[amc654]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I'm looking to replace my K-7, which I have loved but which is broken. Thanks to feedback on this forum, I've narrowed my choices down to the K-5 IIs and the K-70. I'm slightly leaning K-70 because it's newer and has some nice features, but the K-5 IIs seems to be a bit more loved and respected. .

In the end, I'm looking for image quality (of course) and detail (such as needed for photographing jewelry), best one for still and indoor shooting, and which is better for frequent low-light conditions. I won't be shooting action or landscapes. I just now read a review for the K-5 IIs that claims it's not good for things like fabric (moiré-pattern issues), and I shoot a lot of clothing. Some fabrics reproduce with at least some moiré, no matter what you do. Thank you in advance for your feedback; I appreciate it.

---

Last edited by amc654; 07-12-2020 at 08:44 AM. Reason: typo

[selfnoise]

I'm pretty sure none of the recent Pentax cameras have a low pass filter, so I think you'd have the same moire issues regardless. It can be corrected in post processing, though.

The K70 has an updated sensor and better live view functionality. On the other hand, it seems to have the same solenoid issue as the K30 and K50.

What's your budget?

[UncleVanya]

That's a tough call. The K70 image quality and low iso performance and baseline resolution all appear to be better than the k5iis... But depending on the actual use that could be moot. Quite a bit of product photography is done with controlled lighting and tripods, and the 16mp resolution base is more than adequate. Moire issues could crop up, but threads like this one: K70 and moire effect ? - PentaxForums.com seem to suggest it is a limited issue. (Not the k5iis is mentioned in the thread favorably).

Are you considering the KP? The thread title made it seem so but the post text was focused only on the k70. The main advantage I see for the KP over the k70 is aperture reliability, there have been some reports of aperture block failures in the k70 model that could be the start of a failure trend. (data is limited it could be a very minor issue)

[pres589]

If you're worried about moire (which I think is not as much of an issue as it was played up to be when these cameras were new) the camera to get might be the K-5 II. I have one and like it quite a bit. The controls and such on the K-5 II is more pro than consumer like the K-70.

I'm with Vanya; if the K-70 is of interest, why not step up to the KP? If you want more "modern classic" controls and/or you really want that moire reducing filter, the K-5 II would get my nod. K-5 II has very good low light performance & pushable files in post; the KP and K-70 seem a bit better straight out of camera with whatever ISO the user has selected.

No really clear right or wrong answer to this question and I'm sure all of these options will feel like a good upgrade from your K-7.

[caliscouser]

No one mentioned that the K-70 has the Anti-aliasing simulator. So you can switch it on when shooting fabrics and switch it off when you're not. It also has pixel shift which is great for product stills.

To be honest though unless you are doing commercial quality product photography for large printing, both would get the job done.
If you have the budget, consider the KP as well.

[amc654]

Thank you all! And pardon my typo! I don't know how that "P" got in there in the title! A portmanteau of the KP and the K-70, I guess, since I briefly considered the KP. Fixed now.

I looked at some used KPs online, but I don't have the budget. Trying to get away with under $400 with shipping. So the K-70 is pushing the upper limits, I think I can get one on eBay with "make an offer" listings. Or just wait until some of them that have been sitting at more than $400 go down in price.

Megapixels aren't a factor at all. I don't print my photos, so even the K-7 was plenty in that aspect.

It sounds like if budget were my primary concern, and it might be, the K-5 IIs is the best bet. I can't remember why I think that model is better for me than the K-5 II, but there is a reason. I'll revisit it though, and see if I can figure out what it was.

[CarlJF]

I would go for the K-70 or make the step up to the K-P (or wait the K-new). The issue with the K-5ii is that, AFAIK, it doesn't support KAF4 lenses. It's not a major problem right now since only a handful of lenses is available, but if you plan to keep the camera for some years, who knows... If you choose to go anyway with a pre-K3 or pre-K50 body, but sure you're aware of this and not be surprised in the future to find out some new lenses aren't compatible with these older models.


Here's the list of KAF4 lenses. If you plan buying any of them in the future, be aware none of them will work with the K-5ii.

• HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE
• HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4 SDM AW
• HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW
• HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR

[stevebrot]

I will throw in a little love for the K-3/K-3II here. While the K-5/K-5II has a very loyal following, the same is true of the K-3. Of course, I am biased, having purchased my K-3 as a conscious choice over the K-5IIs back in 2014.

One consideration might be compatibility with KAF4 lenses and current-model Pentax-brand flash. Backward support for both stopped at the K-3 and K-50. In regard to the K-70, you may want to seriously consider how that camera might affect your workflow (both positive and negative) and whether it fully supports things you commonly do with the K-7. For example, the built-in flash is fairly whimpy and cannot be used as master/controller for off-camera P-TTL. Does lack of a rear IR detector cause a problem. Battery life?


