Reasons (not) to upgrade from K-5 to K-3?

vdubreeze said:

Hi Stan,

My main camera has been the K5 since its release and about two months ago got a K3. My opinion is to wait until the next model if you are feeling you need an upgrade by then. A high end lens will probably make you happier.

My experience is differing from many I read about, and I would be very happy to hear from others in the same situation who have made it better and how they did it.

True that the K3 has some functions that are improvements, and the K5 auto focusing eventually had me looking for an upgrade, but when comparing my images in the exact same venues and conditions I'm not blown away given the "two steps forward, two back" nature of the camera. There's conundrum using the K3, because it definitely functions all around better in low light (which is how I often find myself, shooting music and dance performances lit for the audience, not for me : ( ) but the combination of the slightly higher ISO noise and slightly lower (by the numbers) dynamic range has been giving me results where the images from the K3 A) require more processing to look the way I want, and; B) don't take the processing as well. For a while thought I had a faulty camera, but my results were improved enough by completely stripping my mind of my K5 workflow, to the point where A/B tests aren't yielding a problem. These included no global sharpening/unsharp masking and not shooting to underexpose slightly, which I sometimes do in order to keep the shutter speed not below where performers blur with a not too high ISO, and compensate in post bringing levels/curves up, which I find the K3 doesn't take as well to. Keep in mind that I'm talking about situations that I was already finding the K5's images great where I'm not finding the K3 any better.

OTOH, I would say that under good conditions, such as portraits in good natural light where post processing is barely needed, the K3 results do have a clear edge. But in my case I wasn't really looking for a camera that performed well in good conditions. The better details the K3 provides are apparent in decent light. In low light I'm only getting more detail in the more exposed areas and more smearing in the areas in the areas of low exposure. All NR has been disabled except for highest ISOs. All shooting is RAW and using the lenses in my profile, mostly the Tamron 28-75 and Pentax primes.

Click to expand...

ozdean said:

Hi Sten, I'm a jpeg shooter and I prefer the Images from my K5IIs to those that came from a friends K3 after an afternoon of testing at different ISO's with my DA55 attatched.

I really like the way the 16m sensor renders IMO its the best that has been in a K mount.

Mind I like everything else about the K3 just not the sensor,all my opinion of course.

Click to expand...

xmeda said:

Wait for K3II or K2... it will be here within 3-4 months.

Click to expand...

Schleiermacher said:

Sten:

You seem happy with your camera. If so, don't step onto the consumerism-driven upgrade treadmill. Sure, the K-3 has some advantages as discussed in this thread, but they are incremental in my judgment. If you're happy with the K-5 as I am, just use it til it dies or until a body comes along with an accumulation of upgrades that you think will significantly benefit you.

if you want a new piece of gear to stretch yourself creatively, try a nice Limited prime. Learn to see and create with a fixed focal length, play with shallow depth of field, and enjoy an even smaller rig than you get with your zooms.

matt

Click to expand...

Dukhat said:

Sten E said:

I have a K-5 with the lenses Pentax 18-135 and 55-300 and Sigma 70 mm macro and 10-20 mm f3.5.

I use the 18-135 most of the time, and the 55-300 for animals at distance, and the Sigma 70 sometimes for portraits, and the Sigma 10-20 mm rarely for landscapes.

I take pictures of landscapes, nature, people, animals, street, still life, and other things. I always use raw format and Photoshop CS6 with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).

I am satisfied with my K-5. The only improvement that I would like to see is in light metering, where the K-5 sometimes misses, but this is not serious because I can improve the exposure afterwards with ACR. The K-3 has better light metering.

The K-3 has better auto focus than the K-5, but for me the K-5 auto focus works just fine.

I am not sure that more pixels with the K-3 would be an advantage for me, since the 16 Mpixels of my K-5 are quite enough.

The K-3 is a little bigger and weighs more than the K-5 which is a disadvantage.

So an upgrade to the K-3 does not seem motivated to me.

Have I missed something?

Click to expand...

Other than it doesn't have to be a group decision, no.

If you find yourself either printing at a lower PPI than you want, or inventing pixels to get to the size you want, then the K3 is an improvement.

I had a K5 who's autofocus was so bad that it may as well have not been part of the feature set. For me, the K3 is a huge upgrade just to get AF that works, but quite honestly, for most of what I do these days, my 16mp X-T1 does just fine.

Click to expand...