Originally posted by Merv-O CharLac Having owned a K-3 and a K-3ii, I find the KP Af focus faster, the ISO (effective to 25,000) amazing, and the sensor to be improved over the K-3/ii. Look they're both great cameras b ut until you've actually shot with a KP, you should understand that there is more to life than extra buffer space. The image quality is better than the K-3/ii. Period.
That you might have to post examples of. Looking at the Imaging Resources files, yes better, but for me, not "purchase a new camera" better. There's better, and there's "I have to have that." better.
A K-3 image. You say the K-P would be better? More likely since this was pulled from more than half way through a 23 shot burst, on a K-P it wouldn't exist.
---------- Post added 01-20-19 at 12:26 PM ----------
Originally posted by reh321 In the two months I've owned my KP, I've never filled the buffer; the KP is just right for me, because I have already taken lots of photos at 12800 or higher ISO.
I wouldn't do that with a K-3, but I also don't know if I'd be happy with your images. In my case, in low light I go out with my K-1. Shooting small birds, I fill the buffer 3-5 times every hour.
I waited 15 minutes for a bird to land on this branch. I have to strike while the iron is hot. And he wasn't there long enough to allow the buffer to clear and resume shooting. It's all about what you shoot. Feel free to recommend the K-P it's great camera, but, it's not for everyone.
I don't think I'm suffering from poor IQ here.