worth upgrade k5IIs to K-3
7,671 posts
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 04:18
I haven't seen one image taken on a K-3 that was any better than one taken on a K-5 or K-5II(s)
I had two K-5s. Recently I bought a K-5IIs ( and sold one K-5 ). I was actually only aiming for a K-5II , but the 's' came up at too good a good price to miss out on. My K-5IIs doesn't take better pictures than my K-5s.
The only reason I "upgraded" to the K-5II was for the AF.
With out dragging up too much old ground at very high ISO, 12800 and above, the noise is worse on a K-3. Not surprising since the pixels are 33% smaller.
The K-3 has a few more features than the K-5(II[s]), it only has 3 user slots instead of 5. IMO the IQ isn't any better and worse at very high ISOs.
Personally on Image Quality alone I cannot see the point of getting a K-3, but others' may have a differing view.
Only a substantial increase in high ISO performance will see me moving on from the K-5(IIs), my next want in a FF Pentax
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
I had two K-5s. Recently I bought a K-5IIs ( and sold one K-5 ). I was actually only aiming for a K-5II , but the 's' came up at too good a good price to miss out on. My K-5IIs doesn't take better pictures than my K-5s.
The only reason I "upgraded" to the K-5II was for the AF.
With out dragging up too much old ground at very high ISO, 12800 and above, the noise is worse on a K-3. Not surprising since the pixels are 33% smaller.
The K-3 has a few more features than the K-5(II[s]), it only has 3 user slots instead of 5. IMO the IQ isn't any better and worse at very high ISOs.
Personally on Image Quality alone I cannot see the point of getting a K-3, but others' may have a differing view.
Only a substantial increase in high ISO performance will see me moving on from the K-5(IIs), my next want in a FF Pentax
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
46 posts
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 05:50
Thanks, I liked the on off alias filter when I fear moire in obvious situations - thanks I'll spend on glass.
"It's not what you look at that's important, it's what you see" - Thoreau
Smeggypants wrote:
I haven't seen one image taken on a K-3 that was any better than one taken on a K-5 or K-5II(s)
I had two K-5s. Recently I bought a K-5IIs ( and sold one K-5 ). I was actually only aiming for a K-5II , but the 's' came up at too good a good price to miss out on. My K-5IIs doesn't take better pictures than my K-5s.
The only reason I "upgraded" to the K-5II was for the AF.
With out dragging up too much old ground at very high ISO, 12800 and above, the noise is worse on a K-3. Not surprising since the pixels are 33% smaller.
The K-3 has a few more features than the K-5(II[s]), it only has 3 user slots instead of 5. IMO the IQ isn't any better and worse at very high ISOs.
Personally on Image Quality alone I cannot see the point of getting a K-3, but others' may have a differing view.
Only a substantial increase in high ISO performance will see me moving on from the K-5(IIs), my next want in a FF Pentax
I haven't seen one image taken on a K-3 that was any better than one taken on a K-5 or K-5II(s)
I had two K-5s. Recently I bought a K-5IIs ( and sold one K-5 ). I was actually only aiming for a K-5II , but the 's' came up at too good a good price to miss out on. My K-5IIs doesn't take better pictures than my K-5s.
The only reason I "upgraded" to the K-5II was for the AF.
With out dragging up too much old ground at very high ISO, 12800 and above, the noise is worse on a K-3. Not surprising since the pixels are 33% smaller.
The K-3 has a few more features than the K-5(II[s]), it only has 3 user slots instead of 5. IMO the IQ isn't any better and worse at very high ISOs.
Personally on Image Quality alone I cannot see the point of getting a K-3, but others' may have a differing view.
Only a substantial increase in high ISO performance will see me moving on from the K-5(IIs), my next want in a FF Pentax
"It's not what you look at that's important, it's what you see" - Thoreau
Quote:
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 08:23
I have both a K3 and a K5ii(s) and I would say that it depends on your available funds and photographic ability.
The K5ii is a stunning camera. The K3 is better. However you will have to be a phenomenally good photographer or have a specific niche requirement to benefit from the upgrade e.g. Better video.
I have both because I need a backup camera and it made sense to have one of each. However today I am out taking some commercial shots at Norwich City Football Ground and I have bought the K5ii(s). Why? Because it was the nearest to hand and is more than good enough for what I need. In other words I would happily choose either which means, IMHO, it isn't worth spending on the difference unless you can really justify it.
You will probably benefit more, photographically, by buying better lenses.
I hope that helps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptureLight Ltd
flickr
"I carry a camera to capture memories and the occasional photograph worthy of sharing"
The K5ii is a stunning camera. The K3 is better. However you will have to be a phenomenally good photographer or have a specific niche requirement to benefit from the upgrade e.g. Better video.
I have both because I need a backup camera and it made sense to have one of each. However today I am out taking some commercial shots at Norwich City Football Ground and I have bought the K5ii(s). Why? Because it was the nearest to hand and is more than good enough for what I need. In other words I would happily choose either which means, IMHO, it isn't worth spending on the difference unless you can really justify it.
You will probably benefit more, photographically, by buying better lenses.
I hope that helps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptureLight Ltd
flickr
"I carry a camera to capture memories and the occasional photograph worthy of sharing"
Last Edited by RalphHardwick on 21/05/2014 - 08:24
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 09:20
How about the AF? esp compared to the K-5.
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 10:27
Smeggypants wrote:
I haven't seen one image taken on a K-3 that was any better than one taken on a K-5 or K-5II(s)
I haven't seen one image taken on a K-3 that was any better than one taken on a K-5 or K-5II(s)
I'm afraid I agree with the Smegster
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 11:06
Could I widen the discussion to an upgrade from a k-30 to a k-3? Would I notice a significant improvement in IQ, AF and general performance do you think?
