[Fogel70]

KP is a very good camera and I can find low mileage KP at $400-500 locally.
K3/K3 II is usually found at $350-400 and K5/K5II at $250-300.

But for me KP is more pleasant to use with improved IQ and the tlitable screen makes it a much more flexible camera.

$700 - 750 for a used K3II nowadays sound like a lot. It is basically the same price it was sold for new just before it was discontinued.

[Levus]

Go for the K3 and after a while if you love it go for a K3 III.

[MrB1]

It depends on your type/style of shooting, but for the cameras you have listed, one disadvantage of the KP is the smaller battery, hence lower capacity/duration of charge. However, if your style allows you time to change over to a fully-charged battery, simply carry one (or more) charged spares in your bag or pocket. You could try to find a KP with a battery grip, but for me that defeats the main object of having the KP - an excellent image capture machine in a well-built compact DSLR body, with the added versatility of a tilting rear screen.

Philip

[UncleVanya]

While the KP is my main Pentax body, the K-3 is quite good. I find that DXO prime noise reduction reduces the noise differences between the cameras. The tilting screen and third control wheel are benefits of the KP but these aren’t deal breakers in most shooting scenarios.

Like other people on the thread I’d like more info on what the k-5 fails to do for you to understand what to recommend. The k-5 isn’t a camera I ever used, so I can only offer a view of k-3 vs KP and insight as to why the k-3ii was not my choice when I bought my k-3 despite both being available new at the time. To reiterate, the k-3 pop up flash was deemed more useful to me than the gps and pixel shift mode. If you think the k-3ii features would be very useful, I’d the additional shutter use and cost with it to you? Personally I’d go for one of the low shutter count k-3 bodies and not that k-3ii which seems overpriced by comparison.

[que es tu]

KP+++. Small, light, excellent sensor, excellent ISO handling, infinitely customizable, excellent build quality, pure Pentax retro-cool! The KP is an affordable pro level body!

[termy]

It depends on your type/style of shooting, but for the cameras you have listed, one disadvantage of the KP is the smaller battery, hence lower capacity/duration of charge. However, if your style allows you time to change over to a fully-charged battery, simply carry one (or more) charged spares in your bag or pocket. You could try to find a KP with a battery grip, but for me that defeats the main object of having the KP - an excellent image capture machine in a well-built compact DSLR body, with the added versatility of a tilting rear screen.

Philip

Yeap. Was going to mention similarly.
OP did not indicate, what areas of photography are you mainly on to?

Without knowing that, the KP is perhaps the better "all rounder".

[mlag]

I hesitated long on the flash topic when I moved to the K-3 II. But I came from a K10D and iso sensitivity was so much better that I never missed the flash....
The K-3II has the integrated gps module, nice for tagging locations or astrotracing.. I became a big gps user for pictures along naturetrails , in cities it matters less (if you take picture of Eiffeltower in Paris, you probably know where you took it)

More recent camera’s will have better iso range , but in daily use one (or even two) steps hardly matter imho. But K5 to Kp will be noticed with 3 generations difference. However if indoors or night photography, every bit helps...
The look and feel of the Kp body is different, it might take a bit more time to get familiar with it.

K-3II seems to be more rare secondhand than K-3 , so I guess some price difference is acceptable , but II goes here for around 550-600€.

From 750$ I would also start to consider the new KF....bit more more expensive, rear folding screen, bit less buttons and no top screen, smaller battery, but very good iso and for the rest quite complete.... .

[C_Jones]

The K-5 IIs is an excellent camera and is the older candidate. The KP, which I do not have, lacks an LCD on the top of it to read settings, but otherwise it has revised/updated components which are an asset, on the other hand, the K-3 III is the aps-c newest performer and is definitely the leader in technology and performance (aps-c).

If interested in the full frame option, the K-1 II, which I have, is amazing.

If shooting landscape and wildlife, I would recommend the aps-c models, otherwise the full frame type models would be a choice to weigh depending on your shooting interests. For example if you are shooting primarily landscape and people the full frame may be very effective. APS-C may be very effective for those areas also, but the full frame may render more detail in some cases.

[mikesbike]

Well, APS-C has the practical advantage for telephoto usage, as well as lighter carrying.

