[normhead]

Hi, I am looking for a backup body to complement my K3. Secondhand bodies currently in my price range are the k5iis, ks2, k3 or k70. Which would you recommend?
It will be used mainly for hiking, landscape and travel.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated, thanks

I'll agree with Adam and agree that the K-70 will likely be your first body. But there are issues. There's a different, smaller battery, slower frame rate and hardly any buffer. If you're like me and you'd really like a 50 shot buffer for the K-3, the K-70 is going the wrong way and a K-3II would be a better option. I'm guessing K-3 for action, K-70 for everything else would be a sweet combo.

[D1N0]

Read the original post, please. K-1 is not in OP's price range.

The price range was for a back up. When he gets the K-1, the back up costs nothing because he already has it

[Alex645]

Yes I am being serious. Lenses can fail as much as camera bodies and perhaps anything with motion of mechanical parts could fail over time.

That's true, it's just I personally have never known a photographer or had the luxury myself of carrying or bringing backup lenses with me. Just too much gear in the field, but doable in a studio. The exception was when I'd hire an assistant.

Yes, if you're pro, you want back ups for everything including flash units, batteries, memory cards, etc.

Food for thought: Yesterday I was hired to shoot a 130 foot boat. My primary DSLR was FF with primes but my backup was APS-C which I would use if I needed to use a telephoto zoom. 90% of my shots were FF, but I did take about 10% with the APS-C. It worked out fine, but if my client pixel peeps, he'll see the APS-C shots do not have the resolution or sharpness because it was a smaller sensor and because I shot that with a zoom instead of a prime.

It gave me versatility, but I lost consistency....a potential complaint from the client, although I still got paid.

[normhead]

Are you going to show us? Did you actually analyze the images to see which camera gave you the better results? Ihere what you arere saying from a theoretical point of view, but sometimes what actually happens in the field is different than what you might think,

[Kerrowdown]

I always run matching pairs of bodies, no thought process involved when switching from one to another when shooting.

[Alex645]

Are you going to show us? Did you actually analyze the images to see which camera gave you the better results? Ihere what you arere saying from a theoretical point of view, but sometimes what actually happens in the field is different than what you might think,

I wasn't going to take time with the client to test both cameras with both lenses and as the client isn't internet savvy (doesn't use drop box or any cloud services like Google drive), I'm sending him via snail mail his USB flash drive with his files. It would inappropriate for me to post this until he, at least, has his images next week.

I spent 2 hours on site shooting yesterday, and then another 4 hours in PP with PS 2017 CC. That's where I saw the difference between an 85mm prime on FF vs. 80-400mm zoom at 80mm with both at f/8.

The other issue is uploading 69MB DNG or 20MB jpegs (4016 x 6016 pixels) to PF. Once downsized to internet viewing, the differences are less apparent, but on a 4K Retina screen, there is significant differences which would only become more apparent after printing.

I don't want to get off thread and may start my own to share organic apples vs GMO apples. My intention is that there are pros AND cons to having two sets of identical sensors and lenses vs. two formats with zooms and primes of overlapping focal lengths. Working as a pro, I've had clients and agencies dissatisfied if I produce sets of images that are not matching in any parameter such as color balance, etc. For myself, it's art and I'd rather have the versatility of using FF and/or APS-C for their strengths.

[normhead]

Fair enough, just wondered how you formed your opinion. Thanks for responding.

[mikesbike]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and comments. I am going to keep my eyes open for a secondhand K70. Second hand models are getting more common here, and coming down in price. I am looking forward to seeing the IQ and having a play with a new camera. Plus being slightly smaller and lighter will be beneficial for hiking. Thanks again for your help!

I think the K-70 is a wise choice. You not only have a lighter backup body, you also get a better low-light/high ISO performer and one which has the articulating screen for times when that will be useful.

[MrB1]

If a 'backup' body means it will be used only if the principal body fails, then having two different bodies would be OK. If it will be used alongside the other body, the wise choice is two of the same. Having a K-3 and K-70, and enjoying both, I sometimes take them out together (with a different lens on each), but then often experience the irritation of pressing the wrong buttons when changing over from one to the other during shooting. Two of the same would be much more user-friendly!

Philip