K5 II/s pictures seem sharper than K3

matt_lin18 · 06-10-2015, 03:59 PM

I've been debating which one to get, the K3 or the K5 II/s. I've been look at the post your picture here threads in the K3 and K5 sections of the forums. It seems like the pictures in the K5 IIs thread seem sharper and just "nicer" than the ones in the K3 thread.

I'm not talking about nicer as in composition but nicer as in image quality, sharpness, color rendition. DxoMark does rate the K5 IIs higher in image quality, color depth and dynamic range but only slightly. I've gone through about 20-30 pages in both threads so I'm getting a good sample count. Am I just crazy or what?

Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. I can also usually find a used K5 II/s for about $100-$150 cheaper than used K3's.

Adam · 06-10-2015, 04:57 PM

The K-3 has way more resolution, but that won't always translate into sharper-looking images when scaled to web size. Apart from the resolution I think the most notable improvement in the K-3 is the new white balance system, which carries an especially big advantage when shooting at night.

stevebrot · 06-10-2015, 05:00 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by matt_lin18

Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc.

Everyone is right, except there are a few who might argue which camera is better for video. In regards to which takes "nicer" photos, that is a matter of taste and as we all know, there is no accounting for taste. I have seen very decent work done with both cameras, but also with primitive Soviet-era rangefinder gear. In some people's hands, even a rude tool can make art

As for DxoMark...their grading is sort of flaky in that there is an attempt at applying a handicap factor against cameras with higher resolution sensors. Take their scores with a grain of salt.

Steve

**jatrax** · 06-10-2015, 05:13 PM

I don't follow picture threads that much, and I doubt you can get any meaningful data on sharpness or niceness from web sized images. But I do own and use the k-5IIs and the k-3. Both are very nice and you won't go wrong with either.

I use both for paid efforts and the k-5IIs is my backup camera. If there was even the slightest doubt in my mind that the k-5IIs produced better images than the k-3 do you think I would be using the k-3 as my main body? There is little difference to be honest in most shots but the k-3 is, IMHO, slightly better. That assumes the images are processed properly. In my experience k-3 images processed using k-5 presets do not turn as well as they should. Once I set up different presets for RAW development I never went back to the k-5IIs.

normhead · 06-10-2015, 05:19 PM - **2 Likes**

I can see why folks might think a K-5iis is better. Sometimes I think my K-5 is better.

Here's a couple of K-3 images, one uncropped

One cropped 1:1 so actual size

The 1:1 is where in focus is razor sharp.... and the images is 6,000 by 4,000. Even if the K-5iis images is as sharp it's roughly 4900x 3200. I can crop 1000 off the width of the K-3 image and 800 pixels from the bottom, and still have a K-5 image. I'm not sure how this fits into DxO's information, but, DxOs information certainly doesn't fit into mine. The post processing needs to be a little different with the K-3 but I seriously doubt you can tell the difference between K-3 and K5 images in a blind test at web size. IN my own test, D800 compared to K-5, many people couldn't tell the difference between a K-5 and D800 at web size. But don't trust me, maybe someone can put together a poll with 5 K-5 and 5 K-3 images and we'll see if anyone can tell the difference. MY guess is, taken as a whole, everyone will be about 50% right some will get them all, some will miss them all and we'll have a statistical saw off.

This taken with that apparently deficient lens, the 18-135, but that's another argument.

MadMathMind · 06-10-2015, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Adam

The K-3 has way more resolution, but that won't always translate into sharper-looking images when scaled to web size. Apart from the resolution I think the most notable improvement in the K-3 is the new white balance system, which carries an especially big advantage when shooting at night.

The AA filter might be on in some of the images posted.

RMabo · 06-11-2015, 03:11 AM

Could simply be a matter of adjustments, settings and workflow... It's all adjustable. In this post-processing world we can do everything so I doubt that you can make any assumptions of a cameras image quality just by judging images with unclear background regarding workflow.

halfspin · 06-11-2015, 05:35 AM

I really like that leaf shot, Norm!

normhead · 06-11-2015, 05:54 AM

We have beach trees around us halfspin and they keep their leaves all winter, we have so many shots like that that Tess and I make fun of each other when we see each other taking them. We could do a whole gallery exhibit just on dried winter beach leaves. But sometimes you look at one and think, oh, that one's prefect, and you have to take it, even if you already probably have 25 in the "keepers" file.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 06-11-2015, 07:09 AM

There are times when I feel like the K-01 renders more smoothly with deeper tones and a smoother roll-off of highlights than the K-3. I have no idea why. I'm not saying that the K-01 is the same as the K-5 series, but they do share some sensor characteristics. As for the DPreview analysis, the K-5 series benefits from having ISO 80 - and that extends dynamic range slightly. The difference is very minor. The K-3 has improved the overall video and audio quality significantly; working with the smaller files since the K-5 series has resulted in some compression issues, but the K-3 has greatly reduced the problem over the K-01 and 30/50/500.

