For those who use a 16MP Pentax as your primary camera - upgrade in 2016?

pathdoc · 12-30-2015, 08:55 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia

Comparing the K-30/K-50 12 bit files to the K-5 & K-5II 14 bit files, the difference in image quality can be noticed from ISO 800 & above.

Interesting. I was on the knife edge for K-30 vs K-5 for a while when my *ist-DL died, and although either would have been a MASSIVE upgrade, it appears I made the best choice in every way. So good, in fact, that I can't justify an upgrade for anything less than the death of my camera AND the appearance of something substantially different and markedly better in every way. (Although had there never been a full-frame or even the thought of one, the K-3 would have loomed firm in my future as the upgrade pathway for my professional work.)

MikeD · 12-30-2015, 08:58 AM

I have a K5 -If they upgrade the K3II in 2016 and include a tilting screen I will upgrade if the K3II had a tilt screen I would have upgraded then. I believe even though all the attention is going to the FF that they will upgrade the K3II in 2016 and I believe it will be a big one since the refresh of the K3 was a minor upgrade. I am hoping for better auto focus, better video, TILTING screen, I don't need more MP but will take em if they got em. I have no intention of going FF at this time. If I ever (which is doubtful) get good enough at landscapes I will probably just jump right to large format for those.

**grahame** · 12-30-2015, 09:04 AM

I say "no" for APS camera. I really think 16-18 is a good balance point for general performance and resolution on APC-S sensor. Many lenses struggle on NEX-7's sensor. High resolution not only increases the details in the pictures, but also amplifies the short comings of the lens. Chromatic Aberration might count 2-3 pixels (because of small pixel) and looks worse at 100%, not because CA is worse. we might also see unsharp corners for the same reason.
diffraction will show up earlier, at F 5.6, which will also add more un-necessary limit to settings. Diffraction Limited Aperture= pixel size/1.22×wavelength. What shall we do for landscaping or macro? we use F 11-16 often for macro.
The only good thing for high resolution is AA filter can be removed without too much worrying, and we can get more details in the photos.

blende8 · 12-30-2015, 09:06 AM

I would upgrade to the next better S/N sensor.
So I did from the K20 to the K5.
The K3/K5 is like K7/K20. Basically the same S/N.
And since I am mostly a low-light shooter, this is my main point.

The Squirrel Mafia · 12-30-2015, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Interesting. I was on the knife edge for K-30 vs K-5 for a while when my *ist-DL died, and although either would have been a MASSIVE upgrade, it appears I made the best choice in every way. So good, in fact, that I can't justify an upgrade for anything less than the death of my camera AND the appearance of something substantially different and markedly better in every way. (Although had there never been a full-frame or even the thought of one, the K-3 would have loomed firm in my future as the upgrade pathway for my professional work.)

Yes. The difference between the K-30/K-50 & K-5 cameras is not a massive difference, but if you shot the same thing with the same settings at higher ISO, the K-5 series produces better results.

I wanted & still want a K-5IIs camera badly, but they're way too expensive brand new on the interwebs & I'm not big on buying used either 'cause they're still too expensive.

New Pentax K 5 IIS Digital SLR Camera Body Only Brand New 027075220737 | eBay

^ That's the cheapest I have seen for a new one, but it's still too pricey for me. B&H was selling these for $450 brand spanking new in January/February 2015. I could have bought one then, but I would have been limited to a single lens at the time of purchase & I wanted more lenses.

Pentax K 5 II Digital SLR Camera Body Only New 027075220386 | eBay

^ The pricing on the K-5II is even worse.

normhead · 12-30-2015, 09:25 AM

Quote:

The 14 bit RAW files make a pretty big difference at higher ISOs. Comparing the K-30/K-50 12 bit files to the K-5 & K-5II 14 bit files,

Interesting, I found just the opposite. I couldn't tell the difference between my K-5 and K-01 files. In fact i have and others have compared K-01 images to D800 images and seen very little difference, maybe a resolution difference, but no difference in preference as to which folks liked to look at. Higher resolution does not necessarily translate into a more pleasurable viewing experience. Something the technogeeks tend to completely ignore. And if you can say that a bout a K-01 and a D800, you can definitely say that about a K-30 or 50 and a K-3. I use the K-3 for wildlife and birds, because often by the time the shutter goes the creature has moved, and I'll need to crop. Often in those circumstances you don't have time to frame as tightly as you'd like.

