[enyaw]

Hi, I just sold my K50 still working fine with some warranty left. My decision now is a K5IIS or K3. As the title suggests mostly what I will be shooting. Is the K5IIs still worth it nowadays or long in the tooth so to speak? The K3 has a lot of room for growth and from what I've seen online only $150 diff in price used.

please help

thanks,

[aslyfox]

there is a nice little tool under " Camera " above

it allows you to compare side by side 3 different Pentax camera bodies

I have preset it for the K 5 IIS, the K 5 II and the K 3 ( I have the last two )

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-cameras-compared/?c1=Pentax+K-5+I...&c3=Pentax+K-3

reviews of Pentax Cameras can be found under " Cameras " as well

in addition, I have found this info

The Pentax Camera Lens Compatibility Chart

and

Pentax K-Mount Lenses Explained: The differences between various Pentax lens series

only you can determine what you want to use

[enyaw]

thanks, I know the specs comparison thingy. I was more interested in " real" life experiences. btw which cam do you prefer for the said title of thread. Is there a better? Overall I know the K3 is a better camera so why wouldn't you just say " get the k3, more room for growth and better specs"

[aslyfox]

thanks, I know the specs comparison thingy. I was more interested in " real" life experiences. btw which cam do you prefer for the said title of thread. Is there a better? Overall I know the K3 is a better camera so why wouldn't you just say " get the k3, more room for growth and better specs"

Sorry I can't really answer that question

I took a used K 5 II to Tanzania last year as my primary camera and it did well

I bought the new K 3 for a trip to Yellowstone this year and it is my primary lens but I still use the K 5 II. I have the battery grip for both

in fact, the K 3 had a D FA 150 - 450 mm in Yellowstone while the K 5 II had a DA 16 -85 mm so I was able to quickly choose which ever was better for the opportunity presented.

I like having such an arrangement when I know I might run into situations where opportunities might present themselves near and far.

____________________

you must decide what you want, a cheaper but good older camera with a better lens or a newer good camera but then can you afford the lens you want?

some times, the " latest and brightest " may not be the best, read the reviews, ask questions and make a decision.

for example: my local brick and mortar photography shop always starts their basic class by displaying an amazing blown up photo of a lizard and asks what type of camera was used.

ans. an older " out of date " camera used by a photographer who knew what s/he was doing.

don't forget to check the market place when you decide what you are looking for. I have never tried to sell anything there but I have had good experiences buying equipment from forum members there

[twilhelm]

I have a K3 and a K5, between the two I’ve found the autofocus to be faster and more reliable in the K3. For sports and moving objects, I’d grab my K3 first. Other than that, they are both reliable cameras.

(I’m not saying the K5 series had bad autofocus. Mine shot several weddings successfully along with daily life with kids.)

[aleonx3]

I have both k-5 IIs and k-3, both are fine cameras for nature and landscape photography. As for sports, it all depends on what type of sports and how much you want out of it. For my kind of photography (dance, stage shows), that is not really a problem at all, although others may say they can't compete with Canikony models.

As for which one k-5 IIs or k-3. I choose my k-3 almost all the time, and use k-5 IIs as a second or backup camera only. There are several advantages in the k-3 over k-5IIs, the biggest one is the ability to crop as much as you wish since the files have more pixels. Besides that, I find the k-3 to have better auto-focus system and more accurate white balance than the k-5 IIs. In general, you can find a used k-5IIs for a few hundred dollars and a k-3 for a little more. So, if I were you, I would get the k-3 unless of course you can find a more attractively priced k-5 IIs.

[clackers]

The K-3 has a faster framerate and tracking AF for your sports, while it has 24Mp vs 16Mp for your landscapes, Enyaw.