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 11:16
I would not hesitate to upgrade a K-5 to a K-5 IIs or a K-3, depending on funds being available.
The only caveat is that the K-5 is already excellent enough to do everything I need it to and the available cash has gone on more lenses instead.
There will come a time when I see an offer I can't refuse, which is always a good excuse to buy something.
Best regards, John
The only caveat is that the K-5 is already excellent enough to do everything I need it to and the available cash has gone on more lenses instead.
There will come a time when I see an offer I can't refuse, which is always a good excuse to buy something.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 13:18
I don't have a K5IIs, so I'll give my thoughts on the K5 vs K3.
In optimum conditions, at low ISO, I find the K3 outperforms the K5 by a significant margin, in terms of detail. In less than optimum conditions, ie low-light/high ISO, or images where you have to remove a lot of haze, the K5 mk1 definitely outperforms the K3. I am finding that with the fairly extreme processing I have to do on aerial images, I am getting significant noise on processed ISO 100 images, which is not a problem with the K5. The noise reduction I have to apply to these images offsets any gain from having no AA filter, so I am having to use DXO Optics Pro for noise reduction on all aerial images (at ten minutes processing time per image),even if taken at ISO 100, which is not at all what I expected. I also find the WB a bit awkward to get right on aerial images.
Overall, I've been a bit disappointed with the K3, but then I am using it in more challenging conditions than most people would. I'm starting to think I would have been better off with a K5IIs. If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.
Flurble
My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook
In optimum conditions, at low ISO, I find the K3 outperforms the K5 by a significant margin, in terms of detail. In less than optimum conditions, ie low-light/high ISO, or images where you have to remove a lot of haze, the K5 mk1 definitely outperforms the K3. I am finding that with the fairly extreme processing I have to do on aerial images, I am getting significant noise on processed ISO 100 images, which is not a problem with the K5. The noise reduction I have to apply to these images offsets any gain from having no AA filter, so I am having to use DXO Optics Pro for noise reduction on all aerial images (at ten minutes processing time per image),even if taken at ISO 100, which is not at all what I expected. I also find the WB a bit awkward to get right on aerial images.
Overall, I've been a bit disappointed with the K3, but then I am using it in more challenging conditions than most people would. I'm starting to think I would have been better off with a K5IIs. If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.
Flurble
My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Last Edited by aliengrove on 21/05/2014 - 13:24
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 14:07
aliengrove wrote:
If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.
If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.
I'd agree with this. I'd also add in lightroom I can lift shadows much more with K5 raw images than I can with the K3
Alan
PPG
Flickr
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 14:34
michaelblue wrote:
Just out of interest smeggy, why do you want a full frame camera?
Just out of interest smeggy, why do you want a full frame camera?
Because I like the pictures the modern one's take and I have a lot of FF Lenses
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 14:45
Blythman wrote:
I'd agree with this. I'd also add in lightroom I can lift shadows much more with K5 raw images than I can with the K3
aliengrove wrote:
If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.
If you are going to shoot a lot of low-light images, I'd keep the K5IIs. As far as I am aware, the AF on the K3 and K5IIs are pretty similar, and the K3 is much better than the K5 in that respect.
I'd agree with this. I'd also add in lightroom I can lift shadows much more with K5 raw images than I can with the K3
Low light IQ is important to me and the biggest reason I'm not interested in a K-3. I did buy a K-5IIs purely for the better AF in low light.
MP numbers are progressing into the realms of silly. I've no interest in high MP numbers but I do have an interest in high ISO performance so I have more flexibility with shutter and aperture settings in low light.
Less pixels generally equals better ISO. The forthcoming 12MP Sony A7s offers ISO upto 409,600, a three stop improvement over the K-5's 51,200
I'm hoping Pentax also show some sense and offer future models ) both APS-C and FF ) that don't put MP over IQ
I'd even contemplate selling Miss Smeggy for a Pentax 12MP FF
( not really ) [i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Link
Posted 21/05/2014 - 16:14
I did the whole K5 to K5iis to K3, Every time I upgraded it was never for improved image quality as my number one concern, I was only after the best features and AF that Pentax has to offer at the time.
I went for the K5iis for the exact same reason as smeggy so I can't tell you why one is better then the other as the only reason I went for the s was price at the time.
The reason I went and upgraded to the K3 was the AF and I don't care what anyone says, it blows all the K5's out of the water,
Is the K3's image quality better then the K5's? No, but it's different if you know what I mean.
And here's a though, my full frame Sonys image quality is in my opinion better then the K3 but not the K5? There is just something about a photo taken on a K5.
So to sum up, if you want to upgrade for better image quality then no I don't think it's worth it, If you want to upgrade for far better AF and features then yes by all means upgrade, but 5 months with my K3 has me wanting to buy another K5.
I went for the K5iis for the exact same reason as smeggy so I can't tell you why one is better then the other as the only reason I went for the s was price at the time.
The reason I went and upgraded to the K3 was the AF and I don't care what anyone says, it blows all the K5's out of the water,
Is the K3's image quality better then the K5's? No, but it's different if you know what I mean.
And here's a though, my full frame Sonys image quality is in my opinion better then the K3 but not the K5? There is just something about a photo taken on a K5.
So to sum up, if you want to upgrade for better image quality then no I don't think it's worth it, If you want to upgrade for far better AF and features then yes by all means upgrade, but 5 months with my K3 has me wanting to buy another K5.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
drobbia
Member
California, USA
"It's not what you look at that's important, it's what you see" - Thoreau