities, nice grip IMHO, white balance ability, AF-C is better, focus peaking, the list goes on and on. You are talking about $600, not $6000. Yes, it's worth the extra $600 no question in my mind whatsoever.

dc1500 · 02-24-2014, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

Do you need the quicker continuous shot speed, improved AFc, focus peaking, or any of the other improvements?
If none of those items are a factor in your photography then the answer is no.

I respect Luis's views on here more than anyone's and he is my go to person for anything birding. I have to say though I am struggling to see any improvement in AFC over my K30 which is a big disappointment. Anyone else agree?
Dave

jimr-pdx · 02-24-2014, 08:41 AM

For my shooting, the II was enough of a boost over the Classic to justify despite most reviews saying to skip it. Faster AF in lower light, with an f/2.8-sensitive center point? Sign me up please

- but I'm not like everyone else. Many K-3 features would be worthwhile to me (e.g. focus peaking), but many are not and the extra funds can do more elsewhere - but what doesn't suit me (more AF points for tracking, faster burst) might be ideal for you. My K-01 can do the focus peaking and more versatile video shots so having the K-01 also made the full jump to the K-3 less vital for me. And having the Q as my hyper-tele option might have had an impact too.

Hope our comments help a bit, but it's very much your call - at least you cannot lose with these two choices!

**manishved** · 02-24-2014, 08:50 AM

Just the fact that you can now set the bracketed anti-aliasing mode is a great reason for getting the K-3

**monochrome** · 02-24-2014, 09:02 AM

I'm in a rather unique position given advanced visual deterioration to the point that I'd converted nearly exclusively to K-01 and Q for the LiveView (an an LX when I have a yen for traditional VF shooting). I got the K3 (for LV plus FluCard) and I am astonished to see that not only can I use the K3 viewfinder - it is THAT MUCH better - I can use it Right-Eye, which has been impossible since 2006!

The viewfinder/diopter combo is meat - all the other stuff is gravy.

Deedee · 02-24-2014, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by bonaprof

I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs?

No sir it definitely is not.

02-23-2014, 08:33 PM	#16
bonaprof Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Ocean City MD Photos: Gallery Posts: 94 Original Poster	Is it worth it? I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should I purchase a K-3 or K-5iis?	lostcawz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	01-01-2014 11:45 PM
Why should I buy a K-30 over D7000 or 60D?	adamandbean	Pentax K-30 & K-50	15	06-14-2013 11:55 PM
What should I buy - A K-30 or a Pentax-DA 15mm F4 Limited	leehopkins	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	07-30-2012 02:11 PM
After selling my 50-200mm, what should I buy to have a cheap and 'all-round' lens?	minahasa	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	01-14-2011 12:00 AM
should I buy a K-m?	PentaxPZ	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	07-30-2009 07:32 AM

02-23-2014, 08:46 PM	#17
Matthew Saville Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Southern California Posts: 250	Originally posted by bonaprof I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs? Is it twice as good? Probably not. Or, here's my own favorite question I like to ask myself about new cameras: Do you have enough photographic endeavors in the next 12-18 months to make it worth it for you to not wait until the K-3 costs about as much as the K-5IIs does now? ;-) =Matt=

02-23-2014, 09:48 PM	#18
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Yes. I mean, no. Cripes, I can't decide. I've gone back and forth between two decisions - older cameras upgraded more frequently, or newer cameras upgraded less frequently. Eventually I decided on the latter.

02-23-2014, 09:54 PM	#19
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by bonaprof I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs? As usual, it depends. The k5iis is a remarkable camera. I would say it depends on the lenses you shoot with. It depends whether you regularly crop your shots. Do you run into moire, wedding or fabrics? How important is responsiveness? Tethering? I don't think the bounce flash exposure was sorted out on the k5iis, correct me if I'm wrong. I was constantly fiddling with white balance on my k5. The viewfinder is better on the k3, nice and bright, the k5 was best with an after market focus screen. Metering on the k3 is quite good.

