Originally posted by MyInkIsMyArt "better low light AF
more AF points
better AF tracking"
-As I said, the auto focus isn't important to me personally, and from the stats I have read, the auto focus improvements to the K-3 over the K-5 were not substantial in real world use (thought I have never personally tested the two head to head).
"significantly more continuous shooting rate"
-I wouldn't call it significant. It's 8.3fps vs 7fps. Unless you are referring to the buffer size.
"more powerful processor"
-I haven't personally experienced (nor seen anyone else experience) problems with the K-5 processor. So, the K-3 having one that is technically better doesn't seem to mean much.
"larger viewfinder"
-You're talking about 0.62x vs 0.60x, which is negligible.
"slightly larger screen with more pixels"
-Personally, I keep my screen off at all times and never use it. I don't even review my shots. But even for the photographer who uses their screen quite a bit; They are both LCD, neither of them tilt, neither of them are touch screen, the K-3 screen is 0.5cm larger with 1,037k dot resolution vs 920k dot resolution, so again, it seems negligible.
"more capable video recording"
-I already commented about that in my original post. I do no video at all, 95% of the photographers I know or have ever met do not do any video, and the 5% who does do video has a dedicated camera for video, and it's never been a Pentax. So, the minor improvement in video seems negligible (1080@30fps vs 1080@25fps).
"dual card slots"
-Yes, this is an advantage. I already pointed it out in my initial post, along with the 24mp vs 16mp.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, though. It is interesting to see what others think on the subject.
Try one.
Don't believe the reviews. K-5 autofocus was awful. The K-3 is substantially better.
Shooting rate? The K-3 shoots and saves shots fast enough that it is extremely rare that you wait for the camera body before shooting again. The common process of shooting then checking the shot on the screen was slow and ponderous on the K-5, the K-3 is much quicker. With reasonable shot discipline there is no waiting at all.
The viewfinder was dark. Serious shooters changed the focus screen. The K-3 is much better.
Live view focus on the K-5 just didn't work due to lag. It didn't update fast enough so it required very very slow focus adjustments, and a wait to see the results.
The K-5 also had an anti-aliasing filter which softened the images. There are lots of people still shooting the K-5, and the sensor quality is exceptional, the K5IIS is a classic body.
It really depends on what you shoot. But there is a very big difference between the two. I purchased one K3 intending to keep the K5 as a second body with different lenses on it. Nope, bought a second K3.