Probably whoever got the job of covering the autofocus options couldn't work it all out themselves! or maybe figured no one would be using much of it so didn't bother. But seriously though, in my view for this sort of multi-option system its best considered in a real use context with example scenarios, and that's more the domain of a guidebook.

In a manual it can difficult to provide the context within the style constraints of the format. Perhaps users will have to come up with the practical ideas for specific set-up .... Hey, then just create a checklist for others to use

Even putting aside megapixels and IQ aspects, there's plenty new on board the K3 to fully justify the extra cost over the K5II or 's' models. It opens up real new control & feature choices at the top end - something missing for a while with Pentax I think. As such it gives us a lot more to consider before getting out the wallet, although I don't think many who have already bought a K3 will be expressing any regrets

It will come down much more to individuals practical shooting needs, rather than just whether you demand the best IQ output available, or the old 'aa filter or not' question. So all the things like the advanced autofocus, improved video, higher burst rate, dual SD card slots, focus peaking ... plus quite a few more I'm sure ... all come into the equation.

Of course, it all has to be paid for, and for some many of the new features may not be taken advantage of, and will be seen as unnecessary or 'OTT for me'. But many more will be attracted to the possibilities, not least because it puts them straight at the top of the pile

I would add my recommendation for the da smc 18-55 wr. A great value and quality choice, with a build, including metal mount, that is superior to typical kit lenses offered by many brands. Image quality is very good, and on the current cameras at least, you get automatic distortion and ca corrections for your camera jpegs.

The only limiting factor to consider really is the maximum apertures available. I've never found this an issue at the wide end, but f5.6 can be difficult in some situations at the longer end. But to get a constant f2.8 on a lens is going to cost a lot more.

Well done there catching the beautiful light when it came through. Very good set with the lakes looking great . But really, come on, they should have been shot at least at ISO 12,600 so I could spot some noise somewhere

I think its fair that anyone can make a comment, and then of course that comment is open for discussion - thats what the forum is all about, so I'll say what I think as I would like to help, and I've taken a great interest in the matter.

The K3 is clearly a great camera. Most of the debate on IQ has related to the very high ISO performance - low iso performance is reported to be superb, and you mention architecture & landscapes, where the extra pixel resolution can't do any harm.

No need to debate the aa filter issue - with the K3 you have it both ways! Just need to know when to turn the simulator on

From what I have read, and users report, the AF performance on static subjects would be similar - but again, the K3 has the advantage of many more points plus extra configuration and control features for the AF system if you need it.

I believe the FLU capability adds extra flexibility in this respect in a number of ways - not least the ability to view images on another screen device remotely. Got to be good!

And the second SD card slot will prove very useful I think - as an instant backup, or simply double capacity, or to divide the RAW & JPEGs for organisational convenience.

I think its fair to leave the abberation issue to actual users, absolutely, hopefully someone will have experience of that, although it may be too early for any real testing yet. So, I would say the K3 sounds to me to be very much worth it for you! Hope that helps

Stunning effects here! Lucky you to have been able to capture this amazing place at night, and well done with getting the shots, which are all captured very well technically.

No 1 is my favourite, as it is a good blend of reality and enhancement. The processing in some of the others has given a slightly cartoonish appearance, which is a great effect and very attractive for sure.

Thanks for showing these!

Then you risk not being able to open your archived files years ahead.

Congrats on that win! I like the deep moody atmosphere and silhouette technique in the 2nd. The sky and island are coming out a bit bright and the blues don't look quite right, a bit too cyan? But glad it was accepted, well done.

No denying that - my point is that the personal decision needs to weigh in the continuing workflow and likely output, as well as the moire issue and extra cost.

For many personal workflows (generally the smaller / simpler scenarios) the equivalent results can be achieved on files from the 'non s' camera, with minimal processing effort - and it doesn't cost any more to pull up some sliders further.

That's the original poster's question. The first point to any sensible answer must be 'not necessarily for every person'. Its a bit like Johns point about the extra pixels not automatically being an advantage. In the case of the K5II/s it's not so much about photographer skills, more about processing options and output sizes.

I know that Steve, for example, and maybe some others, don't want to hear it, but I will speak for the many more who want to consider things in detail. Concerning the 'worth it?' question, what I have offered up is an approach and way to consider it from a personal perspective.

Those who automatically rate the K5IIs as the 'better' camera are avoiding some aspects - for example, the claim that shots 'straight from the camera' are sharper does not acknowledge the full picture. In fact, as my testing showed, whilst (by design) the 's' versions are 'sharper', this has no real significance for a continuing JPEG workflow up to limited output sizes. This is because simple global sharpening allows easy equalization of the files with no IQ price to pay. So, there's the answer for some - not worth it.

For others with more demanding output needs, who also want to limit processing to simple sharpening, then the answer is probably 'yes'. Its not for anyone to say who falls into any particular group.

Buy the K3 now and (in theory) you've got it covered - so long as you spotted any problems and got the simulator on for it. Buy a K5II with aa filter and many many people will also find they've got it covered for their own personal needs, and they've saved some money. I've never heard any complaints about lack of sharpness or resolution from owners of the K5II (or the K5 for that matter), or that they couldn't achieve enough output sharpening for their prints.