K3 vs K3ii for Astrophotography

Shepx13 · 12-08-2015, 07:57 AM

I've been shooting m4/3 for personal photography for a few years now, as an injury and schedule forced me out of doing weddings and events as I used to do so I moved away from a Nikon FX kit.

I'm ready to pick up a dslr to complement my current kit. I love my Em-1 setup, mostly, but it definitely doesn't have the same ergonomics as a dslr. I've narrowed my choices down to Nikon or Pentax.

I've been becoming more interested in wide-field astrophotography as of late. I'm aware of most of the differences between the k3 and k3ii, except for their use in astrophotography. Which leads to my question:

Is there any benefit to the k3ii over the k3 for Astrophotography use, beyond having the OGPS-1 built in? Any added functionality or improvement at all? (The price difference between the two at this time is roughly the cost of the OGPS-1, so I could get the k3 and have use of the built in flash for macro fill and add the GPS unit.)

bertwert · 12-08-2015, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Shepx13

Is there any benefit to the k3ii over the k3 for Astrophotography use, beyond having the OGPS-1 built in?

Not really, it does have pixel shift for non-astrophotography you can use that for still macro. (I see you mention macro)

**TER-OR** · 12-08-2015, 09:26 AM

Not for the Astrophotography, no. For my work, field macro, the K3II makes sense since it would be easy to mount a flash and have the GPS active. If you don't need GPS information tagged to your photos then the internal GPS is just more "stuff" in the body.

The Squirrel Mafia · 12-08-2015, 10:26 AM

The only benefit of the K-3II is that the OGPS-1 is built in & this helps to get better astrophotography from the get go. You'll have to add the unit to the K-3. Supposedly the SR in the K-3II is lightly better. According to some reviews, the continuous autofocus is better as well. The pixel shift feature could come in handy at times. You do give up the flash & the ability to fire off camera flashes, unless you attach a flash that can fire the off camera flashes.

Outside of those differences, image quality is exactly the same. If you attach the external GPS unit to the K-3, you get the exact same astrophotography results. I personally still rather get the K-3 over the K-3II, but if the price was right, I'd get the K-3II.

y0chang · 12-08-2015, 12:24 PM

One advantage of the built-in gps is the fact that you dont have to worry about the AAA battery. Also it frees up the flash mount for other accessories while using gps. This isnt as important in astro, but if you want to use flash and gps at the same time, you cant do that with the ogps-1 mounted. That being said...either one with the ogps-1 opens a whole world of possibilities. Here are some of my shots with the ogps-1 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/242797-k-3-astrophotograph...session-8.html

gifthorse · 12-08-2015, 01:38 PM

Having the flash mount free would be an advantage sometimes but will using the camera battery power the GPS be helpful, particularly since astro uses long exposures? In other words, isn't the built-in GPS consuming battery power that could be used for a few extra shots? Either way, the Pentax astrotracer function is a feature that sold me on the Pentax brand. On the plus side for the K3ii, the O-GPS won't snag and get torn off by a moment's inattention.

**TER-OR** · 12-08-2015, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by gifthorse

Having the flash mount free would be an advantage sometimes but will using the camera battery power the GPS be helpful, particularly since astro uses long exposures? In other words, isn't the built-in GPS consuming battery power that could be used for a few extra shots? Either way, the Pentax astrotracer function is a feature that sold me on the Pentax brand. On the plus side for the K3ii, the O-GPS won't snag and get torn off by a moment's inattention.

And you won't keep popping the flash open while hiking...

I think the GPS can be turned on and off, so it's not a constant drain.

MikeD · 12-08-2015, 07:51 PM

did anyone mention astrotracer in K3ii

Shepx13 · 12-09-2015, 07:38 AM

Thanks for the feedback guys. Looks like if I decide on the Pentax over the Nikon kit, I'll just base my decision between the k3 and k3 ii on price.

