[Cmely]

Hello,

I'm currently owning a K5 which is working great. But I'm going to be in need of a second camera. So I'm currently looking around and ... I'm hesitating .

Because of some reviews (not sure of their relevance though), it seems that K3 and K3ii (compared to k5ii or k5iis) have some drawbacks. For what I remain, it's essentially smaller battery life and less good noise reduction in higher ISO (seems that K3 may be even a little bit under the K5 on that aspect).

What is your experience with those aspects ? and in a general usage ? and what would be your advice : K5 ii, K5 iiS, K3, K3 ii ?

Knowing that :

• Price is not a criteria,
• I'm not specially in need of a built in GPS,
• I'm not specially in need of a built in flash,
• Usage will be mainly wedding, portrait and events.

Thank you very much for your help

[robthebloke]

Have no fear, high ISO on the k-3 is an improvement over the k-5. The main improvements you notice about the k-3, are the jump in image quality, the improved autofocus, and that everything is just a bit more responsive. It's hard to recommend the k-5 series over the k-3 at this point, so personally I'd say look to one of the k-3 bodies. The gps and pixel shift stuff look like interesting features, but to be honest, you may not get the best use from those for events. If you see a good deal on either of the bodies, you may as well grab it.

[Adam]

I'd go for the K-3. Personally I wouldn't say that it has any drawbacks over the older model, except for costing more.

[LennyBloke]

If you like the K5 then you'll love the K5iis - better AF, no AA filter (so sharper without processing), great low-light performance, etc. The fact that I was already familiar with the layout, menus, etc from the standard K5 meant I didn't have to go through a learning curve.

I initially moved to a K3 (from K5) and although it is an extremely capable camera it just never wowed me like the K5iis does. I have sold my K3 and now have 2 x K5iis

[savoche]

Either the K-3(II) or the K-5IIs. The K-3 versions are better in most ways, but if you are going to shoot two bodies you might want to have the same button layout on both. In which case the K-5IIs would be a better choice. It will still be an improvement over the K-5 in sharpness and autofocus.

One special advantage with the K-3(II) over the K-5IIs shooting weddings is the AA filter simulator to reduce the risk of moiré.

Of course, if I had no budget restrictions I would replace the K-5 with two K-3(II)s

[Cmely]

but if you are going to shoot two bodies you might want to have the same button layout on both

You're making a very good point here !!!

[ddamski]

I had the K-5 and since 2 years the K-3. Its a fantastic camera with brilliant dynamic range! I would buy the K-3II for the Pixel Shift, but if you think you would not use this feature the K-3 is a no brainer! Even if the K-3 has little bit more noise then the K-5(iis) it compensates with the 24mp sensor!

[chromo]

K-3ii for sure

[jayman_1975]

If you like the K5 then you'll love the K5iis - better AF, no AA filter (so sharper without processing), great low-light performance, etc. The fact that I was already familiar with the layout, menus, etc from the standard K5 meant I didn't have to go through a learning curve.

I initially moved to a K3 (from K5) and although it is an extremely capable camera it just never wowed me like the K5iis does. I have sold my K3 and now have 2 x K5iis

This is me exactly

[redcat]

I shoot portraits a lot and I love my K5 IIs, you'll want to have the same button layout on 2 bodies when rushing on wedding & events !

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

While there is a good argument for having two bodies with similar layouts, the argument for having two different bodies with different sets of strengths is also worth considering. The K-3 has quicker AF; much better live view capability; the on-board flash for fill and as a controller is more consistent, better featured and allows for more manual flexibility; and if you are asked to do the occasional video - you finally have a decent overall set up for that including mic-in and headphone monitoring.

The layout difference is rather minor, although how AF is optimized requires a bit of a learning curve due to its relative complexity. I've shot major events - several hundred shots - and the K-3 battery (as well as the Pearstone generic) are very strong. Two batteries will get you through a day of constant shooting with a ton of chimping. Yeah, the K-5 series might be a bit more efficient (smaller, duller screen), but they're pretty darn close. And, of course, the batteries are shared.

[Cmely]

although how AF is optimized requires a bit of a learning curve due to its relative complexity

Could you develop a little bit on that point, if you don't mind, ScooterMaxi

the K-5 series might be a bit more efficient (smaller, duller screen)

I'm not sure I understand your point here ?

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Could you develop a little bit on that point, if you don't mind, ScooterMaxi

The K-3 allows you to set various AF parameters such as how persistent tracking will follow a subject; this is the kind of thing that takes some time to know how the camera will respond based on your own desires. Tracking on the K-5 series is always at its maximum, AFAIK, and still isn't going to stick with the subject as well as the K-3.

I'm not sure I understand your point here ?

Just the minor difference that the screen is 3.2" rather than 3" and tends to be easier to see in bright conditions, based on the comparative reports. This certainly would account for the slightly lower CIPA rating. If set to a lower brightness to match the K-5 series, I suspect the actual battery endurance would be a very close match.

[Cmely]

Thank you for your precision @ScooterMaxi
...and thank you all others also for your answers.

[gaweidert]

I have a K5, K5-IIs and a K3. I also have several manual focus lenses I've acquired since I got my first SLR in 1971 or so. I find that focus confirmation with the K3 is better than with the K5/K5-IIs.