Is it just me?

jeryst · 02-03-2015, 09:21 PM

I'm in the market for a K-3, so I have been looking at some of the sample pics posted in the K-3 section.
But then I looked at the sample pics for the K-5ii, and they blew me away.
Sharper, clearer, more vibrant colors.

Is it just me, or does the K-5ii take better photographs than the K-3?

I'm really starting to second guess my purchase.

Sagitta · 02-03-2015, 09:28 PM

I just picked up a K-3 today, and while I can't talk for the K-5/K-5ii, I can say with utmost certainty that the K-3 is miles ahead of the K-30 as far as quality goes. I'm not regretting my purchase at all, except for a general "well crap, time to relearn what I already know" kind of thing.

jimr-pdx · 02-03-2015, 09:33 PM

Both are excellent and neither takes the crown on every single count. In the right light any camera can take great photos. We're fortunate to have more than one excellent choice available right now (the K-s1 is excellent too once you get past the ergonomics); looking back at other cameras after a purchase will give you a headache from neck strain

And you may be comparing Vivid-setting K-5 to a Natural or Muted K-3, so all 'apples' are not alike much less the oranges.

Your shots will impress you, without a doubt.

rrstuff · 02-03-2015, 09:44 PM

K-5II has been around longer, so people had more time to get better shots. In my opinion the K-3 has a better image quality than K-30, but it requires a bit more effort and careful processing to scale pictures down properly.

Chaos_Realm · 02-03-2015, 09:45 PM

The K-5ii has better performance at higher ISO, but it has lower resolution.

You do need to remember that much of the image quality comes from the lens used, post processing and the user.

Do you shoot in RAW or JPEG?

**jatrax** · 02-03-2015, 10:19 PM - **1 Like**

The k-5 and the k-3 use different sensors. When I first got the k-3 I was a little disappointed that the images were no better, and sometimes not as good as those from my k-5IIs. After a while I realized I was using the same PP presets on the k-3 as on the k-5IIs. But they are NOT the same. I started over from scratch and developed new presets just for the k-3 and now I can say I use the k-3 almost exclusively. I won't say the images from it blow the k-5 away but generally they are better and certainly have no reason to be poorer.

I've no idea what you have been looking at so it is possible those have the same problem mine did, or not. I put little faith in what I see on a screen on the internet. The resolution is downsized dramatically, you have no idea how the image was processed or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload. The only test I rely on is the one I do myself, with my gear, my subjects, my PP.

jeryst · 02-03-2015, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

The k-5 and the k-3 use different sensors. When I first got the k-3 I was a little disappointed that the images were no better, and sometimes not as good as those from my k-5IIs. After a while I realized I was using the same PP presets on the k-3 as on the k-5IIs. But they are NOT the same. I started over from scratch and developed new presets just for the k-3 and now I can say I use the k-3 almost exclusively. I won't say the images from it blow the k-5 away but generally they are better and certainly have no reason to be poorer.

I've no idea what you have been looking at so it is possible those have the same problem mine did, or not. I put little faith in what I see on a screen on the internet. The resolution is downsized dramatically, you have no idea how the image was processed or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload. The only test I rely on is the one I do myself, with my gear, my subjects, my PP.

I've looked at at least 30 pages of photos in the K-5 and K-3 sections, so I'm assuming that the different combinations of photographers, lenses, settings, processing, etc. are balancing out. The K-3 takes excellent photos, but to me, the colors in the K-5iis photos look better, and there seems to be a clarity there that just gives them more punch. Maybe it's better contrast in the K-5iis, or something like that. I'm starting to think I should rent each one for a week and see which one I like more.

alamo5000 · 02-03-2015, 10:52 PM

I jumped from a K5 to a K3 and I am more than pleased with the K3.

