On 12/11/2013 9:50 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in everything except dynamic range).
If, like me, you have a K5 with terminally broken auto focus, the K3 is a very significant upgrade. I'm a detail junkie, which is why I gravitated towards large format when film was king. For me, 24mp is a very significant significant upgrade. Going from the K20/K7 with their rather noisy Samsung sensors to the K5 was, for me, an epiphany in that I could actually shoot at ISOs that I had previously only dreamed of. I never liked what came out of those cameras above ISO 640. At the same time, I rarely find myself needing anything as high as 6400 ISO, and the K5 isn't really significantly better until 6400 and above. At 3200, they are practically a wash, especially if you downsize the K3 image to the same size as the K5. The K5 may have an edge at very high ISO, but it really isn't anything big. The K3 is excellent, the K5 is marginally more excellent. As of yet, I haven't touched on how the K3 compares to the K5's handling. The K5 feels like an old camera compared to the K3. I've said since the K5 came out that Hoya had made it as cheaply as they could, cutting corners wherever they thought they could get away with it, and the K3, to me anyway, proves me right. The K5 runs like an old nag put away wet a few times too often compared to the K3. This is huge, as it tells me that Ricoh is serious about what they are doing with the Pentax brand, unlike Hoya, who I felt was trying to wring every last penny they could out of it before tossing it to the curb.
bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
