[stevebrot]

...or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload...

This is a variable that is seldom considered. Attached images are usually munged badly by the forum software and the same is often true for gallery uploads. I generally link to the original upload version on Flickr. That insures that my original file is displayed.


Steve

[twitch]

I jumped from a K-5 to a K-3. I found the AF of the K-3 drove me crazy; BF, FF, totally inconsistent, it was all over the place. I simply couldn't trust it and it let me down in a few important photo situations. It also was bigger and heavier in the hand than my K-5. Eventually I sold the K-3 and went back to the K-5... happy as a clam now.

[Madaboutpix]

I jumped from a K-5 to a K-3. I found the AF of the K-3 drove me crazy; BF, FF, totally inconsistent, it was all over the place. I simply couldn't trust it and it let me down in a few important photo situations. It also was bigger and heavier in the hand than my K-5. Eventually I sold the K-3 and went back to the K-5... happy as a clam now.

Valid as your personal experience with one (possibly faulty?) copy of the K-3, but hardly representative of what a properly calibrated K-3 AF in working order can do. Compared with my old K-7, the K-3's auto focus feels like a marked improvement. While AF-A mode seems to be inconsistent (to the point that I don't find it particularly useful), in my experience PD AF is faster, snappier, more decisive, and more likely to grab shots in AF.C mode, though it still struggles a bit with fast action. It is clearly more capable in low light. It also comes with more options, which means that there is a learning curve to it.

[NZ_Ross]

Everyone is of course going to be talking from personal experience. I had a K5 for two years and then moved to a K3, which I have now had for 9 months. It took me 3 months before I was happy and comfortable with the K3.

With regard to the images - I shoot raw, and have some very good prime lenses. The K3 sensor seems produce images that are initially flatter or more neutral than the K5 sensor, even in RAW. My first thought was, what is wrong with this? As one of the previous comments noted, your PP needs to change somewhat. Once you work out how to PP to get what you are looking for, I have to say the detail and information you can pull out of K3 files is more than the K5 by a reasonable margin.

I notice this most in the really subtle colours of sunsets - there is just more there to get hold of in the K3, and if you want to pull up the vibrancy, saturation, colour curve or contrast the files have heaps of information to play with - certainly more than the K5. If you are cropping then the K3 definitely wins over the K5.

In the end it will just be personal preference - I had a hard look at the K5iis when I brought the K3, and there were other features in the K3 that sold it to me - back LCD, 2 card slots, better focus system, better metering and WB. In the end I don't need 24MP because I very rarely print, but the K3 just provided more future proofing and better features.

I am very happy with the K3, but it did take some getting used to shooting and post processing files.

The really good news is there is no bad choice here - they are both really good cameras

[tennjed]

When I lately started thinking about a return to Pentax, it was prompted, in part, by price drop I saw on the K3. Just for the heck of it I checked out prices on new K5 IIs....I could not believe the great deal the k5IIs is nowadays. I remember thinking about getting a Q, and saying I would not jump until the Q went $500 or less. I never dreamed I would be able to get a new K5IIs for a sub $500 price. I was able to get the K5IIs, an SMC 50 1.7, FA 42 1.9, and a decent used SMC F 35-80 4-5.6 for what I would have paid for the K3. What a great welcome back. I love the camera, but I cannot believe how nice the 42 1.9 is.

[CNunez]

What I discovered was: more pixels = more noticeable user errors.

Also, shooting 24 megs in low light to me is a no no. It's more preferable to lower the size. Only when the lighting is excellent can you really make use of the high pixel count.

I've always been against unnecessary high megapixels. My old camera is 12 and the pictures come out fantastic.

So shooting in 14 or whatever medium is, I'm more than happy with. That said, my biggest set back at the moment is lens quality. My best iq lens is an old manual focus, which is awesome though. I love it to bits now.

[Rondec]

I currently shoot with a K5 II and with a K3 and also a K-01. I honestly can't tell the difference in output, except that the K3 files need less sharpening and have a little more detail. At web resolution, I doubt you could truly tell the difference. What you are seeing is slight differences in processing, the lens used and things like that.

K3 images.





K5 II image.





I certainly wouldn't choose between them based on perceived differences from internet size images.