If you absolutely don't need to take action shots, avoid pTTL, and you never use live view, I think the K-5ii/s is a great choice. However, the AF is much quicker on the K-3 (especially screw drive), and the live view is very good - and can be hugely beneficial for a variety of shooting situations. Firmware has improved pTTL responsiveness, and the manual/ratio settings of the on-board flash are a wonderful addition that can provide you with great, well-balanced multi-flash and fill options.

**Rondec** · 06-11-2015, 07:52 AM

If you see a difference, it is likely due to differences in post processing more than anything else. I own a K3 and a K5 II and there isn't a big difference in them otherwise. As to sharpness, that is mostly related to the lens and technique and stuff like that.

K3 and DA 15

skyoftexas · 06-11-2015, 07:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by matt_lin18

I've been debating which one to get, the K3 or the K5 II/s. I've been look at the post your picture here threads in the K3 and K5 sections of the forums. It seems like the pictures in the K5 IIs thread seem sharper and just "nicer" than the ones in the K3 thread.

I'm not talking about nicer as in composition but nicer as in image quality, sharpness, color rendition. DxoMark does rate the K5 IIs higher in image quality, color depth and dynamic range but only slightly. I've gone through about 20-30 pages in both threads so I'm getting a good sample count. Am I just crazy or what?

Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. I can also usually find a used K5 II/s for about $100-$150 cheaper than used K3's.

You are not crazy for your perception. And it seems counter intuitive when people tell you not to believe your eyes because ----- etc. I decided to go with the KIIs based on image quality. To my eyes, it is at least as good, and perhaps better than the K3. There is no doubt the K3 is an improved camera, but since IQ, and at that time, price was my prime criteria, I thought I would skip the K3 and see what comes out next. Like the FF that many of us have been waiting for. There should be a noticeable difference in IQ with an FF.

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 10:03 AM ----------

Processed, but still?

bobpur · 06-11-2015, 08:43 AM

My old K200 is just as sharp, the only difference is the size. The sensor has no bearing on the pic quality, the lens is the
qualifier providing the focus is the same.

matt_lin18 · 06-11-2015, 10:50 PM

My budget is around $1000 for a complete system right now. Should I get a K5 ($250 on these forums), a K5 II/s ($400) or the K3 ($600)?

I'll be mainly shooting competitive business type competitions (minimal action) with people/groups of people. Lighting is usually good at local/state competitions as they are hosted in schools or conference centers. It's not optimal lighting but I do plan to get a Yongnuo speedlight for around $70 as well.

However, when you get to the international competition, it's a rather big event with about 20,000 people. The awards ceremony is in a giant room or arena (they rotate locations every 4 years) with a big stage usually in the middle with tons of bright moving lights and lots of bright cheerful colors. When people go up to their awards, it's a very fast paced process and I need to be able to catch their expression and joy as they receive their award.

Will the AF tracking on the K5's be enough? Or should I go for the K3 with better AF? Or should I just pick up the K5 and invest more money in lenses?

Here's what the international competition looked like last year, it was in Atlanta. The international competition was in Orlando this year and looked similar, except the stage was in the middle with 4 camera men on each side broadcasting live to 4 big TV screens on top of the stage.

The picture above was taken with a Canon T3i with the 18-55 kit. I did not take the picture, I just found the image online and pulled the data from EXIF.

JohnBee · 06-11-2015, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by matt_lin18

I've been debating which one to get, the K3 or the K5 II/s. I've been look at the post your picture here threads in the K3 and K5 sections of the forums. It seems like the pictures in the K5 IIs thread seem sharper and just "nicer" than the ones in the K3 thread.

I'm not talking about nicer as in composition but nicer as in image quality, sharpness, color rendition. DxoMark does rate the K5 IIs higher in image quality, color depth and dynamic range but only slightly. I've gone through about 20-30 pages in both threads so I'm getting a good sample count. Am I just crazy or what?

Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. I can also usually find a used K5 II/s for about $100-$150 cheaper than used K3's.

Well it just so happens that I love the K-5 II/s
And so that makes it the best camera in the world.
Period.
Bar-none.
For infinity.
And now I'm done ...

06-10-2015, 03:59 PM	#1
matt_lin18 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Kansas Posts: 63	K5 II/s pictures seem sharper than K3 I've been debating which one to get, the K3 or the K5 II/s. I've been look at the post your picture here threads in the K3 and K5 sections of the forums. It seems like the pictures in the K5 IIs thread seem sharper and just "nicer" than the ones in the K3 thread. I'm not talking about nicer as in composition but nicer as in image quality, sharpness, color rendition. DxoMark does rate the K5 IIs higher in image quality, color depth and dynamic range but only slightly. I've gone through about 20-30 pages in both threads so I'm getting a good sample count. Am I just crazy or what? Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. I can also usually find a used K5 II/s for about $100-$150 cheaper than used K3's.

