[Erikka]

After an extended hiatus and the death of my old K200D I find myself looking for something to replace it with. I've not really kept up with news/advances/etc so looking for ideas/recommendations. One thing I have to have is reliability, my stuff tends to get knocked around a lot on my sojourns around Scandinavia and expect much more travel coming up. I'm mostly a landscape and architecture shooter so will focus on that. I still have my beloved 16-45mm lens as I just couldn't get rid of it. But for a new body I have no clue. I'd love a new KP but experience/ability would not exploit it to the fullest and it's expensive, I an NOT however adverse to something older and used either, such as a K-5iis. So time to pick the braintrust here and see what sticks

[mee]

Well your former camera body is so old that any of the Pentax cameras from the past 5 years would be a big boost. For landscapes I'd want more resolution.. have you considered a K-3 ? can probably one cheap.. If you value DR then a K-70, KP, or K-5 II are all nice options.

Though the K-70 is more a midrangey body.. so I don't think it is as rugged as the K-_ style bodies.

KP is probably the best APS-C Pentax body for your type of work.. if you don't mind the ergonomics... and the price tag.

[disconnekt]

If your on a budget, adorama has some Pentax dslr's available here: Pentax Used DSLR Cameras and SLR Cameras buy at Adorama
Since you do landscape & architecture work, they have a used K3II (which has Pixel Shift) for $679

[pakinjapan]

...my stuff tends to get knocked around a lot on my sojourns around Scandinavia and expect much more travel coming up...

It's sound like you will want the built of a flagship body? I bump my stuff around a lot too.

... I'd love a new KP but experience/ability would not exploit it to the fullest and it's expensive,

I can not argue about the price but don't underestimate your experience and ability.

... I an NOT however adverse to something older and used either, such as a K-5iis. So time to pick the braintrust here and see what sticks

It looks like you just narrow it down to K3II. It might be possible to still find a K3II brand new. If used but like new is OK, K3 is another interesting choice.

[ddharriman]

Hello

Being in Scandinavia and bumping the camera in your travels my advice is to go with one of the “pro” (more rugged) Pentax bodies – K7, K5, K3 (or variants) -, I’m letting out the KP as you say it’s expensive for now.

Check SRS Microsystems in the UK (note: I have no commercial relation with this company), they have today in their used and refurbished section 2 K5’s and 1 K7 with 1 year guarantee, and at interesting prices.

Best regards,

[Blacknight659]

K-5, K-5ii, K-5iis, K-3, K-3ii

You need a tough camera that can keep up with you. I think the K-5 and K-3 line will do nicely. And, you can buy one used with warranty these days, so that should help you feel more comfortable about knocking it around. Your 16-45 has a lot of love out there and I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. If you do find your self with some money after while, consider looking for a WR lens. The 18-55 WR is still a good lens, but I would steer you towards a 16-50, 20-40, or 16-85. Those lenses are fantastic and will give you an extra edge on your newer camera body.

[twilhelm]

Definitely the K-5 or K-3 series. Rugged with more than enough resolution. They are cameras you can grow into. But I second the notion to get a WR lens for a complete WR set-up.

[normhead]

Without seeing a number I'm guessing either a K-5 or K-5ii. Years ago I went form a K20D to a K-5 and it was big step up.But there are lots of bodies that came after the K-5 that would be as good or better. K-30, K-50, K-70, K-S1, K-S2, KP, K-3 , K-3II.

My wife still uses her K-5 and has never seen the need for better. And I doubt anyone on the forum with a newer camera is posting better images.

[pathdoc]

The only problem with the K-5 line is that if Pentax goes over entirely to the KAF4 mount these cameras are currently incompatible. You may want to spend that little bit extra or wait that little bit longer and go with the K-3.

I do love my K-5 but at the moment I'm pleased that I currently have all the lenses I will ever need for it.

