I don't shoot much in burst mode, so for me the KP's lower buffer is not an issue. I love my KP's low light/higher ISO performance, as well as its overall image quality. Your result with your K-S2 looks very good. The KP will provide even a little better resolution, and at higher ISO will preserve better detail. I have both cameras. If the deeper buffer or the 2 card slots are not important issues for you, I'd certainly recommend the KP for its higher ISO/shutter speed advantage, and also with its optional battery grip, since you are using such a large lens. And with this grip you'll have plenty of battery power at your disposal. The KP's battery grip would put it in proximity to the weight of the K-3 without a battery grip.
---------- Post added 07-18-18 at 11:18 AM ----------
Originally posted by jpzk I'm not so sure about "better resolution" (I thought resolution had to do with MP, i.e.: 16MP vs. 24 MP, etc.) but I own a K3 and like it for the wildlife shooting I do (90% of my shots are wildlife of some type).
The only drawback is its performance at higher ISO settings... noisier while keeping good details though. My old K5 sure beats it in that department but has a lesser performing AF.
I have tested the K3 with the 150-450 … great combo but, then again, if you are going to shoot in less than ideal light conditions, the KP might be a better choice. (according to reviews).
I think that Aslyfox posted some good comparisons up there in post no. 4 above.
That is the reason- the better low noise performance, I passed on getting the K-3 and instead took an excellent deal on a new K-5 IIs at the time. It had improved AF over the K-5 and improved image detail by eliminating the AA filter, yet still exceptional low noise. I still have and use it. But the KP is the champ. I liked mine so much I bought another- I now have two silver KPs and the battery grip!
Last edited by mikesbike; 07-18-2018 at 11:26 AM.