Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2014, 09:06 PM   #16
Pentaxian
wildman's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,307
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
Is it worth going from my K5 to the K3?
So how many folks, if it were true, are going to admit publicly or even to themselves that they wasted 400 bucks buying a k3 over a k5?
It's a self-fulfilling question.

07-26-2014, 10:24 PM   #17
Kiwi Pentaxian
NZ_Ross's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Timaru
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,992
QuoteOriginally posted by EssJayEff Quote
My cause for pause is Dynamic Range for landscape. DxO score (grains of salt, I know) actually dropped slightly for K-3 (13.4) compared to K-5 (14.1). Is there a noticeable difference without pixel peeping?
Not that I have noticed
07-27-2014, 12:58 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
So how many folks, if it were true, are going to admit publicly or even to themselves that they wasted 400 bucks buying a k3 over a k5?
It's a self-fulfilling question.
Is there any rational explanation of how cynicism might be helpful here?
07-27-2014, 07:07 AM   #19
Pentaxian
amoringello's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,393
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
So how many folks, if it were true, are going to admit publicly or even to themselves that they wasted 400 bucks buying a k3 over a k5?
It's a self-fulfilling question.
Well I for one, on several occasions have stated how big the mistake going form the K10 to the K7 was. It was a pointless version of the camera.
So I think the question/comment is making an bit of an unfair assessment about the users on this site.
Many of the people here are going to be honest (and have been).

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 10:29 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by EssJayEff Quote
My cause for pause is Dynamic Range for landscape. DxO score (grains of salt, I know) actually dropped slightly for K-3 (13.4) compared to K-5 (14.1). Is there a noticeable difference without pixel peeping?
None that I could see.
Of course, I don't know if I could really tell without being in a test lab with both cameras side by side.

If you hit those edge cases a lot, it might be worth renting a K3 for a weekend and taking into troublesome environments (or set up a controlled environment) with the K5 and get some actual comparison shots and see if it has any real-life effect on the photography you do.

07-27-2014, 07:37 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
The K-3 brings things that I don't need all the time.
My take is similar. I mainly use the K-3 for long lens shooting--more room for cropping. The K-5IIs suits my needs for just about everything else (it's really awesome!) and the K-5 is my back-up & 'hazardous duty' body.
07-27-2014, 02:26 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,524
K3 compared to K5 first version improve a lot. The new sensor is really much more sharp. All good lenses get a big boost. Autofocus is really better. It is faster all around, more precise, and work really better in low light.

Theses kind of improvements are really sensible, before:
- AF did suck in low light light
- AF did suck when you did shallow deph of field portraiture and wanted tocus on the eye.
- AF was typically not very good on lens like FA50 f/1.4
- the 16MP sensor was limiting in the cropping possibilities.
- exposure was less precise.

For me this is enough to really justify the updgrade. it is really not fun when you missfocus and so miss the shoot. On the contrary, it is really nice when you can just crop a shoot to get a 2:1 or 3:1 form factor and still get enough pixels!. It is really nice too to get less lens, in particular telephoto and still get a good shoot even when cropping is involved.
07-28-2014, 03:03 PM   #22
Veteran Member
peterjcb's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weddington, NC
Posts: 468
I've owned both and decided that I really didn't need a K-3 and returned it.
I was somewhat disappointed that the ISO on the K-3 only went to 100 vs 80 on my K-5 but that's not a biggie....
The K-3 is without doubt a better camera body but I will wait for prices to drop considerably before I finally pull the trigger on a K-3.....my K-5 works fine for me.
...heck, I might even wait for a FF from Pentax
I have been putting my disposable cash into top quality lenses instead

Last edited by peterjcb; 07-28-2014 at 03:09 PM.
07-29-2014, 12:42 AM   #23
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,584
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
Is it worth going from my K5 to the K3?
Fancy asking that kinda question here, we're not gonna talk you out of it, so of course it's worth it... feed your CBA.

07-29-2014, 01:53 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
I had two K-5's, then replaced one with a K-5 IIs, and eventually the other with a K-3. I now only use the K-5 IIs when I need a second DSLR for event work.

