[SMeK]

Hello. I am Pentaxian about 4 years. I have K-x and we have done 60k photos... Great time! And now it is time for my K-x to move in my GF hands and i need better camera. I dont want K-3, i saw in test that k5iis has actually better ISO sensitivity due to smaller pixel/sensor ratio and i don't need it for larger prints.

I need camera with better AF in low light and i need focus dots in viewfinder.

Money is not problem, i can buy k5iis. What is bothering me?

Does k5ii s have muted colors in jpg (i shot i jpg 60%) and can that be fixed via custom image ? Which jpg engine is better ? WB? And which AF is better for low light ? What about ISO ? I know k5 iis has no AA filter and pics are crazy sharp and yes I am pixel peeper

Push me - what should i do ?

[Adam]

If you care about low light AF, get the K-5 IIs or K-3. Both of those can focus to -3EV, unlike the K-50/K-30. All 4 cameras use the same JPEG engine, though you can expect white balance and metering to be better on the K-3. Read our reviews on the homepage for more info!

[jatrax]

Push me - what should i do ?

Get the k-3. I use both k-5IIs and k-3, no comparison really. K-3 is worth the extra money. Low light AF is almost scary good. And it has more AF points, better white balance, and faster AF.

[C_Jones]

Hello. I am Pentaxian about 4 years. I have K-x and we have done 60k photos... Great time! And now it is time for my K-x to move in my GF hands and i need better camera. I dont want K-3, i saw in test that k5iis has actually better ISO sensitivity due to smaller pixel/sensor ratio and i don't need it for larger prints.

I need camera with better AF in low light and i need focus dots in viewfinder.

Money is not problem, i can buy k5iis. What is bothering me?

Does k5ii s have muted colors in jpg (i shot i jpg 60%) and can that be fixed via custom image ? Which jpg engine is better ? WB? And which AF is better for low light ? What about ISO ? I know k5 iis has no AA filter and pics are crazy sharp and yes I am pixel peeper

Push me - what should i do ?

I have the K-5IIs and have found it to be an excellent performer in all aspects. I have never owned or used a K-3 so I cannot personally comment on its performance. I myself looked at the DXO Mark camera ratings, reviews on the general internet, and comments in some of the Pentax forums before buying the K-5IIs. Of course the K-3 is the newer model, and has many similar characterics to the K-5IIs and some more as has been mentioned. With the warranty you are essentially safe as far as being a consumer and both are at reasonable prices basically. I use the K-5IIs for telephoto (Sigma 150-500) and have a K-5 also that I used prior to it. Having the K-5IIs I am very satisfied, and will most likely not consider another model until something after the K-3 (most likely a full-frame). I doubt if you would regret buying either per having a warranty, but I do not want to say too much about the K-3 because I have never used one. Good luck.

[DSims]

The K-5 IIs colors will be slightly muted compared to the K-5 or K-5 II (or even the K-3). But it's not like you suddenly think you're shooting with a designed-to-look-dull Canon or something.

You'll get used to it pretty soon. But it's possible none of these cameras will quite match your K-x in this regard. I think the JPG engine is virtually identical to the one in the K-5 II, and this may be part of the problem. I believe the lack of AA filter isn't adjusted for in the colors. But I notice with the K-5 IIs I can read the small writing on runners' bibs much more often than I can with the K-5 (these are all JPG files). So between the better AF and the better resolution the K-5 IIs has real benefits, and the JPG engine is good. The AA-less sensor doesn't seem to cause any problems with getting good JPGs - quite the contrary.

But if color is really what you're after, the K-3 will give you the richest color. That is, a little more color than the K-5 IIs, and also a little richer and warmer look (at least with the settings I was using - but I didn't do a full, proper scientific study on this).


I believe the AF in low light is a little better on the K-3. But it wasn't that dark in the gym I compared them in, so they both handled it OK. Nevertheless, the K-5 IIs' AF is already a big step up from previous models, including the K-5. The K-3 then improves on this.