When it comes to standard and wider angle, the ball game changes. For landscape, fast wider angle lenses and situations for more DOF control, get a new K-1 II with the great deals now being offered!! It is necessary to understand the difference in FOV between the two formats. I got mine from B&H at a wonderful price, and the same deal is even better now! The pre-packaged Ricoh-Pentax deal including the exceptional DFA 28-105mm, is now offered with the same $200 off the original camera price and now $300 off the lens! And this with some useful free extras, including a roomy camera/lens bag. My deal was $100 off the lens, so now you get a $500 lens for $200!

For example, take the HD FA 35mm f/2 lens. On APS-C it would present as a standard "normal" FOV, while on the K-1 it would be a fast moderate wide-angle lens! To equal this FOV on APS-C, one would need to use a 24mm lens. But there are none available I know of capable of f/2 with fine edge-to-edge performance. And even if there were, compared to the new K-3 III or the KP, the same scene taken form the same distance would be competing against a 36mp camera! The KP imaging is so good, the visible differences might be subtle or not, but there would be a difference. From 24mp to 36mp represents a 50% increase!

That exceptionally fine DFA 28-105mm DC WR lens provides plenty of wide angle on the K-1 II, but would provide no WA on APS-C. That would require a zoom lens starting with 18 or 20mm.

Of course, the best answer is to have both formats to serve the advantages each has to offer.

[rr1736]

The K3 of course does not have pixel shift but it is a work horse. I put over 250,000 clicks on mine before I gave it to my son and he is still using it. I think if pixel shift is something you want you will have to go to KP. I have a KP it is a great box. I also have a K3III and I am very happy with it. The K5 operates much like the K3 and I think while it is 16 meg it has lower noise than the K3 but that could be just my copy ( I had a K5 which I have given to my granddaughter)

[Des]

I wish I could have the pixel shift of the K-3 II and a pop up flash from the K-3.

KP has both. (So does K-70/KF.)

I rarely use Pixel Shift

Same here. PS is not a magic bullet. It's useful in particular situations: static subjects with a tripod mounted camera. For product photography, still life, still scenes - great. But even with motion correction (in the later iterations), it can struggle with movement in the scene (even a branch blowing in the wind). And not all PP software can take full advantage of it. (A few thread discussions about this.)

I have owned a K-5, K-5iis, K-3 and KP.I now own two KP bodies with battery grips.The KP's super clean images at high ISO won me over. I shoot a lot of telephoto images in less than perfect light, the KP really shines here. If you don't need low noise above ISO 2000 or so, a used K-3 is a fantastic deal. 200,000 actuations shutter and really good ergonomics. Better pricing used too. The built in flashes on my Pentax bodies have saved the day many times, so I'd opt for the original K-3 over the K-3ii for that reason.

This is close to my experience too. (K-30, K-3, K-S2, KP, K-3iii) I loved the feel of the K-3 and a lot of those little flagship model things that are often overlooked (quiet shutter, excellent button layout, superior dust removal, P-Line selections, etc) - and the popup flash was handy at times. It balanced beautifully with telephoto lenses. Its main limitation - and the main reason I sold it after getting the KP - is the high-ISO performance. The KP has most of the things I liked about the K-3 - including robust construction, quiet shutter and many small features - with the addition of:
- superior high-ISO performance (1-2 stops better),
- even better Shake Reduction,
- PixelShift
- third control wheel (a great addition, which makes it easy to change your most used settings)
- tilt screen (invaluable).
What I miss from the K-3 (to KP):
- ergonomics/button placement
- burst rate and buffer (both eclipsed in this regard by the K-3iii)
- battery capacity (not a deal breaker, just carry a spare - and not an issue if you get the battery grip)

What I don't miss:
- dual SD cards
- top LCD from the K-3

AF performance is similar; maybe a little better on the KP. (Although neither holds a candle to the K-3iii.)

get a K-3iii

The K-3iii is the one with the lot (almost - no flash, no GPS and no tilt screen), but at more than double the price of any of the models discussed, I assume it's out of budget.

The K5 operates much like the K3 and I think while it is 16 meg it has lower noise than the K3 but that could be just my copy

I haven't had a K-5 but had the K-30 which has the same sensor. It's a great sensor - the lower pixel density does make for less noise. I've heard many people say they prefer the K-5 series to the original K-3 for landscapes. The accelerator units in the KP and other recent 24/26mp models have levelled up the low light performance IMO.

[steamloco76]

KP has both. (So does K-70/KF.)