12-08-2015, 07:57 AM	#1
Shepx13 New Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 2	K3 vs K3ii for Astrophotography I've been shooting m4/3 for personal photography for a few years now, as an injury and schedule forced me out of doing weddings and events as I used to do so I moved away from a Nikon FX kit. I'm ready to pick up a dslr to complement my current kit. I love my Em-1 setup, mostly, but it definitely doesn't have the same ergonomics as a dslr. I've narrowed my choices down to Nikon or Pentax. I've been becoming more interested in wide-field astrophotography as of late. I'm aware of most of the differences between the k3 and k3ii, except for their use in astrophotography. Which leads to my question: Is there any benefit to the k3ii over the k3 for Astrophotography use, beyond having the OGPS-1 built in? Any added functionality or improvement at all? (The price difference between the two at this time is roughly the cost of the OGPS-1, so I could get the k3 and have use of the built in flash for macro fill and add the GPS unit.)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K3 vs K3ii	JLou	Pentax DSLR Discussion	27	10-28-2017 06:16 AM
K3ii vs K3 vs K5ii	seachongo	Pentax DSLR Discussion	43	07-24-2017 02:02 PM
K3 vs k3ii	Nerdlinger	Pentax DSLR Discussion	40	04-10-2016 01:19 PM
ks2 vs K3 vs K3II	Canukdragon	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	5	09-28-2015 12:42 AM
Contrast detect AF on K3 (and K3II) vs. K-01	yorik	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	3	08-25-2015 07:56 AM

12-08-2015, 09:12 AM	#2
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,172	Originally posted by Shepx13 Is there any benefit to the k3ii over the k3 for Astrophotography use, beyond having the OGPS-1 built in? Not really, it does have pixel shift for non-astrophotography you can use that for still macro. (I see you mention macro)

12-08-2015, 09:26 AM	#3
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Not for the Astrophotography, no. For my work, field macro, the K3II makes sense since it would be easy to mount a flash and have the GPS active. If you don't need GPS information tagged to your photos then the internal GPS is just more "stuff" in the body.

12-08-2015, 10:26 AM	#4
The Squirrel Mafia Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 3,056	The only benefit of the K-3II is that the OGPS-1 is built in & this helps to get better astrophotography from the get go. You'll have to add the unit to the K-3. Supposedly the SR in the K-3II is lightly better. According to some reviews, the continuous autofocus is better as well. The pixel shift feature could come in handy at times. You do give up the flash & the ability to fire off camera flashes, unless you attach a flash that can fire the off camera flashes. Outside of those differences, image quality is exactly the same. If you attach the external GPS unit to the K-3, you get the exact same astrophotography results. I personally still rather get the K-3 over the K-3II, but if the price was right, I'd get the K-3II.

12-08-2015, 12:24 PM	#5
y0chang Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: United States Posts: 793	One advantage of the built-in gps is the fact that you dont have to worry about the AAA battery. Also it frees up the flash mount for other accessories while using gps. This isnt as important in astro, but if you want to use flash and gps at the same time, you cant do that with the ogps-1 mounted. That being said...either one with the ogps-1 opens a whole world of possibilities. Here are some of my shots with the ogps-1 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/242797-k-3-astrophotograph...session-8.html

12-08-2015, 01:38 PM	#6
gifthorse Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Nevada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Having the flash mount free would be an advantage sometimes but will using the camera battery power the GPS be helpful, particularly since astro uses long exposures? In other words, isn't the built-in GPS consuming battery power that could be used for a few extra shots? Either way, the Pentax astrotracer function is a feature that sold me on the Pentax brand. On the plus side for the K3ii, the O-GPS won't snag and get torn off by a moment's inattention.

12-08-2015, 02:18 PM	#7
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Originally posted by gifthorse Having the flash mount free would be an advantage sometimes but will using the camera battery power the GPS be helpful, particularly since astro uses long exposures? In other words, isn't the built-in GPS consuming battery power that could be used for a few extra shots? Either way, the Pentax astrotracer function is a feature that sold me on the Pentax brand. On the plus side for the K3ii, the O-GPS won't snag and get torn off by a moment's inattention. And you won't keep popping the flash open while hiking... I think the GPS can be turned on and off, so it's not a constant drain.

12-08-2015, 07:51 PM	#8
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	did anyone mention astrotracer in K3ii

12-09-2015, 07:38 AM	#9
Shepx13 New Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 2 Original Poster	Thanks for the feedback guys. Looks like if I decide on the Pentax over the Nikon kit, I'll just base my decision between the k3 and k3 ii on price.