Your pixel-peeping side probably needs the K-5 IIs, especially if you take lots of Hi-ISO photos. But if that's not really so important to you, everything else you said tells me you might want a K-3. FWIW, I never upgraded to the K-3, because unlike the K-x and K-5, the K-5 IIs is still doing the job for me.



Edit: BTW, if your profile is up to date, I suggest you invest in a few better lenses before you worry about a new camera. I got a number of lenses which were each worth more than one of these cameras before I ever upgraded my K-x. And the K-x took great photos with them! The camera upgrade didn't make nearly as much difference in my photos as the lens upgrades did.

[monty69]

The K5iis is a very good camera in all respects,coming from a k7 it is a big jump,I have read on the fora the is not much diferance in high ISO between the two cameras the other advantages of the K3 are not known to me, but you will not be disappointed with the colours, you have the option to shoot Jpeg in vibrant or natural,vibrant is too strong for my liking but you can fine tune the colours to your liking with the sliders in camera.

[Steve.Ledger]

Coming from the K-7 to the K-50 is a big jump in IQ, AF speed and low light capability. They say the K-5II and K-3 are even better with AF in low light, so that must be like voodoo because the K-50 is excellent too, I find.

[cport]

I owned K-30 for almost one year, I currently own K-5II (also almost one year). There is not so much difference between AF (The step K10D ->K-30 was surprising indeed.), in some sense K-30 (K-50) has a more pleasant ergonomics (especially the choice of AF points with the help of Fx button and rollers).

However, I have bought K-5II because - 1) there are no limitations when using tripod, 2) K-5II shutter is really more quiet. I also hoped that I could get much better AF performance but this never happened.

And now - K-5IIs is really tempting but I do not need so much sharpness for my outputs ...

[SMeK]

ty all

does anyone have both of them and can you please post side by side real world photo ?

[jab2980]

Get the k-3. I use both k-5IIs and k-3, no comparison really. K-3 is worth the extra money. Low light AF is almost scary good. And it has more AF points, better white balance, and faster AF.

As someone with a K-5II, has never had a problem with low light AF, doesn't worry much about WB until editing in RAW, and doesn't use AF points (manual or focus and re-compose), would there be any advantage in upgrading? The only problem I've ever really run into his how slow AF-C is... I have many pics of my dog running at me where only his tail is in focus

....The recent K3 price drop sparked my interest.

Thanks!

[jatrax]

As someone with a K-5II, has never had a problem with low light AF, doesn't worry much about WB until editing in RAW, and doesn't use AF points (manual or focus and re-compose), would there be any advantage in upgrading? The only problem I've ever really run into his how slow AF-C is... I have many pics of my dog running at me where only his tail is in focus ....The recent K3 price drop sparked my interest.

I use both k-5IIs and k-3 and both bodies are usually available and the one I always reach for first is the k-3. Not sure I can say it would be worth it to you to upgrade, the k-5IIs is an awesome camera. But, the k-3 is better.

Reasons I like it more:
24mp - more room to crop for what I do
button layout - especially the rear AF button is just perfect
faster AF - not huge but noticeable
more AF points - I always used single point center, focus and recompose on k-5 but on k-3 I find myself using the AF point select and actually using the AF points. Still don't on the k-5IIs
response - k-3 is just more responsive, quicker due to the faster processor
exposure - more reliable on k-3. I always had +1/3 or 2/3 on the k-5IIs but on k-3 I almost always leave it at 0 compensation
focus peaking - not available on k-5 series but a nice feature on k-3 for macro or when using the tripod
low light AF - really scary good, yes k-5IIs is not bad, k-3 is better

YMMV. Is that list worth upgrading? Only you know that. I have both bodies in the bag and the k-5IIs gets little use.

[jab2980]

I use both k-5IIs and k-3 and both bodies are usually available and the one I always reach for first is the k-3. Not sure I can say it would be worth it to you to upgrade, the k-5IIs is an awesome camera. But, the k-3 is better.

