Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-10-2014, 04:21 PM   #31
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
Well, it sounds like you figured it out. I would say turning off both those settings is the first thing I did with my K3. Heck, I bought the K3 so that I didn't have the AA filter. The NR options to turn off was the reason I bought the K5 from the K10d, which did not allow you to turn off the NR in certain situations.

Anyway, if you think about it, the AA filter essentially purposely shakes the sensor to simulate a real AA filter. While I'm sure the intent is for the result to be negligible, any time you move the sensor, you are going to lose some sharpness. NR, well, if it's noisy I prefer to fix it in post.

Besides that, I think you came in at a similar position I did. I had film dSLRs and I had a high end prosumer, but there is a learning curve with almost any camera. I honestly don't know what it was but there are subtle things (kind of like the AA and NR settings for you) that at some point you just get with practice, even if you don't know what they are. That happened with my K10d and K5 in the sense that I didn't specifically change something. It just all fell into place. I think I might still be waiting for that with the K-3, myself. But I do know it is good because like you, I find that some images just come out fantastic. Others don't.... probably like the OP and the tripod comment. Shutter speed does seem to be more important for sharp/in focus images.

12-15-2014, 05:14 PM   #32
Veteran Member
enoxatnep's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The edge of nowhere, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 467
I have a thing where I upgrade every 2 generations about every 3 years while I can still get decent money for my older model but after the newest model has also had a good price drop. So I only have to come up with a few hundred $ for the latest-and-greatest. I started with the K20D, then went K-5 -> K-3 this past weekend.

I upgraded mainly because so often, when switching from landscape to portrait (vertical) orientation on the K-5, I would accidentally trip the AF switch from continuous to single-shot then wonder why my continuous AF wasn't working! That REALLY sucked at two weddings I was shooting at this past summer. I tried to re-train how I held the camera vertically, but the darn switch would still be moved more often than not. The K-3 won't have that problem unless I'm in manual focus mode (which is practically never) and bump it into autofocus.

I also wanted much better low-light AF capability, and the K-3 claims to have that down to -3 EV.

There are also a lot of little neat touches that the K-3 has, for example how you can lock OR unlock the mode dial (LOVE it!!!), no AA filter, the button that toggles the 4-way buttons and AF point selection, extra card slot, 60 fps video option, wireless capability, Hold AF Status custom function 3.18, etc. So far, a very worthwhile upgrade from the K-5.
12-15-2014, 05:58 PM   #33
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,931
I have a K-3 and a K-5. I like the K-5 but I never use it, since I got the K-3. It's not that it's a huge improvement.... but it's not a step backwards either. The improved AF is the biggest thing... 27 selectable focus points instead of 9, on occasion the increased resolution comes in handy, more decisive AF. Smaller focus points for focusing through branches....

Increased resolution...

I'm still happy with the K-5, the K-3 is just a bit more.
12-22-2014, 03:55 AM   #34
Senior Member
JeremytheIndian's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 121
QuoteOriginally posted by az1895 Quote
Yes......Im new to DSLR's about 14 months ago , but have had several higher end Point and shoot prosumer models that I excelled with .... At first I took to it like a Duck to water. Getting really nice compositions and end results with the K30......But I was longing for a bit more.
I understand composition , exposure ,aperature , depth of field , etc....very well.....with film.
Have quite a bit of high end Pentax legacy glass that Ive collected over the years (and recently) so those are my go to lenses.
Its the settings and software that Im getting lost in on the K3 for good results....hit and miss alot.
I can grab a K5 , K30 , K5II and do quite well....... Its the K3 that is giving me remorse about half the time.
On a positive note....I turned OFF every form of NR and suddenly things are looking Happy Happy ???
Im actually wondering if turning the AA filter off today , along with NR off is the whole solution ??? They seem to be fighting/cancelling each other out ???
Suddenly things are looking really really good ! I mean really good.....!
Shooting with the AA filter always On is defeating the purpose of getting a K-3 if you ask me

12-22-2014, 04:35 AM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,362
People back in the film age didn't change cameras nearly as often as folks now that we are in the digital age. But then again, you could just pop a different type of film in your camera and have a different output. With digital cameras, your sensor is your film and it is what it is. That said, I feel like from the K5 on, APS-C cameras have reached the place where from a sensor standpoint, there is little point to upgrade, unless you are pushing the edges of how large you can print or high iso capability. As was mentioned earlier, if you are happy with your camera, there is no point in upgrading.

I believe more people would improve their work by investing in a solid tripod, than by going with the newest iteration of full frame that's out there.
12-22-2014, 05:54 AM   #36
New Member

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Pentax K-3 vs K-5 (ii)

Here is the summary I collected online for myself, but I think it might be helpful for others trying to figure out which differences matter to themselves.

