[ZombieArmy]

Hi, in the next year I really want to upgrade from my k-01 as it's becoming more apparent that it's holding me back in a lot of ways. The autofocus is usable but certainly not ideal, the lack of astrotracer support still irritates me to no end, the lack of WR is becoming a burden as I do more outdoor shots here in Florida (it rains very often during the summer months and I don't want to stop just because of it) and I really want to get the most out of my lenses with a camera that doesn't have an AA filter. I also probably want a lens with PLM at some point.

The main benefit it seems for the K-5 IIs is the price, for the same price as a k-3 used I can get the K-5 IIs plus a 18-135mm WR lens. Downside (for me) of course is the lack of focus peaking for manual lenses and the fact that I'm not gaining any resolution. Would it be better to save for a K-3 or K-70 instead and just save up for an 18-135mm later? I could always use an 18-55 WR in the meantime.

The camera I really wanted to save up for was the KP but I doubt I'd have anywhere near that amount of cash by the time I'd be looking to upgrade later this year.

[geomez]

Having owned the K-5IIs and currently owning a K-01 and K-3, I'd say that the K-3 is substantially better than the K-5IIs. Better build quality and ergonomics. Better resolution, AF, metering, lack of AA, faster operation, better live view, etc.

I've never used the K-70, but a few months ago I almost purchased one. My K-3 was stolen and I wanted to replace it. There were four reasons I went with the K-3 again over the K-70. They were battery continuity (D-LI90), battery grip (for use with telephoto), top plate LCD screen, and a dedicated ISO button not on the D pad. The ISO thing is huge for me, not only because of muscle memory, but because it's hugely convenient by comparison to Pentax's midrange implimentation.
Now, I made my decision in part because I use my K-3 primarily as a second body for telephoto work. If it was my main camera, I might go for the K-70 for the resolution, ISO performance, and articulating rear screen.

So my recommendation to you is to go either K-3 or K-70. Don't go K-5 IIs.

[WhiteFeather]

So my recommendation to you is to go either K-3 or K-70. Don't go K-5 IIs.

I totally agree with geomez.


The main reason why I choose the K-70 over the K-3/II (coming from a K-30) is the way better quality at high ISO, followed by the additional benefits of using the same batteries of the K-30, the built in flash (missing on the K-3II) and the tilting screen.


I'm not a Pro so the K-70 already has everything I need.

[microlight]

If you want a PLM lens at some point, then you'll need something newer than a K-5IIs, as currently the PLM will only work at full aperture with cameras older than the K-3.

[interested_observer]

I currently shoot with the K5IIs. I do know that one of these days, I will need to upgrade - however, for me, I feel no compelling urge to upgrade to any of the current bodies. I do night landscapes - both astro (Milky Way and otherwise). I love ISO 80 for normal night shots and ISO 1600 to 4000 for astro landscapes. I would like to have cleaner results at the higher ISO values - but not willing to give up DR at ISO 80. I also use the GPS tracker. The K1 would be a possibility (but I would probably need the 15-30 lens too) along with the KP. Right now, I am waiting to see what the new K3II replacement brings to the table. I am thinking that should be a good possibility given the K70 and KP performance - but who really knows. I also doubt that I would be an early adopter.

Right now, I am happy to wait and just go out shooting in the meantime. I have no idea why I feel no desire for the current bodies (not that they are bad in any way, but the K5IIs is so good), even the K1 does not move me. I could use my ZK 25/f2.8 for astro with the FF body which should equal the 18-35/f1.8 considering the larger sensor of the K1 - so that would be about an equal trade off - but I really want something that will be substantially better. So, I am very happy to wait for whatever that may be to come along.

In the mean time I continue to squirrel away spare dollars in my sock drawer for the body that eventually will peak my interest.

[pathdoc]

I would like to have cleaner results at the higher ISO values - but now willing to give up DR at ISO 80.

NOW willing, or NOT willing? Small typo, big difference!!!

I also probably want a lens with PLM at some point.

The K-5 series has not been firmware-enabled for these lenses, and currently there are no indications from Ricoh that they ever will be.

[ZombieArmy]

The K-5 series has not been firmware-enabled for these lenses, and currently there are no indications from Ricoh that they ever will be.

Oh that's unfortunate

[robgski]

Used K-3 cameras are showing up on PF for a reasonable price, IMO, if all you want is a new body with the right features, that's what I'd recommend.

