[jimr-pdx]

The absence of AA filter can be told in a hurry; I shot a fabric outdoor chair with the IIs and compared to the Classic the difference is most impressive. Some things will be quicker, none slower that I've heard of, and you can focus in darker places than you can see! You gain focus peaking too, and if you're interested video is more usable.

crewl1 - I'll be trying the 20mpxl 'K-3 variant' soon though it definitely lacks several of the finer points. I'll go with small and sufficiently excellent this go-around . I fear the sweet-16 plug has probably been pulled by Sony, especially since everyone else makes that sensor look better than any of their own implementations!

---

Last edited by jimr-pdx; 09-24-2014 at 04:26 PM.

[mamba909]

If all it comes down to IQ for you, I suggest getting the K-5 IIS. I've shot events with both cameras in tow, and when all is said and done, I see no difference in IQ between the two cameras.

[theraven871]

Then what about the Autofocus?
I understand there is an enormous difference between the K5 and K3 (Autofocus performance).
Where did the giant leap occur? In the K5iis? Or did the giant leap in technology (speaking only about autofocus) occur in the K3?

[carolina_sky]

Then what about the Autofocus?
I understand there is an enormous difference between the K5 and K3 (Autofocus performance).
Where did the giant leap occur? In the K5iis? Or did the giant leap in technology (speaking only about autofocus) occur in the K3?

I haven't used the K5iis but the K3 is a huge leap in autofocus over the K5. If you shoot much action or dynamic scenes you will notice a vast improvement. I shoot a lot of horse shows, with a moving target weaving around fixed obstacles. With the K5, probably close to 50% of my shots were either not correctly in focus or the camera failed to take the shot. I still have the occasional misfire (camera fails to take the shot when button is pushed, even though I have all the settings set up to prioritize rate over focus), but far fewer (maybe 1 shot in 20), and very few missed focus, and these are almost always my fault vs an autofocus screwup. So, K3 has upped my percentage of usable shots in this environment from <50% to about 80-90% over the K5. The different in picture quality is also very significant as has already been pointed out. I also find the K3 has some subtle but very effective usability improvements. Overall the K3 feels like a pro camera to me and I am so glad I made the jump.

[elpolodiablo]

I upgraded from K-5 to K-5IIs earlier this year, my experience is that improvement in AF has make me enjoy using my fast lenses much more as it is more accurate and focus much much better in low light with all lenses, in fact that's the major factor that trigger the upgrade. The other thing about the IIs is the lack of AA filter makes even shots by 18-250 superzoom look sharper, I shot a friend's wedding with both K-5 and K-5IIs and the difference in AF in low light is night and day and the sharpness difference is noticeable(I used DA*16-50 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 between them, switch around when needed), and convinced me to sold off the K-5. Overall IIs is a positive experience for me.

I have tried K-3 in store, overall performance/responsiveness is improved, AF with screw drive lens is faster than IIs(much faster than the K-5 classic) too, but a few things prevent me from getting the K-3,
1) I will have to get a new battery grip, I already have the D-BG4 for K-5.
2) I will have to upgrade my PC and Lightroom( I still uses LR4.4) /get more HDD to deal with the newer / larger files(I shoot RAW+)
3) I don't print large, so the increase in resolution is lost to me.
4) I will have to develop a different set of LR preset for K-3 RAW, the ones that I developed for K-5 RAW only needs minor tweak to work with K-5IIs files, mainly to tone down on sharpening
5) Cost, the money I saved by going with a lightly used K-5IIs instead of a new K-3 enable me to afford a Canon 5D with 50 1.8 to tame my FF itch.

Truth to be told, my skill as a photographer has not outgrew the original K-5, but the irritation of AF has spoilt quite a few occasions for me so for a very minor cash outlet (I sold my 3.5yo, 63k shutter K-5 not long after I got the IIs to offset the cost)I am able to enjoy taking photo for a long time.

Actually looking back at my reasoning it's a lot to do with me dealing with a very tight budget, if budget is not a concern for you just get the K-3 and enjoy the best DSLR Pentax has ever made. My 2cents

[mamba909]

The auto-focusing in the K-5 IIs is better than the original. I feel that it locks on faster and is more accurate. The K-3 is even better though; the auto-focusing feels snappier and more accurate.

[noelpolar]

I just wished they'd kept the AF button in a consistent place.....

[savoche]

The upgrade was worth it for me (from the K-5), but mainly for other things than image quality. Like crewl1 I wouldn't mind a K-3 with the K-5 sensor. The added room for cropping is nice, though.

I just wished they'd kept the AF button in a consistent place.....

I agree, although I like the placement on the K-3 more. So I wish they could have moved it on the K-5