K200D upgrade: K-5 IIs, K-3, or K-3 II?

Jools · 12-20-2016, 07:02 PM

Planning to upgrade from a K200D to a used K-3, K-3 II or a K-5 IIs, and to ultimately go the full frame route.
But for now, I am focusing on these three in large part because I can add a battery grip ( a must for my comfort).

I have been reading reviews on the trio of bodies as well as forum discussions to get a better sense of their strengths/weaknesses, features and what not. I am still undecided on which one is best for my needs. I am leaning for the K-5 IIs because of the used market price and the grip is cheaper but...

For background, I use m42 and K mount lenses about 90% of the time and do not really use AF in the remaining stable of my glass. I take mostly landscape photos, macro, nature and low light situational images. Not much of action photography unless the occasional wildlife situation arises.

The K200D has served me well and still does.I am not parting with them (I have two both purchased here on PF). I just want a technological update with a newer sensor and larger files.

So I welcome any input from current and previous users that can help steer me in the right direction.

MarkJerling · 12-20-2016, 07:27 PM

If you're aiming for the K-1, would it make sense to go to the K-3 as an intermediate? Of the three, my choice would be the K-3 or the K3II. But, if I could afford it, I'd buy a K-1. That can be had with a battery grip as well. I do like the battery grip with my K-5!

Unregistered User 8 · 12-20-2016, 07:27 PM

Hi Julio. I went from the K20D to the K-3 and have been impressed the change very much. Like you, I too enjoy macro, and the difference in resolution has been excellent for recording fine detail in close up subjects. My technique needed improving as my flaws became more apparent, but this is a good thing, and I think that I take better images with the K-3 now that I ever could have with the K20D. Good luck with whichever body you choose. They all have strengths and weaknesses.

**paulh** · 12-20-2016, 07:44 PM

Hey Jools - I finally added a K-5 to my stable after years of using the CCD-sensor bodies. Like you, I don't much need high-speed AF, but two big differences stand out for me. First, the increase in dynamic range is amazing. Second, the color rendering took some time to adjust to, and I didn't much like it at first. But the increased resolution is very handy when you need cropping. I still love my *istD and K10D and shoot with them often, but the technological leap is undeniable. I think you'd be happy with any of your choices as a lead-in to eventual full-frame.

**caliscouser** · 12-20-2016, 08:20 PM

Choosing from 3 great cameras. Nice problem to have

I'm biased, but I'd vote for K-5IIs. Used pricing is great and it is the dynamic range champ of the three.

MadMathMind · 12-20-2016, 08:34 PM

If you're planning on going to the K-1, you might want to wait until you can. Question is how far are you along and how long until you could make that purchase? You'll have to retool your lens kits, almost certainly, because the K-1 will change how you shoot. It would be unwise, for instance, to upgrade to something like a K-3 and sink a bunch of cash into lenses, most of which you will divest yourself of when you move to the K-1.

**caliscouser** · 12-20-2016, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by MadMathMind

If you're planning on going to the K-1, you might want to wait until you can. Question is how far are you along and how long until you could make that purchase? You'll have to retool your lens kits, almost certainly, because the K-1 will change how you shoot. It would be unwise, for instance, to upgrade to something like a K-3 and sink a bunch of cash into lenses, most of which you will divest yourself of when you move to the K-1.

Good point. Although after switching to K5IIs/K3/K3II, you may conclude you don't need a K-1.

C_Jones · 12-20-2016, 08:42 PM

I have the K-3II and the K-5IIS. They are both great performers. The images they get are excellent. The K-3II is the newer camera with new features, like more User modes accessible on a dial, built in GPS, pixel shift resolution, and 24 megapixel for nice detail which is hard to beat when referring to the K-5IIS. Both utilize the absence of the low-pass filter for nice detail that earlier models such as the K-5 did not. The AF may be somewhat more advanced in the K-3II, with it being the newer model, but the K-5IIS AF is capable of a lot. The built in flash on the K-5IIS is handy for use of the off camera wireless flash shooting feature, where with the K-3II you have to utilize a flash head on the hot shoe in order to utilize the feature. Radio triggers are also available for wireless off camera flash, so that would be an option for either of the cameras anyway.

