Next logical upgrade?

Ricoh had to recall a lot of the Pentax K-3 II models, because they had some issue when turning the camera off—parts of it would stay on until the battery was removed. The K-3 is so similar, that it would simply be a safer bet to go with the tried-and-true camera.
The problem occurred with earlier serial numbers only of the K-3 II, and has been fixed for free by Ricoh. It never affected the K-3. (Some earlier K-3 models had a flappy mirror problem, but that only affected a tiny proportion of users and was fixed by a firmware update).

Pentax have a very long history and easily a big enough customer base that they are definitely "tried and true".

As you point out, while the K-3 II has built in GPS for the astrotracer function, this can be added to the K-3 via a pricey add-on module. Also, in the interests of fairness I should point out a significant disadvantage of using the astrotracer function: it will add motion blur to any ground-based elements within your scene. (Of course, even on the K-3 II you can ignore the astrotracer and just go for standard long exposures).

Another issue when looking at your budget of money and hiking weight is that for astro shots, you should factor in a good quality tripod too.

Personally, I see that all the major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Ricoh/Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji - and most recently Samsung) are producing bodies that easily fill the OP's requirements. However AFAIK, only Canon, Nikon and Ricoh/Pentax have a sufficiently large lens collection to cover all bases at different levels. (Sony have a good lens range, but don't really have entry-level lenses - though that's not a problem if you've got a lot of money to spend). There's a lot to be said to trying the options from different manufacturers and seeing which you feel comfortable with, too. I find there's a big difference in the usability of different manufacturer's bodies - Pentax is the easiest I've tried, Sony is very good, Canon's okay - but Nikon I find awkward and counterintuitive to use. (Obviously that could be overcome by more time to get familiar - but why bother?). This last point is very much down to an individual's user experience, so you may prefer something totally different to me when you actually go into a camera shop and have a play with the different models.

I'm afraid I've barely touched the Fuji cameras, and while I had a favourable impression I certainly don't know enough to give a meaningful comparison between them and the others.

Incidentally; and this may be a matter of personal opinion, I find the colour detail in darker areas of Canon images weak - a shortcoming of their sensors - and would avoid them for landscape work.
 
To be honest - in your shoes I would safe the money and wait until you have enough money for a REAL upgrade, for example to full frame.

All you'd get now is a small upgrade.
I don't think the difference between full frame and APS-C is as big as it once was - and the best APS-C cameras these days are for the most part *extremely* capable. On my K-3 I'll shoot shots of detailed areas up to ISO 3,200, for example - and portraits up to 12,800. Yes, I could beat that by a stop on full-frame, but it's very, very rare that ISO 3,200 isn't enough.

(I could argue that if you want a "REAL" upgrade, you need to go up to medium format ... but now there are a lot of extremely capable cameras and it's not a matter of what's best, but which one(s) will best fulfil a certain individuals set of requirements).
 
I think the pixel shift feature and the GPS make me lean for the k3ii. At this price point though, should I just save up a some more for a fx? I'd be willing to do so, I was considering the 6d, it's not much more expensive either. If Pentax would hurry with their full frame I would probably wait to see the specs on that, haha
 
aguerra said:
I have no plans of shooting anything fast moving in the dark. What I plan to do at night is star trails and maybe pictures of the milkyway. The main thing I shoot, 99% of the time, is landscape, and the occasional animal off the trail. Excluding weight, do you think the X-T1 is a better choice than a K-3ii? Or is there another camera in the $1000 range that is a strong competitor? And let's say I go with the Pentax, do you think it would be wiser to get a K-3ii or a K-3 and put the money saved into better glass?

I really think the 24 million pixel, Sony-sensored cameras have an edge over the Fuji's 16 million pixel sensors on scenes that have a lot of high-frequency fine detail. So does Thom Hogan, if you read his reviews very carefully, you'll be able to find his comments about the fine detail issues in having the X-Trans sensor Fuji versus the 24 million pixel sensor cameras. I'm not swayed by the Fuji fanboy arguments that the issue is Adobe's bad raw conversion of Fujifilm files....the fact is that eve with optimal raw file development, a Fuji 16-MP image has 50% fewer pixels than a 24-MP Sony-sensor image....so...the fanatical arguments simply hold no water with me for landscape uses.

Put it this way: on a SMALL-scale scene, like a 6 foot by 18 foot shot from 10 feet, 16 million pixels gives plenty of data points to convey the "impression" of sharpness....by what about on a 600 foot by 1800 foot image at 3/4 mile? My vote goes for the higher-MP count camera for landscape shooting, especially if both sensors are of the same size AND the sensors are the new, state-of-thye are ones made by Sony or Toshiba.

I have had three prior Fujifilm d-slr's and have generally liked Fuji's color palettes, and the XT series cameras are indeed really nice-looking and highly-desirable machines. I totally "get" why some people are sold on the XT series cameras.

On some types of work, like close-in, small-scale street and small-scale images of any type, 16 million pixels looks pretty good. But I think that having another 50% higher pixel count( meaning "50% more" as in an added 8 million pixels over the 16 million the Fuji has) means more detail for landscapes, for longer-distance shots that cover fairly significant amounts of the real world. The problem is that on-line there are hundreds of Fuji fans that SWEAR the X-Trans sensor is "amazing", "remarkable," "unmatched" and so on...even though they've never shot a 24-million or a 36-million pixel camera...yet they continue to state that it's "better" than pretty much anything else out there. Apparently fewer is more-better, to hear them wax rhapsodic. I don't agree with that.

It sounds like you really want a Pentax--so I would just BUY one and enjoy it! I agree that for daytime shots of static subject, the K3-II's pixel shift feature might be nice to have. I read some early reviews of it, and I think that's an interesting feature that many people would actually like to have.
 
Last edited:
To be honest - in your shoes I would safe the money and wait until you have enough money for a REAL upgrade, for example to full frame.

All you'd get now is a small upgrade.

yes, spend a few more $$ on a full frame Canon 6D - $1,099
 
Yeah I decided that's what I'm going to do. I think upgrading to full frame will also help me grow as a photographer. I'll most likely wait and see if the Pentax FF is released and also consider the 6d and the d600/610
 

Most reactions

Back
Top