02-23-2014, 10:00 PM	#20
ruggiex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: East Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 811	If you will be getting K5ii and then later K3, just go with K3. End up spending the same amount of money anyway.

02-24-2014, 03:52 AM	#21
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	The way i see it, if u don't need focus peaking and a much better live view, and don't need 24mp, the k5ii is plenty good.

02-24-2014, 04:43 AM	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I think there are a few things the K3 brings to the table. Better auto focus tracking, smaller auto focus points (and more of them), focus peaking and better live view, overall faster function, more megapixels (allows more cropping or larger printing size). These are the things I notice. The K5 IIs is a good camera too. As to the value you put on one feature or another, only you can say. One thing I think is very over rated is the removal of the AA filter. It just doesn't make a difference in real world shooting. I sharpen my photos from my K5 II more than I sharpen those from the K3, but I still sharpen them both. I suppose with the K3 you do have the option to have a customizable AA filter, although I just leave mine off... (required K3 and DA 15 limited shot).

02-24-2014, 05:45 AM	#23
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by joelovotti I have both. I'm keeping my K5IIs for a low light Camera and my K3 as my prime camera. There is no question the K3 is great and if you have the money go for it. But if you are an available light shooter you can't beet the K5IIs. Yes, I love my K-3 most of the time and have no regrets about buying it, but I wish I could have kept the KIIs for low light situations.

02-24-2014, 08:22 AM	#24
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Mikesul Yes, I love my K-3 most of the time and have no regrets about buying it, but I wish I could have kept the KIIs for low light situations. The k3 is just as good in low light.

02-24-2014, 08:29 AM	#25
Franky2step Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793	K-3 has dual SD slots, a better diopter adjustment mechanism, larger rear LCD, better video capabilities, nice grip IMHO, white balance ability, AF-C is better, focus peaking, the list goes on and on. You are talking about $600, not $6000. Yes, it's worth the extra $600 no question in my mind whatsoever.

02-24-2014, 08:32 AM	#26
dc1500 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Essex Posts: 105	Originally posted by crewl1 Do you need the quicker continuous shot speed, improved AFc, focus peaking, or any of the other improvements? If none of those items are a factor in your photography then the answer is no. I respect Luis's views on here more than anyone's and he is my go to person for anything birding. I have to say though I am struggling to see any improvement in AFC over my K30 which is a big disappointment. Anyone else agree? Dave

02-24-2014, 08:41 AM	#27
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	For my shooting, the II was enough of a boost over the Classic to justify despite most reviews saying to skip it. Faster AF in lower light, with an f/2.8-sensitive center point? Sign me up please - but I'm not like everyone else. Many K-3 features would be worthwhile to me (e.g. focus peaking), but many are not and the extra funds can do more elsewhere - but what doesn't suit me (more AF points for tracking, faster burst) might be ideal for you. My K-01 can do the focus peaking and more versatile video shots so having the K-01 also made the full jump to the K-3 less vital for me. And having the Q as my hyper-tele option might have had an impact too. Hope our comments help a bit, but it's very much your call - at least you cannot lose with these two choices!

02-24-2014, 08:50 AM	#28
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	Just the fact that you can now set the bracketed anti-aliasing mode is a great reason for getting the K-3

02-24-2014, 09:02 AM	#29
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I'm in a rather unique position given advanced visual deterioration to the point that I'd converted nearly exclusively to K-01 and Q for the LiveView (an an LX when I have a yen for traditional VF shooting). I got the K3 (for LV plus FluCard) and I am astonished to see that not only can I use the K3 viewfinder - it is THAT MUCH better - I can use it Right-Eye, which has been impossible since 2006! The viewfinder/diopter combo is meat - all the other stuff is gravy.

02-24-2014, 09:03 AM	#30
Deedee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 307	Originally posted by bonaprof I guess what I am asking, is the K-3 worth twice the price of the K-5IIs? No sir it definitely is not.