Steve

(...am hoping that my K-3 does not die anytime soon...)

[aslyfox]

I wonder if the OP has found the forum's camera comparison tool yet?

K 5II S vs K 70 vs K 3 II vs K 3


Pentax K-5 IIs vs. Pentax K-70 vs. Pentax K-3 II vs. Pentax K-3 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

[Just1MoreDave]

The K-7 and K-5 IIs are physically very close. You won't have to relearn where all the controls are. At first I would sometimes pick up the wrong camera, but I suppose you'd notice that a lot quicker because your K-7 is broken. It's a good camera even today, but used prices are higher to reflect that.

I think I would take a chance on a K-70 just because it's recent, but from a place that allows returns because it's a lower tier camera and may feel cheaper or have annoying controls. The features look fine on paper but feel is personal.

[AstroDave]

Let me add a vote for the K-3

There's one out there now on Ebay for a bit over your limit:

Pentax K-3 Digital Camera w/SMC DA L 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL [Exc++] #570697A | eBay

(I have nothing to do with this seller)

ps this is so tempting, I may grab it as a backup backup!

pps and another (no lens) within your budget: https://www.ebay.com/itm/PENTAX-K-3-shutter-count-17298-shots/353137142971?h...0AAOSwv2JfCryy

[amc654]

I've used this extensively, going back several years. It's very helpful in narrowing down choices, but nothing like feedback from people who have used a camera first-hand. I do read the user reviews, but they're not always current.

I wonder if the OP has found the forum's camera comparison tool yet?

K 5II S vs K 70 vs K 3 II vs K 3


Pentax K-5 IIs vs. Pentax K-70 vs. Pentax K-3 II vs. Pentax K-3 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

---------- Post added 07-12-20 at 02:44 PM ----------

I will throw in a little love for the K-3/K-3II here. While the K-5/K-5II has a very loyal following, the same is true of the K-3. Of course, I am biased, having purchased my K-3 as a conscious choice over the K-5IIs back in 2014.

Looked at the K-3/K-3II, but the main factor for me was weight. My K-7 was great for me for years; felt great in my hands. I liked the heft, but I know some people don't. Now have some arthritis in my hands and I also do one-handed shooting on occasion, so I don't want anything heavier and would like to go lighter if possible. K-3 series is too heavy. K-5 a wee bit lighter, probably not enough to make a big difference, but as long as it's not heavier.

I was worried that the K-70 might feel a bit too small or light, but the physical specifications, on paper, aren't significantly different. I'm using my ancient K100D Super right now, and it's quite comfortable in the hand, so I think the K-70 would be OK, too.

[UncleVanya]

I'll suggest browsing this forums marketplace. You'll see k3 and k5ii and k70 cameras at it near your price range.

K5ii and k5iis only difference is in the AA filter. The k-3 and k-70 have an AA simulation effect using the shake stabilization feature.

No AA is supposedly sharper but may have moire issues. I have never needed to enable the AA simulation on my k3.

[amc654]

I'll suggest browsing this forums marketplace. You'll see k3 and k5ii and k70 cameras at it near your price range.

K5ii and k5iis only difference is in the AA filter. The k-3 and k-70 have an AA simulation effect using the shake stabilization feature.

No AA is supposedly sharper but may have moire issues. I have never needed to enable the AA simulation on my k3.

Have been checking forum marketplace out.

Good information on the AA/no AA filter; thank you. I did see that no AA is supposed to be sharber, but probably not going to be a big factor for me.

[jeallen01]

'...
Looked at the K-3/K-3II, but the main factor for me was weight. My K-7 was great for me for years; felt great in my hands. I liked the heft, but I know some people don't. Now have some arthritis in my hands and I also do one-handed shooting on occasion, so I don't want anything heavier and would like to go lighter if possible. K-3 series is too heavy. K-5 a wee bit lighter, probably not enough to make a big difference, but as long as it's not heavier.

I was worried that the K-70 might feel a bit too small or light, but the physical specifications, on paper, aren't significantly different. I'm using my ancient K100D Super right now, and it's quite comfortable in the hand, so I think the K-70 would be OK, too.

I now have similar arthritis issues with my knee and (not so much) my right hand (as well as a dodgy back), and, nowadays, I generally choose the K-70 over the K-3/K3 II unless going to an airshow or similar where a longer burst-mode is needed.

I find it generally "ticks all the boxes" on size (my hand is large, but few problems with the size of the K-70), weight (weighs noticeably less than the K3's), image quality (as least as good, or better), low light performance (definitely better), AF is generally better and faster with the PLM (but poorer for airshows etc., use) and very good with my other (mainly older Sigma) lenses. No top LCD is a bit of a pity but I can live with that as the "flippy screen" more than makes up for that lack most of the time.

So, my "choice" would be the K-70