[elandel]

Hi all,

I own a Sony A6000 but want a dslr and, after lots of searching, reviews, thinking etc,, I'm leaning towards Pentax (which I already owned years ago - K5 -) because it's relatively small and 'tough'.
When choosing a dslr you always look at Canikon but after all Pentax is no slouch. Maybe less lens, it gepends on your use. I will use it for travel and landscapes or what is called 'general photography'.

I would like to have your experience on K3 - cheaper - and K3II more expensive at least here in Italy.

Can you help me choose among the two? And also suggest a general purpose zoom? Have the two cameras got any important issues?

Thanks.

[K57XR]

Have you come across these threads yet?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/297864-k3-k3ii.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/303814-k3-k3ii.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/301101-k3-vs-k3ii.html

First off, I have the K-3, not tested the K-3II.

If onboard flash is important, K-3. All else K3II if I should believe the specs. It has the pixel shift and built in GPS that stand alone is quite expensive.
A good zoom would be the Pentax DA*16-50 f/2.8 if you want weather sealing or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if weather sealing is no issue.

[elandel]

Have you come across these threads yet?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/297864-k3-k3ii.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/303814-k3-k3ii.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/301101-k3-vs-k3ii.html

No, I didn't see them. I'll give them a look. Thanks.

---------- Post added 03-06-16 at 06:06 PM ----------

First off, I have the K-3, not tested the K-3II.

If onboard flash is important, K-3. All else K3II if I should believe the specs. It has the pixel shift and built in GPS that stand alone is quite expensive.
A good zoom would be the Pentax DA*16-50 f/2.8 if you want weather sealing or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if weather sealing is no issue.

Thanks. I think I need a bit longer reach. I read somewhere of the 16-85 or something like that. Hove you any thoughts?

I have not tested the 16-85...

[jatrax]

K-3 = on board flash
K-3II = On board GPS + pixel shift technology
No significant other differences.

For reasonable travel zooms:
DA 18-135 decent image quality, very good in the center, edges can be somewhat soft but not bad
DA 16-85 sharp across the frame, not quite as long as the 18-135
I have 16-85 and k-3II, my wife uses 18-135 and k-3. Sometimes my images are better, sometimes her's are.

Next step up would be the DA*16-50 + DA*50-135. Faster, much heavier, much more expensive and two lenses to cover the same focal length.

[elandel]

K-3 = on board flash
K-3II = On board GPS + pixel shift technology
No significant other differences.

For reasonable travel zooms:
DA 18-135 decent image quality, very good in the center, edges can be somewhat soft but not bad
DA 16-85 sharp across the frame, not quite as long as the 18-135
I have 16-85 and k-3II, my wife uses 18-135 and k-3. Sometimes my images are better, sometimes her's are.

Next step up would be the DA*16-50 + DA*50-135. Faster, much heavier, much more expensive and two lenses to cover the same focal length.

When I had the K-5 (regretted selling it) and after the K-30 with 18-135 my experience with this lens was not very satisfying. It seemed to me soft so I sold the combo.

[jatrax]

When I had the K-5 (regretted selling it) and after the K-30 with 18-135 my experience with this lens was not very satisfying. It seemed to me soft so I sold the combo.

Might have been your copy or you are more critical about the edges. Or maybe you had a back/front focus issue. We are quite happy with the copy my wife has, but accept that the edges are not going to be crisp. For what she shoots, that is not a problem.

I had the 16-50 and got the 16-85 to test. Just sold the 16-50 as it was not getting much use, it is a fast lens and if you need that then the way to go, but I usually shoot f/8 or even f/11 so no advantage to me. 16-85 is performing very well for me.

I bought the 18-135 when I bought the K-3 and found the lens to be sharp and nice but sold it to buy the 16-50.

[elandel]

Might have been your copy or you are more critical about the edges. Or maybe you had a back/front focus issue. We are quite happy with the copy my wife has, but accept that the edges are not going to be crisp. For what she shoots, that is not a problem.

I had the 16-50 and got the 16-85 to test. Just sold the 16-50 as it was not getting much use, it is a fast lens and if you need that then the way to go, but I usually shoot f/8 or even f/11 so no advantage to me. 16-85 is performing very well for me.

Yes maybe it had a back/front issue or other issues but not important anymore. I think I'll go the 16-85 route.

[Davidparis]

I have not tested the 16-85...

I have tested the DA16-85 as I own one, as others do as well, and it's a very, very good lens. Ample reviews to read...

---------- Post added 03-06-2016 at 12:00 PM ----------

Hi all,

I own a Sony A6000 but want a dslr and, after lots of searching, reviews, thinking etc,, I'm leaning towards Pentax (which I already owned years ago - K5 -) because it's relatively small and 'tough'.
When choosing a dslr you always look at Canikon but after all Pentax is no slouch. Maybe less lens, it gepends on your use. I will use it for travel and landscapes or what is called 'general photography'.

I would like to have your experience on K3 - cheaper - and K3II more expensive at least here in Italy.

Can you help me choose among the two? And also suggest a general purpose zoom? Have the two cameras got any important issues?

Thanks.

First off, frankly, going Pentax is an excellent decision. The cameras are tough, capable and endearing. The K-3 family is an extremely capable camera, this in universally accepted. The main difference between the K-3 and the K-3II relates to on-board flash, astrotracer capabilities and pixel-shift. Otherwise, shooting will feel the same. Solid, sleek, just the right size, weather proofing and legacy lens availability make these cameras a "no regret" decision. Good luck in your quest.

[elandel]

I have tested the DA16-85 as I own one, as others do as well, and it's a very, very good lens. Ample reviews to read...

---------- Post added 03-06-2016 at 12:00 PM ----------


First off, frankly, going Pentax is an excellent decision. The cameras are tough, capable and endearing. The K-3 family is an extremely capable camera, this in universally accepted. The main difference between the K-3 and the K-3II relates to on-board flash, astrotracer capabilities and pixel-shift. Otherwise, shooting will feel the same. Solid, sleek, just the right size, weather proofing and legacy lens availability make these cameras a "no regret" decision. Good luck in your quest.

Thanks. Well my thoughts are: astrotracer, I'm not an astronaut pixel-shift, yes maybe good for some but I already have problems taking good photos with normal camera features let alone with sophisticated features _ I'm joking of course.

[GSWayne]

One comment about the K3ii. Besides the Astrotracer capability the GPS also provides location information on each photo. When I opened my recent photos from Yellowstone National Park in Lightroom, by going to the Map tab I could show where each photo was taken and see what direction the camera was facing. I could then easily label the photos with which mountain or geyser was in each photo.

[jatrax]

One comment about the K3ii. Besides the Astrotracer capability the GPS also provides location information on each photo. When I opened my recent photos from Yellowstone National Park in Lightroom, by going to the Map tab I could show where each photo was taken and see what direction the camera was facing. I could then easily label the photos with which mountain or geyser was in each photo.

And that is priceless. (IMHO)

[elementdtlop]

there is something different about the AF too i thought i remember reading with k3ii or am i making that up?