**Madaboutpix** · 02-04-2015, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

The k-5 and the k-3 use different sensors. When I first got the k-3 I was a little disappointed that the images were no better, and sometimes not as good as those from my k-5IIs. After a while I realized I was using the same PP presets on the k-3 as on the k-5IIs. But they are NOT the same. I started over from scratch and developed new presets just for the k-3 and now I can say I use the k-3 almost exclusively. I won't say the images from it blow the k-5 away but generally they are better and certainly have no reason to be poorer.

I've no idea what you have been looking at so it is possible those have the same problem mine did, or not. I put little faith in what I see on a screen on the internet. The resolution is downsized dramatically, you have no idea how the image was processed or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload. The only test I rely on is the one I do myself, with my gear, my subjects, my PP.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I would add that a simple click in Lightroom, namely selecting camera calibration "Embedded", rather than "Adobe Standard", makes for a much better starting point in PP with regard to colour rendition and accuracy, as has been noted elsewhere on this forum. I'm confident the malleability of the K-3's DNGs beats anything I've seen before, and I have absolutely no regrets about replacing my old K-7 with it (which was no slouch in that respect either). As far as I'm concerned, the K-3 output rocks!

**rayallen** · 02-04-2015, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by alamo5000

I jumped from a K5 to a K3 and I am more than pleased with the K3.

A bit off-topic, but I jumped from a K10D to a K-3 so you can imagine how pleased and surprised that I was! More than pleased is an understatement.

redcat · 02-04-2015, 07:01 AM

I confirm that the K5 II (or K5 IIs) is perfect for portrait,still subject (that I usually shoot), I've seen many many photos before ordering the camera, it can compete any camera

check out my signature for some humble photos of mine ^^

Pair it with a FA31 or FA77 and you don't have to worry too much in PP

btnapa · 02-04-2015, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by jeryst

I'm in the market for a K-3, so I have been looking at some of the sample pics posted in the K-3 section.
But then I looked at the sample pics for the K-5ii, and they blew me away.
Sharper, clearer, more vibrant colors.

Is it just me, or does the K-5ii take better photographs than the K-3?

I'm really starting to second guess my purchase.

I owned a K5IIs and passed it on to my brother and got myself a K3. Without pixel peeping, I can say that they are similar if not identical with K3 packing more pixels. I hear that K5IIs is better on high ISO. In either camera, I tried not to go much past ISO 800. most of my work was and is done at ISO 400 or below.

teoprome · 02-04-2015, 08:31 AM

A year ago I switched from canon to a pentax k3 ; above all with regard to the saturation and contrast I was baffled : canon raws files looked much better . then I realized that the file raw product from K3 was very neutral and with a minimum of pp I could get amazing results . k3 produces excellent files, of course lenses and pp are very important...
For ISO setting I also took pictures at 3200 with good result; at 6400 with denoise in pp k3 produces good 8x10 prints

derekkite · 02-04-2015, 08:54 AM - **2 Likes**

The K-5 IIS produces beautiful images, that sensor was in the hands of the Pentax engineers for a long time and they knew how to squeeze the most out of it. The difference between that and the K-3 is not IQ but other qualities of the body. I jumped from the K-5 to the K-3 and started getting colors and details that I didn't see in my K-5 files. The noise characteristics of the K-3 are harsher; a similar noise level produces unpleasantness. Your post processing has to improve with the K-3.

bavd · 02-04-2015, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by rayallen

A bit off-topic, but I jumped from a K10D to a K-3 so you can imagine how pleased and surprised that I was! More than pleased is an understatement.

Same for me, I went from a k20d to a k3 and boy is it a LOT better. I suppose the difference between a K5II and K3 will be a lot less, but there is the added bonus of the extra features.

02-03-2015, 09:21 PM	#1
jeryst Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Western PA Posts: 136	Is it just me? I'm in the market for a K-3, so I have been looking at some of the sample pics posted in the K-3 section. But then I looked at the sample pics for the K-5ii, and they blew me away. Sharper, clearer, more vibrant colors. Is it just me, or does the K-5ii take better photographs than the K-3? I'm really starting to second guess my purchase.

