An interesting thought regarding the K5 Vs K3 Conundrum.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52612911

Discuss but Lets try to keep this one clean...
Personally I'd like to see one with an XTrans Sensor...

How about a K-02 with a 24mp sensor....

That too!

I don't reallt see it as such a conundrum. If I can afford it, K-3. If I can't run to that, then K-5 IIs. If it needs to be lower cost still, then K-50, and so on.

I don't think we can ignore cost when saying "which is the one of choice?"

That seems a slightly confused argument TBH (the article that is, not JR's comment.) He talks of wanting a simpler camera implying the K-3 is too much and then wishes a K-3 with a 16mp sensor. I can't that see that a K-3 variant with a 16mp sensor would cost significantly less to produce or be any simpler to operate if it has all the K-3 features other than the sensor. Quite likely many of the new K-3 features will appear in the K-30 successor together with some new ones. So surely, for now at least, the K-30 (not K-50) must be that 'lighter' camera' he wishes!

John K

Plain speaking, plain truth!

And if you can't afford a K-50 then get an *ist.

I'll wager most of the highly competent photographers on this site could manage some decent images with a first-generation Pentax DSLR.

The K3 has given many people the specific 'improvements' or features that so many have been wanting and creating 'wishlists' for on here for a long time. I was impressed that Ricoh appears to have listened to & read about these things, and been able to provide so many on a single body.

Of course, it has increased the control complexity and operation choices to be made, but I doubt very much that many people here would be happy with an updated legacy model - an '*ist 's' perhaps?

The K5 already has 6mp too many for my day job. I believe most pros think 12mp is more than enough. Nikon got it spot on sticking with the 16mp in the DF, but in a way that camera is immune from the megapixel race due to its 'back to basics' ethos and high end niche market. If Pentax were to bring out a FF with even the 12mp sensor from the D700 I'd be very happy, but I imagine the general public & reviewers might be scratching their heads and have the snide comments ready to go.

Megapixels is more of a marketing ploy now to all, except those with specialists requirements. Pixel peeping on a computer screen might make you feel great about your camera, but is has nothing to do photography, or even general picture quality IMO. When I hear youtubers like Grainger and Polin banging about 'look at these gorgeous files!', 'look at these options!', 'full frame is where you wanna be!', for sure they're nice, as they should be for the price, but state the facts, stop 'selling' us fantasy cameraland, lets hear about the real world and real basic requirements for once.

I would love a McLaren MP4-12 - but I would still only be able to drive it at 70mph everyday. Well, 77mph.

It needed saying

Is that really true? I've always found my large crop of a small part of an image has always looked better than previous cameras I have had with lower mp counts.(For the same size resulting image). So are you saying that a 100% crop of a K5 image will be as good resolution and with the same amount of noise showing as the K3 cropped to 65%? I know the K30 gives better crops than my KM did.

I'm certainly not part of any megapixel race - I get all I need from the K7, including 100 x 70cm prints from FOTO.com that look exactly the same as my 'web-sized' screen versions.

I don't know what 'interpolatory magic' they may use, but it works with absolutely no degradation. Every shot I upload gets an 'optimal' rating for these large sizes, so there must be plenty of image data for them to work with. So no need for a K3 for me ...

Well, its not all about IQ is it? ... there are quite a few control and configuration features I'd enjoy experimenting with on the K3, thats for sure. It come down to our own personal value assessment in the end.

I have used and owned more than one make of DSLR (full and crop sensor) ranging from 6mp Pentax K100D right up to just under 22mp FF.

Regardless of any brand bias I can honestly say the cleanest and nicest images at base ISO came from a 12mp FF Canon 5D

I also think that 24mp is pushing it on a crop sensor and should Pentax release a FF (which would seriously interest me) they should not go down the 36mp route of Nikon or Sony

The K-3 just gives a lovely shooting experience, the fact that it has more megapixels is icing on the cake. Pentax have got just about everything right on the handling front.

I'm looking forward to trying some wildlife shots with mine where the extra megapixels should prove very useful. I'm also particularly interested in how much performance it can wring out my antique prime lenses as my first impressions are that it makes these lenses easier to use and should maximise the IQ that they are capable of.

I think I'm very lucky as I didn't really have a 'K-3 vs. K-5' conundrum.

Regards
David

Apart from the rare occasions of cropping I'm not bothered about 24P at all. I'd much rather the K-3 had remained at 16MP and had an increase in high ISO performance instead of a degradation.


[quote="Bloke at DPReview"] It is a serious tool indeed, and requires a different approach to image taking — much more different and considerate than anything we’ve practised, learned and enjoyed with the K7, K5/II/IIs.[/quote]However I can't see how 24MP makes shooting "much more different and considerate" than shooting at 16MP ?




.