Good luck with your decision.

surfar · 12-20-2016, 11:08 PM

Don't make a fuss,just get on the bus!

The K1 bus!....you will definitely notice the "upgrade" !

Jonathan Mac · 12-20-2016, 11:18 PM

I upgraded from the K200D to the K3 and I don't regret it. I was very, very close to going with the K5II instead (the price was much lower) but I don't often upgrade and a couple of hundred extra to get a better camera to use for the next five years or more were worth it, and in the end what swayed it for me were the improved AF and focus peaking. From the sound of things the former wouldn't be much use to you (though if you use focus confirmation it is) but the second might be extremely useful as it allows much more precision when manually focusing in live-view. I use a mix of manual and AF lenses so both of them are useful to me.

The viewfinder on the K3 is much better than the one on the K200D and I find I can focus manually quite well, even without a Katzeye screen (which I have in my K200D). I'm not certain that the K5II has the same viewfinder as the K3, that might be worth checking.

I would certainly choose the original K3 over the mark II as a built in flash (for fill) is far more useful than a GPS. Whatever model you go for, you will certainly notice the upgrade from the K200D. I still love mine but these newer models are in a different league, especially for manual focusing.

Jools · 12-21-2016, 04:53 AM

Cool. A lot of good comments and insights into these bodies.
Yeah, I guess there is some decision making to be made. And ultimately just get one and run with it.
Thanks for your quick responses.

noelpolar · 12-21-2016, 05:06 AM

I went K200d to K5II to K3 and now K-1. I shoot some manual glass..... I'd recomend the K3 (or K3 II) for manual glass because of the focus peaking mostly.... better viewfinder then the K5II as well for manual focus.

**PenPusher** · 12-21-2016, 05:32 AM

I find that the sensor in my K7 does not really give a good image if used above ISO 500 which makes low winter light photography rather unrewarding, so I have been looking at both the K5 IIs 16Mp and the K3 24Mp. Seat of the pants reckoning says that the K3 should be way better but as I have no dealer anyway near to me and cannot see for myself I have to buy on guess work. There seems to be a cost difference of around €200 between them depending on currency exchange rates which is quite a lot of money to a pensioner.

So as some of you seem to have both cameras or have at least used both I would appreciate some discussion on their attributes.

CD

---------- Post added 12-21-2016 at 12:35 PM ----------

Sorry, I should have said their sensor's attributes.

mcgregni · 12-21-2016, 03:32 PM

Its a no brainer really I think ..... with all your manual focus lenses then the focus peaking feature on the K3 has to be THE main drawcard..... There is a 2 stage Manual flash setting also for the built-in flash, which would be useful in conjunction with the manual focus lenses (they are not compatible for P-TTL automatic flash exposures). The K5II does not have either of these two features.

**onlineflyer** · 12-21-2016, 04:18 PM

I own and shoot a lot on manual lens. I also own both the K-5iis and K-3, both bought used from the marketplace with less than 5,000 shutter count over the past 12 months. My K-3 was $100 more than the K-5iis. Given the advanced features of the newer camera, I suggest you wait for a nice, low count K-3 to appear in the marketplace. Either camera would be a significant upgrade, it's just that the K-3 is an awesome camera.

