Upgrading

I have seen lots of people upgrading their cameras on this forum wether its the k3 or the the k5ii or the new full frame sensor camera. I feel that i should be looking at better camera myself as i do not feel my images can compete with to days cameras like the k3, i own a mid range kr 12.4 megapixels . I know you can improve your images by using quality lenses and they used to say the camera is only as good as the person who uses it. I like taking portraits if i upgraded could the images be much better or does the seventeen to twentythree megapixels only come in if your printing big inlargements, have seen images taken with k3 in gallery so bloody sharp

Regards Dave

It's mostly the photographer that makes the images. 12MP is enough to satisfy technical quality up to A3. I've even used the MX-1 and Q cameras in competitions with success.

The more expensive cameras score in other ways - the ability to crop, extra features, weather resistance, and so on.

We still use the K-5 and will continue to do so until our hand is forced by them reaching the end of their operational lives.

John's right.

If you think you will be able to "compete" more easily simply by changing your camera for a newer model with more mega pixels then you will be disappointed.

Always make sure you've got a camera with you. Take lots of pictures. Broaden the range of your subjects. Look critically at the work of others. Learn to get the best out of what you have.

I bet Vermeer wasn't always fretting to "upgrade" his brushes...

I recently upgraded from the K-r to a K50 and whilst it has a better sensor (it has the same one as the K5 I believe) that was only one of several reasons.

The K50 has a WR body and I got it as the 'bargain bundle' with the 18-135WR lens so I can now go out in 'traditional' English weather without having to shield the camera and lens under my waterproof jacket as I did in the past ! So that makes 3 good reasons all in one go !

The K50 also has the TAv function which was absent on the K-r so I can now be more creative (when time permits !)

The K50 is a similar weight to the K-r so still as easy to carry around - even if I could have afforded a K3 I would not have wanted the extra weight. A personal thing, perhaps, but that's what choices are all about.

At the end of the day you must decide what your priorities are and what type of photos you want to take. You say you are interested in portraits so I would suggest your other option of 'good glass' is probably the next step, i.e. a fast prime, probably around the good old 50mm to start ? The K-r is perfectly capable of taking sharp photos and as John Riley has said it is the person behind the lens that makes the photo !

Good luck & best regards
Peter

hi. i would say stick with your camera and get some lessons booked in with glen tillyard digital photographycourses.co.uk based in leicestershire.he will show you how to get the best out of your camera. hope this helps.

A retired pro friend remarked recently that he had managed a successful landscape exhibition of his work at St Martins in the Fields some years back with 6 megapixels enlarged to A2 and A1 prints.

I replaced my K5 after 19,000 images with a K3 as I'd cosmetically worn it out (switches not as good but they worked for example). The only big changes I expect are low light AF and ability to crop for wildlife more. I personally have early digital photos taken on Kodak Easyshare (4 mp) and Konica Minolta bridge cameras (8mp) that stand the test still within their obvious limitations for blown highlights and grain in low light. I had the Pentax KX and then KR (still in use in family) and moved to the K5 to get the top range quietness of shutter, weather proofing especially against dust when abroad, bright pentaprism rather than pentamirror and top LCD (specs wearer so useful). I have many photos that are my pride and joy from all of them.

The K5 took a lot of learning to get best use of (see another thread on here on subject) My biggest worry is mastering the new camera well so I make a decent fist of my trip in April to lovely Madeira.

To the OP is there something your camera does not do adequately?
The Kr is a grand camera and could serve you well for many years to come.
Image quality wise there's not much difference between say a K50 and your camera but it is a far more refined user experience. Contrary wise, a K3 may be a bit of a quantum leap, You'll have to re learn/upgrade your shooting skills to tame that beast. A used K5 series may be right up your street, if you really feel you must upgrade but why not keep the Kr too?

If Jules tells us not to upgrade who are we to argue eh?

I think it's fine to buy another camera, say if you wanted one which performed better in low light, was significantly smaller or lighter (i.e. you use Easyjet!) or was weather proof.

I think what we're saying is: don't expect a new purchase to instantly turn you into a great photographer per se.

It won't. It may even, paradoxically, make things worse, as highly populated sensors may need top quality lenses which you might not possess.

I do think there are significant gains from the newer technologies ... Certainly the Prime Processors have come on a lot since the time of the KR, and this has advantages not only in JPEG image processing sophistications but also in shooting speeds as everything is processed quicker and the camera won't freeze so early during bursts.

Peterkr made a strong case for the upgrade earlier with some good points about practicalities .... Anything that encourages more time out using a camera and experimenting will lead to better photos! With the deals available , especially when bundled with a nice new lens (as Peter took advantage of) it's a win win situation ...

Autofocus and the quietness of operation has improved a lot also ...I picked up a K0 last year in a shop and took a few shots with the attached 18-55, and was impressed at the faster focussing and quieter operation over my K7.

A K0 ?

Ah, didn't spot that mistake earlier .... It was a K50 , sorry.

It also depends upon additional factors...

The Pentax K3 offers some of the best WR on the market. Add quite the variety of lenses that have the WR attached to them; something that even Nikon does not offer (Nikon only offers WR on their camera bodies, not their lenses).

Better yet, wait until full-frame arrives in (most likely) November for Pentax. So far the Pentax company is claiming that they will stick with PK; which includes almost fifty existing full-frame lenses. Or if one has the need to go outside of full-frame and may want the cropped sensor to switch over; one can simply use non full-frame glass.

This might just be the largest game changer ever for Pentax - if it's done right

I still use my KX and excepting low light focus benefits, it does as well as the K5iis for most shooting needs. The 5 is ergonomically superior, has a battery pack which helps for vertical images and the weather semi- proofing makes me more likely to use it in slightly inclement weather.- none of these do-dah's has ever made a better image My wife loves using the KX but is about ready to upgrade to my K5 iis as soon as I get the FF everyone is waiting for. (at least I hope she is) - So, welcome to the club of those who realize that no camera will have all the features you may want but most pentax dslrs' will afford you most things you need - have fun. - T
BTW, Vermeer was happy to exploit the Camera Obscura which was to be the biggest leap in technical advances in imagery production for nearly the next 2 centuries. it had zero pixels.

Thanks for replying to my post and being honest, i think i do get the best out of my kr. I use the tamron sp9o also the 55-300 when shooting portraits with strobe lights, i just thought it may have been greener on the other side as to speak by upgrading

Regards Dave