On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 08:56:16AM -0400, Rick Womer wrote: > I agree, Henk. GPS and a flippy screen would have induced me to buy one. > Apart from a high enough ISO to shoot landscapes illuminated by passing > fireflies, I don???t see a compelling advantage over my K-5. > > Rick
It all depends on what you want to use the camera for. For me, AF is important. I'm sure it's going to have better AF than a K-5; the question is how much better. A year ago (was it really that long ago? How time flies!) I took a trip to Austin to watch the inaugural Indycar race at Circuit of the Americas. I never like relying on just a single body on a trip (and having two bodies means you can have two different focal lengths ready at all times), so for this trip I borrowed Larry's K-3 to go along with my K-5. After reviewing the first day's shooting it was apparent that The K-3 was doing a better job of focus tracking - with comparable shots with the same lens mounted I had noticeably more out-of-focus shots with the K-5 than with the K-3. There was still room for improvement; I'm waiting for reports on just how much better the K3-III is before deciding whether I'm tempted (although the alternative I'm considering - going lightweight with an OM-D system - is less attractive now in the light of the Olympus name getting dropped). Other things that interest me are the 12fps continuous shooting frame rate (with a 32 frame buffer), dual memory card slots, and wireless/bluetooth. I personally don't care about video, so the limitation of 4K to 30 fps isn't a problem for me, but I can see it would be a problem for others. -- 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.