I did look at a D610 once, it was nice, but then the K-3 came out and it didn't have nearly as much to offer with the K-3 being such a dramatic improvement in AF. The low light performance is only improved if you are willing to accept (or want) narrower depth of field. People tend to ignore that. Same DoF, same low light performance.

I do know I don't like the 1EV loss in Dynamic Range between a K-5 and K-3. The 16 MP sensors do have their advantages.

bertwert · 12-30-2015, 09:45 AM

I've got my K-50 until I can afford another camera (4-5 years...)

pathdoc · 12-30-2015, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by normhead

The 16 MP sensors do have their advantages.

This is another reason I am loath to trade up.

Originally posted by normhead

Higher resolution does not necessarily translate into a more pleasurable viewing experience. Something the technogeeks tend to completely ignore.

I find it surprising that for all their supposed geekery, they miss the fact that a lot happens between the sensor face and the memory card which has nothing to do with the physical structure of either. YouTube's Angry Photographer belabored this point almost incessantly a short while back, and all I could do was nod agreement. Yes, it's nice to have the megapixels, all else being equal, but there is that little thing called signal processing which (pace certain unique and idiosyncratic lens profiles) is ultimately responsible for the way a particular maker's cameras render an image.

Fenwoodian · 12-30-2015, 10:03 AM

I print BIG. That's my thing.

Earlier this year I went from K5IIs to K3II. I believe that the increase from 16mp to 24mp was noticeable in my large prints.

If you don't print large, there's probably little reason to upgrade - especially if you are shooting RAW files.

However, when you take that "one-in-a-million" potential award-winning photo, you will probably wish that you had a 24mp camera instead of a 16mp one!

dafbp · 12-30-2015, 10:11 AM

When my 112K+ K5 started acting funnier than usual (not just the AF acting up, but also the shutter button) on a Saturday, in the middle of a 6 days airshow, I ran and bought a used K5IIs (12K+) that same day, and used the old one as 2nd body for lenses <=50mm.

So I'm not salivating for the FF, just waiting to see what it brings in terms of AF, DR and noise, in that order.
Then I'll decide between upgrading the main body to FF when it goes down in price, or waiting for the next APS-C IF they decide to keep doing top notch APS cameras ( instead of a crop friendly FF + consumer APS).
If they drop the K3 replacement, no choice, I'll just have to wait till I can afford the FF + wide angle lens that it deserves.

normhead · 12-30-2015, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Fenwoodian

I print BIG. That's my thing.

Earlier this year I went from K5IIs to K3II. I believe that the increase from 16mp to 24mp was noticeable in my large prints.

If you don't print large, there's probably little reason to upgrade - especially if you are shooting RAW files.

However, when you take that "one-in-a-million" potential award-winning photo, you will probably wish that you had a 24mp camera instead of a 16mp one!

Interesting, but also pretty meaningless without knowing how big is big.

I think of my 20x30 prints as big, but, I can't say I notice a difference at that size. So, I'm really curious.

pathdoc · 12-30-2015, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by dafbp

IF they decide to keep doing top notch APS cameras ( instead of a crop friendly FF + consumer APS).

Bear in mind that even if there are no more APS-C flagships as such, a lot of the improvements that are developed for the FF and its successors WILL be directly applicable to APS-C. So the consumer APS-C three generations from now could (and probably will) end up making the K3 family look like *istDLs in comparison. Maybe it will not have all the bells and whistles, but it will have enough of them to be a fitting replacement. And if they do want to continue an APS-C flagship line, it will be a lot easier to fit an APS-C sensor into a full-frame shell (perhaps with a touch of downsizing, and removal of obviously redundant modes from the menu knob) than the other way around.

Although I have to admit, I'm hoping at some stage for the sort of miracle of repackaging that accompanied the transition from the K to the M series 40 years ago. If they can do that, I'm on board big time.