12-20-2016, 07:02 PM	#1
Jools Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: SW Wisconsin by way of Venezuela Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,398	K200D upgrade: K-5 IIs, K-3, or K-3 II? Planning to upgrade from a K200D to a used K-3, K-3 II or a K-5 IIs, and to ultimately go the full frame route. But for now, I am focusing on these three in large part because I can add a battery grip ( a must for my comfort). I have been reading reviews on the trio of bodies as well as forum discussions to get a better sense of their strengths/weaknesses, features and what not. I am still undecided on which one is best for my needs. I am leaning for the K-5 IIs because of the used market price and the grip is cheaper but... For background, I use m42 and K mount lenses about 90% of the time and do not really use AF in the remaining stable of my glass. I take mostly landscape photos, macro, nature and low light situational images. Not much of action photography unless the occasional wildlife situation arises. The K200D has served me well and still does.I am not parting with them (I have two both purchased here on PF). I just want a technological update with a newer sensor and larger files. So I welcome any input from current and previous users that can help steer me in the right direction.

12-20-2016, 08:42 PM	#8
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,084	I have the K-3II and the K-5IIS. They are both great performers. The images they get are excellent. The K-3II is the newer camera with new features, like more User modes accessible on a dial, built in GPS, pixel shift resolution, and 24 megapixel for nice detail which is hard to beat when referring to the K-5IIS. Both utilize the absence of the low-pass filter for nice detail that earlier models such as the K-5 did not. The AF may be somewhat more advanced in the K-3II, with it being the newer model, but the K-5IIS AF is capable of a lot. The built in flash on the K-5IIS is handy for use of the off camera wireless flash shooting feature, where with the K-3II you have to utilize a flash head on the hot shoe in order to utilize the feature. Radio triggers are also available for wireless off camera flash, so that would be an option for either of the cameras anyway. Good luck with your decision. Last edited by C_Jones; 12-20-2016 at 09:00 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-70 or used k-3/k-3 II?	gelokrol	Pentax K-70 & KF	83	03-14-2017 09:00 PM
Wanted - Acquired: KatzEye Focus Screen for K-3 (K-3, K-5, K-5II, K-7, K-30, K-50, K-500), New or LN	fwcetus	Sold Items	15	05-07-2016 08:01 PM
K-5 owner looking to upgrade to K-3 or K-3ii	LeDave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	08-07-2015 06:31 AM
K-5 ii/iis or Pentax k-3 for me	kricha6431	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	22	11-01-2013 11:42 AM

12-20-2016, 07:27 PM	#2
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,405	If you're aiming for the K-1, would it make sense to go to the K-3 as an intermediate? Of the three, my choice would be the K-3 or the K3II. But, if I could afford it, I'd buy a K-1. That can be had with a battery grip as well. I do like the battery grip with my K-5!

12-20-2016, 07:27 PM	#3
Unregistered User 8 Closed Account Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,694	Hi Julio. I went from the K20D to the K-3 and have been impressed the change very much. Like you, I too enjoy macro, and the difference in resolution has been excellent for recording fine detail in close up subjects. My technique needed improving as my flaws became more apparent, but this is a good thing, and I think that I take better images with the K-3 now that I ever could have with the K20D. Good luck with whichever body you choose. They all have strengths and weaknesses.

12-20-2016, 07:44 PM	#4
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,258	Hey Jools - I finally added a K-5 to my stable after years of using the CCD-sensor bodies. Like you, I don't much need high-speed AF, but two big differences stand out for me. First, the increase in dynamic range is amazing. Second, the color rendering took some time to adjust to, and I didn't much like it at first. But the increased resolution is very handy when you need cropping. I still love my *istD and K10D and shoot with them often, but the technological leap is undeniable. I think you'd be happy with any of your choices as a lead-in to eventual full-frame.

12-20-2016, 08:20 PM	#5
caliscouser Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,037	Choosing from 3 great cameras. Nice problem to have I'm biased, but I'd vote for K-5IIs. Used pricing is great and it is the dynamic range champ of the three.

12-20-2016, 08:34 PM	#6
MadMathMind Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,717	If you're planning on going to the K-1, you might want to wait until you can. Question is how far are you along and how long until you could make that purchase? You'll have to retool your lens kits, almost certainly, because the K-1 will change how you shoot. It would be unwise, for instance, to upgrade to something like a K-3 and sink a bunch of cash into lenses, most of which you will divest yourself of when you move to the K-1.

