Pentax K-3 Mark 1 vs Pentax KP ergonomics

Hi folks, I have a K5 which has served me well over the 10 years I've had it, but is starting to get a bit, well, er used I suppose - lens change button has popped off for example.

So off and on I find myself thinking about a replacement rather than spend for repair.

I have a mix of DA, DA*lenses and a few older FA lenses.

I don't want anything significantly heavier than the K5 and these days I don't have as much spare income as I once did, so I'm thinking used.

I mostly like the controls on the k5 and on the surface of it a used k3 mk1 would fit the bill. I prefer to have a pop up flash available than lug a flash, although it's not unknown.

I used to shoot 90% landscapes 10% portrait, its now probably the opposite, kids on the move being main subject. I use the mobile increasingly simply due to portability, buy rarely satisfied with resulting jpgs

The 18to270 is default lens, had it about a year, after a 17to70 started giving less than sharp results above 40to50mm ish, but I don't like it much, It doesn't give what I like for landscapes, it has a decent centre response but it's a very peaky response, mid and edge are not to my taste. I feel like a snapper more than a photographer currently!

So I also started looking at kp, newer tech, hopefully better tech for those 30th sec, f4, iso 1100 moments.

The dials on the kp are arranged very differently, especially the front dial which is vertical, almost flush to the face of the camera rather than horizontal on k5. And various buttons can be customised.

I select the focus point a lot, use flash compensation and change metering modes fairly often, TAv and Av modes, Sv a fair bit for landscapes, virtually never Tv or P modes. Iso button and flash mode get adjusted, never use the AF button. LV usually only used for macros. Exposure bracketing and exposure compensation are used.
I do a little studio set up with a brolly and a flashgun, may do more in future

For people who have owned k3 and kp how do you find they compare ergonomically in real life use ? Ps I preferred the k10 ergonomics to the k5

K5 annoyances are the side by side Iso and +/- buttons and the fx button not cancelling exposure bracketing sometimes

I would shoot more video if it had auto focus.

Most wished for camera feature not invented yet - in camera ND filter !

I'm looking at the kp and thinking it looks very different and would have a fair learning curve to adjust to compared to k5/k3

What are the pros and cons you've encountered for k3 vs kp ?

Thanks

I've got a K-3.
I've only had a play with a K-P in a shop when it first appeared, but I much preferred the handling/ergonomics of the K-3, but that could've just been familiarity I guess.

My Fuji X100 has a built-in ND filter...

A (happy) K5 user here with no experience of the K3, but just to add that your most wished for camera feature has been invented: I have a Canon G5 with a built-in ND filter. Very handy when out and about in bright sunlight and you've forgotten to take a filter with you ....

A thought regarding a replacement camera: unless the K3 has features you need you could keep a watch for a mint / excellent condition K5 (or K10) to replace the existing camera. Such things do appear from time to time.

I use a KP now for the majority of shots and I think it is an excellent camera - you can read about its potential and performance in many on-line user-reviews.

Whether its ergonomics suit you is a matter of personal choice so, if you can, you should try handling one for a while, before making a decision. I have found no problem with the different layout of its controls, and the extra e-dial is a great feature. The only negatives for me are the grips - none of them feels as good as the built-in grip of a K-5 and K-3 - but I tolerate that as a minor point because the camera is so good.

Two of the KP features you might be interested to know:
(i) In electronic shutter mode it goes down to 1/24000 sec, so does that cancel the need for an ND filter?
(ii) It uses the smaller D-Li109 battery, so it is wise always to carry a charged-up spare.

Philip

I have the K-P and at one point alos had the K-3 but sold the latter as it was not used so much. The K-P is much smaller in the hand than the K-3, the body is shorter and its a bit lighter. The dials are all easy to access and i find the 3rd dial usefull. There are lots of options to customize the buttons to suit your preferances. You can also customize the control panel menu to give you quick acces to things you change most.

I find it very comfatble to use with primes like the LTD series, Less so with heavier zooms like the 16-50. I dont find the larger grip to be benficial. I find myself holding the camera slighlty diffrently (so it sits in the plam of hand) to how i would hold the K-3.

I dont think there is a huge difference in image qualty below 1600, above that there is a significant differnce.

Not sure about the K3 or KP, but with K3ii and K1, you can simulate built in ND filter with the composite shooting function set to 'Average'...

Just to add......the Pentax Q has a built in ND filter

To be precise, it's only in the non-'toy' Q lenses, not the camera itself. So it's not really an in-camera ND filter.

Steve

The MX has a built-in ND filter too.

I have both. I prefer the K3 with heavier lenses and the KP with less heavy lenses, such as the DA 20-40mm or primes. This has all to do with the ergonomics of the two cameras.

No it doesn't, but the MX-1 does

Having a built in ND filer might not be much help.
Just ask your self what strength should it be? Everyone will have a different answer!

Sorry. A pre-emptive RETURN.

True, but it might sometimes be ideal, or at least something I can work with.

That'll never be the case with the built-in ND filter on my K-3...

Well, most of the ND-ised pictures I've seen seem to use a 10, so probably that.

Then again, they do apparently do variable ND filters these days, so... c