06-10-2015, 04:57 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	The K-3 has way more resolution, but that won't always translate into sharper-looking images when scaled to web size. Apart from the resolution I think the most notable improvement in the K-3 is the new white balance system, which carries an especially big advantage when shooting at night. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-11-2015, 10:50 PM	#14
matt_lin18 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Kansas Posts: 63 Original Poster	My budget is around $1000 for a complete system right now. Should I get a K5 ($250 on these forums), a K5 II/s ($400) or the K3 ($600)? I'll be mainly shooting competitive business type competitions (minimal action) with people/groups of people. Lighting is usually good at local/state competitions as they are hosted in schools or conference centers. It's not optimal lighting but I do plan to get a Yongnuo speedlight for around $70 as well. However, when you get to the international competition, it's a rather big event with about 20,000 people. The awards ceremony is in a giant room or arena (they rotate locations every 4 years) with a big stage usually in the middle with tons of bright moving lights and lots of bright cheerful colors. When people go up to their awards, it's a very fast paced process and I need to be able to catch their expression and joy as they receive their award. Will the AF tracking on the K5's be enough? Or should I go for the K3 with better AF? Or should I just pick up the K5 and invest more money in lenses? Here's what the international competition looked like last year, it was in Atlanta. The international competition was in Orlando this year and looked similar, except the stage was in the middle with 4 camera men on each side broadcasting live to 4 big TV screens on top of the stage. The picture above was taken with a Canon T3i with the 18-55 kit. I did not take the picture, I just found the image online and pulled the data from EXIF. Last edited by matt_lin18; 06-11-2015 at 11:04 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Buy K3 or K5 II's?	ALiEN\|PoV	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	25	03-20-2014 05:02 AM
K3 vs K5-II	cpk	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	7	01-05-2014 02:16 PM
Image sharper than k5?	Spodeworld	Pentax K-30 & K-50	20	05-26-2013 07:04 AM
What's a sharper lens than the 18-55 AND affordable?	GibbyTheMole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	10-18-2012 07:56 AM

06-10-2015, 05:00 PM - 1 Like	#3
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by matt_lin18 Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. Everyone is right, except there are a few who might argue which camera is better for video. In regards to which takes "nicer" photos, that is a matter of taste and as we all know, there is no accounting for taste. I have seen very decent work done with both cameras, but also with primitive Soviet-era rangefinder gear. In some people's hands, even a rude tool can make art As for DxoMark...their grading is sort of flaky in that there is an attempt at applying a handicap factor against cameras with higher resolution sensors. Take their scores with a grain of salt. Steve

06-10-2015, 05:13 PM	#4
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	I don't follow picture threads that much, and I doubt you can get any meaningful data on sharpness or niceness from web sized images. But I do own and use the k-5IIs and the k-3. Both are very nice and you won't go wrong with either. I use both for paid efforts and the k-5IIs is my backup camera. If there was even the slightest doubt in my mind that the k-5IIs produced better images than the k-3 do you think I would be using the k-3 as my main body? There is little difference to be honest in most shots but the k-3 is, IMHO, slightly better. That assumes the images are processed properly. In my experience k-3 images processed using k-5 presets do not turn as well as they should. Once I set up different presets for RAW development I never went back to the k-5IIs.

06-10-2015, 05:19 PM - 2 Likes	#5
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I can see why folks might think a K-5iis is better. Sometimes I think my K-5 is better. Here's a couple of K-3 images, one uncropped One cropped 1:1 so actual size The 1:1 is where in focus is razor sharp.... and the images is 6,000 by 4,000. Even if the K-5iis images is as sharp it's roughly 4900x 3200. I can crop 1000 off the width of the K-3 image and 800 pixels from the bottom, and still have a K-5 image. I'm not sure how this fits into DxO's information, but, DxOs information certainly doesn't fit into mine. The post processing needs to be a little different with the K-3 but I seriously doubt you can tell the difference between K-3 and K5 images in a blind test at web size. IN my own test, D800 compared to K-5, many people couldn't tell the difference between a K-5 and D800 at web size. But don't trust me, maybe someone can put together a poll with 5 K-5 and 5 K-3 images and we'll see if anyone can tell the difference. MY guess is, taken as a whole, everyone will be about 50% right some will get them all, some will miss them all and we'll have a statistical saw off. This taken with that apparently deficient lens, the 18-135, but that's another argument.

