[LensBeginner]

Keep it, especially for poster-sized prints.
I personally won't need those added MP, butif you print large often, they make the difference.
Then you have it without OLPF but with the option to simulate it with SR... something the K-5IIs can't do...

[Madaboutpix]

Here is My concern is i just purchased a K3 and the lack of support by good 3rd party glass difficult transition from Nikon- based on camera controls sub menus and tech sites revealing(Dxomark) flaws in K3 sensor(and lens matching to that sensor) make me want to return My New K3 for a K5IIs instead.....i will sacrifice speed for accuracy any day(to a point) because in the end IMAGE QUALITY is #1 priority
so...
My take is: the camera sensor pixel size of the K5IIs being 23 vs 15 for the K3 (hence the dynamic range of the K5IIs being 14.1 vs 13.4-K3) contribute to a more pleasing picture by the K5iis in Theory

Snapsort say K5IIs sensor has better specs (ISO 80-51200 14.1EVDR) than the K-3 (firmware upgrades Pentax???)...K-3 is a Racier Car and the K5iis is slower but more refined (Hemi Cuda vs BMW) i dont know if those extra Pixels stuffed on that little sensor(k3) give more resolution or just more noise and blurry around the edges...............

the K5IIs is on sale with Grip right now and i am under my 30 day window with Adorama so i can safely return the K3 if i choose to and have a little extra for another lens........................on the fence

CAN SOMEONE WITH TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF HOW DIGITAL CAMERAS WEIGH IN PLEASE?????????????
Aloha Timothy

Er, you're seriously wondering if you should return a K-3 for a K-5 IIs? Of course, no one will hinder you from doing so, but what compels you so much to long for the predecessor model? What would be the point for practical photography? Is there any grave unfixable IQ issue that makes your K-3's RAW output ... suck? What mysterious kind of photography couldn't you do with a K-3 that you can do so much better with a K-5 IIs? Speed vs. accuracy? (What?) I'm confident that with the K-3 you get both.

Another thing: You want a camera that has well-documented P-TTL bounce flash issues? Even if you're currently not using external flash units (which I don't know), wouldn't you want to do so in a competent manner if the need arose?

The K-5 IIs is without doubt a great camera, but it's not that it would blow a K-3 out of the water in any discipline, would it? I simply don't get it, I guess.

[Hattifnatt]

If you just post on web and don't make large prints, I doubt there will be and practical difference regarding IQ. I would keep the K3. Myself I have the K5IIs and I'm really happy with it, but I think upgrading to K3 at some point, unless FF comes out.

[halfspin]

I have the K-5 IIs and was going to get a K-3 too until I read the new sensor was produced without the K-5's pixie dust. People who say IQ can be evened out in post are loons. If you start with better, you end up with better. Get the K-5 iis or hope they stick the Cuda's engine in a Bimmer's body (K-3 ii?).

[jatrax]

I have the K-5 IIs and was going to get a K-3 too until I read the new sensor was produced without the K-5's pixie dust. People who say IQ can be evened out in post are loons. If you start with better, you end up with better. Get the K-5 iis or hope they stick the Cuda's engine in a Bimmer's body (K-3 ii?).

Not sure where you read that. I use k-5IIs and k-3 daily and the only difference is k-3 produces somewhat more noise. K-3 images downsized to k-5IIs size show no practical difference in the amount of noise though. Both produce excellent images though I will say I think the k-3 images are a little more finicky to post process correctly. The end result (IMHO) is better but anyone used to PP with a k-5 sensor needs to re-learn what they are doing. If you have a k-5 develop preset and try to use that on the k-3 results will be less than optimum. You need a new develop procedure for the k-3 to get the most out of it. For example on k-5 clarity and vibrance rarely went above +10, on k-3 you can go +20 or even +30 and get good results. Also with the k-5 sensor the Adobe standard camera profile worked fine, on the k-3 it does not, shooting DNG and changing to the 'embedded' camera profile makes a big difference. Sharpening and noise reduction can be used much heavier on k-3 than on the k-5 without artifacting. There is a lot more room to play with on just about all of the sliders but on the other hand you do need to work with a k-3 image more than I do with a k-5 image.

My first attempts at PP with the k-3 left me unimpressed until I quit using the k-5 routine and learned how the k-3 sensor has to be handled. Any tester who just briefly uses the camera, and uses old presets is going to come to the conclusion that the k-3 is not as good. That conclusion would be the fault of the tester, not the camera IMHO. Once I learned how to develop for the k-3 sensor I consistently produce better images with the k-3.

[emalvick]

Not sure where you read that. I use k-5IIs and k-3 daily and the only difference is k-3 produces somewhat more noise. K-3 images downsized to k-5IIs size show no practical difference in the amount of noise though. Both produce excellent images though I will say I think the k-3 images are a little more finicky to post process correctly. The end result (IMHO) is better but anyone used to PP with a k-5 sensor needs to re-learn what they are doing. If you have a k-5 develop preset and try to use that on the k-3 results will be less than optimum. You need a new develop procedure for the k-3 to get the most out of it. For example on k-5 clarity and vibrance rarely went above +10, on k-3 you can go +20 or even +30 and get good results. Also with the k-5 sensor the Adobe standard camera profile worked fine, on the k-3 it does not, shooting DNG and changing to the 'embedded' camera profile makes a big difference. Sharpening and noise reduction can be used much heavier on k-3 than on the k-5 without artifacting. There is a lot more room to play with on just about all of the sliders but on the other hand you do need to work with a k-3 image more than I do with a k-5 image.

