[Considering upgrade] Where else is K-3 strategically better than K-5IIs?


Dariusz

Link Posted 11/01/2014 - 20:20
I don't personally consider 24mp sensor an advantage currently, due to bigger files size and poorer high ISO performance. I understand though that more pixels contribute positively to the overall video quality as well as some K-3's photographs will now probably appear sharper.

But I do appreciate the K-3's HDR-ed raws, extra sealings, dual memory card slots, easier video recording with extra, dedicated buttons and faster, more accurate new autofocus. Apparently shutter is more durable too. There is also better LCD & USB, newer processor, we've got risen viewfinder magnification, more comfortable battery pack/grip to attach and more fps.

Feels like already good enough update, but is there anything esle anywhere in the K-3 still superior over the trusty, old K-5IIs?

davidstorm

Link Posted 11/01/2014 - 21:55
What about these:

- Switchable anti-moire
- USB 3 = rapid transfer of images to a PC
- Flu Card capability for tethering to a smart phone (coming soon)
- More accurate metering
- More accurate colour rendition and white balance
- Less tendency to blow highlights

And finally, I would dispute that the K-3 is worse at higher ISO's. I've had mine for two months now and had the opportunity to use it side by side with my K-5IIs during this time and I think it is as good as the IIs at higher ISO's. If there is any difference, it is not worth worrying about.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

bettyswolloks

Link Posted 11/01/2014 - 22:03
davidstorm wrote:
What about these:

- Switchable anti-moire
- USB 3 = rapid transfer of images to a PC
- Flu Card capability for tethering to a smart phone (coming soon)
- More accurate metering
- More accurate colour rendition and white balance
- Less tendency to blow highlights

And finally, I would dispute that the K-3 is worse at higher ISO's. I've had mine for two months now and had the opportunity to use it side by side with my K-5IIs during this time and I think it is as good as the IIs at higher ISO's. If there is any difference, it is not worth worrying about.

Regards
David

Its things like this that make my wife nervous

Dariusz

Link Posted 13/01/2014 - 13:21
davidstorm wrote:
- More accurate metering

Ah, metering. That's what I was after, that's my missing element. Thanks. Well, pretty serious upgrade that K-3 is.

Steep

Link Posted 13/01/2014 - 20:21
It has a darned sight better high iso performance than my K-r had. I still don't understand why there's no lower iso setting than 100 though.

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 13/01/2014 - 21:01
I believe it is down to the density of pixel numbers, because they are physically smaller they cannot absorb as much light. But the difference, according to those that can compare, is utterly negligible and not worth fretting over, what you gain is significant enough to warrant the outlay.
My Flickr link

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)

Algernon

Link Posted 13/01/2014 - 21:07
But apart from all that! ........ What did the Romans
ever do for us!

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Smeggypants

Link Posted 13/01/2014 - 23:52
SteveEveritt wrote:
I believe it is down to the density of pixel numbers, because they are physically smaller they cannot absorb as much light. But the difference, according to those that can compare, is utterly negligible and not worth fretting over, what you gain is significant enough to warrant the outlay.

That would be anyone with Internet access

K-5

and


K-3



I've posted these before ...

click on them for full size to avoid the 800px nonsense

K5 ISO6400 100% no NR




K3 ISO6400 100% no NR




K5 ISO51200 100% no NR




K3 ISO51200 100% no NR


[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

davidstorm

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 00:08
Have you also seen this on the Forum Smeggy?




That's 800 ISO with a K-5iis by the way. Just goes to show that you can't take at face value what you read and see on the Internet

Apologies to Barrie and only used to show the noise in the image, but I think this illustrates a point, i.e. that exposure plays a massive part in the apparent noise. We only truly know how something performs for us when we use it.

I don't expect any agreement or consideration of this point of view from Smeggy BTW, it is just my personal opinion.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Last Edited by davidstorm on 14/01/2014 - 00:27

Sean282

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 00:21
Having moved from the K5 to the K3, in open play I'm getting many more in focus shots when lighting conditions aren't great. I'm very happy with my decision to move up.

davidstorm

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 00:25
Also I forgot to mention in the 'plus points' of K-3 vs. K-5iis one quite major point for anyone who uses flash. The K-3 works like a dream with PTTL flash, whereas the K-5iis (or any other K-5) is a joke with PTTL flash.

We should all take it as given that a modern DSLR will work properly with PTTL flash, but unfortunately the K-5's don't.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Last Edited by davidstorm on 14/01/2014 - 00:26

Smeggypants

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 02:27
You don't need to own a camera to evaluate the pictures taken by it.

That's the great thing about cameras, they take pictures that anyone can see. Which is a good thing as it means people who don't own a camera but are considering buying it cna make an evaluation BEFORE spending lots of money.

And yes it true no one knows exactly how a camera will work for them personally until they've used one for some considerable time, which usually means ownership. It's also true that someone who owns and has used a camera for sometime can't tell someone else how it will work for them as that person need to own it and use it themselves

And as this thread was started by a potential buyer who probably won't be able to use one for some considerable time before buying it then it's back to looking at the pictures.

And the pictures, taken in conditions far more controlled ( by Imaging Resources ) than a random bird shot taken out in the field with sh*tloads of processing, including sharpening, applied to it, show that at higher ISOs the K-3 has more noise than the K-5. People just claiming the contrary on the basis they own the said camera have no logical weight for refutation and it looks like nothing more than Cognitive Dissonance.


I say to anyone looking to buy a K-3, if you don't shoot many high ISO Images or you don't mind the extra noise at High ISO, don't mind the bigger file sizes, like the extra detail allowing extra cropping, better AF, like the extra features, and feel all that is worth the extra money, then buy a K-3.





.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

johnriley

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 07:48
It would be nice if we didn't just recirculate the same discussion though, because we've already had that one.

There are contrary opinions always, but in the end we can't be expected to take the word of just one source based on a couple of images that we have no background to. By which I mean every experiment has its parameters and we don't know the conditions of the shoot. If we did, we might or might not think it was a good way to set up the camera.

If you shoot JPEG you won't get all that noise. It may well be that you won't if you process the RAW image properly either.

Whether you use JPEG or use RAW with noise reduction software, the K-3 isn't a problem. It's being vastly exaggerated as being an issue.
Best regards, John

tyronet2000

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 11:41
davidstorm wrote:
The K-3 works like a dream with PTTL flash, whereas the K-5iis (or any other K-5) is a joke with PTTL flash.

Regards
David

In what way David? I've never needed to use flash in anger but have a Pentax(360? or something) PTTL flash "just in case". Are manual flash guns the way to go?
Regards
Stan

PPG

Dariusz

Link Posted 14/01/2014 - 12:26
johnriley wrote:
It would be nice if we didn't just recirculate the same discussion though, because we've already had that one.

It's me, sorry John, I'm so bad with looking things up. Poor excuse, I know, sorry again. I just couldn't find anything on this topic (I was simply searching for something like "K-3 vs K-5", as DP Review comparison was far not enough). So I thought I could perhaps ask again and sort of refresh the topic, possibly by the addition of new or verified experiences.

Lovely, very helpful summary inputs and thoughts though, on how much better could the new Pentax SLR be over the previous one, many thanks for that!
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.