[aslyfox]

you may not know that there is a tool, under " Cameras " above, which allows you to select up to 3 Pentax DSLR and display their features across the page

this makes it easy to check them out.

here is a link to it comparing the K 3 II, the K 3 and the K 5 II

Pentax K-3 II vs. Pentax K-3 vs. Pentax K-5 II - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

KEH.com is worth a look they have a no questions asked 14 day return policy

be sure to check to make sure they honor that for purchases made by people outside the US

[Adam]

After an extended hiatus and the death of my old K200D I find myself looking for something to replace it with. I've not really kept up with news/advances/etc so looking for ideas/recommendations. One thing I have to have is reliability, my stuff tends to get knocked around a lot on my sojourns around Scandinavia and expect much more travel coming up. I'm mostly a landscape and architecture shooter so will focus on that. I still have my beloved 16-45mm lens as I just couldn't get rid of it. But for a new body I have no clue. I'd love a new KP but experience/ability would not exploit it to the fullest and it's expensive, I an NOT however adverse to something older and used either, such as a K-5iis. So time to pick the braintrust here and see what sticks

If you want durability at a good price I would go for the K-3 (if you need the flash) or K-3 II (if you prefer GPS + better moving subject tracking). The 16-45mm would work fine, but you might want to consider upgrading that as well, I'd recommend the 16-85mm. These are the latest but now outgoing flagships launched in 2013/15.

The K-3 is going to be hard to find new, whereas the K-3 II is still current so you can get that with warranty.

The KP is another good option, and offers better image quality than the K-3 at higher ISOs. It's essentially the modern equivalent to the K200D and it just came out. However, it's a bit more expensive than the K-3 II right now and it's not rated for as many shutter clicks (100k vs 200k).

Take a look at these:
Pentax KP Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Pentax KP vs K-3 II: Do we have a new flagship? - Product Updates | PentaxForums.com

[jatrax]

As already noted, anything you get is going to be a major step up. Based on your comments I think the K-3II and the DA 16-85 would be an excellent solution. The DA 16-45 was an excellent lens in its day, but that day has passed and the 16-85 is IMHO as big a step up as the K-3ii is over the K200D.

[normhead]

Personally, I don't think the 16-45 is up to handling a 24k sensor, but it's probably fine on a 16 MP sensor. But, it's an extra argument for a K-5, K-30, K-50 camera. It saves the cost of new lenses. Somehow I get the impression that the 16-85 on it's own is worth more than what the OP would like today for everything. My advice for the budget conscious would be, if a sensor is too good for your lenses, don't buy that camera. And as far as I'm concerned only a 24 MP or higher APS-c sensor is at any risk of out resolving an older lens.

Even my old 35-80 works great on my K-3. My FAJ 18-35 is very good on my K-1, but pretty terrible on my K-3. So I have a pretty good idea how bad a lens has to be before it falls into the "not good on abetter sensor" category. Suspect the 16-45 falls into that category. I did test one once and tried a few images. My quick and dirty conclusion was it wasn't good enough for a 24 MP sensor. Only my FA 28-200 (which I'm not convinced would be good enough for a 6 MP sensor, and FAJ 18-35 join it in that category. But there may be others who can provide better information. My information is based on less than 25 images taken with a borrowed lens.

The thing to be noted here is, unless you plan to use the images at full resolution all of the above is nonsense. At 4000 x 2300 pixels on a 4k monitor, you can't see any difference between the images in any of these lenses. Even the worst lens I own the FA 28-200 looks good at that size. Looking at the images on 4k monitor I bet the 28-200 images look as good at the best lenses made. So unless you have a venue that exceeds 4k for viewing your images, buying great glass is a waste of money. Stick with what you have.

Back in the day jsherman told me one of the reasons he had to have a D800 was someday he'd own a 4k monitor and it would make a difference. It's the first thing I checked when I got my K-1. It was nonsense. You still can't tell the difference between a K-5 and a K-1 image. You don't need the best, you only need the best for what you do. And the best for what you do is almost always much less than the best overall.