Reasons I like it more:
24mp - more room to crop for what I do
button layout - especially the rear AF button is just perfect
faster AF - not huge but noticeable
more AF points - I always used single point center, focus and recompose on k-5 but on k-3 I find myself using the AF point select and actually using the AF points. Still don't on the k-5IIs
response - k-3 is just more responsive, quicker due to the faster processor
exposure - more reliable on k-3. I always had +1/3 or 2/3 on the k-5IIs but on k-3 I almost always leave it at 0 compensation
focus peaking - not available on k-5 series but a nice feature on k-3 for macro or when using the tripod
low light AF - really scary good, yes k-5IIs is not bad, k-3 is better

YMMV. Is that list worth upgrading? Only you know that. I have both bodies in the bag and the k-5IIs gets little use.

Perfect. Thank you.

[DSims]

As someone with a K-5II, has never had a problem with low light AF, doesn't worry much about WB until editing in RAW, and doesn't use AF points (manual or focus and re-compose), would there be any advantage in upgrading? The only problem I've ever really run into his how slow AF-C is... I have many pics of my dog running at me where only his tail is in focus

....The recent K3 price drop sparked my interest.

The AF-C focus speed is heavily dependent on the lens you use. You should try the DA70, as well as the DA18-135 and DA55-300. You also may do better selecting a specific AF point - I usually use one of the corners for composition's sake.

The K-3 should improve your AF speed even further, but the K-5 II is already a big jump over its predecessors. The AF speed jump is primarily with screw-drive lenses - you may see minimal difference in speed with in-lens focus motors, although accuracy might improve.

[Oldbayrunner]

Does k5ii s have muted colors in jpg (i shot i jpg 60%) and can that be fixed via custom image ? Which jpg engine is better ? WB? And which AF is better for low light ? What about ISO ? I know k5 iis has no AA filter and pics are crazy sharp and yes I am pixel peeper

The jpeg colors will appear more muted if using Adobe Rgb and natural, yes you can switch via custom image switch to bright etc
.
Adobe RGB will look more muted but it is a wider gamut then Srgb. Usually starting off your post processing using a wider color gamut is better, then converting for web or printing as needed.

Select your white balance, auto WB will usually give a more bluish cast and can be more difficult to correct in post processing depending on your software. Remember though select your white balance for what your subject is in. IE if you are standing in the sun but your subject is in shade then select for shade.

Spot or Sel AF will work in low light, Part of the beauty of the K5 ll & lls or K3 is with their dynamic range if the assist light is selected in the menu it wont activate unless the camera senses it is needed.

What about ISO? You use your ISO according to what is going to give you the best exposure triangle results for your EV and for the subject matter and/or whether you are using flash lighting or strobes etc. , there is no set ISO that works for every condition. If your talking about the Auto ISO range then I suggest you pre set a limit range based on the EV lighting you will be encountering and change it accordingly.

With any camera achieving Crazy sharp can encompass many different factors; 1. your lens 2. using the sharpest aperture for your lens 3. Depth of field and hyperfocal distance 4. Using a tripod 5. how steady is the tripod 6. using timer to cut vibration 7. using mirror lock to cut vibration. 8 use of SR . 9. your proficiency with your camera and lenses. 10, your post processing to name a few. The lack of anti alias does help to a degree but without the rest is moot. Don't forget crazy sharp isn't best for every photo.

My 2C worth

[SMeK]

The jpeg colors will appear more muted if using Adobe Rgb and natural, yes you can switch via custom image switch to bright etc


Select your white balance, auto WB will usually give a more bluish cast and can be more difficult to correct in post processing depending on your software. Remember though select your white balance for what your subject is in. IE if you are standing in the sun but your subject is in shade then select for shade.



My 2C worth

How bad is that ? Can you give me photo, straight out of camera on daylight with awb ? Thank you all. Now AWB is only thing which bothering me. Few straight out of camera samples should do the trick