The K-3 wins at autofocus, button placement and cropping headroom. I have barely noticed the supposedly bigger viewfinder and haven't really found a need for the selectable AA filter and WiFi tethering, but I like that they are there. It looks sexy as hell in Silver too

So I reckon it is worth the upgrade, especially from the original K-5, as long as those features are likely to matter to you. They do to me, although not enough to make me replace the K-5 IIs, as I am doing less two body stuff now. Mind you, that Gunmetal version....
07-29-2014, 02:52 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by amoringello Quote
Well I for one, on several occasions have stated how big the mistake going form the K10 to the K7 was. It was a pointless version of the camera.
So I think the question/comment is making an bit of an unfair assessment about the users on this site.
Many of the people here are going to be honest (and have been).

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 10:29 AM ----------



None that I could see.
Of course, I don't know if I could really tell without being in a test lab with both cameras side by side.

If you hit those edge cases a lot, it might be worth renting a K3 for a weekend and taking into troublesome environments (or set up a controlled environment) with the K5 and get some actual comparison shots and see if it has any real-life effect on the photography you do.
I, too, didn't see much improvement going from a K20 to a K7. Video and faster frame rate (well, and a more comfortable body), but certainly not things that were important. But I got both cameras at the end of their life cycle and so they weren't very expensive...

The K3 and K5 are both good cameras. I still own a K5 II and also a K3 (and a K-01, but who's counting). I prefer the K3, because I shoot a lot of landscape and I do find there is more detail there. The difference in dynamic range between it and the K5 is just not that much -- they are the same at iso 100, but the K5 does have iso 80 which can be handy to have. Speed of operation is a lot better on the K3, which is nice considering the files are a lot bigger.

Obviously each person needs to make their own decision as to which is better for themselves.
07-29-2014, 04:54 AM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,714
I keep saying I still like my K-5, but I only use it for carrying a second body. The selective AF on the K-3 is light years ahead, I'm a little disappointed with the noise, a K-3 image cropped to 16 MP is not as good as a K-5 image taken with a zoom lens and cropped really tight through the viewfinder, in terms of noise. Over all it's an improvement... but worth $400. Worth it for me for sure....worth it for everyone... possibly not.
08-11-2014, 12:49 PM   #27
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,466
I have to say, I really appreciate this thread. I have an original K5 and am torn between upgrading to a K3 or to a K5iiS.

I'm a landscape shooter and am still quite in love with my K5. My only frustration is the autofocus, which has given me fits. I do like its DR and noise levels and have become quite comfortable shooting at ISOs all the way up to 12800 and the prints I can get out of it. I've just learned to love the TAv mode coming from being an almost exclusive M and Av mode user. The confidence in the ISO has simplified life.

The internal debate in me is difficult. I am perfectly fine with the 16 Mp. I'm not sure I really need the 24 Mp. Sure, there is cropping room, but then the K5 gave that to me from my original K10d, and I don't really use it much. I get my composition pretty close in the camera and mostly shoot lower than 100 mm.

The K3 sounds like a winner because of the AF. It also sounds like the buttons and handling may have improved significantly. I have to say that the thing I disliked the most about my K5 was the difference in handling from the K10d. I thought the K10d was almost perfect for its button layout. I also dislike the mode dial on the K5, which sounds like it has been improved for the K3.

However, I have gotten used to the K5, and its improved AF and 16 MP are likely enough to keep me happy. As it is, I think I might wait it out until later in the fall and see how the prices evolve. If it wasn't for the AF on the K5 I own, I'd probably be debating getting a nice prime lens instead.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k3, k5, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it worth upgrading K5 to K5iis? Maksat Tutan Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2014 12:20 PM
Is it worth the upgrade from the A 50 f/1.7 to f/1.4? Fat Albert Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 03-14-2014 03:31 AM
Is it worth it to switch to K-5 II for the sake of ultrasonic dust removal? rrstuff Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 12-26-2013 05:53 AM
Is it worth it to upgrade from kit lens to DA16-45 ? Ben E Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 05-26-2013 12:36 PM
Sent my K5 to Pentax here is how it is going. vievetrick Pentax K-5 273 03-16-2011 03:37 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:20 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top