[lesmore49]

I've had my K-5 since 2011. Still very happy with it's performance as I am with my ancient K10D from 100-400 ISO and my Km from 100 to 800 ISO. I have no intentions to get more than a 16 mp DSLR ASP-C, as I have now.

However the new FF Pentax is piquing my interest and the fact that it can handle ASP-C lenses at it's ASP-C setting and full frame at the FF setting. Will be dependent on price, quality and reviews...and my needs.

[RonHendriks1966]

Interesting! I'd be thinking that at that point, you would probably start seeing some pixelation when up close. Was the print of that girl on the bar (_IGP1897)? I take is that the PENTAX-FA* 85mm F1.4 helped a lot.

Printing is very different then many people think. No Pixelation! At last Photokina I also made one large print at Epson. From K-3 and maybe 31mm lens (could be 55mm). This was all pixels used and on the long end 44 inch. The guy from Epson said that printing twice the size would be no issue. So I was allowed to make this print on their 44 inch printer, but using the 64 inch printer would do good. That would make a 64x96 inch print at max and still be good. Also a portrait, studiolight and iso 100 on the K-3. Again, not trees with leavs and stuff, but still a lot of detail. That is still 3927 pixels per square inch.

[BearCreek]

I have a 16mp K30 and 24mp K3. The K30 is my general purpose body and the K3 is glued to the Sigma 150-500 for birds and wildlife. I would actually like to "down-pixel" and buy a Pentax FF body with the Sony 12mp sensor from the amazing see-in-the-dark Sony A7s. My dogs never do anything interesting under Sunny 16 conditions, but they do come to life in the evening, across the room from a 60 watt lamp. Ditto with most non-domestic wildlife.

[UplandGame]

I'm on my 3rd DSLR... into my second year with the K5iis. My plan?... staying on track with 5 years per body. So no. I have a few years to go, and this time around, I don't see anything yet that tempts me to move on to something new.

[beachgardener]

just bought a K-3, so next year, no, film will be my full frame for the moment, until the new FF is in and settled for maybe a year.

[reeftool]

My K5 is 4, going on 5 and gets heavy use so the thought of a new body is in the back of my mind. I'm not going to upgrade simply for the sake of upgrading. If my K5 fails, I will obviously need to replace it. When the FF arrives, it will certainly be something I will look at. I don't feel I need more megapickles so my feelings are mixed. File sizes are already huge. I shoot a lot and my photo files now consume 6 TB of hard drive space, including backups and not including online storage. I'm certainly not itching to run out and buy a camera that will have even bigger files and slow down my PP even more. Obviously, I don't have much choice in the matter since the marketing depts. of every camera manufacturer out there keeps shoving new sensors with with more pixels down our throats while ignoring most of the other issues that seem to never get addressed. Hey Pentax! Want to be really different? Build a camera that light meters a scene as good as the iPhone does and stop worrying about pixel counts!

[normhead]

I'm on my 3rd DSLR... into my second year with the K5iis. My plan?... staying on track with 5 years per body. So no. I have a few years to go, and this time around, I don't see anything yet that tempts me to move on to something new.

Damn, I wish I had your discipline... I just love new gadgets unfortunately.

[Oldbayrunner]

I'm on my 3rd DSLR... into my second year with the K5iis. My plan?... staying on track with 5 years per body. So no. I have a few years to go, and this time around, I don't see anything yet that tempts me to move on to something new.

I thought the same thing with my k5 lls until temptation on the K3 ll got the better of me. For just the few days I have had this camera there is a significant enough difference in photo quality, especially at higher iso (3200) straight out of the camera, to make it and the other features I opted to go for well worth the investment. I am however keeping my K5 lls as a second camera.

[RubyT]

I'm leaning K3, but I'm waiting to see what the FF has to offer. I've had my K5 nearly 5 years now, it still suits me really well, and I've also been shooting a lot of film lately.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Printing is very different then many people think. No Pixelation! At last Photokina I also made one large print at Epson. From K-3 and maybe 31mm lens (could be 55mm). This was all pixels used and on the long end 44 inch. The guy from Epson said that printing twice the size would be no issue. So I was allowed to make this print on their 44 inch printer, but using the 64 inch printer would do good. That would make a 64x96 inch print at max and still be good. Also a portrait, studiolight and iso 100 on the K-3. Again, not trees with leavs and stuff, but still a lot of detail. That is still 3927 pixels per square inch.