RonHendriks1966 · 12-30-2015, 10:40 AM

I have my K-01 and at this moment no plans for making budget free for camera gear in 2016. I'm going to New York in may and I think the K-01 is just fine.

normhead · 12-30-2015, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

I have my K-01 and at this moment no plans for making budget free for camera gear in 2016. I'm going to New York in may and I think the K-01 is just fine.

I think a lot of folks need to investigate more.

"Do I really see a difference, or do I imagine a difference because I know which is which?" Both are possible, and I've seen more imaginary improvements comparing cameras than I've seen real improvements. The odds are, pre-knowledge of which is which clouds your judgement. I'm sure people find differences, Im not saying there is no difference. But, which is more pleasing to look at? My K-01 images stack up with anything I own. I use it anywhere I think is going to be a live view situation. And in that circumstance, I prefer it to either my K-3 or K-5.

Sometimes you just don't want to have to glue your face to the back of the camera.

RonHendriks1966 · 12-30-2015, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I think a lot of folks need to investigate more.

"Do I really see a difference, or do I imagine a difference because I know which is which?" Both are possible, and I've seen more imaginary improvements comparing cameras than I've seen real improvements. The odds are, pre-knowledge of which is which clouds your judgement. I'm sure people find differences, Im not saying there is no difference. But, which is more pleasing to look at? My K-01 images stack up with anything I own. I use it anywhere I think is going to be a live view situation. And in that circumstance, I prefer it to either my K-3 or K-5.

Sometimes you just don't want to have to glue your face to the back of the camera.

I still have to look at images from my last holiday. Not in a hurry. They bring more memory's if I wait longer.

View Poll Results: Do you plan to upgrade to a new 20+MP Pentax in 2016?
Most likely Yes	71	34.30%
Most likely No	122	58.94%
Plan on switching camera systems	4	1.93%
Film, baby!	10	4.83%
Voters: 207. You may not vote on this poll

12-30-2015, 09:13 AM	#50
The Squirrel Mafia Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 3,054	Originally posted by pathdoc Interesting. I was on the knife edge for K-30 vs K-5 for a while when my ist-DL died, and although either would have been a MASSIVE upgrade, it appears I made the best choice in every way. So good, in fact, that I can't justify an upgrade for anything less than the death of my camera AND the appearance of something substantially different and markedly better in every way. (Although had there never been a full-frame or even the thought of one, the K-3 would have loomed firm in my future as the upgrade pathway for my professional work.) Yes. The difference between the K-30/K-50 & K-5 cameras is not a massive difference, but if you shot the same thing with the same settings at higher ISO, the K-5 series produces better results. I wanted & still want a K-5IIs camera badly, but they're way too expensive brand new on the interwebs & I'm not big on buying used either 'cause they're still too expensive. New Pentax K 5 IIS Digital SLR Camera Body Only Brand New 027075220737 \| eBay ^ That's the cheapest I have seen for a new one, but it's still too pricey for me. B&H was selling these for $450 brand spanking new in January/February 2015. I could have bought one then, but I would have been limited to a single lens at the time of purchase & I wanted more lenses. Pentax K 5 II Digital SLR Camera Body Only New 027075220386 \| eBay ^ The pricing on the K-5II is even worse. Last edited by The Squirrel Mafia; 12-30-2015 at 09:18 AM.*