12-20-2016, 08:37 PM	#7
caliscouser Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,037	Originally posted by MadMathMind If you're planning on going to the K-1, you might want to wait until you can. Question is how far are you along and how long until you could make that purchase? You'll have to retool your lens kits, almost certainly, because the K-1 will change how you shoot. It would be unwise, for instance, to upgrade to something like a K-3 and sink a bunch of cash into lenses, most of which you will divest yourself of when you move to the K-1. Good point. Although after switching to K5IIs/K3/K3II, you may conclude you don't need a K-1.

12-20-2016, 11:08 PM	#9
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,139	Don't make a fuss,just get on the bus! The K1 bus!....you will definitely notice the "upgrade" !

12-20-2016, 11:18 PM	#10
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	I upgraded from the K200D to the K3 and I don't regret it. I was very, very close to going with the K5II instead (the price was much lower) but I don't often upgrade and a couple of hundred extra to get a better camera to use for the next five years or more were worth it, and in the end what swayed it for me were the improved AF and focus peaking. From the sound of things the former wouldn't be much use to you (though if you use focus confirmation it is) but the second might be extremely useful as it allows much more precision when manually focusing in live-view. I use a mix of manual and AF lenses so both of them are useful to me. The viewfinder on the K3 is much better than the one on the K200D and I find I can focus manually quite well, even without a Katzeye screen (which I have in my K200D). I'm not certain that the K5II has the same viewfinder as the K3, that might be worth checking. I would certainly choose the original K3 over the mark II as a built in flash (for fill) is far more useful than a GPS. Whatever model you go for, you will certainly notice the upgrade from the K200D. I still love mine but these newer models are in a different league, especially for manual focusing.

12-21-2016, 04:53 AM	#11
Jools Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: SW Wisconsin by way of Venezuela Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,398 Original Poster	Cool. A lot of good comments and insights into these bodies. Yeah, I guess there is some decision making to be made. And ultimately just get one and run with it. Thanks for your quick responses.

12-21-2016, 05:06 AM	#12
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	I went K200d to K5II to K3 and now K-1. I shoot some manual glass..... I'd recomend the K3 (or K3 II) for manual glass because of the focus peaking mostly.... better viewfinder then the K5II as well for manual focus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2016, 05:32 AM	#13
PenPusher Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,048	I find that the sensor in my K7 does not really give a good image if used above ISO 500 which makes low winter light photography rather unrewarding, so I have been looking at both the K5 IIs 16Mp and the K3 24Mp. Seat of the pants reckoning says that the K3 should be way better but as I have no dealer anyway near to me and cannot see for myself I have to buy on guess work. There seems to be a cost difference of around €200 between them depending on currency exchange rates which is quite a lot of money to a pensioner. So as some of you seem to have both cameras or have at least used both I would appreciate some discussion on their attributes. CD ---------- Post added 12-21-2016 at 12:35 PM ---------- Sorry, I should have said their sensor's attributes.

12-21-2016, 03:32 PM	#14
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	Its a no brainer really I think ..... with all your manual focus lenses then the focus peaking feature on the K3 has to be THE main drawcard..... There is a 2 stage Manual flash setting also for the built-in flash, which would be useful in conjunction with the manual focus lenses (they are not compatible for P-TTL automatic flash exposures). The K5II does not have either of these two features.

12-21-2016, 04:18 PM	#15
onlineflyer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: NW Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,091	I own and shoot a lot on manual lens. I also own both the K-5iis and K-3, both bought used from the marketplace with less than 5,000 shutter count over the past 12 months. My K-3 was $100 more than the K-5iis. Given the advanced features of the newer camera, I suggest you wait for a nice, low count K-3 to appear in the marketplace. Either camera would be a significant upgrade, it's just that the K-3 is an awesome camera.