K3ii vs K3 vs K5ii

seachongo · 06-23-2015, 11:46 PM

Hey all. I'm looking to upgrade from my K5. Which do you think is the better landscape camera? (for those with some experience with at least K5ii and K3ii). I shoot mainly on tripod with live view at 80 iso, frequently bracketing. I shoot in RAW and do my post in Lightroom. I can currently only do cloning and such through Photoshop, but eventually will learn layer work. I also enjoy shooting wildlife and some casual portraits. I don't often use AF-C, but do with some wildlife shots. Not big into BIF. Anyone use 2 or 3 of these cameras and have a suggestion on which they would choose for this type of shooting, and why?.
Thanks so much for your input!

Last edited by seachongo; 06-23-2015 at 11:55 PM.

Adam · 06-23-2015, 11:57 PM - **1 Like**

The K-3 and K-3 II are going to be the exact same for landscapes, since the pixel shifting feature is only useful for static subjects. Go for the K-3. The K-5 is too close the IIs to be worth the upgrade at this point, IMO.

seachongo · 06-24-2015, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Adam

The K-3 and K-3 II are going to be the exact same for landscapes, since the pixel shifting feature is only useful for static subjects. Go for the K-3. The K-5 is too close the IIs to be worth the upgrade at this point, IMO.

Thanks for the quick response Adam! If you wouldn't mind, is the elimination of AA filter the same on K5iis and K3? Is there any difference in AF-S with K3 vs K3ii?

kenspo · 06-24-2015, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by seachongo

Is there any difference in AF-S with K3 vs K3ii?

No. Just in AF-C..

mikeodial · 06-24-2015, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Adam

The K-3 and K-3 II are going to be the exact same for landscapes, since the pixel shifting feature is only useful for static subjects. Go for the K-3. The K-5 is too close the IIs to be worth the upgrade at this point, IMO.

So Pixel Shift is not going to work for landscapes at all? I assume you mean those with something moving it them (leaves, water) or do you have something else in mind Adam?

seachongo · 06-24-2015, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by kenspo

No. Just in AF-C..

Thanks kenspro!

normhead · 06-24-2015, 09:03 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by mikeodial

So Pixel Shift is not going to work for landscapes at all? I assume you mean those with something moving it them (leaves, water) or do you have something else in mind Adam?

I'm planning to use Pixel shift in landscapes where ever possible. It just has to be still out. But there are many times in my landscape images where it's completely still out. Pixel shift may not be useful all the time, but I'm anticipating there will be conditions where it will give me a much better image than I'd otherwise get. And some of those will be landscapes.

Last edited by normhead; 06-29-2015 at 12:06 PM.

mikeodial · 06-24-2015, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I'm planning to use Pixel shift in landscapes where ever possible. It just has to be still out. But there are many times in my landscape images where it's completely still out. Pixel shift may not be useful all the time, but I'm anticipating there will be conditions where it will give me a much better image than I'd otherwise get. AN some of those will be landscapes.

That's what I thought ... otherwise this becomes a very specialized feature.

seachongo · 06-24-2015, 11:05 AM

It would be very helpful and interesting to hear from people who have used pixel shift in their landscape photography. Do you folks find that it is helping or hindering landscapes? At what rate are you getting good landscapes using pixel shift vs. blur in pixel shifted landscapes?

npc · 06-24-2015, 02:43 PM

Unfortunately, so far all the samples I've seen posted show some pixelized artifacts when pixel shift is used for landscapes. Maybe they will include the algorithm over time to detect and filter out somehow the artefacts caused by motion. Similar to panorama stitching and HDR stacking software that seems to be getting better over time at dealing with this kind of artefacts.
In any case I would not hesitate to use this feature if I ever get a K-3II - even if the merged image turns out to be with artefacts - just pick the individual raw files so you loose nothing.

mee · 06-24-2015, 03:33 PM

What are you lacking with the K-5 that you expect to gain with a K-5ii or a K-3?

seachongo · 06-25-2015, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by mee

What are you lacking with the K-5 that you expect to gain with a K-5ii or a K-3?

I'm really looking forward to the lack of AA filter and better auto-focus, especially in lower light situations.

howieb101 · 06-26-2015, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by seachongo

I'm really looking forward to the lack of AA filter and better auto-focus, especially in lower light situations.

The improvement in clarity and resolution is noticeable with the as filter being removed.

If you can shoot at lower iso's the increase to 24mpx I'd also noticeable.

My 10-17 fisheye is noticeably sharper on the K3.

Howie Be

Fenwoodian · 06-29-2015, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by npc

Unfortunately, so far all the samples I've seen posted show some pixelized artifacts when pixel shift is used for landscapes. Maybe they will include the algorithm over time to detect and filter out somehow the artefacts caused by motion. Similar to panorama stitching and HDR stacking software that seems to be getting better over time at dealing with this kind of artefacts.
In any case I would not hesitate to use this feature if I ever get a K-3II - even if the merged image turns out to be with artefacts - just pick the individual raw files so you loose nothing.

I do own the K3II, and have now shot well over 1000 images with it. There are no "individual" RAW files when shooting in the pixel shifting mode (only one RAW file is produced).

yorik · 07-08-2015, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by kenspo

No. Just in AF-C..

How big of a difference?

06-23-2015, 11:46 PM	#1
seachongo New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 24	K3ii vs K3 vs K5ii Hey all. I'm looking to upgrade from my K5. Which do you think is the better landscape camera? (for those with some experience with at least K5ii and K3ii). I shoot mainly on tripod with live view at 80 iso, frequently bracketing. I shoot in RAW and do my post in Lightroom. I can currently only do cloning and such through Photoshop, but eventually will learn layer work. I also enjoy shooting wildlife and some casual portraits. I don't often use AF-C, but do with some wildlife shots. Not big into BIF. Anyone use 2 or 3 of these cameras and have a suggestion on which they would choose for this type of shooting, and why?. Thanks so much for your input! Last edited by seachongo; 06-23-2015 at 11:55 PM.