12-30-2015, 09:25 AM	#51
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: The 14 bit RAW files make a pretty big difference at higher ISOs. Comparing the K-30/K-50 12 bit files to the K-5 & K-5II 14 bit files, Interesting, I found just the opposite. I couldn't tell the difference between my K-5 and K-01 files. In fact i have and others have compared K-01 images to D800 images and seen very little difference, maybe a resolution difference, but no difference in preference as to which folks liked to look at. Higher resolution does not necessarily translate into a more pleasurable viewing experience. Something the technogeeks tend to completely ignore. And if you can say that a bout a K-01 and a D800, you can definitely say that about a K-30 or 50 and a K-3. I use the K-3 for wildlife and birds, because often by the time the shutter goes the creature has moved, and I'll need to crop. Often in those circumstances you don't have time to frame as tightly as you'd like. I did look at a D610 once, it was nice, but then the K-3 came out and it didn't have nearly as much to offer with the K-3 being such a dramatic improvement in AF. The low light performance is only improved if you are willing to accept (or want) narrower depth of field. People tend to ignore that. Same DoF, same low light performance. I do know I don't like the 1EV loss in Dynamic Range between a K-5 and K-3. The 16 MP sensors do have their advantages. Last edited by normhead; 12-30-2015 at 01:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No Pentax RF so, bought a Yachica. It arrived in a bag! Who ships a camera in a bag?!	MD Optofonik	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	14	04-13-2014 06:21 PM
Hot tip for those who use the A7 and A7r with adapted lenses - Lens compensation	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	02-04-2014 01:58 PM
Is your in camera stabilization as good as a chicken?	vitalsax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	01-10-2009 03:40 PM
For those who did AF adjustment (via DEBUG) on your camera	frank	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	09-21-2007 04:00 AM
Who says you can't use your Zenitar as a macro?	NaClH2O	Post Your Photos!	16	05-26-2007 08:03 PM

12-30-2015, 08:55 AM	#46
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Comparing the K-30/K-50 12 bit files to the K-5 & K-5II 14 bit files, the difference in image quality can be noticed from ISO 800 & above. Interesting. I was on the knife edge for K-30 vs K-5 for a while when my *ist-DL died, and although either would have been a MASSIVE upgrade, it appears I made the best choice in every way. So good, in fact, that I can't justify an upgrade for anything less than the death of my camera AND the appearance of something substantially different and markedly better in every way. (Although had there never been a full-frame or even the thought of one, the K-3 would have loomed firm in my future as the upgrade pathway for my professional work.)

12-30-2015, 08:58 AM	#47
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	I have a K5 -If they upgrade the K3II in 2016 and include a tilting screen I will upgrade if the K3II had a tilt screen I would have upgraded then. I believe even though all the attention is going to the FF that they will upgrade the K3II in 2016 and I believe it will be a big one since the refresh of the K3 was a minor upgrade. I am hoping for better auto focus, better video, TILTING screen, I don't need more MP but will take em if they got em. I have no intention of going FF at this time. If I ever (which is doubtful) get good enough at landscapes I will probably just jump right to large format for those.

12-30-2015, 09:04 AM	#48
grahame Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,041	I say "no" for APS camera. I really think 16-18 is a good balance point for general performance and resolution on APC-S sensor. Many lenses struggle on NEX-7's sensor. High resolution not only increases the details in the pictures, but also amplifies the short comings of the lens. Chromatic Aberration might count 2-3 pixels (because of small pixel) and looks worse at 100%, not because CA is worse. we might also see unsharp corners for the same reason. diffraction will show up earlier, at F 5.6, which will also add more un-necessary limit to settings. Diffraction Limited Aperture= pixel size/1.22×wavelength. What shall we do for landscaping or macro? we use F 11-16 often for macro. The only good thing for high resolution is AA filter can be removed without too much worrying, and we can get more details in the photos.

12-30-2015, 09:06 AM	#49
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	I would upgrade to the next better S/N sensor. So I did from the K20 to the K5. The K3/K5 is like K7/K20. Basically the same S/N. And since I am mostly a low-light shooter, this is my main point.

12-30-2015, 09:45 AM	#52
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	I've got my K-50 until I can afford another camera (4-5 years...)

12-30-2015, 09:51 AM	#53
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by normhead The 16 MP sensors do have their advantages. This is another reason I am loath to trade up. Originally posted by normhead Higher resolution does not necessarily translate into a more pleasurable viewing experience. Something the technogeeks tend to completely ignore. I find it surprising that for all their supposed geekery, they miss the fact that a lot happens between the sensor face and the memory card which has nothing to do with the physical structure of either. YouTube's Angry Photographer belabored this point almost incessantly a short while back, and all I could do was nod agreement. Yes, it's nice to have the megapixels, all else being equal, but there is that little thing called signal processing which (pace certain unique and idiosyncratic lens profiles) is ultimately responsible for the way a particular maker's cameras render an image.