[enyaw]

I think I'm going to go K3, as it stands they are both getting older, and down the road I might kick myself if I didn't pick the better camera. Specs wise the K3 wins. I need the faster frame rate etc.

esp. for $150 or so diff.
someone did point out that the jpegs in the k3 are more grainy than the k5iis but that's due to the higher mp. I shoot raw so a non factor.

thanks

[aleonx3]

esp. for $150 or so diff.
someone did point out that the jpegs in the k3 are more grainy than the k5iis but that's due to the higher mp. I shoot raw so a non factor.

thanks

Yes, I agree you will likely find the price difference be around 150 or less, depending on the condition. And you will likely kick yourself a couple years down the road that you should have picked up the k-3 instead. Unless of course, you plan to pick up the k-3 II (which has pixel shift feature for far better landscape photography) later.

As far as the jpeg out of the k-3 vs k-5 IIs, most likely cleaner straight from camera. But like you, I never shoot jpeg, always RAW and use Silkypix RAW development software, the jpeg from the k-3 are clean as whistle every time since noise removal is done directly to the RAW file before converting to jpeg. And the extra pixels come in handy when I have to crop (even aggressively at times). Good luck with your choice. But either way, you will be happy with the k-3 or k-5IIs over your older k-50.

[Des]

The K-3 has a faster framerate and tracking AF for your sports, while it has 24Mp vs 16Mp for your landscapes, Enyaw.

^ And the extra megapixels allow more scope for cropping - invaluable for wildlife.

[aslyfox]

I think I'm going to go K3, as it stands they are both getting older, and down the road I might kick myself if I didn't pick the better camera. Specs wise the K3 wins. I need the faster frame rate etc.

esp. for $150 or so diff.
someone did point out that the jpegs in the k3 are more grainy than the k5iis but that's due to the higher mp. I shoot raw so a non factor.

thanks

very glad you made the decision that is right for you

I prefer the K 3 over the K 3 II myself because with the K 3 I always have a flash

I can add the accessory Pentax O-GPS1 to add GPS capability when needed

I need a flash more than knowing the specific location of the photo


keep an eye out and perhaps you can find one of those at price which makes it affordable to you.

[audiobomber]

One thing that has not been mentioned is lens compatibility. The new HD DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3ED PLM WR RE is not compatible with the K-5 series bodies. Presumably other future lenses will also require the KAF4 mount for aperture control.

USAGE NOTE:
This lens features a KAF4 lens mount compatible with an electromagnetic diaphragm control system. Cameras compatible with this system are KP, K-70, K-1, K-3 II, K-3, K-S2, K-S1 and K-50. For K-1, K-3 II, K-3, K-S2, K-S1 and K-50, the camera’s firmware must be upgraded to the latest version. If this lens is mounted on a camera without proper firmware upgrade, its diaphragm control mechanism becomes inactive, making it impossible to obtain correct exposure.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Although the 16MP Sony sensor in the K-5IIs is full of pixie dust & all that jazz, I'd still get a K-3 over it. It focuses faster, has a stronger screw drive motor, has a 200,000 shutter life, there's more to crop if needed, & it's also KAF4 compatible. The K-5IIs hasn't received any KAF4 firmware updates & from the looks of it, more than likely it's not going to happen.

The SR in K-3II supposedly has a 1 stop advantage over the K-3 (4.5 vs. 3.5) & it also tracks a bit better in AF.C mode. This is according to a few that own a K-5IIs, K-3, & K-3II with the latest firmware updates. The K-3II is not like a leaps & bounds better performer than the K-3, but there is a bit of improvement in performance over the K-3.

[enyaw]

Thanks everyone. I'm going K-3. Just have to keep my eyes open now for a good deal. If I'm going used why not get the newest "used" camera out there. Plenty of room to grow into. The K3 also has way better high iso performance from what I read, another clincher

[audiobomber]

The K3 also has way better high iso performance from what I read, another clincher

That's a very controversial statement. DXOMark is the authority on ISO comparison IMO, and they rate the K-3 and K-5 series virtually equal for noise performance.