[hermanthegerman]

When it comes to weight and size, of course it always depends on the lens you are using. With my 35mm f2.4 I can even carry the KP in my coat pocket. Okay, it's a large pocket, but you know what I mean.

[BryantCP]

the battery grip changes all of that lol. The KP with a grip is bigger than a K3 with a grip lol it does make a huge difference to the handling though

I recently got the KP battery grip when it was on sale at Adorama & B&H. While it does make the KP considerably larger, it is comfortable to hold and use. While the combination is not smaller than the K-3 plus its battery grip - it feels smaller and more compact and is better handling to me.

[jgnfld]

I recently got the KP battery grip when it was on sale at Adorama & B&H. While it does make the KP considerably larger, it is comfortable to hold and use. While the combination is not smaller than the K-3 plus its battery grip - it feels smaller and more compact and is better handling to me.

I find the KP more, well, _dense_ than either my old K-50 or more recent K-70. That makes the weight a lot easier to control in detail. Brings back that old film camera feeling a bit where all the weight was in the palm of your hand rather than spread more widely about.

[BryantCP]

I find the KP more, well, _dense_ than either my old K-50 or more recent K-70. That makes the weight a lot easier to control in detail. Brings back that old film camera feeling a bit where all the weight was in the palm of your hand rather than spread more widely about.

I suppose it depends upon what you are used to..., in my case not having a K-50 or K-70 but having a K-5 & a K-3, I find the KP slightly less "dense" and more compact feeling. It does remind me a little bit of my film cameras which were Nikon FM & FE2 cameras.

[simsburyphoto]

Great info for helping to decide whether to get a KP now or wait for the K3iii to update my K3

[Cerebum]

I recently got the KP battery grip when it was on sale at Adorama & B&H. While it does make the KP considerably larger, it is comfortable to hold and use. While the combination is not smaller than the K-3 plus its battery grip - it feels smaller and more compact and is better handling to me.

If you do a side by side, its actually slightly larger

[Gabriel82]

Low light is where the KP truly shines.

When I read that about how good the KP is in low light, do you think it's worth waiting for the K-3 Mark III? It will have many more focus points, but doesn't seem to have the burst shooting speed the KP already does. If you had a choice between the KP now and waiting for the K-3 Mark III, which would you take?

---------- Post added 12-21-20 at 12:03 PM ----------

I've read from some Adorama reviews on the camera that users there tend to get good, usable photos from 12,800-25,600 ISO (little noise). Is that true for any of you guys? I've only got a k-3 mark 1 and I'm lucky to get a usable shot in lower light past 800 ISO, with 1600 and 3200 being pretty much a wash.

I'm posting, doing the research I can (and hoping for a quick reply) as Adorama has a free overnight shipping on this today (21-dec), because if it's not worth waiting for the K-3 mark III and this KP is really about as good in low light as that K-3 Mark III would be, then I would pull the trigger on this and save the money for another really nice lens. Seems like this KP would already give me a great shot at some sports photography with the D FA 70-210 f4 lens I just got (the k-3 can't really take advantage of it in low light...not enough usable ISO there).

[ramseybuckeye]

When I read that about how good the KP is in low light, do you think it's worth waiting for the K-3 Mark III? It will have many more focus points, but doesn't seem to have the burst shooting speed the KP already does. If you had a choice between the KP now and waiting for the K-3 Mark III, which would you take?

That’s an easy choice for me since I already have a KP and am not in the market to replace it. After having the flip screen, I’m not going to buy any new camera without it, unless I win the lottery and have different cameras for different uses. I do a lot of nature and landscapes using tripods and live view, often inches off the ground, and occasionally sitting on the ground. That flip screen is a game changer for my kind of shooting.
On focus points, I use the center point and recompose, but with more focus points, I would think they’d be smaller and therefore more accurate, I would hope anyway. AnywY I would think the K-3III should have better autofocus and really be better in every thing, except that rear screen.

[Gabriel82]

That’s an easy choice for me since I already have a KP and am not in the market to replace it. After having the flip screen, I’m not going to buy any new camera without it, unless I win the lottery and have different cameras for different uses. I do a lot of nature and landscapes using tripods and live view, often inches off the ground, and occasionally sitting on the ground. That flip screen is a game changer for my kind of shooting.
On focus points, I use the center point and recompose, but with more focus points, I would think they’d be smaller and therefore more accurate, I would hope anyway. AnywY I would think the K-3III should have better autofocus and really be better in every thing, except that rear screen.

What the K-3 mark III would have is 121 focus points (SAFOX 13 vs the KP's SAFOX 11) and 27-cross-type focus points and really aside from a slightly higher ISO range and 4K video, don't know how much better than a KP it would be, since the effective MP is very close to the same (24 KP vs 25 k-3 Mk III).

