Looking for thoughts from anyone who upgraded from K-5ii to K-3 (or K-3ii) please?


dinneenp

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 12:34
Hi,
I have the K-5ii (upgraded from KX to K-7 to K-5ii) and thinking about upgrading to the K-3 or K3ii. I know there's reviews about it but I'm looking for some 'real life' thoughts from people who have upgraded from 5 to 3 please, always better to hear from users and not just from reviews. Was it worth the upgrade, what differences do you notice, is picture quality better, focusing etc. Would you recommend the upgrade?

Thanks in advance,
Pa
Cheers,
Pa
http://www.photoblog.ie where every post have a musical reference as it's title.

percy

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 13:41
I went from a K-5iis to a K-3. I have mixed feelings about it.
I find the autofocus on the K-3 is better - seems faster and better for tracking moving subjects.
With the higher resolution there's more scope for cropping.
The placement of the rear autofocus button is much better (I found the K-5 a little awkward and uncomfortable when using it for extended periods)
I'm not convinced that the image quality is any better for 'normal' viewing.
File sizes are larger.
Overall I feel it was a worthwhile upgrade for me, but while it's undoubtedly better it's not a quantum leap. If I'm honest with myself I could have managed happily enough with the K-5iis.

Helpful

LennyBloke

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 15:54
It will depend very much on how you feel about your K5ii !

The single biggest notable improvement will be sharpness (IMO) - due to the lack of an AA filter. There are many other plus points for the K3/K3ii but if you are happy and comfortable with the performance of your existing camera then there's a lot to be said for making that little step up to the K5iis instead. I went from K5 to K5iis to K3 to K5iis - the K3 was far more of a camera than I needed, and I was already so comfortable with the layout and handling of the K5 series that it was a better move for me.

A lot will depend on the type of photography you do though - sport, aircraft, etc. then the K3 probably offers significant , notable improvements - Landscapes, Macro, etc. then I am more than happy with my 'S'
LennyBloke

dinneenp

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 16:22
LennyBloke wrote:
It will depend very much on how you feel about your K5ii !

The single biggest notable improvement will be sharpness (IMO) - due to the lack of an AA filter. There are many other plus points for the K3/K3ii but if you are happy and comfortable with the performance of your existing camera then there's a lot to be said for making that little step up to the K5iis instead. I went from K5 to K5iis to K3 to K5iis - the K3 was far more of a camera than I needed, and I was already so comfortable with the layout and handling of the K5 series that it was a better move for me.

A lot will depend on the type of photography you do though - sport, aircraft, etc. then the K3 probably offers significant , notable improvements - Landscapes, Macro, etc. then I am more than happy with my 'S'

I'm happy with my K5ii but I don't know if I'd be happier with the K3 if you know what I mean.
When you say the K3 was far more of a camera than you needed in what way do you mean? I'd have thought it'd be virtually the same when handling except for the slightly different layout.
I went from K7 to K5ii mainly for the higher ISO usability.
What type of photography do I shoot- my family, a bit of macro, abstract, general photography around Galway (cityscape, people,) and the very rare wedding.

I'd like sharpness without editing/PP if possible, I've heard one is better at the other for that.
Cheers,
Pa
http://www.photoblog.ie where every post have a musical reference as it's title.
Last Edited by dinneenp on 05/10/2015 - 16:26

Mike-P

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 16:39
I went K-5 - K-5II - K-3 - K-5IIs.

IMO a few things are superior on the K-3 such as more AF points, twin card slots and better cropping ability due to the 24MP sensor but at the same time I found the dynamic range and high ISO performance to be slightly worse. IMO the actual autofocus speed and tracking capability of the K-3 is no better than the K-5IIs (I have no idea how the K-3II compares in this respect).
. My Flickr

LennyBloke

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 20:15
dinneenp wrote:
I'm happy with my K5ii but I don't know if I'd be happier with the K3 if you know what I mean. When you say the K3 was far more of a camera than you needed in what way do you mean? I'd have thought it'd be virtually the same when handling except for the slightly different layout.
I went from K7 to K5ii mainly for the higher ISO usability.
What type of photography do I shoot- my family, a bit of macro, abstract, general photography around Galway (cityscape, people,) and the very rare wedding.

I'd like sharpness without editing/PP if possible, I've heard one is better at the other for that.

It's hard to nail down - there is nothing major about the K3 that I could pick out as a negative - I wasn't quite so keen on the results at iso1600-3200 (which I am with the K5 series) - and there are certainly a number of improvements - but for me the basic design of the K5 has become so "comfortable". The only things that lacked a little on the original K5 were the low light AF and the presence of the AA filter, so to me the K5iis was the closest thing to the perfect DSLR when it was launched.

I don't need the extra pixels as A3+ is the biggest I print. Because I'm "old school" I tend to compose without considering the option to crop, so usually use the whole sensor area. The familiarity of the layout is very important to me - having to explore for features when I'm out shooting isn't my idea of fun - so the slight changes on the K3 were a bit unsettling.

Having said all that I did have to try the K3, like many others have. I suspect most have stayed with it (and benefited greatly) - but a few of us have stepped down to the K5iis.

I think I've only confused the picture for you - Sorry
LennyBloke

Helpful

davidstorm

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 20:20
I've already posted my thoughts several times, but no harm in mentioning some again! I prefer the K-3, it's always the camera I pick up (my other body that gets 'outdoor' use is the K-5iis).

Funnily enough, the K-3 is the more reliable focusser with almost all lenses, but for some reason the K-5iis is better with the DA*50-135, so I tend to use the iis when the 50-135 is called for! Don't ask me why this is, I haven't a clue!

