The GR, then Pentax K-3, and now — early next week — a 645 Z. Ricoh indeed proves they are one of the most exciting, yet most understated camera manufacturer today.
Funnily, not a word about the 645Z on the DPR news page anywhere, despite the official teaser running for a week already on all Ricoh Imaging websites, and despite rumours that the 645Z may be the groundbreaking new camera that will redefine the meaning of the MF and image quality in general.
But, many other photography "news" are presented on DPR, including "possible announcement of a firmware update from Sony", or a "possible lens patent from Apple", or a "Mini M" from Leica (which was not mini M at all) ... are all readily presented for digestion and anticipation.
RichRMA: Well, the half-plastic exercise in cost-cutting (relative to its predecessor) the D7100 gets 85 points, I presume it is the strength of the Nikon lens offering that gave the lesser camera the edge?
An altogether different category. DPR has put K5II and D7100 in the "Midrange DSLR cameras" category. But K-3 in the "Ssemi-pro DSLR category". Mind you, it is DPR's categorisation, and scores are comparable •only• inside same category.
suntek101: This seems to be a wonderful camera but I like to do low and high angle shooting and I have been waiting for Pentax to incorporate an articulated LCD screen into their next camera since the K10. Hopefully the "K1" will be released in a year or two and my wish will come true. Are you listening Ricoh/Pentax? Until then, I'll just dream of the K3 while making the most of my old K10!
I know the feeling; imagine how Robert Capa and all the photojournalists must have felt when dragging their noses through the mud to make photographs that changed the way we see and imagine our world.
Richard Murdey: "Disappointing JPEG color response"
A lot hinges on just *how* disappointing, but that seems to me like a pretty fundamental negative. If I'm paying $1000 for a dSLR it should produce pictures with pleasing color without too much fuss. If it can't that's quite a heavy burden to have to live with.
The review also says ... "Lots of control over JPEG output, including three styles of sharpening". Thus, you buy a camera to explore and use its full potential, or buy it determined not to use it?
(unknown member): Flop Flop...
Don’t forget to flush the toilet …
RichRMA: A very good and fair review for THE BEST sub-FF camera around. Sorry Nikon, still think no "real" successor to the D300s is a travesty..
Actually it's a pure business common sense for Nikon. They are moving towards the FF altogether, and will not waste time and money developing another line of pro-DX bodies and lenses when they have pro-FX lenses aplenty!
Currently the K-3 is the only semi-pro crop camera left in that category. If you like crop sensor cameras, instead of complaining about Nikon try a K-3; you may even like it better and Pentax is fully committed to crop — they have the largest and best crop sensor lens range in the world.
For those complaining about scores, please note that K-3 is now the only contemporary crop sensor DSLR left in the Semi-professional Interchangeable Lens Camera category. That was the category reserved once for D300/s and 7D. The K-5II was enlisted in a Mid Range Interchangeable Lens Camera category, together with D7100 and 70D. Therefore scores between the D7100 or 70D and the K-3 are NOT comparable.
Transparency has nothing to do with it. This is an altogether different category issue from Nikon’s, with more severe consequences including health and safety (S&H) hazards. S&H issues must be handled this way — publicly — while Nikon’s on individual basis.
Denisio Fabuloso: Well it seems the Olympus OMD is the standout here. Nikon has better white balance and the OMD with it's 'piddling' 4/3 format wipes the floor with the competing opposition on most counts. Deserved it's many accolades I have no doubt. Before you get out your machetes... I am a long time Pentax owner of around 40 years. Credit where credit's due.
So you need to acknowledge you are an m4/3 user / cheerleader in a totally unrelated topic or subject or a comment line?
Image processing is good, but the lens does not excite. Leica's lens in X-Vario, or Ricoh's lens in the GR, are both miles ahead of this camera.But, I believe, if Canon wanted to implement a really good lens, the package would cost twice as much. It would be worthwhile, though. It would be good Canon comes out with a kick-@ss enthusiast camera, not another budget 'zoom': they have plenty of budget cameras already.
I see that many comments are disappearing.
Red5TX: I like the Q system. Used to own the original Q. But you'd better really want all four lenses. Pentax just dropped the price of the Q7 by $100. So you can buy the components of this kit separately for $1,299 -- only $100 more. If you want all four lenses then sure, this is a fine deal. If not, you're better off buying the lenses separately. (Rant: It's a shame that the 02 standard zoom is so mediocre. Be nice it Pentax would replace it with a lens that's worthy of the Q.)
