Originally posted by Huffleur Crewl1 Nomadkng thanks for the replies. Would like to see pictures taken with a K3 without being messed with as they come from the camera for quality . You here the sales pitch ,it's nice to here and see results form owners.Should I buy body only and choose lenses?
I don't even show my gf pics that haven't been processed...lol. I shoot RAW for a reason, so that I can import them into photoshop and PP them to my taste.
In term of image quality, there's enough testament to the improvement of K3 images in "normal" light. There's some debate about higher iso images, which I'm not going to regurgitate.
I can tell you my number 1 most important improvement I'm looking for is AF speed AND accuracy. I shoot about 50% fast moving subjects such as birds/whales/airplanes/cars/critters and I can tell you the K5iis is NOT designed to handle these subjects. The keeper rate is horrible and when you are out in the field and you miss once in a lifetime shots because your PDAF thinks a trunk in the lower left is more important than a furry or feathered subject under your CENTER POINT FOCUS sensor, it becomes as major issue.
For my landscape work, any resolution improvement will be nice, but just icing on the cake, since the K5iis takes wonderful waterfall and mountain images. So the first thing I'm doing the Saturday after getting my K3 is heading down to the bird park and I'm going to shoot birds and more birds from sunrise till it's 100 (which will be about 9a this time of year). I'm going to put the expanded AF modes through their paces and hopefully the 27 points will make me a lot happier.
I'm really tired of having to pre focus in manual and hope that I find a subject that's falls into my hyperfocal range. It's hit or miss, but definitely more hits than relying on the K5iis PDAF which is nearly an 85% failure rate at 300mm.
In terms of lenses, I can't see your checking account balance so I don't know what's right for you. I have been shooting SLR and DSLR for over 30 years, so I have a stable of top of line lenses. It's not even a consideration for me, because the glass carries over from body to body.
If you are new(er) to DSLR photography, chances are, you are better off getting a package deal until you know what you like to shoot and how you like to shoot it. You can spend 5k on a 500mm f4.5 lens from sigma, but if you have no clue how to use it, many of the tele shooters here will run rings around you with a DA50-200. The K3 is likely far more camera than 80% (90%?) of those that own it will ever need and a decent mid priced kit lens is probably enough for 50-60% of those using the body.
Unless or until you describe yourself as an advanced amateur, you can probably save yourself a lot of research headaches and stick to mid priced and/or kit lenses like the 18-135 that comes with it. This forum is full of threads that start out "What lens should I buy?" In almost every case, the answer is (to paraphrase), "If you don't know already, you shouldn't be buying anything."
In your case, perhaps matching your Canon lens lineup in Pentax and Sigma glass would be the most straightforward approach.