Originally posted by Bob Roberts So I just bought a cheap but almost new K-m with a 10 mp sensor. I am really enjoying playing with it as I haven't shot many photos since I was shooting film with my Super Program.
I am thinking that I want a "keep for a long time" camera and am looking for your more skilled opinions on what to get. I have a line on a K s2 with a 256 shutter count and absolute mint condition. I am wondering how well the 20mp sensor is compared to the newer 24mp sensors.
Could I get this Ks2 and be happy with it for a long time or should I hold out for a K70 or K3ii? I'm not really thinking that more money makes a better camera but are the newer cameras sensor and features worth the increased cost.
I have a few old manual and KA mount lenses and like to take wildlife and landscape type photos.
I have a K-S2 and think it's a wonderful little camera. The OVF is larger than on the K-m (which I once had and liked) which makes using manual focus lenses more enjoyable. The body itself feels more sturdy than its low price would imply.
I prefer my K-3 II w/battery grip for wildlife shooting, mainly because of the better handling with larger lenses, quieter shutter, and deeper buffer (more continuous photos when the shutter button is held down). The K-70 and KP seem to have better high-ISO performance, though.
In terms of the ability to resolve fine detail, I find very little difference between the 20MP sensor in the K-S2 and the 24MP sensor in the K-3 II. I have never made a photo with my K-S2 and thought, "gee, I wish I had used my K-3 II instead so I could get 4 more megapickles".
The "problem" with digital is that every year or two or three there's a shiny new camera that has a feature(s) that catches your eye, so it's hard to recommend a camera that fits the criteria of "keep for a long time". That said, if I were looking to replace my K-S2
right now, I would 90% buy another K-S2.