Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-05-2014, 09:47 AM   #46
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,626
QuoteOriginally posted by chicagojohn Quote
So if you shoot in RAW and are a simple hobbyist like me, does your experience with both systems lead you to feel the price difference is justified for you (realizing you can't answer that question for someone else.) Let me know as I still have some time to decide. Coming from a K5, I think either would be an improvement.
I have, and use both k-3 and k-5IIs. Often at the same time, one with 60-250 and the other with 16-50 lens mounted. Both are excellent cameras and after post processing it is hard to tell one image from another. For me, the k-3 is absolutely worth the extra $. The extra megapixels help in cropping, the button placement is better (for me) and the AF system including the additional AF points, is head and shoulders above the k-5IIs. Focus peaking is also a huge plus as I do a lot of food photography and seeing on the screen where, exactly, the focus line is going cross the subject has helped tremendously.

But all that said, it really is a tough call between the two for general photography, especially if fast AF is not a priority.

09-05-2014, 11:06 AM   #47
Senior Member
chicagojohn's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 243
Original Poster
MACBETH I have done the deed. Didst thou not hear a noise?


LADY MACBETH I heard the owl scream and the crickets cry.
09-05-2014, 11:35 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,685
The K3 adds the features we've been clamoring for. The sensor is different, that's going to take some getting used to - but it's not likely to go backward for the next flagship body. Two card slots, better AF and metering etc. etc.

Isn't this the camera we've wanted? It's not in my budget now, and the K5 is extremely durable, I'm not going to wear it out anytime soon...

A $400 difference in price? Think about how long you're going to keep the camera - amortized over a few years that's nothing. Hell, I should start squirreling money away myself and get a K3 at Christmas. The K5 still fetches around $500 used, which is about 40% of what I spent for it - a good down payment should I go that route.
09-05-2014, 12:09 PM   #49
Senior Member
chicagojohn's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 243
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
The K3 adds the features we've been clamoring for. The sensor is different, that's going to take some getting used to - but it's not likely to go backward for the next flagship body. Two card slots, better AF and metering etc. etc.

Isn't this the camera we've wanted? It's not in my budget now, and the K5 is extremely durable, I'm not going to wear it out anytime soon...

A $400 difference in price? Think about how long you're going to keep the camera - amortized over a few years that's nothing. Hell, I should start squirreling money away myself and get a K3 at Christmas. The K5 still fetches around $500 used, which is about 40% of what I spent for it - a good down payment should I go that route.

While you raise a good point, the dividend here is a known quantity, $400, but the divisor is not. I am 66 and have no idea how many years I might live, or for how long my interest and ability to do photography will continue regardless of how long I may survive physically. This is clearly a decision subject to individual circumstances, as I'm sure you will agree.

But what I neglected to say, and will state explicitly now, is that for me personally, the discrepancy in RAW dynamic range low iso difference would make my decision even if the pricing were very close. To me, that is a big deal. So I didn't make my choice based upon price primarily. Just to be clear.

Now, for younger folks who can safely assume they will outlive their cameras several times over, and who don't care all that much about RAW dynamic range at low iso, I totally agree with you that a $400 difference, prorated over a few years is not a major reason to make a decision. But, again, for these decisions, "the devil is in the details", as they say.



--- my 2 cents / $400

09-05-2014, 12:12 PM - 1 Like   #50
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,796
Plus, imagine all the cheese you can buy with $400!
09-05-2014, 12:21 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 363
QuoteOriginally posted by chicagojohn Quote
While you raise a good point, the dividend here is a known quantity, $400, but the divisor is not. I am 66 and have no idea how many years I might live, or for how long my interest and ability to do photography will continue regardless of how long I may survive physically. This is clearly a decision subject to individual circumstances, as I'm sure you will agree.

But what I neglected to say, and will state explicitly now, is that for me personally, the discrepancy in RAW dynamic range low iso difference would make my decision even if the pricing were very close. To me, that is a big deal. So I didn't make my choice based upon price primarily. Just to be clear.

Now, for younger folks who can safely assume they will outlive their cameras several times over, and who don't care all that much about RAW dynamic range at low iso, I totally agree with you that a $400 difference, prorated over a few years is not a major reason to make a decision. But, again, for these decisions, "the devil is in the details", as they say.



