[RMabo]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

The K-50 is a great camera and mix features from advanced cameras (100 percent viewfinder, twin dials and HyperProgram för ultimate P, Av, Tv and M-control, metal chassi, weather sealing) with features from beginner models (automatic picture modes, scene modes, different image tones). The user interface has less buttons than the K-3 so less direct access to certain functions but the K-50 do have a quick access menu, and with user programming / configuration you can customise the behavior of the K-50 to your liking. K-3 lacks the advanced image modes of the K-50 so it's more suitable for those shooting mainly in RAW and post process and doesn't bother so much with JPEG's. As for images, sure both cameras takes excellent images and gives you full control if you want.

[Kozlok]

I bought the KS2. The flippy screen was the deciding factor for me, as well as the wifi built in. There are no wrong choices though, just several different good choices.

[redcat]

I have both and am happy with both. I'd suggest going with the cheaper body and get the better lens. In two years you can upgrade the body and you'll already have the better lens.

+1, save the money for the lens, it will survive (surpass) many body upgrade ^^

[naldopr]

I'm in the same boat still debating between k3 or k50 I'm new to dsrl my main use is for macro insect flowers etc! Also do sports so right now I feel lost deciding which one to get

[CarlJF]

I agree with the others that the K-50 is a better beginner/intermediate camera. Sure, the K-3 is better overall, but it also needs expert hands to deliver its best. Getting a K-3 as a first camera would be somewhat like buying a Porsche 911 as a first car, nothing wrong but it's probably better to get a Honda...

For a beginner, the picture modes can be quite useful. Sometime, you just want to take a snapshot for the sake of it without having to think about the settings, or handle the camera to someone to take a picture of you.

Although the K-3 has more advanced feature than the K-50, this doesn't mean the K-50 is featureless. It has all the features a beginner or intermediate photographer will ever need. I don't think you could overgrow the camera in two years... Compared to your friend's 500D, the K-50 has way more features and customisation options. So, if you think your friend's 500D would be good enough for you, the K-50 will be more than OK.

At its current price, the K-50 is a great deal. With the 400$, you can get one or two nice prime lenses for top IQ. And I'm quite sure that a K-50 with a good prime will give results as good, if not better, in IQ as a K-3 with the 18-135.

[RMabo]

I bought the K-S2 instead of the K-3 because I wanted a more compact body. The K-3 has a similar user interface and features as my K10D, but with upgraded AF, metering and imaging sensor. For me the K-S2 was the perfect balance between K10D and the tiny entry level K-x, I get the convenient automodes for family-fun JPEG's and I have full control with RAW when I'm out in the woods with my full kit of lenses. Sure I do miss some things from the K10D like a separate DOF-button and an external switch for selecting between metering systems, but with two configurable user memories and programmable buttons there's workarounds...

[CarlJF]

I'm in the same boat still debating between k3 or k50 I'm new to dsrl my main use is for macro insect flowers etc! Also do sports so right now I feel lost deciding which one to get

For macro, it's more a question of getting a macro lens and a flash system adapted to this kind of work. Together they will end up costing more than either camera body...

[savoche]

I am looking into getting my first DSLR and was drawn to the k50 for its weather sealing, image quality, and many other features that seem to surpass any other camera in its price range. I am looking at the kit with the 18-135mm lens which seems to be around $649.00 on adorama and b&h. My question is, in a few months or a year from now, will I regret not spending the extra $400 for the k3 with the same kit lens? I will mainly be using this to take photos rock climbing and hiking, possibly some beach/ocean landscapes and architecture too. I have attached a couple photos I have taken with my friends Canon 500D and 15-85mm lens that I have been borrowing.

I would save the $400 and go for the smaller, lighter body for that use. By the time you have "out-grown" the K-50 (if it happens) there will be better bodies out there for a lower price anyway.

I'm in the same boat still debating between k3 or k50 I'm new to dsrl my main use is for macro insect flowers etc! Also do sports so right now I feel lost deciding which one to get

For macro I would strongly consider a K-S2 for the flippy screen - it will save you a lot of crawling on the ground

For sports I would prefer the K-3 (or better yet, the K-3ii) because of the better tracking abilities. I'm sure the upcoming full-frame camera will be even better. And more costly!

[no694terry]

I actually just recomended the k50 18-55/55-300 kit to a friend trying to learn, The DAL version of the 18-55 is WR now and the 55-300 is a very fun lens. Bodies keep getting updated so while you learn a year or two I'd go with cheaper. All the basic functions are still there to learn. Plus you can probably resell that body 2 years from now and only be out about $200. The lens will be reuseable on the next body, aps-c anyway.

[Scorpio71GR]

Michael, just out of interest ...

if you took the same shot with both your K-50 and K3, with the same settings and the same lens ... could you tell from looking at the images which shot came from which camera?

In general it would be difficult to tell the difference between the two. Looking at straight Jpegs I doubt you could. In RAW you can under a 100% crop. The advantage of the K3 is more detail and sharper images especially when cropping. The K3 has a better autofocus system. However I also have a K01 and all 3 cameras give me results I am happy with. Each camera has its strong and weak points. Learning how to build on the strong points and avoid the weak ones makes it a pleasure to use these cameras. The K01 with the DA 40xs can fit in your pocket. Try that with your K3.

[MyTZuS]

Why not consider the K5 IIs? Its even cheaper than the K50. I bought it instead of a K3 and have been very happy.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Get you feet wet with the K-50. Once yoy get the hang of it, move up to whatever version of a pentax flagship that comes along in 2 years from now.

[watsoncui]

There is a criterion that you should always buy the best camera you can afford. So I think if you choose K3, you maybe regret not spending extra some hundred dollars for K3II.

There is another criterion for me. I always choose the cheapest camera with most important functions.

In your case, I think small is good and low weight is good.

---------- Post added 06-24-15 at 11:32 PM ----------

Oh, actually Ebay has a deal that refurbished Nikon D3200 with two kit lenses is less than $300. Maybe you can consider this.

Nikon D3200 24.2 MP SLR with18-55 & 55-200 Lenses & Case - Refurbished on eBay Daily Deals

[redcat]

Why not consider the K5 IIs? Its even cheaper than the K50.

where did you find that ??? the K5 IIs is an upgrade from the K50, normally it must be more expensive @_@

[lytrytyr]

Why not consider the K5 IIs?

No focus peaking.