[Taurus85]

My K-S1 got the aperture failure after about 8K shots a while ago (after a month or two resting), so I guess I'll have to one without that dreaded solenoid.

My eye fell on two models.

A K-3 with 25K shots and without the eyecap (shouldn't be a problem replacing it but is still kind of odd) and a K-5 II with 3K shots and 100 USD cheaper than the K-3 plus it's with warranty. Both are well below 500 USD.

No brainer K-3 or would the K5 II be better in that case due to fewer shots and warranty?

[romay]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'd go with the K5II (I own both, btw).

K3 sometime has mirror runaway. It's said to be fixed by firmware, but for me it still happens, especially when using long exposures or interval shooting.
K5II images look better without noise reduction. K3 has lots of chroma noise and I found myself dialing up NR in post more than i would've liked.
AF in K3 isn't head and shoulders above. Same for metering.
Dual card slot also isn't that much a advantage because buffer is small on both.

[Jonathan Mac]

I had to decide between a K5 II and the K3 when I decided to upgrade from my K200D. Both were still available new and there was a significant price difference. I liked the reports of how good the K-5's 16MP sensor was but in the end I went for the K-3 more than anything because it allowed focus peaking, but also because of improved AF. I like manual focus lenses and shooting at wide apertures so I need to be able to focus precisely.

Focus peaking is taken for granted now but not then. I would recommend checking for everything that you don't really want to lose as the K-5 II is old enough that it may be missing some.

[Taurus85]

Focus peaking is taken for granted now but not then. I would recommend checking for everything that you don't really want to lose as the K-5 II is old enough that it may be missing some.

I used focus peaking only since my K-S1 developed the aperture error, beforehand only the magnification in case of MF and LiveView.
Didn't take many videos, though can imagine that the MJPEG of the K-5 would maybe be easier to handle in the end than MP4.

Good point though. The K-S1 while not high tier still had a few neat functions, although not very comfortable to hold

---------- Post added 01-20-22 at 06:08 AM ----------

K3 sometime has mirror runaway. It's said to be fixed by firmware, but for me it still happens, especially when using long exposures or interval shooting.

Had to look up mirror runaway. Found two different versions of it. Basically fluttering mirror and stuck mirror. Ouch.
Dual card indeed did intrigue me, but with a smaller buffer the transfer would still take longer.

Internal scale is tipping towards the K5II

[Unregistered User 8]

A K-3 with 25K shots

a K-5 II with 3K shots

The K-3 has an expected shutter life of 200K, and the K-5 II of 100K, so both the bodies you are looking at are very low. I have a K-3 which I'm very happy with. The mirror-flap issue happened once for me with the new bought firmware (2013), but after a firmware update, it has never happened since.

Good luck with whichever you choose, they are both great bodies.

[microlight]

I had the original K-5 (almost indistinguishable from the K-5II) and there’s no doubt in my mind that the K-3 (mk II in my case) is a step up in performance. I bought a 20-40 Limited zoom as a standard lens for the K-5 and it was good, but I didn’t realise how good until I got the K-3II, which after all is a K-3 with a few extra features. I’ve never experienced any mirror runaway issues (I’m sure that not all K-3s show this), but I have experienced the greater resolution sensor and the added benefit from the lack of AA filter.

I wouldn’t go back. My two penn’orth.

[35mmfilmfan]

Had K3 (pre-loved) for over a year - mirror runaway once, no other issues, and we are very happy together (just signed a pre-nup).

[UncleVanya]

Reasons for K-5ii:
Warranty (unclear what type and duration)
Lower shutter count (although 25k isn’t very high on the k-3
Selectable AA simulator
Cost (pretty small difference from what you posted)
Lower noise (but read on)

Reasons for k-3:
Higher shutter rating
Newer metering and focus modules (may not have any practical impact)
Faster frames per second
Larger buffer
Focus peaking
Support for KAF4 electronic aperture lenses like the 16-50 PLM and 55-300 PLM.
Selectable AA simulator
Dual card slots


RE: k-3 vs K-5ii noise - that’s only if comparing 16mp to 24mp. I have seen Down sampled 24mp (to 16mp) results compared from the k-3 to k-5 and it seemed to level the playing field. It is true that SOOC the k-5ii image will look cleaner albeit with slightly lower detail. Additionally modern noise reduction products like the DXO deep prime make this difference a non-issue if you use RAW for the shots that might need this.

RE: Mirror flap. I’ve read about it, never experienced it. I bought my K-3 (and my Dad’s K-3) at the time when the K-3ii had just come out. By then the firmware fix was out for quite a while and it is possible that changes were made beyond that during the manufacturing run of the K-3. I very rarely heard about this issue in the entire time I’ve been on these forums. It seems to have been resolved for most people with the firmware or reduced to a minor annoyance at most.

Honestly the only factors of all above that really matter in my mind are marked in bold.

[Viking42]

I will second Microlight's recommendation. I started with the K5ii and used it for a few years, and then sold it after I bought the K3.

Some pros and cons of the K3:

Pros of K3
- K3 has better resolution, in part due to the lack of AA filter and higher pixel count
- K3 has warmer more natural colours, even in raw, meaning less tweaking of colour balance in post
- K3 has a brighter viewfinder, and seems to be much easier to use older manual focus lenses with; I found this very challenging with the K5ii

Cons of K3
- K5ii seems to have more full rendering, more depth....this is one of those intangibles that is in the eye of the beholder, but the rendering of the K5ii was somehow richer and more natural, perhaps due to larger pixel pitch; the K3 images just seem a wee bit "thinner" by comparison
- K3 has more noise, which is easily fixable, but I wish it wasn't there; for most shots I don't notice it though, as I shoot mostly at low ISO and often with tripod/monopod

Other things are a wash - ergonomics are almost identical; I don't need the 2nd SD card, but it's nice to know it's there as backup; shutter life is irrelevant, as I will never wear either one out with 100K+ shots.

Bottom line - the advantages of the K3 outweighed the K5ii, and I don't regret the change.

Hope this helps...

Svend

[luftfluss]

What about replacing the K-S1's solenoid? Manual: Solenoid replacement: Pentax K-S1 - PentaxForums.com

FWIW, I owned the K-5 II and currently the K-3 II. I prefer the K-3 II overall, and especially the increased ability to resolve detail.

[normhead]

Go for the K-3. I have access to a K-5.... it's been used for maybe 100 images since I got the K-3 6 years ago. I have one pelican case that the K-5 fits that the K-3 doesn't. When I want to use that case, I take the K-5. There's nothing else I can think of that would inspire me to take the K-5. Slightly smaller, and more compact. But apart from that, the K-3 turned out to be an absolute workhorse. My wife still uses her K-5ii, so I'm definitely not saying you can't get by. But the new lens mount, the KAF4 is not compatible, so how functional it will be in the future is open to question.

[Taurus85]

Reasons for K-5ii:
Warranty (unclear what type and duration)
Lower shutter count (although 25k isn’t very high on the k-3
Selectable AA simulator
Cost (pretty small difference from what you posted)
Lower noise (but read on)

Reasons for k-3:
Higher shutter rating
Newer metering and focus modules (may not have any practical impact)
Faster frames per second
Larger buffer
Focus peaking
Support for KAF4 electronic aperture lenses like the 16-50 PLM and 55-300 PLM.
Dual card slots

That's an awesome list. Thank you

The warranty apparently covers every fault (unless user induced)

The one thing about that K3 that strikes me odd is the missing eyecap and I don't know why

So the K-3 (for about 500 USD) is preferrable then to the K5II (about 400 USD)?

[aslyfox]

never had a K 5

had a K 5 II

both were, at the time, top choices

I would go with the K 3 - most recent technology - if I was choosing

[normhead]

So the K-3 (for about 500 USD) is preferrable then to the K5II (about 400 USD)?

We paid K-5ii we paid about $300 CAD more than a year ago. I'd go for the K-5ii maybe, if it was half the price of the K-3. Unless, I was absolutely certain I'd never buy a KAF4 lens. Given that the DA 55-300 PLM is such an outstanding value, and the DA*16-50 PLM is the new head of the stable for standard lens shooting on APS-c, unless you honestly prefer some older glass, to me the K-3 is a no brainer if you have the money. However, the K-5ii is fine camera. My wife is happy with it, and she's even happy with the performance of the DA 55-300 PLM on it. The DA* 16-50 PLM however would not be satisfactory on it as you'd be shooting wide open at ƒ2.8 all the time. With PLM being used on a new lens or two every year, this situation is only going to get worse in the future. But given the cost of the newer KAF4 lenses, maybe that's not even a factor.

[Taurus85]

But given the cost of the newer KAF4 lenses, maybe that's not even a factor.

Just looked at the prices of the 55-300 PLM lens, as high as the K3 itself, PLM definitely not a factor yet