--- my 2 cents / $400
The other side of that factor is how much you can raise the ISO value without losing resolution. I used to use my K5ii on 80 as much as possible, but found out that it was better to raise the ISO stakes just a bit to avoid camera shake or something moving in my picture mess it up due to the slow shutter speed.


I believe the K3 will allow me to keep a higher ISO setting without having to worry so much about resolution or definition.


Also you can imagine how pleased someone will be to have the K3 as a bequest on your estate. (I know my kids will be happy to get mine) ;-)
09-05-2014, 05:15 PM   #52
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 929
My K3 could not shoot fireworks, whereas my son's K5IIs could shoot without any issues. Weird part was that the images coming out from the K3 were all white!

Settings were identical and on time lapse . . .

Other than this, everything works fine. . .
09-06-2014, 04:25 PM   #53
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,279
Felix - Next time you try timelapse or other long exposures with the K-3, slip the black plastic viewfinder blind on the back of the viewfinder. I think you will find it solves the problem.

Jack

09-06-2014, 06:01 PM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 929
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
Felix - Next time you try timelapse or other long exposures with the K-3, slip the black plastic viewfinder blind on the back of the viewfinder. I think you will find it solves the problem.

Jack
Thanks Jack, I will try that. The funny part is the K5Is also did not have that tiny black piece in place. hehe
09-06-2014, 06:24 PM   #55
Site Supporter
beachgardener's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,018
I should have a K-3 and D FA 50 macro in my hands within a few weeks, after Photokina.

unless something amasing comes out from Photokina
09-07-2014, 06:29 AM   #56
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
I read elsewhere that a person had a similar problem with the K3 and the solution was to cover the eyepiece. I don't use the cover on the K5 but do block direct light or shield the eyepiece with my body or hand.

Not a big deal to use the eyepiece, I guess. A bit of bother trying to do panos. I had a Canon with a builtin in shutter for the viewfinder. Little lever beside the viewfinder to flip up/down. That was nice.

QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
Felix - Next time you try timelapse or other long exposures with the K-3, slip the black plastic viewfinder blind on the back of the viewfinder. I think you will find it solves the problem.

Jack
09-07-2014, 08:23 AM - 2 Likes   #57
Moderator
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,211
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
I just knew it ... !

This turned in to a cheese factory! .... and we know who the culprits are, don't we?
Who?

Me?

09-07-2014, 06:21 PM   #58
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,384
K3 was cheaper than the K5 - at the same point in their release cycle.
Initial K5 price was about $500 more than initial K3 (or K7, K20, K10d) price IIRC. To say the K5 is cheaper NOW, is a bit unfair. The K10d is also cheaper.
09-07-2014, 07:57 PM - 1 Like   #59
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,151
QuoteOriginally posted by Racer X 69 Quote
Who?

Me?
I can't think of anyone else ...
Let me check back a few posts just to make sure.

Cheers!
09-09-2014, 01:10 PM - 1 Like   #60
Senior Member
chicagojohn's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 243
Original Poster
Since I started this tread, I thought I it appropriate to make this last post. I did return the K3 unopened to B&H who, we all know, are great folks to do business with, and they sent me a K5 IIS which arrived today. This was an actual, real-time decision process during which information came to light that I started out not knowing, or not fully realizing. And as a result of that process, a process which was by no means predetermined, I wound up not buying what I really, truly thought I would be buying when I started the thread. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are wrong. But whatever anyone may think, in departing, I want to thank you all yet again for helping me to gain a clear understanding of the facts and the trade-offs so that I could finally arrive at the right decision for me.


So that said, take care, and have fun.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, camera, corrected, decision, dslr, favor, focus, forum, gain, gordon, hoya, iso, k-3, k3, k5, name, pentax, pentax k-3, pm, post, review, ricoh, unknowns
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why I won't buy a k3 (Warning: Satire Thread) pentaxdude Pentax K-3 38755 15 Minutes Ago 03:25 PM
Why should I buy a prime? ecruz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 45 01-03-2014 10:55 PM
What will make you buy the K3? Rupert Pentax K-3 106 10-19-2013 01:16 PM
Why I will No Longer Buy Pentax Gear In Australia PentaxKangaroo Photographic Technique 54 06-15-2011 01:44 PM
Why I will ALWAYS buy Domke Okami Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 6 09-25-2008 11:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top