[Paulo]

Hi,

I'm thinking quite seriously to jump from K3II to KP. I bought K3II ~2 years ago after years of usage of K5 and from the beginning was quite happy with the AF performance but the K3II sensor itself have never impressed me in landscape or nature photography. Now I have a strong inclination to exchange K3II with KP. Have anyone of you made such decision and can say anything about impression how KP performs in low ISO in comparison to K3II? Almost (or even all) rave about high ISO but I could not find any opinion about low ISO...

Regards,
Paulo

[mikesbike]

Well, I cannot comment regarding the K-3, but I have both a K-5 IIs and the KP. The KP has been amazing to me in its image rendering. But my K-5 IIs is no slouch either , so I still use it also when I may be in need of making fast changes on the fly with its having a faster-operating, more comprehensive on-body control set. My KP is now my most-used body. I like having both body styles available.

But what is it about the K-3 that you find wanting in the images you've been getting? Especially regarding nature and landscape use in good lighting? Dynamic range? Color? Many parameters are user-adjustable.

[gm4life]

I mean the K3-II is an AWESOME camera for under 900 dollars. In fact I think it might be the biggest crop flagship DSLR bargain of this decade.

The KP has slightly better auto focusing, a stop or two better high ISO performance. I never pass ISO 3200 on the K3-II and will shoot 6400 or 12800 easily on the KP... 25600 is pushing it.

The KP also has a better processing engine, built in flash and on the list goes. However you don’t get the deeper buffer, 8,000 of a second shutter speed or top LCD screen. You also don’t get the dual SD card slots.

If you go from a K3-II expecting a worlds better camera, keep looking as it is a nice upgrade in some ways but in other ways is another step back. If you understand it for what it is slightly smaller, more flexible with the interchangeable grips etc. it might be a good fit or if you are looking for high ISO performance etc. But it you expect it to blow you away keep waiting, I like having two different styles of cameras one more pro and the other more enthusiasts compact. (K3-II vs KP)

Best of luck!

Edit: Just noticed DR was mentioned I can attest the KP has better dynamic range than the K3-II but it is an incremental upgrade.

[Unregistered User 8]

Hi Paulo, if you can wait a little longer, the K-3II replacement should not be toooooo far off now.

[totsmuyco]

Honestly, when I got to compare the image quality of my k-5II and my K-3II, I was quite disappointed with my k-3II. As mikesbike said, the K-5II is no slouch when it comes to image quality. How I wish we could get a software update so that we can use KAF4 mount lenses on the K-5 series. It's such a nice dependable camera. If I were to base my decision now between a K-3II and a KP, I would get a KP. Of course if you can wait, maybe the K-3II successor will come next year. After all, good things come for those who wait.

[MJKoski]

Only fault of KP is massively bad battery life. Interesting to see what K3 III brings to table. Hope there will be K-1 articulating screen because that is one of the best ergonomic aids in two decades.

[Bui]

I moved up to the KP from KS2 and I'm very happy with it. But I guess, image quality alone, you won't see a major difference between your K3ii and KP, even compare to the KS2, images from the KP are better, but not by a large margin, unless some extreme condition.

The KP handles very well, is super fast, silent, and compact, but you will have to bring at least another battery for a day shooting. Its short battery life is very disappointing, other than that I have no complain.

[Paulo]

Thanks Guys for replies :-)

In regards to K-3II pics quality I miss the rendering from K-5. K-3II creates really good pics but in my opinion too much 'analytic' (if you know what I mean). There is lack of 'something' I was able to get from K-5. Tried different settings in Lightroom but only with mediocre results. For those who ever tasted classic B+W photography: I would compare K-5 to Agfa Apx100 souped in Rodinal whereas K-3II would be Kodak Tmax100 developed in any modern developer.
Regarding KP - I would miss neither the 2nd SD card slot nor upper display. The only one thing making my concern is short battery life, it can be a problem during the whole day outdoor trips in e.g. -15 C (however I never treat the camera like machine guns ;-) I usualy make no more than 60-100 pics per day).

[Bui]

By a day of shooting, I mean 300-400 shots :-) 100 should be fine, unless all of those 100 are taken with 100 secs exposure.

Any way spare battery is cheap and I have no problem bringing one to back it up.

[Paulo]

300-400 shots is a number I do during my one week holiday :-) I started my journey through photography with slides (mainly Fuji Velvia) and during those times learnt to press a shutter button only if I'm convinced in 100% of the frame/composition :-)

Anyway... still thinking if it is worth spending ~250 GBP on upgrading K-3II to KP... It is possible I'll give my K-3II one more chance (i.e. another year) and buy a new camera in Dec 2018, on another Black Weekend...

[The Squirrel Mafia]

^ That's a better proposition. The upcoming APS-C flagship might be released sometime next year. It will probably be worth the wait & if not, the KP should be cheaper by the end of next year.

[RMabo]

But please note there's a hand grip with extra battery available for the KP so this will do the trick if one needs extra battery power for one day shooting.

[mikesbike]

Well, the K-200D/K-20D designs tend to underexpose by about 1/2-2/3 stop. Enough for compensation to often be a good idea. The K-5 does so by about 1/3 stop- not as much. This can sort of create more richness in a scene while protecting highlights for better detail there.

Metering for the KP is about right on. Even jpegs really come out very well also. Detail is excellent, which is served by having sharpening set to "F" Fine Sharpening in the custom image menu. Dynamic range also appears to be excellent. The metering does, however, tend to over-compensate sometimes for a backlit subject, overexposing and washing out the background too much. This does not always happen, but it does happen. Otherwise, I have found image quality to be superb. There are now plenty of images from the KP out there to view in order to get a good idea of its capabilities. For the recent Fall color shots, I used the standard "Bright" custom image setting, but again went into its menu and also boosted color saturation by one notch with fine results, while not coming out overdone.

[Pål Jensen]

Hi,

I'm thinking quite seriously to jump from K3II to KP. I bought K3II ~2 years ago after years of usage of K5 and from the beginning was quite happy with the AF performance but the K3II sensor itself have never impressed me in landscape or nature photography. Now I have a strong inclination to exchange K3II with KP. Have anyone of you made such decision and can say anything about impression how KP performs in low ISO in comparison to K3II? Almost (or even all) rave about high ISO but I could not find any opinion about low ISO...

Regards,
Paulo

I don't know why the K3 doesn't impress you for landscapes. It is better than my old Pentax 645 system (at 50ISO). .

[Paulo]

Pal, it is matter of perception. K-3II is my 3rd DSLR - the 1st was k200, it was really nice, especially with da* zooms, the 2nd one was K-5 and was the best. K-3II gives technically perfect (almost) pictures but in my eyes they are not as beautiful as those from K-5. That's all :-)