Upgrade?

Hi all, I,m in the happy position to upgrade my Kr and was looking at the K5-IIs but am wondering if I should go for the K3 instead? I'm only a happy armature who loves taking pictures of anything that takes my fancy and just wonder if the K3 might be a bit to much for the casual clicker, what do you think?
Thanks,
Brian

I'd look at the K-50
You get better movie features than K-5IIs, focus peaking in LV and less confusion than a K-3 plus you's save a bundle which could be used for a nice lens.

Makes sense

I`m in the same predicament,was going to sell my K10D and buy K5-II and now funds would allow a K3 but don`t know whether or not the amount of times I can get out warrants the extra money when I could buy the K5-II and a DA 55-300 for not much more.I do mainly bird photo`s.

Graham

Yes, it is too much for a 'casual clicker'. K50 would be more suitable I think.

But at least with the K3 that would be it for a long time!

Until the next best thing comes along! What features on the k3 have you read about that you feel would be necessary for your casual shots? And have you considered a new lens that the money saved with a k50 would allow you to get also?

Not really as I have had my Kr for a while now and I don't chase the latest toy! I would like to get some of my shots printed on a larger print, I could use it in the rain, I spend quite a lot of time on the beach so the seals appeal as well. I use my Pentax 17-70 most the time which I find a good lens for me. I also think the K3 would be a bit sharper and would have a better AF, and I believe it would give me better performance in low light conditions, and lastly I would like to maybe do more than the casual shots in the future.

OK, so the WR is important - but what type of 'non-casual' shots would you be interested in? I only ask because I am interested in camera functions and their practical application, and how they relate to camera choices when setting up the menus and preparing a shoot. I have often described a procedure to someone (thinking of my K7) only to find out that the persons camera doesn't allow something I've suggested. But that hasn't always meant that the person should go and get a K7.

It seems you ascribe to the theory that a photographer can get a device with more features and operations than is required at first, but then 'grow into it' over time. I'm not sure if this is valid or practical in reality - it would be interesting to see what others think. Cameras 'grow' through a range generally by offering ever expanding choices to the user, be that AF control, bracketing options, direct control levers, that sort of thing. The question is, at what point do more choices and options start to help a photographer?

I would like to have a go at beach shots with low light and maybe some moon shots over the coastline and feel the K3 would give me a better chance than the Kr. A lot of people say that you don't need a 1000cc bike as a 600cc will do just as well but in reality the 1000cc bike is easier to ride and much more rewarding! Also I think it would be easier to alter your settings on the K3 with the duel control wheels as the Kr only has the one. I wouldn't expect the K3 to turn me into a pro but I do think it would help me to improve and if I ever took it really seriously then the K3 would cope better than the Kr.

The K-5(II)(s) is better than the K-3 in low light situations when you're using very high ISO.

I would disagree with that blanket statement. The amount of time someone uses a caemra isn't proportional to the value of the features




I would agree with this on the logic that it would leave some left over for a lens upgrade perhaps.

Icouldn't live without Dual wheels. the K-5 has dual wheels

Agreed! Dual wheels is one of Pentax's best ideas! I use them all the time....wouldn't do without them now

The K5-IIs was my first choice when the K3 was over 1K but now it's £895 and Wex have given me a good trade in deal it seems silly not to go for the K 3!!