[ZombieArmy]

Used K-3 cameras are showing up on PF for a reasonable price, IMO, if all you want is a new body with the right features, that's what I'd recommend.

The K-3 seems really compelling, I really dig the quieter shutter. Only things making me feel like a K-70 would be better is the tilty flippy screen and the ISO performance. The shutter on the K-70 is pretty darn loud though it seems.

[pres589]

I'm curious what examples of "better build quality" can be pointed to in a K-5 II/IIs vs K-3 comparison. My K-5 II seems very well made and solid. It's also quite good in low light and there's some indication that it exceeds the K-3's there.

When I picked up a K-1 last summer I felt like the K-5's ergonomics were better. K-3, I can't really say, but I quite like the K-5's. Perhaps this is a hand sizing issue; the K-5 really works for me.

That said, right now between the K-70, K-P, or K-3/K-3 II I don't think a Pentax buyer can go wrong. PLM and the KAF4 mount would push me to something newer unless I was buying a body for manual glass, in which case a K-5 II or IIs would get my nod. And then add a split focus screen.

[C_Jones]

I have the K-3II and K-5IIs. If you are looking to upgrade, the K-5IIs definitely will not disappoint you with respect to excellent image quality and control functions/features. What the K-3II does is bring some new advanced features such as pixel shift resolution, built in GPS, more User modes on dial, some quicker AF (though the K-5IIs AF is effective), and more detail in cases where the subject is distant. The K-5IIs is well known for being equivalent to or not being far behind the more recent bodies in ways, with the more recent bodies still showing some feature and performance advancement. That is why there are numerous threads like this. Ever since the K-5IIs brought more image detail to the K-5 quality due to its lack of an AA (anti-aliasing) filter, and other attributes, it has been known as a stable performer.

Just advice.

Good luck with your selection.

---------- Post added 03-23-17 at 12:16 PM ----------

K-5IIs, K-3II, and K-1 are all well built/styled. They are accommodating different feature sets, that is why they may slightly differ. They are all weather resistant and are sturdily built.

[WhiteFeather]

The shutter on the K-70 is pretty darn loud though it seems.

Coming from a silent camera like the K-01, any DSLR will sound loud to you, but you have a point here. If noise is of any importance, I can tell you that while the shutter of the K-70 is quieter than that of the K-30, it is surely noisier than those of Pro bodies like K-5 and K-3.

[Nicolas06]

The K3 has all the new at the time tech: 80K+ point metering with great white balance, 27 point AF that is snappy and precise, fast processing and a big buffer. The KP get most of it, leaving the pro features and likely the sturdyness.

The K70 is now an entry level body. Don't expect the same robustness. Sure the K70 has the more recent sensor with updated jpeg engine, but that's only valid for jpegs and low light scenes. The AF module is still the same as introduced on K5-IIs. The performance is night and day.

So KP is the best compromize if you don't shoot much and can afford it. It should go down significantly in price if you wait enough. The K3 is available for a bargain used and a no brainer except if articulated screen and better high iso jpegs are a priroity (but then why not switch to Fuji really ? In particular if you like the mirrorless aspect of K01 ?). The K70 is not a wrong choice, but if you don't shoot too much and if you don't require great AF. No need for action/sport. No need for precise shallow dof... It is good enough for general purpose. As the K5-IIs really.

[ZombieArmy]

(but then why not switch to Fuji really ?).

Because switching brands is tedious and I lust for Pentax glass. Not a tough one to understand.

Wanting an swivel screen is also hardly worth swapping brands over, and I don't care if I have to get a "beginner" camera to get it (whatever that means) when the features of it blow my current camera out of the water and fits my needs just fine. I don't understand the stigma behind not so upmarket bodies, if they perform they perform.

[WhiteFeather]

but that's only valid for jpegs and low light scenes

According to the review on this site, not only for jpegs but also for RAWs (although not as much as for the JPEGs).

As regards the AF, though not as good as K-3's, the K-70's SAFOX X is sure a good improvement over K-30's (and hence K-01's) SAFOX IX+. And I took and still take action shots even with the K-30 (in good light).

But the K-3 has other advantages over the K-70. One of those, for me, is the double SD card slot.

At the end of the day, everyone of us has his/her own needs or preferences, and not necessarily the better built or more expensive body is always and for everyone the best choice. The best choice is, in my opinion, the one that fullfill most requirements at the better price (or at least at the price that one is willing to spend).