[Fauxton]

Thank you for the link. It is very informative.

It is ironic because a few of my wedding photographer friends who are long time Canon shooters have started using Fuji bodies and express high level of satisfaction. The main thing I hear from them is how good the color is right out of the camera. Frankly, before Pentax, I shot Canon and as much as the color was not that great, it was adjustable to good levels in post. I think my Pentax cameras have better color than the Canons. I am not sure how much better Fuji color can be vs. Pentax. The only thing I like about the Fuji color story is their presets for Fujifilm simulations. I would love to see and try the Velvia 50 setting. For us old timers, Fuji Velvia was the holy grail of color.

btnapa - try DXO Optics with the Filmpack. You can have almost any film you want - including Velvia. Or you can choose different camera maker and model renderings. Want your K3 colour rendering to be like a K1's? Its yours. Want your K5 colour rendering to emulate a 5DMkIv. Its yours.
In the film color rendering options, Velvia settings still look great.

[audiobomber]

What was the improvement of the K-3 over the K-5?

For me, the main improvements were

1. Reliable AF in artificial light. My K-5 was hopeless in tungsten light
2. Real AF-C tracking capability and controls (AF Hold, Expanded Area AF)
3. Greater cropability (crop in hard and still have enough pixels to print)

My honest opinion is that the terrible AF performance of the K-5 harmed the Pentax name and reputation. I wish it had never been released and they had waited until the II was ready. The only justification for the K-5 II was to correct the K-5's AF issues.

[bobmaxja]

I have a different opinion . I have a K-5 and mine have better AF than my friend who got a K-3. He sold is K-3 and I still like my K-5

[Wheatfield]

What was the improvement of the K-3 over the K-5?

The K3 had AF that was actually in focus when it said it was, rather than several feet ahead of or behind what it said it was focused on. For me, that was the biggie. However, the K5 was marred by several problems, sensor spots, shutter shake, buttons that would fall off (lens release was the big problem).

[bobmaxja]

The K3 had AF that was actually in focus when it said it was, rather than several feet ahead of or behind what it said it was focused on. For me, that was the biggie. However, the K5 was marred by several problems, sensor spots, shutter shake, buttons that would fall off (lens release was the big problem).

I have none of these problems with my K-5 , it was made on a Monday

[Wheatfield]

I have none of these problems with my K-5 , it was made on a Monday

You should seek out the threads on this forum from when the K5 came out.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing, arm yourself with some.

---------- Post added 01-29-17 at 01:53 PM ----------

I think the point is that X Trans is not any better or worse than the Bayer array, just different. The biggest problem is its lack of support and the weird advertising Fuji has used over time to say that their crop cameras are better than their competitors full frame cameras. The question is if X Trans solves any problems (maybe a little bit of moire but that's not a big deal any more), makes life more difficult (X Trans support isn't as wide spread as Bayer), and how much Fuji massages their files beneath their surface to make them look cleaner than competitors.

I don't really like the interface, but otherwise they have nice glass and perform similarly to other APS-C cameras of similar generation.

Sensors seem to have reached a point where moire is less of an issue, which is why we are now seeing cameras that no longer have the low pass filter. Fuji was able to do away with the low pass filter a couple of generations prior with the X-Trans sensor. Lack of support is less of an issue, X-Trans is supported quite well by numerous software manufacturers, though it did take Adobe a while to get it right.
Fuji in camera processing is definitely an issue, but one that is easily solved either by shooting RAW, or by going into the settings and changing them.
The X-T1/ XT-2 are as close as I've seen to the ergonomics of the Pentax LX, a camera I was particularly fond of, and the bodies are much more compact than the rather cumbersome bricks that every other manufacturer seems intent on foisting on us, Pentax included.

The downsides of the Fuji system are battery capacity, they are a small, rather power hungry camera, capable of holding a rather small battery. You aren't going to get a thousand or more shots on a Fuji, more like a couple of hundred is what should be expected, the glass is quite expensive. OTOH, it is extremely good glass, and I never quite got comfortable with the EVF. It gave me eyestrain. Apparently my situation was not common.