12-30-2015, 10:03 AM	#54
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	I print BIG. That's my thing. Earlier this year I went from K5IIs to K3II. I believe that the increase from 16mp to 24mp was noticeable in my large prints. If you don't print large, there's probably little reason to upgrade - especially if you are shooting RAW files. However, when you take that "one-in-a-million" potential award-winning photo, you will probably wish that you had a 24mp camera instead of a 16mp one!

12-30-2015, 10:11 AM	#55
dafbp Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 233	When my 112K+ K5 started acting funnier than usual (not just the AF acting up, but also the shutter button) on a Saturday, in the middle of a 6 days airshow, I ran and bought a used K5IIs (12K+) that same day, and used the old one as 2nd body for lenses <=50mm. So I'm not salivating for the FF, just waiting to see what it brings in terms of AF, DR and noise, in that order. Then I'll decide between upgrading the main body to FF when it goes down in price, or waiting for the next APS-C IF they decide to keep doing top notch APS cameras ( instead of a crop friendly FF + consumer APS). If they drop the K3 replacement, no choice, I'll just have to wait till I can afford the FF + wide angle lens that it deserves.

12-30-2015, 10:18 AM	#56
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Fenwoodian I print BIG. That's my thing. Earlier this year I went from K5IIs to K3II. I believe that the increase from 16mp to 24mp was noticeable in my large prints. If you don't print large, there's probably little reason to upgrade - especially if you are shooting RAW files. However, when you take that "one-in-a-million" potential award-winning photo, you will probably wish that you had a 24mp camera instead of a 16mp one! Interesting, but also pretty meaningless without knowing how big is big. I think of my 20x30 prints as big, but, I can't say I notice a difference at that size. So, I'm really curious.

12-30-2015, 10:20 AM	#57
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by dafbp IF they decide to keep doing top notch APS cameras ( instead of a crop friendly FF + consumer APS). Bear in mind that even if there are no more APS-C flagships as such, a lot of the improvements that are developed for the FF and its successors WILL be directly applicable to APS-C. So the consumer APS-C three generations from now could (and probably will) end up making the K3 family look like istDLs in comparison. Maybe it will not have all* the bells and whistles, but it will have enough of them to be a fitting replacement. And if they do want to continue an APS-C flagship line, it will be a lot easier to fit an APS-C sensor into a full-frame shell (perhaps with a touch of downsizing, and removal of obviously redundant modes from the menu knob) than the other way around. Although I have to admit, I'm hoping at some stage for the sort of miracle of repackaging that accompanied the transition from the K to the M series 40 years ago. If they can do that, I'm on board big time.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2015, 10:40 AM	#58
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I have my K-01 and at this moment no plans for making budget free for camera gear in 2016. I'm going to New York in may and I think the K-01 is just fine.

12-30-2015, 10:43 AM	#59
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 I have my K-01 and at this moment no plans for making budget free for camera gear in 2016. I'm going to New York in may and I think the K-01 is just fine. I think a lot of folks need to investigate more. "Do I really see a difference, or do I imagine a difference because I know which is which?" Both are possible, and I've seen more imaginary improvements comparing cameras than I've seen real improvements. The odds are, pre-knowledge of which is which clouds your judgement. I'm sure people find differences, Im not saying there is no difference. But, which is more pleasing to look at? My K-01 images stack up with anything I own. I use it anywhere I think is going to be a live view situation. And in that circumstance, I prefer it to either my K-3 or K-5. Sometimes you just don't want to have to glue your face to the back of the camera.

12-30-2015, 10:50 AM	#60
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by normhead I think a lot of folks need to investigate more. "Do I really see a difference, or do I imagine a difference because I know which is which?" Both are possible, and I've seen more imaginary improvements comparing cameras than I've seen real improvements. The odds are, pre-knowledge of which is which clouds your judgement. I'm sure people find differences, Im not saying there is no difference. But, which is more pleasing to look at? My K-01 images stack up with anything I own. I use it anywhere I think is going to be a live view situation. And in that circumstance, I prefer it to either my K-3 or K-5. Sometimes you just don't want to have to glue your face to the back of the camera. I still have to look at images from my last holiday. Not in a hurry. They bring more memory's if I wait longer.