Originally posted by tuco And he also said a D750 was on the table so that makes a comparison to that camera significant.
I think it goes without saying the D750 would be better, and a lot more expensive, but if money is no object...
I've had long extensive back and forth's with a couple D750 shooters, and I'm satisfied it's better for many things. For example dogs running straight at you. However during the course of the discussion I discovered i really don't care much for photos of dogs running straight at me, and that the reason I have so few images of them running straight at me is, I delete them, in focus or out of focus doesn't matter. I'm not sure children, that are really not that fast moving would be a problem for a K-3.
So while someone might suggest that the K-3 isn't as good as a D750 for that kind of thing in general terms, for the individual and what they shoot, it's also possible they'd never use the potential of the D750 and really a K-3 was all they needed in the first place.
My basic philosophy is save money by buying what you actually need. Others seem to have a "buy the most expensive ting with the most capability out there that's spec sheet is vaguely related to what you might be doing."
As noted, AF systems are exponentially expensive. And there are situations where the K-3 superior frame rate is going to leave a D750 in the dust. That more complicated AF system comes with a possible price to pay in overall prefermance. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it gets in the way.
Funny, I'm not the one who owns a D750, but I'm the one who ends up discussing it. Wat wid dat? Do I have to sell every camera system in existence?