My first attempts at PP with the k-3 left me unimpressed until I quit using the k-5 routine and learned how the k-3 sensor has to be handled. Any tester who just briefly uses the camera, and uses old presets is going to come to the conclusion that the k-3 is not as good. That conclusion would be the fault of the tester, not the camera IMHO. Once I learned how to develop for the k-3 sensor I consistently produce better images with the k-3.

Interesting. I went from an original K5 to the K3. I find that I need less PP because the exposure seems to be better overall and I mostly only have to touch the highlights and shadows if any of those settings. I do find I can use the clarity a bit more, but I'm generally in the same ballpark as with my K3. The only thing that has really changed for me is the noise reduction, which I can kick up a bit more without affecting the sharpness or detail significantly. The lack of AA sensor from my original K5 eliminates sharpening from my workflow almost completely, even when I use NR. In fact, the easier PP is a benefit I'm finding in the K3 that I didn't expect. Of course, I suspect this is mostly due to the fact that I'm not coming from a K5iis, and I already felt the K5 that I had was quite a good camera.

I have had to do more fine tuning of my lenses than I've ever had to, but that is hardware related. I have varying degrees of backfocus with most Pentax branded lenses.

[maxxxx]

Not sure where you read that. I use k-5IIs and k-3 daily and the only difference is k-3 produces somewhat more noise. K-3 images downsized to k-5IIs size show no practical difference in the amount of noise though. Both produce excellent images though I will say I think the k-3 images are a little more finicky to post process correctly. The end result (IMHO) is better but anyone used to PP with a k-5 sensor needs to re-learn what they are doing. If you have a k-5 develop preset and try to use that on the k-3 results will be less than optimum. You need a new develop procedure for the k-3 to get the most out of it. For example on k-5 clarity and vibrance rarely went above +10, on k-3 you can go +20 or even +30 and get good results. Also with the k-5 sensor the Adobe standard camera profile worked fine, on the k-3 it does not, shooting DNG and changing to the 'embedded' camera profile makes a big difference. Sharpening and noise reduction can be used much heavier on k-3 than on the k-5 without artifacting. There is a lot more room to play with on just about all of the sliders but on the other hand you do need to work with a k-3 image more than I do with a k-5 image.

My first attempts at PP with the k-3 left me unimpressed until I quit using the k-5 routine and learned how the k-3 sensor has to be handled. Any tester who just briefly uses the camera, and uses old presets is going to come to the conclusion that the k-3 is not as good. That conclusion would be the fault of the tester, not the camera IMHO. Once I learned how to develop for the k-3 sensor I consistently produce better images with the k-3.

I have noticed too that the K-3 images have more flexibility in post processing.

[crewl1]

Image quality between the two is very similar I have noticed since I just bought a k5iis.
The K-3 images are easy to work with in post as mentioned above.

[jatrax]

I have had to do more fine tuning of my lenses than I've ever had to, but that is hardware related. I have varying degrees of backfocus with most Pentax branded lenses.

Strange, I see the exact reverse. On k-5 I had to adjust every lens I use. When I got the k-3 I ran all the testing and was stunned that only one lens needed any adjustment at all, and that was less than +1 so I just left it alone as well. I was very impressed coming from the k-5 where I assumed any new lens would need adjustment.

Maybe I lucked out and got the special hand-tuned version

[emalvick]

Strange, I see the exact reverse. On k-5 I had to adjust every lens I use. When I got the k-3 I ran all the testing and was stunned that only one lens needed any adjustment at all, and that was less than +1 so I just left it alone as well. I was very impressed coming from the k-5 where I assumed any new lens would need adjustment.

Maybe I lucked out and got the special hand-tuned version

Well, if I had to guess, I think it is just a matter of the draw when you buy a body. I'm guessing that when you have to adjust multiple lenses, then something is off with the body. My K10d and K5 both were fine for every lens. I never had to adjust anything. With the K3, I've had to adjust a couple (so far); I've only used 3 lens on the camera so far, and two of them have needed adjustment.

[jatrax]

Well, if I had to guess, I think it is just a matter of the draw when you buy a body.

Probably correct. One could wish everything off the line would be perfect but it won't be. I'm just glad my k-3 is an overachiever

[emalvick]

That's good for you. My K5 must have been the overachiever...

In all honesty, I actually had thought there might be something wrong with me or that I was missing something in the past because I never felt like my lenses were off. Then when I got the K3 and put my 18-135 on it, I really noticed that the in focus spots were always off. Couple that with the improved focus of the K3, and I knew I needed to calibrate. I'm really just happy that Pentax gives us the ability to make the needed adjustments.