[MyInkIsMyArt]

.....

---

Last edited by MyInkIsMyArt; 08-20-2015 at 07:45 AM.

[LeDave]

More megapixels
better low light AF
more AF points
better AF tracking
significantly more continuous shooting rate
more powerful processor
larger viewfinder
slightly larger screen with more pixels
more capable video recording
dual SD slots

[Davidparis]

K-5 ----------------- vs ----------------K-3
740 shot battery --------------------560 shot battery
600ms startup delay --------------900ms startup delay
104ms shutter lag ------------------138ms shutter lag
14.1 dynamic range ---------------13.4 dynamic range
740g body only ---------------------800g body only

To me, the most vital factors I look at when choosing a camera are;
-low light performance
-dynamic range
-battery life
-weather sealed

Overall resolution is good, but anything 12mp and up I am happy with. Other than that, all the other stats are not important to me. I don't do video, I don't shoot sports, I don't care about how many points of auto focus there are, as half of the time I manual focus and the other half of the time I focus in the middle and then adjust the frame with the focus area locked it, etc.
The K-3 is a great camera without a doubt, and I am not trying to put it down or put down anyone who owns one. I am just thinking to myself that the only clear advantages to a K-3 would be 24mp vs 16mp, two card slots vs one, and 1080 @30fps (or 720 @60fps) vs 1080 @25fps.
Again, I never shoot video...at all... and a majority of the photographers that I know don't shoot video either. The ones who do have a dedicated camera just for their video work. So really, the K-3 gives 24mp and an extra card slot. But the K-5 has better dynamic range, better battery life, is lighter, has the same low light performance, the same color depth, as well as sharing many other strong points with the K-3.
So, is 24mp and an extra card slot enough to justify upgrading your camera? Or is there something I am completely missing here?

I would like to emphasize that I really am not trying to step on any toes, just honestly curious as to others' opinions.

It also "allows" you to upgrade your computer or HDD in order to handle the extra required storage capacity...!

[BrianR]

What's the point of this thread? So people can tell you what they like about the k-3 over the k-5 series and you can tell them it's not important to you or that the improvements are negligible? It looks like you've done all the paper research on the k-3 you can, if it's not for you, then it's not for you.

Everyone has their own preferences. Get the camera that suits yours.

[pepperberry farm]

you can buy one new vs used, therefore you can get warranty coverage if need be... in buying used, you never know if you're simply adopting someone else's abused problem or not....

[DennisH]

He listed several upgrades; that is why it's popular. If they only needed to sell to you, Ricoh would be out of business. Just because a feature isn't important to you doesn't mean it's not a feature.

[Imp]

The k-5 has an aa filter, the k-3 doesn't but has an optional sensor shake system to simulate it.
And for me, video does matter.

You have an interesting point - they say its such a better camera, but is it really??
I'm still loving my k-30.

[derekkite]

"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.

[VoiceOfReason]

I used a K5 for quite some time and then upgraded to the K3. Yes, it was an upgrade. Now the K5 languishes on the shelf.

[dcumpian]

Yes, try one. I think it will sell itself.

Dan

[Chaos_Realm]

"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.

Before I say anything else: I shoot with a K5 and don't plan to buy a K-3 as overall for me personally the upgrade is not worth it.

A couple of responses to your comments. But I think the key thing to remember this camera is being designed to suit the needs of a wider audience which given the popularity, it is doing something right.


"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).
I personally have issues with AF in tungsten light front and back focus - Apparently the k3 AF system doesn't have this issue. More (and smaller?) cross type AF points would allow better composition with selective focus point instead of move camera - lock focus - return camera to desired framing.

"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.
8.3Vs7 fps to a sport/bird shooter can be significant - not hugely but it can be the difference between getting the moment and missing the moment.

"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.
One area you will see processor advantage will be when you are shooting JPEG+Raw with filters and noise reduction etc. Obviously not used by everyone.
"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.
Larger screen is more of a luxury I suppose to make it easier to review images for focus/composition

"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).
I would say 24p is another key point - this is an industry standard which gives a certain look which some people prefer - comes from the non-digital film industry. And there are a lot of people that work in 24p workflows. Also 25fps to 30fps is quite noticeable as it produces much smoother motion. I am an amateur that likes to take my camera with me on trips up to the Alpine region here in Australia for snowboarding. Shooting fast paced action in video lends itself to slowing down in post for better effect - 720p @60fps would be nice to have.(I have a K-5) and 30fps doesn't give you much (if any head way here)

[dcBear78]

Focus peaking in live view. Better button layout. I believe it works better with TTL flashes.

[WPRESTO]

I do prefer the K3 to my K5 to carry around. It seems to respond faster and is always ready for the next shot, even if I've just fired a burst. I do use the screen for focusing, doing macro work, and I like the focus peaking feature. Shutter response when using the screen is also faster. However, I do still use not only the K5, but an older K20D. The latter has a feature I miss on both newer bodies: a switch to turn on-off the VR sensor shift when the camera is off-on a tripod. Particularly walking about, I often often switch from hand-held to tripod and I'm constantly forgetting to open the "information" panel and change the VR setting on the K3, and that process is not nearly as convenient as the little switch on the K20D. Wonder if I can assign the green button to be a VR on-off? Doubt it. How about the new FF automatically turning off VR when a cable release is inserted? Nope, I'd rather have the flip-switch back.

[ddamski]

Better mettering for proper exposures and the most important for me.. The dynamic range is maybe in the paper better, because of the ISO 80 of the K-5, but try recovering shadows and highlights from the K-3 and then from the K-5.. Big improvement! When i work with lightroom and i play with the raw files the difference is noticeable, maybe other members can confirm this ;-) the reason is: almost same dynamic range with 16mp and 24mp.. is in favor of the 24mp sensor clearly.
Better display, no AA filter and better autofocus are already mentioned.. and are useful upgrades which are worth the extra cost (at least for myself and other people)

[VoiceOfReason]

In your day to day use, what sort of things stood out to you the most?

Autofocus in all ways (accuracy, low light, speed), sharper photos due to no AA filter, more detail due to more MP, more accurate metering, and less noise in low light photos.