06-10-2015, 05:21 PM	#6
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	Originally posted by Adam The K-3 has way more resolution, but that won't always translate into sharper-looking images when scaled to web size. Apart from the resolution I think the most notable improvement in the K-3 is the new white balance system, which carries an especially big advantage when shooting at night. The AA filter might be on in some of the images posted.

06-11-2015, 03:11 AM	#7
RMabo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 845	Could simply be a matter of adjustments, settings and workflow... It's all adjustable. In this post-processing world we can do everything so I doubt that you can make any assumptions of a cameras image quality just by judging images with unclear background regarding workflow.

06-11-2015, 05:35 AM	#8
halfspin Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	I really like that leaf shot, Norm!

06-11-2015, 05:54 AM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	We have beach trees around us halfspin and they keep their leaves all winter, we have so many shots like that that Tess and I make fun of each other when we see each other taking them. We could do a whole gallery exhibit just on dried winter beach leaves. But sometimes you look at one and think, oh, that one's prefect, and you have to take it, even if you already probably have 25 in the "keepers" file.

06-11-2015, 07:09 AM	#10
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	There are times when I feel like the K-01 renders more smoothly with deeper tones and a smoother roll-off of highlights than the K-3. I have no idea why. I'm not saying that the K-01 is the same as the K-5 series, but they do share some sensor characteristics. As for the DPreview analysis, the K-5 series benefits from having ISO 80 - and that extends dynamic range slightly. The difference is very minor. The K-3 has improved the overall video and audio quality significantly; working with the smaller files since the K-5 series has resulted in some compression issues, but the K-3 has greatly reduced the problem over the K-01 and 30/50/500. If you absolutely don't need to take action shots, avoid pTTL, and you never use live view, I think the K-5ii/s is a great choice. However, the AF is much quicker on the K-3 (especially screw drive), and the live view is very good - and can be hugely beneficial for a variety of shooting situations. Firmware has improved pTTL responsiveness, and the manual/ratio settings of the on-board flash are a wonderful addition that can provide you with great, well-balanced multi-flash and fill options.

06-11-2015, 07:52 AM	#11
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	If you see a difference, it is likely due to differences in post processing more than anything else. I own a K3 and a K5 II and there isn't a big difference in them otherwise. As to sharpness, that is mostly related to the lens and technique and stuff like that. K3 and DA 15

06-11-2015, 07:55 AM - 1 Like	#12
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	Originally posted by matt_lin18 I've been debating which one to get, the K3 or the K5 II/s. I've been look at the post your picture here threads in the K3 and K5 sections of the forums. It seems like the pictures in the K5 IIs thread seem sharper and just "nicer" than the ones in the K3 thread. I'm not talking about nicer as in composition but nicer as in image quality, sharpness, color rendition. DxoMark does rate the K5 IIs higher in image quality, color depth and dynamic range but only slightly. I've gone through about 20-30 pages in both threads so I'm getting a good sample count. Am I just crazy or what? Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. I can also usually find a used K5 II/s for about $100-$150 cheaper than used K3's. You are not crazy for your perception. And it seems counter intuitive when people tell you not to believe your eyes because ----- etc. I decided to go with the KIIs based on image quality. To my eyes, it is at least as good, and perhaps better than the K3. There is no doubt the K3 is an improved camera, but since IQ, and at that time, price was my prime criteria, I thought I would skip the K3 and see what comes out next. Like the FF that many of us have been waiting for. There should be a noticeable difference in IQ with an FF. ---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 10:03 AM ---------- Processed, but still?

06-11-2015, 08:43 AM	#13
bobpur Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 328	My old K200 is just as sharp, the only difference is the size. The sensor has no bearing on the pic quality, the lens is the qualifier providing the focus is the same.

06-11-2015, 11:04 PM	#15
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by matt_lin18 I've been debating which one to get, the K3 or the K5 II/s. I've been look at the post your picture here threads in the K3 and K5 sections of the forums. It seems like the pictures in the K5 IIs thread seem sharper and just "nicer" than the ones in the K3 thread. I'm not talking about nicer as in composition but nicer as in image quality, sharpness, color rendition. DxoMark does rate the K5 IIs higher in image quality, color depth and dynamic range but only slightly. I've gone through about 20-30 pages in both threads so I'm getting a good sample count. Am I just crazy or what? Everyone seems to say that the K3 is a significantly better camera than the K5 IIs as the K3 is the flagship camera of Pentax. It has better AF, faster burst shooting, better video qualities, 2 card slots, focus peaking, etc. I can also usually find a used K5 II/s for about $100-$150 cheaper than used K3's. Well it just so happens that I love the K-5 II/s And so that makes it the best camera in the world. Period. Bar-none. For infinity. And now I'm done ...