Originally posted by Damian.T I've read on the forum that the video isn't that great on the K3-II, so for the time being I'm going to keep with my old K20 and hold off buying one and wait to see how the FF performs.
I have the K20D, it's my main camera. The K-3 is superior in every way, but the K20D isn't holding my photographic talents back. If you know what I mean. If I needed a specific feature of the newer camera to the point that my current camera is useless, I'd upgrade. But for now that's not the case, I can work around the more obvious limitations such as low light (I have 4 flashes) and AF performance (I use it within its limitations, I'm a center point guy anyway).
I'm sure I'd get very excited if I had a K-3 but I just can't justify paying for one right now. It's not just the cost of the camera by the way - my computer is not the fastest when it comes to processing RAW files from the K20D, so I'd probably need a new computer (and more disk space) to process the K-3 24MP files. It is what it is.
Originally posted by tuco How come Pentax owners are so obsessed over what other people use for a camera? I could care less what my friend has, for instance. Today, IMHO, it is picking the fly crap out of the pepper comparing digital cameras of roughly the same class.
For example, how many people here shoot a Sony sensor and Sigma glass? Not much of Pentax in the resulting image there, IMHO. But one can always take comfort that only Pentax engineers have that magic pixy dust they apply to the integration of a Sony sensor and everyone just doesn't see it.
Calm down. The question was asked by someone who has an older camera and is considering upgrading. It was not meant to state any kind of superiority either way. If I understood it correctly, it was more in the form of a question than anything else.
For what it's worth, I think Canon bodies *are* overpriced, and Pentax/Nikon are a much better value for APS-C DSLRs. The K-3 costs $629 right now and the 7D Mk II costs $1499. I'll just leave it at that.