02-04-2015, 07:01 AM	#11
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	I confirm that the K5 II (or K5 IIs) is perfect for portrait,still subject (that I usually shoot), I've seen many many photos before ordering the camera, it can compete any camera check out my signature for some humble photos of mine ^^ Pair it with a FA31 or FA77 and you don't have to worry too much in PP Last edited by redcat; 02-04-2015 at 08:25 AM.

02-04-2015, 08:31 AM	#13
teoprome Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 41	A year ago I switched from canon to a pentax k3 ; above all with regard to the saturation and contrast I was baffled : canon raws files looked much better . then I realized that the file raw product from K3 was very neutral and with a minimum of pp I could get amazing results . k3 produces excellent files, of course lenses and pp are very important... For ISO setting I also took pictures at 3200 with good result; at 6400 with denoise in pp k3 produces good 8x10 prints Last edited by teoprome; 02-04-2015 at 08:41 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is this a bad service center or is it just me !? I need help!	Dexxx	General Photography	11	11-20-2014 04:38 PM
Is it just me or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX is disappearing?	fgaudet	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	08-15-2014 04:08 AM
Is the Nikon D4s ugly or is it just me?	6BQ5	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	35	04-09-2014 12:14 PM
is it just me?	adwb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	03-25-2013 01:06 PM
Is it me or is it just wrong to...	Iksobarg	Photographic Industry and Professionals	15	01-08-2013 03:39 PM

02-03-2015, 09:28 PM	#2
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	I just picked up a K-3 today, and while I can't talk for the K-5/K-5ii, I can say with utmost certainty that the K-3 is miles ahead of the K-30 as far as quality goes. I'm not regretting my purchase at all, except for a general "well crap, time to relearn what I already know" kind of thing.

02-03-2015, 09:33 PM	#3
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Both are excellent and neither takes the crown on every single count. In the right light any camera can take great photos. We're fortunate to have more than one excellent choice available right now (the K-s1 is excellent too once you get past the ergonomics); looking back at other cameras after a purchase will give you a headache from neck strain And you may be comparing Vivid-setting K-5 to a Natural or Muted K-3, so all 'apples' are not alike much less the oranges. Your shots will impress you, without a doubt.

02-03-2015, 09:44 PM	#4
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126	K-5II has been around longer, so people had more time to get better shots. In my opinion the K-3 has a better image quality than K-30, but it requires a bit more effort and careful processing to scale pictures down properly.

02-03-2015, 09:45 PM	#5
Chaos_Realm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,251	The K-5ii has better performance at higher ISO, but it has lower resolution. You do need to remember that much of the image quality comes from the lens used, post processing and the user. Do you shoot in RAW or JPEG?

02-03-2015, 10:19 PM - 1 Like	#6
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	The k-5 and the k-3 use different sensors. When I first got the k-3 I was a little disappointed that the images were no better, and sometimes not as good as those from my k-5IIs. After a while I realized I was using the same PP presets on the k-3 as on the k-5IIs. But they are NOT the same. I started over from scratch and developed new presets just for the k-3 and now I can say I use the k-3 almost exclusively. I won't say the images from it blow the k-5 away but generally they are better and certainly have no reason to be poorer. I've no idea what you have been looking at so it is possible those have the same problem mine did, or not. I put little faith in what I see on a screen on the internet. The resolution is downsized dramatically, you have no idea how the image was processed or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload. The only test I rely on is the one I do myself, with my gear, my subjects, my PP.

