[RachelDutch]

Hi everyone,

I am new to this forum. A couple of years ago, I purchased a K-r because I have always liked the Pentax SLR cameras and I had a few lenses. unfortunately, the K-R was stolen at the Dallas airport while helping some ladies with their oversized luggage. Since I have a few lenses I don't really want to leave the Pentax DSLR for another brand

I have seen the reviews of the K-3 and the K-5. Most of the reviews rate the K-3 much higher, but in two areas most liked the K-5 and those are the areas I am most interested in. They are the use of Tripods and still shots.

Can anyone give me some objective points on which is a better camera. I love outdoor photography and close up nature photography as well as doing some portrait and wedding shots. Nature shots at dusk and early morning of course require the use of the Tripod to get could HDR results.

Can anyone tell me which of these two cameras they like the most for these types of shots. I also love shooting along rivers and streams and during light mists and rain, so the weather protection is an important aspect as well.

thanks

I only have the K-5iis but I love it. I was a bit frustrated, as I bought it 2 months before the release of the k-3, but I am beyond happy with the camera.

[SkipperRi]

Hello, welcome to the forum.

Based on my experience, if you can afford it, definitely go with K-3. Last year I have opportunity to use K-5iis, there's no doubt that's great camera. But, in February this year I purchased brand new K-3 with grip. As far I'm concerned, K-3 is better. AF, focus points, metering, AA functions, cropping possibilities, shutter life... I'm enjoying every single shot with my K-3.

[stevebrot]

But someone brought to light the fact that 24mb fills up faster on camera AND in PC. Maybe I would not mind that, I do not know.

Viewing pics takes longer. If you have an old PC, chances are you may need to upgrade that PC.

Valid points. My old PC was up to the task, but my new one (built as a response to the EOL for Win XP) simply screams when editing the larger files. The two 2 TB drives were a bit of a bite, but that sort of comes with the territory.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 04:15 PM ----------

Unless your lenses already include * and Ltd models, you should probably get the K-5 IIs

I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but not from the perspective of needing premium glass to fully realize the potential of the sensor. I have been pleasantly surprised to find that many (not all) of my vintage lenses do quite nicely with the K-3. It was a huge surprise to find that my Helios-44M is still just a small notch off my FA 77/1.8 Limited on the K-3 and that my long-suffering Zenitar fisheye is also up to the challenge. I will repeat for emphasis...It was a HUGE surprise.

So, despite purchase of the K-3, I don't see myself buying a fresh supply of * and Limiteds.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 04:18 PM ----------

One thing that I have not seen mentioned is the inclusion of three f/2.8 cross-type AF sensors (vertical array at center) to accommodate faster lenses. The K-5 IIs only has one.


Steve

[normhead]

Agreed on all points.

The K-3 has more noise at pixel level. I can especially see more chroma noise - but then the K-5 is almost completely free of that.

The chroma level noise is such that I have to turn off sharpening in many K-3 images, but the K-3 images seem to often be fine without sharpening, so you don't miss it if you don't need it. It is definitely a different sensor, and has to be PP'd differently, there's no arguing about that.

[DSims]

I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but not from the perspective of needing premium glass to fully realize the potential of the sensor. I have been pleasantly surprised to find that many (not all) of my vintage lenses do quite nicely with the K-3. It was a huge surprise to find that my Helios-44M is still just a small notch off my FA 77/1.8 Limited on the K-3 and that my long-suffering Zenitar fisheye is also up to the challenge. I will repeat for emphasis...It was a HUGE surprise.

So, despite purchase of the K-3, I don't see myself buying a fresh supply of * and Limiteds.


Steve

This makes sense. I've heard other similar reports, and I believe it. Likewise my K-5 IIs probably shows real improvement with both non-premium and older MF lenses, though I haven't spent much time formally evaluating this.

From the context I inferred that the OP doesn't have a stable of older lenses, and that he generally needs AF. "A few lenses" sounds like kit lenses plus maybe a couple of low to mid-priced additions, at the most. I was using * and Ltd as a general way of describing the quality of AF lens that should be sought if high IQ is the objective. My implied question was "what is the quality of your existing lenses?"

[normhead]

In the comparisons on IR of the D7000 and D 7100 was that the lower quality lenses improved in IQ much more than the top of the line lenses did, while the average was somewhere just less than 20% improvement for good lenses (in lw/ph) some of the lower rated lenses improved as much as 60% bringing them much closer to the pro lenses. It's odd, but it's documented. People keep saying you need good glass to take advantage of a K-3 or D7100. People say all kinds of things that sound right, but may not be true. Follow that logic at your peril, unless they've actually done the testing to prove their point. Otherwise it's just fluff.

The only testing I've seen says it's worth upgrading the body before the lenses. An 18-135 on a K-3 could easily outperform a DA* 16-50 and DA*50135 on a K- system. I'm not saying it does, but I'm saying if you don't know, don't speculate, you might be wrong.

[kchamber4]

thanks for everyone's input. I bit the bullet and got the K-3 with the 18-135 lens to start. I already have two manual lens, they are Access "A" lens (18-70, and 50-200) from when I had a Ricoh XRP plus a FA 18-70 lens (I think). I hope to add a 50mm 1.8 prime and the 55-300 WR. Then I will start looking at primes. Someone is selling a 135mm manual prime for $25 USD. Worth it or just a waste considering what I already have.

[crewl1]

thanks for everyone's input. I bit the bullet and got the K-3 with the 18-135 lens to start. I already have two manual lens, they are Access "A" lens (18-70, and 50-200) from when I had a Ricoh XRP plus a FA 18-70 lens (I think). I hope to add a 50mm 1.8 prime and the 55-300 WR. Then I will start looking at primes. Someone is selling a 135mm manual prime for $25 USD. Worth it or just a waste considering what I already have.

Please Google 'Ricoh pin problems on Pentax' to see if your Ricoh lenses may have issues with getting jammed on the K-mount.
Better safe than sorry.

[kchamber4]

Please Google 'Ricoh pin problems on Pentax' to see if your Ricoh lenses may have issues with getting jammed on the K-mount.
Better safe than sorry.

thanks for the reminder on the lenses. I actually used these on my K-R before it was stolen. they worked well once I filed down the flanges. What is interesting is that they worked in the "A" mode. I couldn't figure out why. I suspect that it just used a single Aperture, probably 8.0. Nothing on the file would say what was the aperature opening.

these lenses are branded as Access, but were probably made by Tameron. they actually seem to be fairly sharp. Once I get my laptop back from the computer shop, I will be able to load some pictures.