Why is there so many K3 for sale

I am torn between buying a K3 or the newer K70.

Regards Ian

I have a K-3 bought at a good price with the grip and then got the K-70 which I like very much. Could really do with some good lenses but until such a time as I can afford them I'm happy with what I have. K-3 for shorter distances, K-70 when I need lighter kit.

Well there you are then, David. It's horses for courses. I don't use long lenses or take pictures at concerts. For those who do, the K3 must be a God-send.

Of course David, many disagree with you. The K-5 variants out perform the K-3 with regard to dynamic range and high ISO capabilities. For aurora shots and sunrise shots I'd use the K-5iis before the K-3.

DXO tests I've seen show that the K-1 has an extra 1 to 1.5 stop dynamic range throughout the comparable ISO range (up to 12,800) . .. That's certainly a big nod to the little 6 year old aps-c model .

How many K3 owners really 'need' a K1 ...? In terms of pure performance and quality of output, I'll raise a good few eyebrows and say only a very small number around here. For many more it is just a further step along the onwards cycle of acquisition and upgrading to have the best ..... And if you have money for that then that's fine, and it helps Pentax and us all over time ...

Anyway. What could I know ....I still love my K7!!

to be honist its not the camera that counts its the person behind it that counts
you could have a million pound camera and still take crap
or you could have a 50 quid one from down the market and take superb ones

True. It's also hard to buy a poor camera these days, it's just that some suit the operator better than others and some, as David mentioned above, perform better under specific circumstances.

yeah the operator

The problem is having a reliable method of matching the operator to the model .... Many of the old distinctions within the camera ranges have eroded and become blurred with the ever onwards march of technology and the trickle down effect ..... We here with Pentax seem to enjoy rather a deluge, not trickle ..... Look at the K70, a supposedly 'entry to mid' level offering, and what it shares in features with its larger sibling the K1, supposedly a high-end enthusiast /pro model.

If what you really want are some of those features, if you want an AA filterless design, pixel-shift, and any number of recent improvements and advancements that we've seen creep in over the last 5 years (I'm thinking of this as starting from the K5II, which brought new things to the existing K7/K5 base design), then by far the best value way to get it all would be the K70.

But as I eluded to before, many will feel they need the K1, just because it IS the K1!

I want the K-1 and associated lenses not because it will make me a better photographer but because it will mean I've won a big wedge of cash on the lottery and can fly off to some of those exotic locations as seen in photography magazines and see what sort of hashI make of them

Hi Alan, you know a lot more than I do when it comes to using your cameras in more extreme conditions. When I mentioned there was very little between the K-5iis and the K-3 for low light, I was speaking from my own experience shooting images at around 1600 ISO in varying light at concerts and festivals. This ISO level doesn't really stretch the sensor capabilities and for this type of work there is very little between them. For Aurora / night shots I don't have a clue as I don't take these images.

I do think there's quite a difference though between the original K-5 and the K-3 when it comes to AF performance in low light. The K-3 is much better and also edges it over the K-5iis, at least with my particular bodies it does.

Regards
David

. I wouldn't be buying the k1 well maybe but first on the list would be the z with the ir censor in it

I agree on the focusing David. K-3 is better than any K-5 variant, although I haven't had any specific problems in social photography (as opposed to wildlife/sports). With the K-1 I'm happy that I have the best of both of those cameras, and more. I didn't need it. But I'm enjoying it

I am absolutely delighted with the K3 II. Its operation is slightly different from the K5 in various areas but while most lenses I use with the K5 produce good results, the same ones produce very good results with the K3 - so much so that I almost experienced 'jaw dropping'! The F 35-70 is a case in point. It does go the other way however. For example, I was reasonably content with with the standard kit DA 18-55 on the K5. Put it on a K3 and it is a total disaster.
K1? I can't justify that even to myself !

I think most people sell on their cameras when the newer model comes out. I remember the K5 coming out and there being loads of K20 and K7 for sale here. Then the K3 came out and the K5 was the 'in camera' to sell here and now with the k1 people are looking to buy the K1so the K3 is the popular camera to sell so it's just human nature.

I'm more than happy with my K3II and won't be upgrading anytime soon, unless I get a studio for portraits and product photography but then it'll be a 645 I'll be snapping up

PS, the K3II has pixel-shift also