I sometimes like to get some birding photography, but would also like some low-light (basketball inside, soccer outside). I don't need the tilt screen, but I would like it. My main question would be low-light and image quality, which seem to be excellent from reviews I'm reading on the KP. Can you say what you ISO you've used up to in the field and it still had low noise and good IQ?

[JensE]

I usually set my auto-ISO range up to 3200 - see e.g. this quick milky way snap - ISO3200 straight out of camera, just resized, or this macro shot at 3200.


I actually go higher with decent results, like on https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/98441-jense/albums/10726-shots-i...ture127475.jpg (ISO 6400).

[Gabriel82]

I usually set my auto-ISO range up to 3200 - see e.g. this quick milky way snap - ISO3200 straight out of camera, just resized, or this macro shot at 3200.


I actually go higher with decent results, like on https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/98441-jense/albums/10726-shots-i...ture127475.jpg (ISO 6400).

I'm seeing some get really good results up to 12,800 ISO (multiple posts) from B&H/Adorama reviews.

Wow! Love the Milky Way shot! Couldn't tell there was any noise or grain out of the camera! Did you use any other in-camera settings for that shot?

That bridge night shot was stellar too: couldn't see any noise or grain @ 6400 ISO either. The bug shot at 3200 (macro) was crisp too. I sometimes will do some macro like that.

Thanks for sharing!

[JensE]

Did you use any other in-camera settings for that shot?

Actually, reviewing the files, what I did was taking the shot (ISO3200,f/4.5 - the brightest ultra-wide I had with me, Sigma 8-16mm, 30s) and then I re-developed the DNG in-camera with +1EV & scaled down for sharing via ImageSync on my phone, i.e. it's effectively ISO6400. I had a weekend off on a business trip and didn't have any software with me to develop DNGs otherwise.

Exif data show

Noise Reduction : On
High ISO Noise Reduction : Auto; Active (Weak)


I'm sure I had the long exposure NR (darkframe subtraction) enabled.

[Gabriel82]

That’s an easy choice for me since I already have a KP and am not in the market to replace it. After having the flip screen, I’m not going to buy any new camera without it, unless I win the lottery and have different cameras for different uses. I do a lot of nature and landscapes using tripods and live view, often inches off the ground, and occasionally sitting on the ground. That flip screen is a game changer for my kind of shooting.
On focus points, I use the center point and recompose, but with more focus points, I would think they’d be smaller and therefore more accurate, I would hope anyway. AnywY I would think the K-3III should have better autofocus and really be better in every thing, except that rear screen.

Thanks for your input! You and another poster sold me on a KP. After seeing your shots and the other poster's (plus the forum review on it), the KP was equivalent to the K-1 in IQ in many cases and so I can't see the K-3 Mk III would be such a huge improvement as to justify double the price (assuming $1500-1600 as some have speculated) for 4K video and more focus points.

It will be a little more of a learning curve on the buttons/redesign...but mine's on it's way from B&H and should be here the 24th.

Many thanks! Hope you don't mind me picking your brain sometime to get help.

[mikesbike]

The K-3 III promises to provide yet maybe up to a stop additional ISO low noise performance over the KP. Whether it will or not remains to be seen. It is also supposed to be a design with burst speed shooting as a priority. The K-1 II by means of being FF can bring up to 1.5 stops of ISO over the KP, from what I've seen. But in actual use, I don't see much or any difference in IQ between my KP and K-1 II as it turns out.

The KP, however, is a more versatile camera than the K-3 III will be, with many features, and if you like to shoot images right out of the camera, its in-camera processor is excellent. Just set up "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image" menus. The KP is the bargain, with outstanding imaging, build quality, and features for the money.

[Des]

do you think it's worth waiting for the K-3 Mark III? It will have many more focus points, but doesn't seem to have the burst shooting speed the KP already does.

No, the K-3iii will be faster:
K-3iii: 12 fps up to approx. 37 frames (JPG), up to approx. 32 frames (RAW)
KP: 7 fps up to approx. 28 frames (JPG), up to approx. 8 frames (RAW)
The AF function should be a lot better, and not just because of more points. The joystick, for example, should be a very useful feature.

I see the K-3iii as primarily a sports/wildlife camera. Like Tom (@ramseybuckeye) I would want a tilt or flip screen for landscapes, macro and general use. The lack of a tilt or flip screen was a major reason why I sold my K-3 (the other being its high-ISO performance); I found I was nearly always preferring to use the KP.

Personally I would only consider a K-3iii once I felt that I would get enough gain (compared to the KP) to justify the expense for long lens use alone. My feeling at the moment is that I would not while my main long lenses are screw-driven AF (FA*300 f4.5, Sigma 400mm tele macro), which would not be able to take full advantage of the superior AF and burst speed. When I look at it that way, the K-3iii and suitable lens is a pretty expensive proposition: say $A2500 for the body and $A2800 for the DFA 150-450 (when on sale). For that sort of outlay, I would really need to consider the alternatives in other mounts (e.g. secondhand D500 and 200-500).