06-23-2015, 11:57 PM - 1 Like	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	The K-3 and K-3 II are going to be the exact same for landscapes, since the pixel shifting feature is only useful for static subjects. Go for the K-3. The K-5 is too close the IIs to be worth the upgrade at this point, IMO. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-29-2015, 11:42 AM	#14
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	Originally posted by npc Unfortunately, so far all the samples I've seen posted show some pixelized artifacts when pixel shift is used for landscapes. Maybe they will include the algorithm over time to detect and filter out somehow the artefacts caused by motion. Similar to panorama stitching and HDR stacking software that seems to be getting better over time at dealing with this kind of artefacts. In any case I would not hesitate to use this feature if I ever get a K-3II - even if the merged image turns out to be with artefacts - just pick the individual raw files so you loose nothing. I do own the K3II, and have now shot well over 1000 images with it. There are no "individual" RAW files when shooting in the pixel shifting mode (only one RAW file is produced). Last edited by Fenwoodian; 06-29-2015 at 01:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K3ii vs Oly vs 645z	jrpower10	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	06-05-2015 05:21 AM
Pentax K3 vs Pentax K3II, mp...?	Leonski, Macedonia	Visitors' Center	3	05-05-2015 12:16 PM
Autofocus accuracy - K3 vs K5II vs K5 ?	vrphoto	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	57	03-19-2014 08:23 AM
DA 300 AF speed K3 vs K5II	Shanti	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	7	01-05-2014 11:03 AM
New K3 vs K5ii high iso RAW tests	ihasa	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	8	11-04-2013 09:15 AM

06-24-2015, 12:05 AM	#3
seachongo New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam The K-3 and K-3 II are going to be the exact same for landscapes, since the pixel shifting feature is only useful for static subjects. Go for the K-3. The K-5 is too close the IIs to be worth the upgrade at this point, IMO. Thanks for the quick response Adam! If you wouldn't mind, is the elimination of AA filter the same on K5iis and K3? Is there any difference in AF-S with K3 vs K3ii?

06-24-2015, 01:04 AM	#4
kenspo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Oslo Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by seachongo Is there any difference in AF-S with K3 vs K3ii? No. Just in AF-C..

06-24-2015, 04:52 AM	#5
mikeodial Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 370	Originally posted by Adam The K-3 and K-3 II are going to be the exact same for landscapes, since the pixel shifting feature is only useful for static subjects. Go for the K-3. The K-5 is too close the IIs to be worth the upgrade at this point, IMO. So Pixel Shift is not going to work for landscapes at all? I assume you mean those with something moving it them (leaves, water) or do you have something else in mind Adam?

06-24-2015, 07:49 AM	#6
seachongo New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by kenspo No. Just in AF-C.. Thanks kenspro!

06-24-2015, 09:03 AM - 2 Likes	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by mikeodial So Pixel Shift is not going to work for landscapes at all? I assume you mean those with something moving it them (leaves, water) or do you have something else in mind Adam? I'm planning to use Pixel shift in landscapes where ever possible. It just has to be still out. But there are many times in my landscape images where it's completely still out. Pixel shift may not be useful all the time, but I'm anticipating there will be conditions where it will give me a much better image than I'd otherwise get. And some of those will be landscapes. Last edited by normhead; 06-29-2015 at 12:06 PM.

06-24-2015, 11:00 AM	#8
mikeodial Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 370	Originally posted by normhead I'm planning to use Pixel shift in landscapes where ever possible. It just has to be still out. But there are many times in my landscape images where it's completely still out. Pixel shift may not be useful all the time, but I'm anticipating there will be conditions where it will give me a much better image than I'd otherwise get. AN some of those will be landscapes. That's what I thought ... otherwise this becomes a very specialized feature.

06-24-2015, 11:05 AM	#9
seachongo New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 24 Original Poster	It would be very helpful and interesting to hear from people who have used pixel shift in their landscape photography. Do you folks find that it is helping or hindering landscapes? At what rate are you getting good landscapes using pixel shift vs. blur in pixel shifted landscapes?

06-24-2015, 02:43 PM	#10
npc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 313	Unfortunately, so far all the samples I've seen posted show some pixelized artifacts when pixel shift is used for landscapes. Maybe they will include the algorithm over time to detect and filter out somehow the artefacts caused by motion. Similar to panorama stitching and HDR stacking software that seems to be getting better over time at dealing with this kind of artefacts. In any case I would not hesitate to use this feature if I ever get a K-3II - even if the merged image turns out to be with artefacts - just pick the individual raw files so you loose nothing.

06-24-2015, 03:33 PM	#11
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	What are you lacking with the K-5 that you expect to gain with a K-5ii or a K-3?

06-25-2015, 05:20 PM	#12
seachongo New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by mee What are you lacking with the K-5 that you expect to gain with a K-5ii or a K-3? I'm really looking forward to the lack of AA filter and better auto-focus, especially in lower light situations.

06-26-2015, 06:02 AM	#13
howieb101 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 594	Originally posted by seachongo I'm really looking forward to the lack of AA filter and better auto-focus, especially in lower light situations. The improvement in clarity and resolution is noticeable with the as filter being removed. If you can shoot at lower iso's the increase to 24mpx I'd also noticeable. My 10-17 fisheye is noticeably sharper on the K3. Howie Be

07-08-2015, 07:36 AM	#15
yorik Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 991	Originally posted by kenspo No. Just in AF-C.. How big of a difference?