[bossa]

Another vote for the K-3. It's easily the best camera I have owned, and the current prices are almost criminally low.

If wildlife is your thing, I reckon a crop camera is the way to go. If you go full frame you'll need much bigger and heavier lenses to get the same reach. If landscape and portrait shooting is a priority then it's a different story.

Hey Sandy, I'm curious as to the significance of the boldface in your Sig' (if any).

---

Last edited by bossa; 07-25-2015 at 03:12 AM.

[hjoseph7]

The Battery life on the K3 was the deal breaker for me. I can get 200 extra shots with the K5. Another reason why I chose the k-5IIs was the higher dynamic range and slightly better picture quality.


No pun intended, I will probably purchase a K3 sometime in the future, but right I don't see any reason to upgrade. More focusing points ? I usually only use the center focusing point. Extra card slot. I can store plenty of pictures on my 16MG card with room to spare. If I was shooting weddings that would be a different story. Higher resolution ? Might come in handy if I needed to print 30x40 prints often, or I needed to crop a lot such as in birding which I don't do a lot. Just means less pictures on my card and more problems for my computer.


Tell you the truth the pictures on my K-5 IIs are so sharp I really don't see ho they can be improved any further. Bigger back LCD, who cares I can see y LCD plenty with no problems. Movies/Video, I have a Sony Cam that will put both cameras to shame. Let's see now smaller, lighter, cheaper and ISO 80. GO K-5IIs ! One feature I would like to have is the AA simulation but you can't have everything...

[Sandy Hancock]

Hey Sandy, I'm curious as the significance of the boldface in your Sig' (if any).

Bold = K-mount (to differentiate from Q mount)
Font size 1 = APS-C only
Font size 2 = 36x24 compatible (or as far as I can ascertain)
The colours match those of the lens or body

Maybe now I should introduce italics or underlines to denote MIJ vs AIV....

[bossa]

Bold = K-mount (to differentiate from Q mount)
Font size 1 = APS-C only
Font size 2 = 36x24 compatible (or as far as I can ascertain)
The colours match those of the lens or body

Maybe now I should introduce italics or underlines to denote MIJ vs AIV....

Thank gawd you don't have any of those multi-coloured bodies.

[conbio]

Here some video from photouniverse:
https://youtu.be/IMFWlUEdw4c

Wow, what a rant! He said the same thing over and over!

---------- Post added 07-25-2015 at 11:54 AM ----------

The Battery life on the K3 was the deal breaker for me. I can get 200 extra shots with the K5. Another reason why I chose the k-5IIs was the higher dynamic range and slightly better picture quality.


No pun intended, I will probably purchase a K3 sometime in the future, but right I don't see any reason to upgrade. More focusing points ? I usually only use the center focusing point. Extra card slot. I can store plenty of pictures on my 16MG card with room to spare. If I was shooting weddings that would be a different story. Higher resolution ? Might come in handy if I needed to print 30x40 prints often, or I needed to crop a lot such as in birding which I don't do a lot. Just means less pictures on my card and more problems for my computer.


Tell you the truth the pictures on my K-5 IIs are so sharp I really don't see ho they can be improved any further. Bigger back LCD, who cares I can see y LCD plenty with no problems. Movies/Video, I have a Sony Cam that will put both cameras to shame. Let's see now smaller, lighter, cheaper and ISO 80. GO K-5IIs ! One feature I would like to have is the AA simulation but you can't have everything...

I really appreciate your feedback on this. I do really like the K5IIs, which I've had for almost 2 years. It is so much sharper than the K7 it blew my socks off. Like you, I also use center-point focus most of the time or manual focus. But it also seems everything I read describes the K3 as being another great leap forward from the K5IIs. My main frustration with the K5IIs is the ISO and noise performance. I don't need to crop like a madman, but I do crop wildlife pictures quite a bit and was thinking the K3 would be better for that, as some replies have already mentioned.

I've also appreciated the comments about the merits of the cropped sensor, which helps me realize I am in no great rush for FF after all.

Thanks,

[DeadJohn]

SNIP... My main frustration with the K5IIs is the ISO and noise performance. I don't need to crop like a madman, but I do crop wildlife pictures quite a bit and was thinking the K3 would be better for that, as some replies have already mentioned. ...SNIP

The noise from the K-5ii and K-3 is similar and not a reason to change cameras.

[rawr]

If high-ISO noise is your main concern, wait until a Pentax FF comes along. That will be the only definitive way to solve the problem of improving high ISO performance.

But to a large extent it depends on what you shoot, and what you shoot it with. A lot of indoor shooting Pentax user's high-ISO problems seem to have gone away when the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 came along, for instance, thanks to being able to use a faster lens in that common zoom range.