I much prefer the K5mii shots. I think the exposure is better, with more detail in the whites. I think the colours are vibrant without being oversaturated and I think that there is more pop from the background.

It does help to have a large crowd to provide a homogenous and therefore inherently more non-distracting background. However, the wider framing is precise and all protagonists have whole bodies in shot. I would guess these are shot from a lower angle than the hockey shots which means that background players are lower in frame and therefore heads are not cut off.

The shot of John Bishop's strike definitely is what I would call a great sports image.

So based on this evidence I think the K3 has a lot more to prove.

Maybe the comparison should be K3 vs K5IIs or K3 with the filter thingy on vs K5?

What matters most I suppose is just getting the best out of whatever camera you happen to own at the time.

I think my apologies are in order, that's way harsh and unconsidered critique. Looking at these again the click through versions seem better. Maybe my eyes were squiffy on first viewing or maybe they look better on the darker background. They are basically decent shots.

I think there are some jaggedy lines on the sticks - is this moire? Maybe it is down to resizing. Some of the detail looks a bit harsh to me, oversharp - that's my issue with the look of these shots. And the colours look too strong to me - particularly the ball which I think looks unnaturally acid.

For great sport shots I would expect more pop, but that is lens and settings choice and not really down to the K3 I suspect.

As sports shots they are decent. I think they would be improved by non decapitating framing and also levelling. As demonstrations of the K3's credentials in this area then the jusry remains firmly out for me.

Hope this is more considered, even though you will ignore it. I am a member of a forum where forthright critique is encouraged and sometimes I am in the wrong mode when I switch to other forums where praise is more the expectation, so sorry for that.

As soon as I saw the title I just quickly looked at the images as I didn't want to be prejudiced by knowing which was which. My initial preference was for the second shot (overall cleaner), then I thought the first shot showed more detail on the subject then I looked more closely at the composition and thought that the more side-on view of the first would naturally have an advantage. Then I looked at which was which. And my conclusion is that we are comparing a great camera against a great camera. And at that level the greatest variable is the operator. And my conclusion is that each photographer will have to perform their own comparison to reach any meaningful conclusion. I'm glad a photographer who I respect as much as Alan has posted this comparison. Personally I think that for digital a level has been reached where equipment is not the prinmary factor.

Pentax to D800 seems to be a well trodden route. I hope it gives you what you are looking for, best wishes.

I'm sorry, I don't think they cut the mustard. 1 in particular 1 think is rather poor. Some of the others are just OK. None are of a high standard. Sorry, I hope the K3 can do much better. I have seen much better sports with other equipment that gives much more 'pop'.

I don't fully understand the original question regarding the modern/usable category. For ebay the categories within camera&photography are:

lenses&filters
film photography
vintage photography
digital cameras


If I were selling a lens, I would categorise it as "lenses & filters" regardless of age.

I would categorise a camera sold with any lens that fits that camera as "digital cameras" if it were a digital camera.

The only remaining question is what is the distinction between film photography and vintage photography. I don't really think it matters as the buyer of collectibles will search both categories for genuine collectibles, along with the other sub-categories too. However, as a general rule of thumb I would choose a date to differentiate the categories, somewhere in the late 1950's to mid1960's maybe.

As to the differentiation of modern/usable, I think modern is quite different to usable. But I think the debate is rather hypothetical.

I was taking low light photos of a play last night with the K5 and the autofocus was very hit and miss, accentuated because of the wide aperture. But I can live with it, it's not why I bought the K5.

It's a silly price. 21-33mm equivalent on the Q isn't really wide enough and it's slow, which means you have to bump up the iso on the Q which is to be avoided if possible. Disappointing.

A very interesting lens. Pricey, but if IQ it is good enough to replace both the 21 and 40 then it seems more reasonable, especially with WR and DC. The compactness makes it an entirely different proposition from the Sigma.