02-03-2015, 10:52 PM	#7
jeryst Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Western PA Posts: 136 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax The k-5 and the k-3 use different sensors. When I first got the k-3 I was a little disappointed that the images were no better, and sometimes not as good as those from my k-5IIs. After a while I realized I was using the same PP presets on the k-3 as on the k-5IIs. But they are NOT the same. I started over from scratch and developed new presets just for the k-3 and now I can say I use the k-3 almost exclusively. I won't say the images from it blow the k-5 away but generally they are better and certainly have no reason to be poorer. I've no idea what you have been looking at so it is possible those have the same problem mine did, or not. I put little faith in what I see on a screen on the internet. The resolution is downsized dramatically, you have no idea how the image was processed or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload. The only test I rely on is the one I do myself, with my gear, my subjects, my PP. I've looked at at least 30 pages of photos in the K-5 and K-3 sections, so I'm assuming that the different combinations of photographers, lenses, settings, processing, etc. are balancing out. The K-3 takes excellent photos, but to me, the colors in the K-5iis photos look better, and there seems to be a clarity there that just gives them more punch. Maybe it's better contrast in the K-5iis, or something like that. I'm starting to think I should rent each one for a week and see which one I like more.

02-03-2015, 10:52 PM	#8
alamo5000 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,962	I jumped from a K5 to a K3 and I am more than pleased with the K3.

02-04-2015, 02:14 AM	#9
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,440	Originally posted by jatrax The k-5 and the k-3 use different sensors. When I first got the k-3 I was a little disappointed that the images were no better, and sometimes not as good as those from my k-5IIs. After a while I realized I was using the same PP presets on the k-3 as on the k-5IIs. But they are NOT the same. I started over from scratch and developed new presets just for the k-3 and now I can say I use the k-3 almost exclusively. I won't say the images from it blow the k-5 away but generally they are better and certainly have no reason to be poorer. I've no idea what you have been looking at so it is possible those have the same problem mine did, or not. I put little faith in what I see on a screen on the internet. The resolution is downsized dramatically, you have no idea how the image was processed or if it was re-processed / re-sized by the website on upload. The only test I rely on is the one I do myself, with my gear, my subjects, my PP. Makes perfect sense to me. I would add that a simple click in Lightroom, namely selecting camera calibration "Embedded", rather than "Adobe Standard", makes for a much better starting point in PP with regard to colour rendition and accuracy, as has been noted elsewhere on this forum. I'm confident the malleability of the K-3's DNGs beats anything I've seen before, and I have absolutely no regrets about replacing my old K-7 with it (which was no slouch in that respect either). As far as I'm concerned, the K-3 output rocks!

02-04-2015, 02:19 AM	#10
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by alamo5000 I jumped from a K5 to a K3 and I am more than pleased with the K3. A bit off-topic, but I jumped from a K10D to a K-3 so you can imagine how pleased and surprised that I was! More than pleased is an understatement.

02-04-2015, 08:18 AM	#12
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,615	Originally posted by jeryst I'm in the market for a K-3, so I have been looking at some of the sample pics posted in the K-3 section. But then I looked at the sample pics for the K-5ii, and they blew me away. Sharper, clearer, more vibrant colors. Is it just me, or does the K-5ii take better photographs than the K-3? I'm really starting to second guess my purchase. I owned a K5IIs and passed it on to my brother and got myself a K3. Without pixel peeping, I can say that they are similar if not identical with K3 packing more pixels. I hear that K5IIs is better on high ISO. In either camera, I tried not to go much past ISO 800. most of my work was and is done at ISO 400 or below.

02-04-2015, 08:54 AM - 2 Likes	#14
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	The K-5 IIS produces beautiful images, that sensor was in the hands of the Pentax engineers for a long time and they knew how to squeeze the most out of it. The difference between that and the K-3 is not IQ but other qualities of the body. I jumped from the K-5 to the K-3 and started getting colors and details that I didn't see in my K-5 files. The noise characteristics of the K-3 are harsher; a similar noise level produces unpleasantness. Your post processing has to improve with the K-3.

02-04-2015, 08:59 AM	#15
bavd Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Almere (NL) Posts: 96	Originally posted by rayallen A bit off-topic, but I jumped from a K10D to a K-3 so you can imagine how pleased and surprised that I was! More than pleased is an understatement. Same for me, I went from a k20d to a k3 and boy is it a LOT better. I suppose the difference between a K5II and K3 will be a lot less, but there is the added bonus of the extra features.