[kchamber4]

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

[Kerrowdown]

Welcome to the forum, I'll let people more qualified than me assist you with your question, as I have neither camera.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Welcome to the forum!

The K-3 versus the K-5 IIs is a tough call. The K-3 has better resolution, more AF points, two SD card slots, focus peaking, and faster AF with screwdrive lenses. The metering system is better but it's not overwhelmingly better than the K-5 IIs's system, honestly. The K-3 also has superior video capability with more options and ease of use, if you're looking for that.

The K-5 IIs, though, is not too far behind in the resolution department and seems to perform better in low light (although I've used the K-3 a few times for college basketball with a great deal of success). The K-5 IIs has fewer AF points, but they cover the same area and you can use Expanded Area AF to get performance that's almost as good as the K-3 in many situations. The K-5 IIs is also much cheaper than the K-3 (although some K-3 packages are a really good deal).

Basically, if you want a camera that is full-featured and has peak performance and are willing to spend the money (and potentially get some useful extras depending on where you get it), I'd go with the K-3. If you'd like to save some cash, get the K-5 IIs. You do lose a few things, but you get a camera that's almost as good and one that's still one of the best in its class.

[savoche]

Welcome aboard!

Both cameras are very good, not that much of a difference IMO. Both are rugged, well built, weather sealed cameras.

The K-3 is a bit "more" of everything - higher resolution, higher number of frames per second, a bit faster autofocus, has two card slots, bigger lcd screen, bigger view finder, weighs a bit more. Oh, and it has focus peaking. Not hugely better in any one area but still better in a lot of areas.

So, whether all those improvements will be worth the extra money is hard to say. Depending on what lenses you have it might be wiser to get the K-5iis and get some better lenses. If you already have top notch glass you might get more out of a K-3.

Of course, if you were filthy rich I wouldn't expect you to even ask

[wed7]

The K-3 inherited all the good stuff Pentax has ever produced, if you can afford the K-3, buy it. Otherwise,get the other, you cannot go wrong on either.

[stevebrot]

Your use cases are similar to my own and I chose the K-3 over the K-5 IIs based on the following:

• Switchable AA filter (I do architectural stuff too)
• Better projected shutter life
• Better low-light meter sensitivity
• More sophisticated matrix metering
• Better grip for my large hands
• Focus peaking
• More user modes

All that being said, at the time that I bought my K-3 the K-5 IIs was about the same price. At the current price spread, I am not sure I would make the same decision. Almost all the points in the list above fall into the "nice to have" category rather than being critical features. If I were making the decision it would be a hard one.

Regardless of which camera you purchase, I would suggest buying the inexpensive (<$20 USD) two-year warranty extension. Pentax build and quality is top-notch but the extension is dirt cheap.


Steve

[normhead]

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.

For web sized images there is not much difference. Going to a K-5 I stopped doing HDR, I can often get the Dynamic Range I want from a single image. For detail in outdoor photography, particularly wildlife, the extra MP of a K-3 gives you more room to crop, and extra detail in macro images as well. The fact that you use a tripod will let you maximize the MP gain. For weddings, I feel the K-5 gives a bit better low light performance.. everyone else says I'm nuts... so take that as a personal bias without universal acceptance.

And, I love those 27 selective focus points and use them every time I go out. The K-3 is way ahead in accuracy of AF. The smaller AF points are cable of peaking through branches for wildlife, and focusing on what you want, instead of foliage.

[jatrax]

I have both and the K-3 is better in every way. Nothing wrong with the k-5IIs, it is an excellent camera but K-3 is better. It is more complex with more menu options and the AF mode selection is more complex but that is because it does more.

The only reason I would get the K-5IIs at this point would be price if that is important to your decision. Otherwise get the K-3.

[devouges]

I got my K5iiS a few weeks before the K3 was announced.

I was disappointed.

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.

For many people, these factors are NOT important.

But keep in mind that the K5iiS are going at lower prices now.

If I had my choice TODAY, I would go for a K3.

Just my 2 cents

[crewl1]

I have a K-3 and a K-5.
The biggest advantages of the K-3 as listed above for me are appreciated in sports and fast shooting scenarios.
For portrait and tripod work the K-5 versions are fine.
The 24mp detail is appreciated but comes at a noise cost.

[civiletti]

Tests suggest the K-5 sensor has wider dynamic range than the K-3 sensor. That is useful for landscape work when HDR/exposure fusion is not appropriate.

---------- Post added 08-04-14 at 01:57 PM ----------

K-5iis is $666.99 at Amazon.

[nomadkng]

I've owned the K10, K20 and now own the K5iis.

If you are fairly new to the world of Semi-Pro DSLR shooting, you can probably get away with the K5iis. For landscape and portrait work, you won't miss not having the K3.

If you consider yourself an advanced photog, with thorough knowledge of DSLR handling and photographic concepts, you'll want a K3.
If you have invested a great deal of money in longer lenses and desire to shoot wildlife or sports, you'll want a K3.

The K5iis AF is just plain ineffective for fast action/moving subjects. There are a few work arounds that work some of the time, but I have to say I go into each photo shoot expecting to be disappointed and let down by my K5iis AF.

I have to wait till 4th qtr 2014 or 1st qtr 2015 before my accountant will let me get a K3, so I'm STUCK with my K5iis for another 5 months.
Coming from a K-r, you'll find the K5iis leaps and bounds better, and should serve you well for the next 2-3 years minimum if you are primarily a landscape shooter.

For my waterfalls and other tripod based scenic, the K5iis creates amazing images.
Based on the assumption you are shooting for personal enjoyment and are not after publishable wildlife photos, my recommendation is to put the extra 600 into better glass and get the k5iis for your landscape work. Allow your skillset to improve by using the K5iis as a bridge to a 2016 or 2017 Pentax model K-whatever that might be out by then.

[DSims]

The K-5 IIs is an excellent camera, particularly for your shooting scenarios. The K-3 is even better, but I'm not planning on upgrading to it anytime soon.

Unless your lenses already include * and Ltd models, you should probably get the K-5 IIs and put the rest of the money toward a lens or two. That'll give you much better ROI in IQ, in most cases.

[robthebloke]

The k3.

[savoche]

I have a K-3 and a K-5.
The biggest advantages of the K-3 as listed above for me are appreciated in sports and fast shooting scenarios.
For portrait and tripod work the K-5 versions are fine.
The 24mp detail is appreciated but comes at a noise cost.

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.