[GlennG]

As one of the previous comments noted, your PP needs to change somewhat.

Seems to be a theme here. I don't have K3 experience, however, would that be true for almost any camera change?

[twitch]

Bigger? It's exactly the same size.

Pentax K-5 dimensions: 131×97×73 mm
Pentax K-3 dimensions: 131×97×73 mm

And its weight is only 50g heavier. That's less than 2oz. That's 1/4 the weight of a 50mm f/1.7 manual prime lens.

Your k-3 dimensions aren't right. It's not a lot bigger or heavier, but it was enough to be noticeable in the hand to me.

[NZ_Ross]

Seems to be a theme here. I don't have K3 experience, however, would that be true for almost any camera change?

I would say that in theory yes, as every sensor has it's own unique rendering and set up

Your k-3 dimensions aren't right. It's not a lot bigger or heavier, but it was enough to be noticeable in the hand to me.

I agree with twitch on this one - the K-3 is heaver in the hand than the K-5 and you do notice it. For me it was one of the things that took some time getting used to with the change, and I still wish the K-3 was lighter. But I wouldn't change back for other reasons.....

[Rondec]

Your k-3 dimensions aren't right. It's not a lot bigger or heavier, but it was enough to be noticeable in the hand to me.

Camera Size comparison web site shows 40 grams difference in size between a K5 II and a K3. I can't say I can feel the difference in my cameras, although I admit usually have my cameras on a strap, except when I am actively shooting.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

[tennjed]

Does anyone know the reason the K3 is larger and heavier than the K5 cameras? The sensor for both cameras is the same physical size. I hope Pentax is cautious about this sort of thing going forward; the compact feel of the K5 cameras was/is a very attractive feature; from my perspective, it is so attractive, I can not think of a new feature I would be willing to sacrifice it for. ......Well, maybe a cloaking feature that makes the camera invisible to others. I catch all kinds of grief from wife and daughters when they see me break a camera out.

Looking at the K3 and K5IIs side by side in the Camera Size Compare window at that web site, it appears Pentax raised the shutter button position significantly, at least to the point where it is obvious in a direct visual comparison of the two cameras. I bet that alone tends to exaggerate the feel of the K3's size gain.

[Rondec]

Does anyone know the reason the K3 is larger and heavier than the K5 cameras? The sensor for both cameras is the same physical size. I hope Pentax is cautious about this sort of thing going forward; the compact feel of the K5 cameras was/is a very attractive feature; from my perspective, it is so attractive, I can not think of a new feature I would be willing to sacrifice it for. ......Well, maybe a cloaking feature that makes the camera invisible to others. I catch all kinds of grief from wife and daughters when they see me break a camera out.

Looking at the K3 and K5IIs side by side in the Camera Size Compare window at that web site, it appears Pentax raised the shutter button position significantly, at least to the point where it is obvious in a direct visual comparison of the two cameras. I bet that alone tends to exaggerate the feel of the K3's size gain.

There are small differences -- the K3 has an extra card slot, better auto focus system and a different shutter, would be the obvious differences. All of these could easily add up to 40 grams difference in mass. I just don't think 40 grams is really perceptible to most folks in average usage, but obviously I am wrong as some on this thread notice the difference quite a lot.

I will say that I shoot with my camera gripped a fair amount and when you are used to that combined with a DA * lens, both the K5 II and K3 feel light when you take the grip off.

[jatrax]

Seems to be a theme here. I don't have K3 experience, however, would that be true for almost any camera change?

For every sensor change at least. For example I used k-5, k-01 and k-5IIs with essentially the same PP presets and got good and consistent results. But when I got the k-3, those presets did not work. I would be curious to see if the presets work as well on images from the Nikon cameras with the corresponding sensors. but not curious enough to buy a Nikon to check.

I just don't think 40 grams is really perceptible to most folks in average usage, but obviously I am wrong as some on this thread notice the difference quite a lot. I will say that I shoot with my camera gripped a fair amount and when you are used to that combined with a DA * lens, both the K5 II and K3 feel light when you take the grip off.

I shoot k-5IIs and k-3 often in the same shoot and the weight difference is noticeable. Not enough to matter to me, but you can tell. I suspect using a grip would overwhelm any tiny difference though.