Upgrading from K5 II - difference between K-3 range & price difference?

Hi,
I have a Pentax K5 II (and a K7). Upgrading the K5, my options would be K-3, K-3 II or K-3 Mark III.

How much difference is there between the 3 3s and how much do they vary in price 2nd hand please?

Main use would be the odd wedding, communions, family gatherings.

Cheers,
Pa.

The key question is what there is about the K5ii that makes you want an upgrade? If you can answer that, then it becomes a matter of which of the three K3 variants will give you what you want for the lowest cost. For what it's worth, I've got a K3 (first version) and can't convince myself that there's any need to get a ii or iii for the sort of thing I do. But that's mainly taking photos of things that don't move (or at least not very much). If I needed to photograph things that move around quickly and had to rely on autofocus tracking, then I might be tempted to look at whether the K3iii really is the big improvement that people seem to claim.

Of course, if an upgrade is simply because you feel the urge to get a new toy once in a while (and who doesn't :wink, then it's easy - just decide on a budget and get the fanciest camera you can get without going too far over the limit .

Steve

Steve

Certainly, the tracking is much improved on the K3iii, you still need some degree of skill, depends if your budget can stretch to one.

Thanks for the replies.
The K3iii is outside of budget range. Main reason for upgrade would be-
- it's newer so it has to be better, doesn't it?
- possibly less noise as high ISO in low light (based on replies, the K5ii seems better for this situation)
- quicker focus

Cheers,
Pa.

I have just gone from a K5II to a K3....

It's pretty much a quantum leap!

Which K3 & what are the main things that jump out please?

Just the first one.... K3...

The Autofocus is a massive improvement. It has far more options and accessing it is much better. It also seems to be be more accurate. I went out with my Sigma 150-500mm and it seemed to be quicker and more improved.

The way you access things - like multi exposure, timers, etc are much better.

The dual SD slot and the FluCard.

I do a large ammount of long exposure. The writing time to the card is fast. It is also great for continious shooting.

The images are fantastic. I haven't tried the AA simulator yet but I have read good things about it.

I also got one with about 2000 actuations for £300!

It does have to be pointed out that the K3ii gobbles up batteries. Always have a fully charged one in your pocket or it will catch you out at the worst moment. The grips cost a fortune and I could never justify the expense or the extra weight. It takes wonderful pictures.

I don't think you'll find any image quality difference at high ISO, in fact the K5 may be better than the K-3 (II) in that regard. Autofocus should be a bit faster as the K-3 has faster AF protocols and a more powerful AF motor than the K-5.

The K-3 II lacks an onboard flash and has a GPS unit in it's place.

Did not know that... and good to learn but I rarely shoot above 400iso and it's usually for astrophotography. Knowing this I'll use my K5II for that purpose!

The K-5II and K-5IIs had the best sensor noise wise of any crop camera previously/at the time/since in my opinion. The K-5IIs was just a tiny bit sharper due to the lack of a low pass filter.

If only Pentax could have done decent autofocus at the time they would have had world domination.

Well, a few more sales at any rate.

had K5iis and K3ii at same time and found k5 quicker to lock focus in low light tested with same lenses i had at the time. Sold K3ii to go to M4/3rds after a while regretted it and went back to K5iis as could not find K3ii 2nd hand .The k5 i have does all i need it to do, did miss built in flash on k3 a bit, never used astrotracer or focus peaking.