A K-3 16-45 image reduced to K-5 size will be about the same as a K-5 image using the same lens, regardless of lens used. It's only if you want to display huge images it makes any difference at all. We are reducing all our images for 99% of our sue and they have all the sharpness they can make use of. Even the 12 MP files will lose resolution when reduced to 4000x 2300. A 24 or 36 MP files loses more and ends up the same.

[savoche]

I would look for a second hand body. These things don't break easily If the Swedish market is like the Norwegian you should be able to find a used K-5 series in good condition for 2-3000 SEK. The K-3 doesn't appear as often on the second hand market, I think, and will cost more.

The pros and cons of the two series have been well covered above.

[Erikka]

K-5, K-5ii, K-5iis, K-3, K-3ii

You need a tough camera that can keep up with you. I think the K-5 and K-3 line will do nicely. And, you can buy one used with warranty these days, so that should help you feel more comfortable about knocking it around. Your 16-45 has a lot of love out there and I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. If you do find your self with some money after while, consider looking for a WR lens. The 18-55 WR is still a good lens, but I would steer you towards a 16-50, 20-40, or 16-85. Those lenses are fantastic and will give you an extra edge on your newer camera body.

I did forget to mention I do still have the 18-55 and 18-135 WR lenses so those should be ok if I decided on on older body, tho people are right that if I went up to something in the 24mp range I'd def need to consider upgrading the glass to make the most of that

---------- Post added 08-07-17 at 11:49 AM ----------

Personally, I don't think the 16-45 is up to handling a 24k sensor, but it's probably fine on a 16 MP sensor. But, it's an extra argument for a K-5, K-30, K-50 camera. It saves the cost of new lenses. Somehow I get the impression that the 16-85 on it's own is worth more than what the OP would like today for everything. My advice for the budget conscious would be, if a sensor is too good for your lenses, don't buy that camera. And as far as I'm concerned only a 24 MP or higher APS-c sensor is at any risk of out resolving an older lens.

Even my old 35-80 works great on my K-3. My FAJ 18-35 is very good on my K-1, but pretty terrible on my K-3. So I have a pretty good idea how bad a lens has to be before it falls into the "not good on abetter sensor" category. Suspect the 16-45 falls into that category. I did test one once and tried a few images. My quick and dirty conclusion was it wasn't good enough for a 24 MP sensor. Only my FA 28-200 (which I'm not convinced would be good enough for a 6 MP sensor, and FAJ 18-35 join it in that category. But there may be others who can provide better information. My information is based on less than 25 images taken with a borrowed lens.

The thing to be noted here is, unless you plan to use the images at full resolution all of the above is nonsense. At 4000 x 2300 pixels on a 4k monitor, you can't see any difference between the images in any of these lenses. Even the worst lens I own the FA 28-200 looks good at that size. Looking at the images on 4k monitor I bet the 28-200 images look as good at the best lenses made. So unless you have a venue that exceeds 4k for viewing your images, buying great glass is a waste of money. Stick with what you have.

Back in the day jsherman told me one of the reasons he had to have a D800 was someday he'd own a 4k monitor and it would make a difference. It's the first thing I checked when I got my K-1. It was nonsense. You still can't tell the difference between a K-5 and a K-1 image. You don't need the best, you only need the best for what you do. And the best for what you do is almost always much less than the best overall.

A K-3 16-45 image reduced to K-5 size will be about the same as a K-5 image using the same lens, regardless of lens used. It's only if you want to display huge images it makes any difference at all. We are reducing all our images for 99% of our sue and they have all the sharpness they can make use of. Even the 12 MP files will lose resolution when reduced to 4000x 2300. A 24 or 36 MP files loses more and ends up the same.

thanks much for your experience sharing, you are probably right in the end, unless one has the eyesight of an eagle and the requisite displays,etc most extra detail, etc will be negligable in normal viewing, especially once reduced, cropped, etc... And for me it'd def be lost since I have horrible eyesight to begin with heh. You've given me a lot to consider