Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-50

Winner
Pentax K-3

100

Pentax K-50

86

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-3

Large screen
Screen size
3.2"
Rapid fire
Continuous shooting
8.3 fps
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
138 ms shutter lag
Many cross-type focus points
Cross type focus points
25
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-50

Size
Really small
Prosumer size (129×97×70 mm)
Thickness
Thin
2.8"
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-3.
Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-50.

competitors

Pentax K-3 Competitors

Pentax K-70

Pentax K-70

Entry-level DSLR

$647 body only

$897 with 18-135mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Screen size Much smaller screen
Pentax K-3 II

Pentax K-3 II

Entry-level DSLR

$846 - $848 body only

$1,596 with 16-85mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
GPS Has a GPS
Low light performance More noise at high ISO
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$789 - $997 body only

$1,100 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Overall image quality Better image quality
Image stabilization No image stabilization

Pentax K-50 Competitors

Pentax K-70

Pentax K-70

Entry-level DSLR

$647 body only

$897 with 18-135mm lens

Movie format Lower frame rate movies
True resolution Much higher true resolution
Thickness Significantly thicker
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$452 body only

$399 - $547 with 18-55mm lens

Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
Low light performance Lower noise at high ISO
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Pentax K-S2

Pentax K-S2

Entry-level DSLR

$527 body only

$545 with 18-50mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Continuous shooting Shoots slower

discussion

Pentax K-3
K-3
Pentax

Report a correction
Pentax K-50
K-50
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments