KP or K3 ii?

**MossyRocks** · 09-07-2022, 09:03 AM - **7 Likes**

I would say that the KP having a newer sensor would be the better option. Also it is a newer body and likely will have more options you might want to use. I don't have a KP so I can't offer my experience on it or make any comparison to the K-3ii which I do own

That said the K-3 and K-3ii are no slouch for astro shooting which is very low light shooting. I know a number of people over in the astro group still use a K-3 or K-3ii or if they are me will run a pile of cameras at night where I will now frequently run the K-3, K-3ii, K-3iii and K-500. I've managed shots like these with either the K-3 or K-3ii:

Those were taken with my 400mm, 400mm+2X-L converter, 50mm, or 12mm lenses and for a body the K-3 or K-3ii.

reh321 · 09-07-2022, 11:10 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I appreciate all the replies. I was pretty sold on the KP, but started wondering if I was missing something by not considering the K3 ii. I've had really good luck with Pentax flagship-level DSLRs in the past so I thought it was worth checking out. Even though I suspect the K3 ii is more ruggedly built, it sounds like the KP is closer to what I'm looking for in a back-up camera.

Before the K-3iii came out, people talked endlessly about the KP’s smaller battery and buffer.
Now they seem to talk endlessly about the K-3’s fixed LCD.
I guess it depends on whether the K-3ii’s battery and buffer or the KP’s tilty screen and more graceful high ISO is more important to you.

**mlag** · 09-07-2022, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Mooncatt

This may depend on your specific use case. I use my k3 II for long exposure, low ISO light painting, and it's great for that. If you are looking for action shots, or even handheld, it does begin to suffer a lot of ISO noise at 3200. Having a good wide aperture lens paired with it overcomes some of that limitation.
.

Agree on the iso statement , 3200 is where noise starts to become visible but not bad.
I allow K-3II to select iso automatically in the range 100-3200. 6400 is still workable if you need it , but I try to avoid this one.
I think the KP has a slightly more recent sensor...

But I like the integrated gps function and the double sdcard slot of the K-3II.
Wifi connection is missing, the sdcard based solution of the Flucard is a bit unreliable to my taste.

**Des** · 09-07-2022, 02:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I've had really good luck with Pentax flagship-level DSLRs in the past so I thought it was worth checking out. Even though I suspect the K3 ii is more ruggedly built, it sounds like the KP is closer to what I'm looking for in a back-up camera.

The KP is well built and feels solid. It uses a stepper motor for aperture control, so no risk of aperture block failure. It doesn't have the same rated shutter life as the K-3 series (100k v 200k), but I suspect that some users will have chalked up more than 100,000 actuations by now without a problem. One thing to note is that a number of PF members have reported the mode dial breaking. You have to press a release button in the middle of the dial before turning it (frankly I find it a nuisance and preferred the lock lever on the K-3); it can break if you don't press it enough. Just something to be aware of.

reh321 · 09-07-2022, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by mlag

Agree on the iso statement , 3200 is where noise starts to become visible but not bad.
I allow K-3II to select iso automatically in the range 100-3200. 6400 is still workable if you need it , but I try to avoid this one.
I think the KP has a slightly more recent sensor...

But I like the integrated gps function and the double sdcard slot of the K-3II.
Wifi connection is missing, the sdcard based solution of the Flucard is a bit unreliable to my taste.

More importantly, the KP has the ‘accelerator’, which cleans up noise, but does not “eat stars”. The K-1ii and the K-3iii and K-70 also have it.

Hayashi · 09-07-2022, 05:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MossyRocks

I would say that the KP having a newer sensor would be the better option. Also it is a newer body and likely will have more options you might want to use. I don't have a KP so I can't offer my experience on it or make any comparison to the K-3ii which I do own

That said the K-3 and K-3ii are no slouch for astro shooting which is very low light shooting. I know a number of people over in the astro group still use a K-3 or K-3ii or if they are me will run a pile of cameras at night where I will now frequently run the K-3, K-3ii, K-3iii and K-500. I've managed shots like these with either the K-3 or K-3ii:

Those were taken with my 400mm, 400mm+2X-L converter, 50mm, or 12mm lenses and for a body the K-3 or K-3ii.

Astonishing!

Yes, the sensory technology evolves a lot within the last ten years.

I compare images produced by same lens (HD DA-15mm and HDDA20-40mm) with legacy K-3 and current K-3III

There are huge differences, I can see the K-3III is doing much better job.

I am quite sure the KP with new sensor plus accelerator unit would demonstrate the similar imaging power

**UncleVanya** · 09-07-2022, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by MossyRocks

I would say that the KP having a newer sensor would be the better option. Also it is a newer body and likely will have more options you might want to use. I don't have a KP so I can't offer my experience on it or make any comparison to the K-3ii which I do own

That said the K-3 and K-3ii are no slouch for astro shooting which is very low light shooting. I know a number of people over in the astro group still use a K-3 or K-3ii or if they are me will run a pile of cameras at night where I will now frequently run the K-3, K-3ii, K-3iii and K-500. I've managed shots like these with either the K-3 or K-3ii:

Those were taken with my 400mm, 400mm+2X-L converter, 50mm, or 12mm lenses and for a body the K-3 or K-3ii.

Are these single images or stacked? What iso?

**microlight** · 09-08-2022, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Are these single images or stacked? What iso?

Incredible shots! I second these questions and have more - guess I'd better head over to the astro group...

**MossyRocks** · 09-08-2022, 08:27 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Hayashi

There are huge differences, I can see the K-3III is doing much better job.

I am quite sure the KP with new sensor plus accelerator unit would demonstrate the similar imaging power

The K-3iii is fantastic for astro. I love mine but still use the K-3 and K-3ii as well as that just means I can run cameras on more things. I would think that the KP is better than the K-3 and K-3ii but not as good as the K-3iii as the K-3iii has a different sensor that is very highly regarded in the astrophotography community (there is a dedicated astrocam that uses the same sensor but in monochrome for use with a filter wheel).

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Are these single images or stacked? What iso?

All were stacked and depending on the target the ISO was anywhere from ISO 100 (Jupiter and Saturn) up to ISO 3200 (the milky way over the barn). Basically I throw as much exposure length as I can get away with and then adjust the ISO to avoid clipping in the stars. Since the gain is applied before the AtoD conversion it results in slightly more useable data than shooting at a lower ISO. It isn't much more useable data, usually about 1 bit, but with such difficult shooting conditions you want to hold on to as much data as possible. The one of the great Orion Nebula actually has the most total exposure time coming in at just under 9 hours and was shot with ISO1600. I believe that the Andromeda galaxy is composed of shots at ISO 3200 and ISO 1600.

**MossyRocks** · 09-08-2022, 08:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by microlight

Incredible shots! I second these questions and have more - guess I'd better head over to the astro group...

We are a friendly group and will likely fall over each other to help out someone starting out. I do suggest asking questions early and often and posting your first shots looking for how to improve. We are trying something different this month as a first try at a group shoot where we all try and shoot an object some and post our collected RAW files so they can all be combined and processed and then share what we managed to pull out. We are shooting the Pac-Man nebula in Cassiopeia. Unfortunately throwing gear at the problem for astrophotography is more often than not a very valid solution soon you will be acquiring F/2.8 and F/2 telephoto lenses or optics where size is measured in absolute open aperture.

**microlight** · 09-09-2022, 12:24 AM

Many thanks, MossyRocks. I’ve been in the doldrums with my photography, so maybe astro is a way to go. My most recent attempt at it was a few years ago, and it makes no sense that my camera has the astrotracer function that I make so little use of.

Hythloday · 09-09-2022, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

so I'm trying to decide between a KP and a K3 ii.

I have both and it is difficult to say which is best.

So buy both and you will know why it is so hard to choose.

**cobbu2** · 09-25-2022, 05:38 PM

I have both as well, and I'd say (for me) it boils down to what you're shooting. For high ISO situations, the KP wins. For sports shooting (I shoot a lot of swim meets), the K-3 II easily wins (especially with the 55-300mm PLM mounted), and I've tried both. Landscapes are a bit of a tossup, but for discerning image quality I'd give the KP the edge based on overall image quality... and that is a totally subjective assessment on my part. I haven't tried the KP with the Astrotracer yet, but it's great with the K3-II with its built-in GPS.

It's all pluses and minuses for both and that's why I have both.

09-08-2022, 02:53 AM	#23
microlight Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,129	Originally posted by UncleVanya Are these single images or stacked? What iso? Incredible shots! I second these questions and have more - guess I'd better head over to the astro group... Last edited by microlight; 09-08-2022 at 03:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
KP vs K-70 - to KP or not to KP, that is the question	OldChE	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	11-02-2019 05:29 AM
K3 II vs KP	BillO	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	05-13-2019 06:06 PM
KP vs K3 ii for wildlife photography	Paul Charlier	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	08-25-2018 09:52 AM
KP Capabilities vis-a-vis the K3/ii	Spodeworld	Pentax KP	39	03-04-2017 01:03 PM

09-07-2022, 09:03 AM - 7 Likes	#16
MossyRocks Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,982	I would say that the KP having a newer sensor would be the better option. Also it is a newer body and likely will have more options you might want to use. I don't have a KP so I can't offer my experience on it or make any comparison to the K-3ii which I do own That said the K-3 and K-3ii are no slouch for astro shooting which is very low light shooting. I know a number of people over in the astro group still use a K-3 or K-3ii or if they are me will run a pile of cameras at night where I will now frequently run the K-3, K-3ii, K-3iii and K-500. I've managed shots like these with either the K-3 or K-3ii: Those were taken with my 400mm, 400mm+2X-L converter, 50mm, or 12mm lenses and for a body the K-3 or K-3ii.

09-07-2022, 11:10 AM - 1 Like	#17
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by TaoMaas I appreciate all the replies. I was pretty sold on the KP, but started wondering if I was missing something by not considering the K3 ii. I've had really good luck with Pentax flagship-level DSLRs in the past so I thought it was worth checking out. Even though I suspect the K3 ii is more ruggedly built, it sounds like the KP is closer to what I'm looking for in a back-up camera. Before the K-3iii came out, people talked endlessly about the KP’s smaller battery and buffer. Now they seem to talk endlessly about the K-3’s fixed LCD. I guess it depends on whether the K-3ii’s battery and buffer or the KP’s tilty screen and more graceful high ISO is more important to you.

09-07-2022, 12:05 PM	#18
mlag Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: Zuiderkempen - Grote Netewoud - Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,399	Originally posted by Mooncatt This may depend on your specific use case. I use my k3 II for long exposure, low ISO light painting, and it's great for that. If you are looking for action shots, or even handheld, it does begin to suffer a lot of ISO noise at 3200. Having a good wide aperture lens paired with it overcomes some of that limitation. . Agree on the iso statement , 3200 is where noise starts to become visible but not bad. I allow K-3II to select iso automatically in the range 100-3200. 6400 is still workable if you need it , but I try to avoid this one. I think the KP has a slightly more recent sensor... But I like the integrated gps function and the double sdcard slot of the K-3II. Wifi connection is missing, the sdcard based solution of the Flucard is a bit unreliable to my taste.

09-07-2022, 02:19 PM - 1 Like	#19
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by TaoMaas I've had really good luck with Pentax flagship-level DSLRs in the past so I thought it was worth checking out. Even though I suspect the K3 ii is more ruggedly built, it sounds like the KP is closer to what I'm looking for in a back-up camera. The KP is well built and feels solid. It uses a stepper motor for aperture control, so no risk of aperture block failure. It doesn't have the same rated shutter life as the K-3 series (100k v 200k), but I suspect that some users will have chalked up more than 100,000 actuations by now without a problem. One thing to note is that a number of PF members have reported the mode dial breaking. You have to press a release button in the middle of the dial before turning it (frankly I find it a nuisance and preferred the lock lever on the K-3); it can break if you don't press it enough. Just something to be aware of.

09-07-2022, 02:25 PM	#20
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by mlag Agree on the iso statement , 3200 is where noise starts to become visible but not bad. I allow K-3II to select iso automatically in the range 100-3200. 6400 is still workable if you need it , but I try to avoid this one. I think the KP has a slightly more recent sensor... But I like the integrated gps function and the double sdcard slot of the K-3II. Wifi connection is missing, the sdcard based solution of the Flucard is a bit unreliable to my taste. More importantly, the KP has the ‘accelerator’, which cleans up noise, but does not “eat stars”. The K-1ii and the K-3iii and K-70 also have it.

09-07-2022, 05:48 PM - 1 Like	#21
Hayashi Senior Member Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 177	Originally posted by MossyRocks I would say that the KP having a newer sensor would be the better option. Also it is a newer body and likely will have more options you might want to use. I don't have a KP so I can't offer my experience on it or make any comparison to the K-3ii which I do own That said the K-3 and K-3ii are no slouch for astro shooting which is very low light shooting. I know a number of people over in the astro group still use a K-3 or K-3ii or if they are me will run a pile of cameras at night where I will now frequently run the K-3, K-3ii, K-3iii and K-500. I've managed shots like these with either the K-3 or K-3ii: Those were taken with my 400mm, 400mm+2X-L converter, 50mm, or 12mm lenses and for a body the K-3 or K-3ii. Astonishing! Yes, the sensory technology evolves a lot within the last ten years. I compare images produced by same lens (HD DA-15mm and HDDA20-40mm) with legacy K-3 and current K-3III There are huge differences, I can see the K-3III is doing much better job. I am quite sure the KP with new sensor plus accelerator unit would demonstrate the similar imaging power

09-07-2022, 06:38 PM	#22
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by MossyRocks I would say that the KP having a newer sensor would be the better option. Also it is a newer body and likely will have more options you might want to use. I don't have a KP so I can't offer my experience on it or make any comparison to the K-3ii which I do own That said the K-3 and K-3ii are no slouch for astro shooting which is very low light shooting. I know a number of people over in the astro group still use a K-3 or K-3ii or if they are me will run a pile of cameras at night where I will now frequently run the K-3, K-3ii, K-3iii and K-500. I've managed shots like these with either the K-3 or K-3ii: Those were taken with my 400mm, 400mm+2X-L converter, 50mm, or 12mm lenses and for a body the K-3 or K-3ii. Are these single images or stacked? What iso?

09-08-2022, 08:27 AM - 2 Likes	#24
MossyRocks Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,982	Originally posted by Hayashi There are huge differences, I can see the K-3III is doing much better job. I am quite sure the KP with new sensor plus accelerator unit would demonstrate the similar imaging power The K-3iii is fantastic for astro. I love mine but still use the K-3 and K-3ii as well as that just means I can run cameras on more things. I would think that the KP is better than the K-3 and K-3ii but not as good as the K-3iii as the K-3iii has a different sensor that is very highly regarded in the astrophotography community (there is a dedicated astrocam that uses the same sensor but in monochrome for use with a filter wheel). Originally posted by UncleVanya Are these single images or stacked? What iso? All were stacked and depending on the target the ISO was anywhere from ISO 100 (Jupiter and Saturn) up to ISO 3200 (the milky way over the barn). Basically I throw as much exposure length as I can get away with and then adjust the ISO to avoid clipping in the stars. Since the gain is applied before the AtoD conversion it results in slightly more useable data than shooting at a lower ISO. It isn't much more useable data, usually about 1 bit, but with such difficult shooting conditions you want to hold on to as much data as possible. The one of the great Orion Nebula actually has the most total exposure time coming in at just under 9 hours and was shot with ISO1600. I believe that the Andromeda galaxy is composed of shots at ISO 3200 and ISO 1600.

09-08-2022, 08:32 AM - 1 Like	#25
MossyRocks Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,982	Originally posted by microlight Incredible shots! I second these questions and have more - guess I'd better head over to the astro group... We are a friendly group and will likely fall over each other to help out someone starting out. I do suggest asking questions early and often and posting your first shots looking for how to improve. We are trying something different this month as a first try at a group shoot where we all try and shoot an object some and post our collected RAW files so they can all be combined and processed and then share what we managed to pull out. We are shooting the Pac-Man nebula in Cassiopeia. Unfortunately throwing gear at the problem for astrophotography is more often than not a very valid solution soon you will be acquiring F/2.8 and F/2 telephoto lenses or optics where size is measured in absolute open aperture.

09-09-2022, 12:24 AM	#26
microlight Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,129	Many thanks, MossyRocks. I’ve been in the doldrums with my photography, so maybe astro is a way to go. My most recent attempt at it was a few years ago, and it makes no sense that my camera has the astrotracer function that I make so little use of.

09-09-2022, 03:32 AM	#27
Hythloday Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 65	Originally posted by TaoMaas so I'm trying to decide between a KP and a K3 ii. I have both and it is difficult to say which is best. So buy both and you will know why it is so hard to choose.

09-25-2022, 05:38 PM	#28
cobbu2 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2013 Location: North Potomac, MD Photos: Albums Posts: 1,427	I have both as well, and I'd say (for me) it boils down to what you're shooting. For high ISO situations, the KP wins. For sports shooting (I shoot a lot of swim meets), the K-3 II easily wins (especially with the 55-300mm PLM mounted), and I've tried both. Landscapes are a bit of a tossup, but for discerning image quality I'd give the KP the edge based on overall image quality... and that is a totally subjective assessment on my part. I haven't tried the KP with the Astrotracer yet, but it's great with the K3-II with its built-in GPS. It's all pluses and minuses for both and that's why I have both.