Ah! This is good to know. Thanks!

I'll try a low ISO 40x60 print out of my K-50 the next time around. It'll be something shot with my Pentax 35mm f2.4 or 50mm f1.8 lenses at a sharp aperture.

[jimr-pdx]

My hobby has mutated from photography to gear-swapping so I hope to hang on to this K50 for a full year. I doubt that I've had a single K-mount camera for that long since 1988, sad to say. I might shift my small cam from the Q to a samsung NX300; please don't tell my Q though..

[RonHendriks1966]

Ah! This is good to know. Thanks!

I'll try a low ISO 40x60 print out of my K-50 the next time around. It'll be something shot with my Pentax 35mm f2.4 or 50mm f1.8 lenses at a sharp aperture.

Remember that all flaws in your image will go large also.

[northcoastgreg]

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

I guess the real question is how noticeable? I can remember, when the K-3 first came out, looking at comparison images between the K-3 and the K-5iis. At 100% resolution, the K-3 images where sharper, but not by much. Indeed, the difference was on par with what I had seen between the K-5iis and K-5 (about 10%). 10% sharper is not going to be able to allow you to print much larger. And most of the extra sharpness was in the middle of the image. I can remember one set of images in which the K-3 images were less sharp toward the edges!

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that you really can produce images that resolve 50% more detail with the K-3 (over the K-5iis). Even then 50% won't let you print all that larger. 50% resolution would only allow you to go from, say, a 20 by 30 inch print to a little over 24 by 36" print and still preserve the same level of detail. That's not much. And that's assuming that you're really extracting 50% more detail from the 24 MP sensor (which I doubt ever happens). If, due to noise, diffraction, lens performance, etc. you're getting significantly less than 50% greater detail resolution from the 24 MP sensor, then the advantages of the greater MP starts to become largely insignificant.

I think the most significant reason to "upgrade" to the K-3 is for the superior AF, the dual card slots, and the greater responsiveness of the camera. In terms of image quality, it's largely a lateral move. With the K-3 you get a bit more resolution, but at the expense of less DR.

I'm sticking with my K-5iis' for the nonce. If Pentax delivers a 24 MP camera with the DR and ISO performance of the Nikon D7200, I'll give it a look. Short of that,16 MP is more than enough for me for the indefinite future. Nor am I inclined to sacrifice DR for the (mostly) empty promise of greater MP.

[luftfluss]

Wow, this has been a lot of run to read - and I've read every post!

I got the impression that a few folks inferred from the OP that megapickles was the reason for upgrading. I used the term simply to cover all the newer Pentax models. There are of course, multiple reasons to "upgrade" - megapickles is one, of course, but so are things like improved AF and more features... and maybe the desire for something new.

[normhead]

The increase in lw/ph according to Imagine Resources is from 2200 to 2700 so the resolution increase is less than 25% despite the 50% increase in MP. What that gives you is the ability to crop 23% of your image and still have k-5 resolution. That and the additional AF capability. The law of demising returns has set in with this sensor. A Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ1000 with a 1 inch sensors can achieve 2700 lw/ph but not beyond 125 ISO. Using current technology, you could get to 40 MP with an APS-c sensor but at the cost of low light performance.

If you're looking for 72 distinct lines per inch, you can get to 38 inches with a K-3 so apron. 30x40. But that's probably the low end of what folks will be happy with.That gets you an extra 7 inches over a K-5. 24x36 as opposed to 30x40. If you print 20x30 max like I do, I have to go a lot biggar before I see much improvement in my prints. And I have to go a lot bigger before I consider an F(fraction) F(frame). I have barely maxed out a K-5. A K-3 is a luxury. I like luxury. Extreme luxury.. like a 36 MP 35x24 . My guess is for 99% of current Pentax the 35x24 will be extreme luxury.