  • 24 MP vs 16MP (Which might be a potential for future higher resolution lenses, but not for current lenses, I don't see any lens can even reach 13 P-MP on K-3 or K-5).
  • 27-point AF vs 11-point AF
  • dual SD card
  • K-3 support faster SD standard UHS-I vs K-5 (ii) class 10
  • Focus peaking on Live view is very helpful for manual focus on K-3
  • Non anti-aliasing filter
  • USB 3.0
  • 86000 RGB metering vs 77-segment metering
  • 8.8 fps (68 JPEG/23 RAW) vs 7 fps (40 frames)
  • 3.2 1037K LCD vs 3 920K LCD
  • Better AF button location on K-3
  • Better video button layout
  • Switching between user mode is much easier, just turn the dial. For K-5, you have turn to other mode first, then turn back and turn the rear dial to select the other user mode.
  • User mode can keep metering mode, focusing mode on K-3
  • The dial can be unlocked, Its a great news for lock-dial-hater.

  • Battery Life (CIPA) 560 vs 980
  • Only 3 user mode vs 5 user mode in K-5
  • Minimum ISO 100 vs ISO 80 (but it's expended ISO, so..)

I like K-3 more than K-5 (ii), as the pros are significant enough for me. But if you are happy with what you have, and don't really care about those pros I mentioned, then just keep it that way. It's only more handy, not a game changer.
12-26-2014, 02:01 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
PALADIN85020's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 434
I've been using the K-5 (original) for several years, and purchased the K-3 as soon as it came out. Here are some of my observations.

1. Since the K-3 has no moire filter (and a moire-correcting simulator if needed), the unfiltered images are very sharp to the extent that you'll find most of your lenses perform noticeably better. Even my versatile true 18-135WR now gives much better sharpness. With my SMC-DA 35mm Macro LTD, you can almost cut yourself on the pictures, they're so sharp.

2. Low-light focusing is far and away better and faster with the K-3.

3. With the larger 24 MP files, I have more cropping options to give better artistic rendering. There's plenty of elbow room to experiment in post processing crops. Crops from a smaller area of the photo are often acceptable, where this would not have been so with the K-5's 16 MP pictures.

4. Automatic light balance is almost always accurate, even with varying lighting in the picture; this was not so with the K-5.

5. Flash pictures seem to be better - overexposure was common with the K-5; if anything, K-3 flash exposures are often a bit underexposed. With RAW files, you have plenty of latitude in post.

6. K-3 pictures can be blown up for framing to larger sizes than with the K-5.

7. Spot focusing and spot exposure covers a much smaller area than with the K-5, making precision focusing and exposure of a specific target quite easy.

8. With telephoto lenses, the larger files of the K-3 can give you a usable shot of even higher apparent power than that of the K-5 by simply cropping.

9. Smaller video files can be chosen; the video files from the K-5 were often huge and chewed up space on the memory card and the hard drive.

10. Backup files are easy with two card slots, or you can have a second card ready to double your storage in the camera. Or you can save RAW files to one larger card, and JPGs to the other.

11. Way less shutter noise. Almost silent. Also, estimated life of the shutter has been doubled, probably through better cushioning.

12. The same battery as is used in the K-5 is also used in the K-3. If you've invested in spares, no need to buy more.

On the minus side. noise is more noticeable when pixel-peeping at ISO 1600 and above. If the picture is reduced in size to that generated by the K-5, there is no noticeable difference even at higher ISOs. More MPs means more noise. I like to keep my ISO at not more than 800 for most shots; at ISO 100, the image quality is absolutely stunning with the K-3. I turn all noise reduction options off with the K-3 to allow its much better resolution, and take care of any noise, if present, in post. Also, there are only 3 user settings, and the GPS module will not do tracking, as it could on the K-5. The optional battery grip from the K-5 will not work; you would have to get the one for the K-3, which is different. I can live with these comparative deficiencies to get the outstanding virtues of the K-3.

The K-5 is still an excellent camera, and I retain it for backup use. Haven't found that necessary as yet, though. If my K-3 ever gets run over by an Abrams tank, I'll be glad I kept it.

Hope this helps.


  • 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!
animals, auto, camera, dslr, film, focus, im, k-3, k-5, k-5 k-3 upgrade, k3, k30, k5, landscapes, light, pentax k-3, post, purchase, sigma, upgrade, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Upgrade from K-5 to K-3 or Fuji XT1 or Oly EM1 zVratko Pentax DSLR Discussion 34 11-01-2014 11:56 AM
Upgrade from K-5 to K-3 Budster48 Pentax K-5 11 02-04-2014 10:00 AM
K-5 to K-3 - how big an upgrade. ChrisA Pentax K-3 22 11-21-2013 05:32 AM
Wanting to upgrade from K-5 to K-5ii/iis - Have some questions striker_ Pentax K-5 5 11-13-2013 04:34 AM
Would you pay $350 to upgrade from K-5 to K-5II? chesebert Pentax K-5 18 07-16-2013 06:36 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:41 PM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]