I agree. If they want to keep the good name of the Q system and its future, then they must compensate and constantly upgrade, and best is with unique quality of the lenses. 02 is one that needs *immediate* attention and a quick replacement.
Do not dismiss that which you do not know.Best part is that this entire Q7 system — a camera and 7 lenses (incredibly good prime lens, excellent 70-210mm zoom equivalent, a fisheye lens, standard zoom, etc.) — weighs less than 1kg. Or with this bag, perhaps a bit more.*That* is why this miniature, yet incredibly capable system, was designed in the first place.
Actually I would not be surprised. Olympus dumping one more established system of their own to embrace a new one? Sounds familiar and consistent with company's charter so far.
Smokymtnhiker: What I don't understand is the high cost of lenses from Pentax. Considering the Pentax cameras have in body IS, lens construction should be less complicated and therefore less expensive, but they are in fact just as expensive if not more so than equivalent glass from Canikon with IS built into the lens.
Basically Pentax is building a great camera, but jacking up the cost of lenses. I suppose that's where they make most of their money, but in actuality it is costing them money. A 20-25% reduction in lens cost across the board would work wonders in attracting people to switch brands and they would make it all up and more so in volume.
Why would Pentax be a bargain brand? While Sigma shares same designs across different mounts to lower the cost, I think Pentax-made unique lenses and their prices are bargain for the quality they offer. However, if the prices were 10% lower, you would ask 20% less than that too. If they were 20% lower, you would asking less again.
lacikuss: Very noisy jpegs at higher ISOs even compared to smaller sensor cameras… that is puzzling…
What do you want to do with your picture?If you want just to stare at it at 100% screen view, then nothing is ever good. But if you want to a) print it, b) scale it for web then an image with or without NR makes little difference up to certain sizes and NR may even help smoothen up some kinks, especially in pictures with people in it. 24 MP is a serious resolution, and much details can be a deterrent in some type of shots. Think people and portraits again. Even an A3 sized print with NR enabled will not make much difference from the non-NR version in a 24 MP image.However, what is there to complain about if there is a switch to enable whichever setting, and your abundant knowledge about resolutions, print, web and different subjects to guide you in understanding — at a first glance — what is really going on in JPEG files with default settings? ;)
RolliPoli: Please check a Pentax lens 'road map'. Their range of lenses is one of the best. Pentax has a stunningly good 31mm f1.8 lens. I'm sure you won't be able to tell the difference between its field of view and that of a 35mm lens.Their 35mm f2.0 is great and there isn't a meaningful difference between its f2.0 and f1.8 As for "cheap" , when it comes to buying lenses, smarter people than I have said that there are just three main features to select from and the photographer can only ever have two of those. They are: 'Cheap', 'Fast' and 'Sharp' Now, select any two!
FA 31 Ltd is by competent photographers' and experts opinion the best, and artistically the most appealing AF lens for any mount ever made. It is a legendary design.Does it not deserve its relatively steepish price tag (for a kit lens camera user) — which by any means is NOT too expensive. In the grand scheme of things, that lens is very affordable even for an amateur but capable photographer willing to use it for years and years.
Joe Ogiba: The Nikon D7100 received an 85% Gold award so I wonder what the K-3 will get, hmm. Heck the D600 with all it's problems received an 87% Gold award.
I dare to say not more % than any Nikon in its class. If D7100 has 85%, then that’s the maximum K-3 will get.There will be enough cons found somewhere to justify such score.
tipple: If some people are so upset with DPReviews method of reviewing cameras, quit reading and find another site! This ain't a perfect world and there is not a perfect camera.
Of course the owner of the website may decide to do whatever they want.
However, the whole K-3 review saga, or paradox, started after the users of DPR website have chosen the K-3 to be the camera of the year 2013. Not the Df, not the 70D, not D600, D7100 or E-M1 — yet all of them got reviewed except K-3.
I fear the K-3 would not have been reviewed until later this year, if ever, if there was no self-inflicted pain DPR had to suffer: to raise the popularity of the DPR, DPR organised a public poll. But DPR refused to do a timely review of the publicly chosen camera of the year (and in the meantime reviewed a host of cosmetically updated new cameras from larger manufacturers).
DPR would be the happiest bunch if people have chosen D7100; the review already done, and it fits their editorial attitude.
codeNsnap: Any news of a fast 23mm from Pentax ? Would have considered K3 over Fujifilm XT-1 if there was a fast 35mm equivalent option for K3.
Then you must be living on a deserted island, DDWD10, dropped off with a pocket knife, a volley ball and a box of Fujinon lenses.