Same here. PS is not a magic bullet. It's useful in particular situations: static subjects with a tripod mounted camera. For product photography, still life, still scenes - great. But even with motion correction (in the later iterations), it can struggle with movement in the scene (even a branch blowing in the wind). And not all PP software can take full advantage of it. (A few thread discussions about this.)

This is close to my experience too. (K-30, K-3, K-S2, KP, K-3iii) I loved the feel of the K-3 and a lot of those little flagship model things that are often overlooked (quiet shutter, excellent button layout, superior dust removal, P-Line selections, etc) - and the popup flash was handy at times. It balanced beautifully with telephoto lenses. Its main limitation - and the main reason I sold it after getting the KP - is the high-ISO performance. The KP has most of the things I liked about the K-3 - including robust construction, quiet shutter and many small features - with the addition of:
- superior high-ISO performance (1-2 stops better),
- even better Shake Reduction,
- PixelShift
- third control wheel (a great addition, which makes it easy to change your most used settings)
- tilt screen (invaluable).
What I miss from the K-3 (to KP):
- ergonomics/button placement
- burst rate and buffer (both eclipsed in this regard by the K-3iii)
- battery capacity (not a deal breaker, just carry a spare - and not an issue if you get the battery grip)

What I don't miss:
- dual SD cards
- top LCD from the K-3

AF performance is similar; maybe a little better on the KP. (Although neither holds a candle to the K-3iii.)

The K-3iii is the one with the lot (almost - no flash, no GPS and no tilt screen), but at more than double the price of any of the models discussed, I assume it's out of budget.

I haven't had a K-5 but had the K-30 which has the same sensor. It's a great sensor - the lower pixel density does make for less noise. I've heard many people say they prefer the K-5 series to the original K-3 for landscapes. The accelerator units in the KP and other recent 24/26mp models have levelled up the low light performance IMO.

I bought a K-50 at a good price to use with my older K-mount and Takumar m-42 lenses as the 24 MP sensor in the KP finds every flaw in older lenses, I ended up using the K-50:to take all of my fall foliage photos in 2022. I just love the rendition from that 16 MP sensor.

[Des]

The OP seems okay with trading hard earned cash for an used model that's obsolete and run the risk of never really being happy...

A very colourful post Michael! But I certainly wouldn't describe the KP as "obsolete". While the K-3iii is a wonderful camera, and more advanced in a number of ways, I'm not really seeing any difference so far between the KP and K-3iii in image quality. DR and high-ISO performance seems similar. For someone who shoots landscapes or static subjects, for whom the AF improvements are not so significant, the KP would be just as good. Better in one way: the tilt screen. (Wifi is so clunky I don't find using it with the smartphone as a viable alternative.)

[carlb]

A very colourful post Michael! But I certainly wouldn't describe the KP as "obsolete". While the K-3iii is a wonderful camera, and more advanced in a number of ways, I'm not really seeing any difference so far between the KP and K-3iii in image quality. DR and high-ISO performance seems similar. For someone who shoots landscapes or static subjects, for whom the AF improvements are not so significant, the KP would be just as good. Better in one way: the tilt screen. (Wifi is so clunky I don't find using it with the smartphone as a viable alternative.)

Anybody that wants to pass their "obsolete" KP on to me can just drop me a PM

[mikesbike]

Certainly, the OP can go for the KP and get results when the conditions are right. Given the right circumstances, my 2006 vintage K-110D can deliver wonders, as well.

Really. I've had numerous Pentax DSLR models over many years, like the *istD, K100D, K200D, including flagships like the K20D. K-5, K-5IIs which I still have and use as well as the more "modernized" K-S2. I have enjoyed them all. However, the KP turned out to be in a different league, able to very successfully bring exceptional results under conditions where any of the others would struggle or produce less quality.

I have no doubt as to the improved AF capabilities of the new K-3 III with the right lens, its greater burst capability, or its yet another step up in higher ISO with its BSI sensor. I would expect so at that price and some 5oz heavier. I understand its appeal for those needing its features and advancements. But the KP remains an exceptional performer, and in a very unique compact design. I could afford a new K-3 III, but I don't need most of what its advantages are, and would miss those special advantages the KP offers. I am quite happy with the KP. I love its fine imaging quality along with the easy carrying and other conveniences it offers. I am far from alone in this view.