[ramseybuckeye]

You will have a huge upgrade in low light with either the K-5IIs, K-50, or K-3. I went from K-20D to K-30 and that was immense. After that go for the lens. Someone said keep the K200D too, I agree, and you wouldn't get that much for it anyway.

[redcat]

I second the recommendation of the K-5IIs

see the sale right now, you cannot go wrong with this budy !!!
for the lens, tamron 28-75 is considered "wedding lens", just my 2c

[Piotrek K]

I have the same "problem" My real problem is that my K200D is going really strong still, so I'm ending buying some new lenses. But maybe we have to decide for a body quickly - just to get superb 16MP sensor!

[kooks]

I have the same "problem" My real problem is that my K200D is going really strong still, so I'm ending buying some new lenses. But maybe we have to decide for a body quickly - just to get superb 16MP sensor!

K200D can only handle around 550 ISO without noticeble noise.. that is less than half of what K5ii / K5iis / k3 can handle.. so you will experience A LOT of improvement in lowlight performance.. besides a lot of more dinamic range and image quality.

[redcat]

that is less than half of what K5ii / K5iis / k3 can handle

totally agree, I use K5 IIs and I don't see a lot of noise (that can't be reduced) at ISO 1600

[savoche]

In general, I lean toward lens upgrades but think you're overdue for a body upgrade. I second the recommendation of the K-5IIs but even a used K-5 would be a quantum leap forward from the K200D.

I agree wholeheartedly with every word.

[iClick]

I have the same "problem" My real problem is that my K200D is going really strong still, so I'm ending buying some new lenses. But maybe we have to decide for a body quickly - just to get superb 16MP sensor!

Yes, I’m leaning towards getting the K-5 II or IIs. Probably the II so I don’t have to deal with the moire issue. Has anyone had much issue with moire?

---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 05:41 PM ----------

totally agree, I use K5 IIs and I don't see a lot of noise (that can't be reduced) at ISO 1600

Nice! That is what I’m looking for.

---------- Post added 11-06-2014 at 05:46 PM ----------

I agree wholeheartedly with every word.

I think so too. A good lens will make better images, but in my case a body upgrade will make all my lenses better, to a degree.

Thanks everyone, for your input.

[dadipentak]

Has anyone had much issue with moire

Nothin' I couldn't address in pp--that's partly because I don't typically shoot moire-prone subject matter (weddings might be a different matter.)

[Omestes]

I made the exact same upgrade and share Terror's opinion on this one. I have not upgraded from my K5 yet and I think I'll skip over the K3 and wait for the next generation. There should be dramatic improvements by then. I normally skip a couple of generations before upgrading. At the time of writng my K5 still works very well for me.

Tom G

I made the exact same upgrade and share Terror's opinion on this one. I have not upgraded from my K5 yet and I think I'll skip over the K3 and wait for the next generation. There should be dramatic improvements by then. I normally skip a couple of generations before upgrading. At the time of writng my K5 still works very well for me.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I've had my eye on some pricier lenses (the 77 1.8), and while hunting around for the best price, I realized I could get a K-3, or K-5IIs for the same price or cheaper. I was tempted for a moment, then realized that I really don't have any complaints about my "old" K-5. Sure, both are better, but not really that much of an upgrade. If I found a good deal on a K-5IIs, around 100 with the trade in of my K-5, I might jump, but otherwise... But a general rule of thumb is; if in doubt buy glass. Good glass will be good glass on any camera you stick it on, a good lens will go through many cameras and last much longer.

As my girlfriend put it "you bought a camera not a cell phone, you aren't supposed to trade it in every 2 years..."

But for a K200d... A K-5 is a pretty decent improvement over that.

I hope to not offend the hardcore Pentax people here, but also I started thinking about the “other” brands.

I'm guessing some cameras in the same price slot might focus faster. I don't have much experience there. But, I can say that I've never really had an issue with focusing speed. Most lenses I own focus fast enough, or at least fast enough that I don't grumble about it much. It depends, I suppose, on what your using your camera for. For normal stuff, Pentax does good enough, for action and sports you might look at a high end Nikon (in the low-middle end, there probably isn't that much of a difference).

[kooks]

The K3 have better AF than K5s.. is faster, doesnt hunt that much, and is relieble, so AF is not such a big deal anymore..

[BrianR]

Yes, I’m leaning towards getting the K-5 II or IIs. Probably the II so I don’t have to deal with the moire issue. Has anyone had much issue with moire?[COLOR="Silver"]

Almost never. Depends on what you shoot though (I'm mostly nature things), but I haven't seen any major complaints that can't be addressed in PP.

The general advice of upgrading lens before body is generally sound, but when you're at the point of jumping up past multiple generations of bodies then a body upgrade can start to make sense. Especially if you currently have only one body and having a second as back-up is appealing.

When I upgraded my body, the k5iis made much more sense to me than the k-3 given their price differences earlier in the year. With the recent k-3 price drops, it's starting to look more attractive imo so I'd keep it in the running if you think it's doable, especially since you mentioned this possible upgrade being next spring.

[redcat]

so I don’t have to deal with the moire issue

I've never seen any moiré in my photos at all, and I shoot people all the time ! it's must be in extreme condition when you shoot high-detail fabric that you'd notice moiré but I doubt that you will shoot that often

[iClick]

The K3 have better AF than K5s.. is faster, doesnt hunt that much, and is relieble, so AF is not such a big deal anymore..

Hi again. I took a little time off from the whole camera thing, but now I’m back and considering a couple cameras again. Over the holidays I was trying to focus in what I thought was average indoor lighting with my K200D and 18-55 kit lens. I missed half the shots because it couldn’t focus in time/ or at all. I know that the K50 and K5 series will be a big improvement. But how good is the continuous auto focus compared to, say, the D7000?

[crewl1]

Hi again. I took a little time off from the whole camera thing, but now I’m back and considering a couple cameras again. Over the holidays I was trying to focus in what I thought was average indoor lighting with my K200D and 18-55 kit lens. I missed half the shots because it couldn’t focus in time/ or at all. I know that the K50 and K5 series will be a big improvement. But how good is the continuous auto focus compared to, say, the D7000?

K-3 will do a better job for continuous AF, the K-5/ii series was still wanting on the continuous AF capability as compared to other manuf. bodies of same vintage.

[savoche]

Yes, the K-3 would be better for continuous AF. Of the ones you mention the K-5ii and, I believe, K-50 are better than the original K-5, but still not as good as the K-3.

Compared to the D7000?I wouldn't know, have never used one, sorry.