Originally posted by carrrlangas Did you find any problem with bigger files or something or else?
What about the smaller AF points and faster AF motor? The bigger screen? I don`t need 24Mp either but tempted by those upgrades.
I do like the technic inside the K-3. But only rarely I made an Image that I couldn't make with my trusted K-5. But there where some, but those could already be made with the K-5II. I did like the AF-points. No interest in the bigger files that made my laptop slow. For me there is something extra and maybe strange, I love my K-5 Silver and that was a lost for the K-3.
Originally posted by Pioneer Most of the time the 6mp from my ist DL2 is enough. If not, the K-01 is more than adequate for high quality 13x19 prints, which is as large as my Canon Pixma can print.
I also have a A3+ printer, but am looking around for something new to replace my HP B9180 from 2009. I did some print at photokina. I did at Epson a 44 inch print wide of a full size K-3 image and that is magic. But not the printer I was looking for, but got that print because that printer was available. I was looking at the 17 inch printer to make at max 17x25,5 inch prints. I have made a 59 inch print out of a K-01 file and that also brings some magic.
Originally posted by Miguel Ron, the answer is another question back to you: Enough for what? As a working shooter you are aware of your presentation/output requirements, so only you can answer that question. The trend seems to be that cameras with more megapixels have greater capabilities, though something like the Nikon D750 is providing a middle ground.
Being trapped in camera's with hi specs and more megapixels is one thing yes. For newspaper and magazine I don't need the megapixels. They are fine with 7 megapixel. It's also a question for everyone, but also for
does it change in the future? Originally posted by RobA_Oz I was concerned about the seemingly ever-increasing pixel-count, but nearly a year working with the K-3 has changed my thinking on that score. What I do find challenging is that 24 MP makes me more critical of my lesser lenses. I find myself working more and more with my DA*16-50/2.8, DA*50-135/2.8, DA15/4 and FA31/1.8, all but the second of which I've brought away with me on my current trip abroad.
However, at the moment body selection isn't just a question of MP, because the K-3 advances both features and technology, and those useful features such as the twin SD cards, faster processing, improved AF and metering, and RAW HDR development (which I've found invaluable in shooting outside in the strong Italian sunlight) aren't available in the older bodies. The K-S1 of course ups the pixel count from the earlier 16 MP bodies, but loses WR and doesn't add other features from the K-3 except for Pentax FLUcard compatibility.
Never found any use for a second card slot. Never bought the FluCard. Didn't make prints that where that big to be impossible with K-5/K-01. No use for the AA-filter thingy, RAW HDR no idea what to do with it. Improved AF is great. The metering never was a problem. The processing, well the K-3 would be faster when it had 16 megapixel and PRIME III.
I'm on great lenses, so no kit lens for me.
Originally posted by Rondec I don't need 16 megapixels, except when I do. Printing big or cropping a lot are both reasons to use more. There are times that I wish I had 50 megapixels, because the bird I was framing was just too small. I like the K3 as a camera, my computer doesn't gripe much with the size of the files and memory is cheap, so I don't see a big problem with more megapixels. But it is a very personal thing, too and for the most part I don't need more than 10.
Mostly I also don't need more then 10.....When in future we go print less and less and only go online, will we need the extra pixels?