Regards IQ, I echo the comments re cropping. I tend to disagree a little on the high ISO stuff, I don't find the K-3 worse than the K-5iis in this regard. Yes it is different, but is it worse? I don't think so, but this is just a personal opinion.

I like the dual card slots, better rear screen (this is not often mentioned), better placement of the rear AF button, better WB. I also prefer the overall colour rendering of the K-3 over the K-5iis, mostly due to the images being inherently 'warmer' in tone. To me, it deals with skin tones much more successfully than the K-5iis does.

Having said all of the above, I love both cameras and I won't be selling either of them in a hurry.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

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

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 05/10/2015 - 21:24
I have taken the same route 7 -5iis - 3
I find I'm not picking the 5iis up anywhere near as often any more.
As for the 3 it's processing speed of images is awesome and when shooting at the kart track I found I'd quite often miss shots with the 5 because the buffer was full, but the 3 eats the raws so quick I very rarely have to wait.
Apparently the 3 isn't as good in low light but it really is marginal. My go to camera now.
My Flickr link

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

fritzthedog

Link Posted 06/10/2015 - 16:02
I also am currently using the K5iis and K3.

Which do I prefer? In all honesty - I do not know - I have had the 5 a long time and the 3 only a couple of months. I tend to use them fairly equally - the K3 was not intended as a replacement

To me - the K5iis - does handle low light slightly better, the K3 is marginally faster to focus - but you only notice if really looking for a difference.

My K5iis slightly over exposes (0.3)- the K3 under exposes - sometimes by as much as 1.0

I think I am starting to discover that some lenses seem to prefer the K5iis (e.g. Sigma 10-20) while others prefer the K3 (e.g. DA 17-70)

All in all - trying to be objective - I do not actually think that in the real world there is a massive amount of difference.

Carl
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more

RobL

Link Posted 16/10/2015 - 12:11
Has anyone tried the pixel shift on the K-3II? This seems to be the facility that reviewers pick up on. and the Digital Camera review implies this is the only difference between it and the K-3. It also states the pixel shift generates huge RAW files of 100Mb+ but I thought that was the problem with another manufacturer's system, not the Pentax.

Darkmunk

Link Posted 16/10/2015 - 13:52
I have the IIs and bought a K3 as second body. The 3's file sizes were an unnecessary burden on my system and the images were demonstrably softer. I did lots of quite scientific tests and real world tests and the K5IIs was significantly sharper in all scenarios even when giving the 3 some advantages like using live view zoomed in for focus and seeing if resizing down to K5 size helped.
The K3 was better at locking on to aircraft but that was the only time I noticed an improvement. I didn't notice it hunting ever.
For weddings I couldn't have risked the performance drop of the 3 in the dark and sold it after about 2 weeks.
For me, doing a lot of macro and low light stuff, the K5IIs has not been bettered in APS-c.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

LawrenceKH

Link Posted 29/11/2015 - 12:48
Not sure my experience will help -- went from K20d to K7 (both of which have been given to my son) -- went to K5 and then K5iis and finally the K3. I've complicated my life by trying to stick to primes for my hikes (where I take my photos -- see www.lawrencehelm.smugmug.com, especially the Nov 2015 gallery). In the Nov 2015 gallery I switched back to the K5 on one day and the K5iis on another -- can't remember the prime lenses I used but my impression was that the K3 handle the lenses, produced more keepers than the K5 and while I wouldn't say that about the K5iis I did note that the exposure worked a bit differently. So what I ended up doing was sticking with the K3 -- rather than go back and forth and have to rethink the settings. I shoot only in manual so it wasn't a huge thought-adjustment -- also the viewfinder on my K5ii has a bit of fog in it; which wouldn't apply to anyone else-- just a nuisance I have.

I considered the K3ii but it has no advantage I can see for a hiker who doesn't use a tripod. If I get the next iteration of the APS-C (if there is one) or the FF, I'll bequeath the K5 to my son. -- Can't really say the K3 is a huge improvement over the K5iis but sort of feel (without good evidence) that it will produce more keepers with more of my lenses a bit better.

Lawrence
Last Edited by LawrenceKH on 29/11/2015 - 13:05

tyronet2000

Link Posted 02/12/2015 - 20:36
Interesting reading. SRS are awaiting stock on the K-3II so perhaps there was a bit of impulse buying over the weekend. Neither the K-3 or K-3II sound such a bargain when considering the depreciation of any camera. Looking forward to seeing more images taken with these cameras and feedback from users rather than biased independent reviewers many of whom seen to add a point or two because of the C or N first letter of the name.
Regards
Stan

PPG

RobE17

Link Posted 03/12/2015 - 14:46
I purchased a K-3ll earlier this year having sold my K5-lls and used it extensively during the airshow season. I used it with a DA*300mm f4 & Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (with the 1.4x converter). I found that it performed so much better when taking photos of aircraft and I've got a lot more keepers from it. Didn't notice the K-3ll hunt anywhere near as much.

I'm very pleased with the images I have taken with it and have no interest in the FF model, this suits my needs completely.
My Flickr Page

Zekewhipper

Link Posted 04/12/2015 - 00:12
davidstorm wrote:
I also prefer the overall colour rendering of the K-3 over the K-5iis, mostly due to the images being inherently 'warmer' in tone. To me, it deals with skin tones much more successfully than the K-5iis does.

That observation just put me off the K-3. I like cooler images. I want white to be white and, I don't like caucasians to all look as if they have spray-on tans.
Last Edited by Zekewhipper on 04/12/2015 - 00:13
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.