[jatrax]

I think you folks pushing glass are missing the main point. The OP has had the *ist ds for 10 years and presumably the glass as well. So he / she is not dissatisfied with the glass but needs a new camera that he / she presumably will keep another 10 years.

So to me the k-3 makes more sense as it likely has (at this point) a longer life span.

I would likely go for better glass personally, but I don't think that is the best choice for the OP.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I think you folks pushing glass are missing the main point. The OP has had the *ist ds for 10 years and presumably the glass as well. So he / she is not dissatisfied with the glass but needs a new camera that he / she presumably will keep another 10 years.

So to me the k-3 makes more sense as it likely has (at this point) a longer life span.

I would likely go for better glass personally, but I don't think that is the best choice for the OP.

To me, pushing the K-3 is kind of like pushing somebody to buy a Ferrari when they can't afford the racing tires to get the most out of it. Better to go with the Corvette with the sticky tires since it will run circles around the Ferrari!

So what if the OP will use the K-3 for the next 10 or even 20 years? The point is to get the best pictures possible within his budgetary constraints, so why have him spend the bulk of his money on a camera body that will quickly depreciate and is only marginally better than one that is half the price or less?

If I thought the K-3 would get me better pictures, then I would upgrade in a second. Shoot, I just bought a compact camera (the Panasonic LX100) that costs $100 more than the K-3! But I don't feel like I would gain much, so I choose to spend my money on better lenses for my K-30.

[noelpolar]

For those that update their Camera bodies every few generations, then better glass is most often recommended by this forum. For those that hang onto a body for many years (as you have), a body upgrade and then at some later stage, some lens additions is often the recommendation. Normally after getting a great new body (Camera that is!)…. the enthusiasm grows and a new lens or two becomes harder to ignore. Good luck either way!

[jimfellows]

For those that update their Camera bodies every few generations, then better glass is most often recommended by this forum. For those that hang onto a body for many years (as you have), a body upgrade and then at some later stage, some lens additions is often the recommendation. Normally after getting a great new body (Camera that is!)…. the enthusiasm grows and a new lens or two becomes harder to ignore. Good luck either way!

I up graded from the istDS to the K500 and can not believe the improvement in IQ and the ability to shoot in lowlight with so little noise. So many other improvements as well such as a larger screen. I have not used the K-3, but I am sure you would be thrilled by the improvements going to the K-50.


Jim Fellows

[mee]

K-50 doesn't have a top view LCD while the K-3 does.. if you used this on your ist DS, you will want the K-3 for that alone. You can also get a battery grip for the K-3 while the K-50 there are none.

Even without these points, in your situation, get the K-3 since you don't upgrade often. It is a much nicer machine.

[rmotfage]

Wow, thanks for all the replies.

I agree with the K-50 guys: I think the K3 will not deliver better pics.

But using the K3 would be more fun : top lcd, dof check on shutter button, more customization options, and... x0.95 viewfinder magnification like my *ist DS, vs 0.92 on K-50. The joy using a DSLR is not only about pics quality, and various lenses, it's also the optical viewfinder (hence the hype for full frame, just to get back what we had in the film SLR era).

So at the moment, K-3 + tamron 17-50 has the edge (cannot afford better glass if going K-3).

Purchase is planned early january, I can still change my mind during the coming week.

Merry chrismass to all of you.

[BrianR]

Given how long you used your DS, I'd also vote for the k-3 (assuming a discontinued k5ii series isn't available near you for significantly less than a k-3). But I'd be tempted to save up for your first choice in glass instead of the tamron 17-50 if you can be patient. You're looking at a multipurpose widish zoom that you'll probably use for several years or more, living a few months on ramen noodles or baguettes might be worth it. If your DS wasn't in such rough sounding shape, I'd also suggest waiting for the k-3's replacement to be announced before picking up a k-3, but it might not be worth committing to using a frustrating body for an indeterminate amount of time.

You're absolutely right about the joy of use, I moved from a well worn k100d to a k5iis and the biggest difference to me has been how much nicer the various little features included in the 'higher end' bodies are to work with (plus having a camera with fully functioning buttons and dials is nice). You're familiar enough with your DS to know if these little doodads are worth it.

[kadajawi]

Go for the K-5 II. It's a great camera, in some areas even better than the K-3. And it costs less. I went from a *istDS to a K-5 2 years ago and am really happy with it. Though I miss the Fn button... That thing was great. Since the K-5 I never chose other focus points. It just doesn't work as consistent or fast as with the *istDS.

As for K-50... I think handling wise you'd be in for a disappointment. The K-30 and 50 are a downgrade.

[aleonx3]

Coming from the istD to either k-50 or k-3, there are lots of improvements that one will find both useful and also hard to adjust at the beginning. I do think that it comes down to how much the user will want to advance and also how much price difference between the two cameras. During the Black Friday sale, the price of k-3 dropped a level close to entry level camera by other manufacturers. It was a no brainer for me to pick one up even though I have the k-5/IIs. I started to appreciate all the improvements k-3 has over the previous model (k-5/IIs), and I will use both cameras. I have not had a istD before, but I did own k0100D/k-10D before, the improvement is night and day when high iso shots; and it makes your average lens that much better. I have had some manual focus lenses (Chinon, Sears, Tomioka) that did not perform well before, now k-3 definitely breaths new life to those lenses. My recommendation leans to the k-3 if the OP can afford it especially when and if there is a price drop.

[noelpolar]

I have a k3 and K5II...... I never use the K5II if the K3 is handy......might as well get the k3 now it's so cheap.

[rmotfage]

santa was generous , and my home prime minister acepted that I place the order today, to be able to shoot new year's eve.

The final choice is: K-3 + DA 35/2.4 (found a kit that halves the price of the glass).

the standard zoom will wait.

I also purchased lightroom 5, since I was using .... rawshooter premium to develop my RAWs. RSP's company was acquired by adobe several years ago. So no soft upgrade and not able to process K series RAWs - but the acquisition by adobe gave me a free LR 1.0 license, that allowed me to get the upgrade version of LR5)

Thank you all.

[kadajawi]

Ah. One thing I forgot to mention. The K-5 is much better for handheld video shooting, or shooting of challenging scenes (lots of detail, movement). Just saw that you shoot at music performances... So maybe you are interested in video too.

[aleonx3]

santa was generous , and my home prime minister acepted that I place the order today, to be able to shoot new year's eve.

The final choice is: K-3 + DA 35/2.4 (found a kit that halves the price of the glass).

the standard zoom will wait.

I also purchased lightroom 5, since I was using .... rawshooter premium to develop my RAWs. RSP's company was acquired by adobe several years ago. So no soft upgrade and not able to process K series RAWs - but the acquisition by adobe gave me a free LR 1.0 license, that allowed me to get the upgrade version of LR5)

Thank you all.

Good choice, enjoy your new camera and lenses!! yes, LR is also good for PP workflow and editing.