D1N0: Lacks OVF and top lcd. Cons in my book.
That's the biggest load of BS I've seen on this site in a few days (which sadly, is saying something). I love how in two sentences of someone chiming in that the *lack* of two features were cons, nothing more, you've managed to spin this great delusion about their inferiority as a person, conveniently setting yourself up as the opposite to all of that.
Of course, you'll hear none of the advantages of either feature (funny that for things that are so commonplace, people actually like their inclusion!), because you're perfectly willing to dismiss them out of hand if it supports your rhetoric to do so.
It's just too bad we all can't be as "open minded" as you, totally without opinions, preferences, or perspectives...other than those specifically aimed at belittling those around us.
FriendlyWalkabout: Why does this xt1 rate higher than my branded camera? Dpreview is soooo biased!
Pentax whiners inbound.
So because another person values different technical features than you do, you feel entitled to call them a "ultra-conservative narrow-minded person who hates *anything* that deviates from his very, very, very narrow idea of what is he thinks is normal"?
I don't know what's wrong with you, but you should probably get yourself checked out.
While the newer EVF cameras can certainly get it done, I've still not seen one that I prefer over a decent-to-good OVF...and while the lack of a top LCD isn't a deal breaker for me, it's certainly a feature I use a lot on my current camera, and I'm sure I'd miss it on a replacement.
Not sure why you're so defensive and unable to see how someone else might have a different viewpoint, but you're fairly typical among DPR commenters, and it's kind of sad.
wisep01: Some people here have the gall to assert that the D7100, the camera that single-handedly rewrote the dictionary definition of "pathetic," is in the same league as the K-3. As a Nikon user, trust me, it most certainly is not!
K-3 continuous shooting: 8.3 fps; buffer size: 23 shotsD7100 continuous shooting: 5.9fps; buffer size: 6 shots (yes, I double-checked)
And that's just one of the many areas where the D7100 falls so very short.
Ah yes, so me, the guy who feels the review is accurate and that it's a decent, though not grooundbreaking camera is called a whiner by the people picking apart the review for not heaping more praise on.
I guess that's all you've got left once someone points out how little you know.
Gazeomon, have you actually looked up the sizes? There's less than a centimeter of difference in their dimensions.
The only thing worse than a whiner is a whiner who can't even bother to be informed about the very thing they're running their mouth about.
Jahled: At last, no more 'where's the K3 review?' comments boring us witless
Nothing quite takes the shine away from a fair review of a nice piece of equipment than its fans griping that the reviewer didn't praise it enough.
EdBov: It was 86% minus 3% because of us laughing about DPR.......:-)
A 83% score is unbelievable and they cannot mean this score to be "serious". The more I believe that Nikon, Olympus and Fuji are paying better than Ricoh (who do not pay for getting good or just even better reviews).
Even the Canon 7D (about 4 years older) has a score of 84%.
Goodbye DPR!. There was once a time I took you serious ................
Good lord, you'd think when someone is a regular at a tech site like this, they'd realize that scores like this are relative to other contemporary cameras aimed at similar demographics.
We have everything here from comparisons to amateur-level Canikon to gripes comparing to a multiple years old model...
justmeMN: A Gold Award for crappy JPEGs, and mediocre AF?
Oh well. The review is very detailed, so people can draw their own conclusions.
Mike, while that fps is wonderful, it's useless for the situation it's meant for without great focus tracking. You can use a camera that can fire off 88.3 fps, and if none of them are in focus, you might as well have used your cell phone.
Dezzza: Who will take this camera to shoot with JPG? It'a not a smartphone.
"I don't care about a specific feature so I'm going to whine that a review was thorough enough to address it!"
My, the entitlement.
JONNO G: I swear pentax could come out with a full frame with 3 card slots at 75 mp with being fully waterproof and dpreview would mark it under 85%
Iskender: Right on the money. It's a fine camera, but the tribe of whiners that have showed up to these comments can't handle reading anything other than blind praise and lashing out at anyone who deviates from that.
The K-3 is considerably smaller than the D7100, so your point is kind of invalid.Here is a size comparison of the two - http://versus.com/en/pentax-k-3-vs-nikon-d7100
It's pretty clear that it has a smaller body, as well of smaller lenses available.
Dude...less than a centimeter in two dimensions and heavier.
If it's that drastically important to you, fantastic, go buy one, but for the vast majority of people, it's not really representing a significant difference in terms of actual usage, storage, and portability.
zxaar: So you TRADE the focal length versatility for size. That's fine, but it's still a tradeoff.
Gazemon: You have no idea what you're talking about. In fact the K-3 body is even heavier than the D7100. Do a little fact checking of your own.
It's not bad gear by any means, but this crowd would still be whining even if the DPR score was 135 and they recommended that everyone go smash their current kit with a hammer on the sidewalk and go buy a K-3 right now. Good gear, ridiculous users.
So you can get a body that's the same size and put more compact lenses on it? Lovely. Now to get the focal length versatility back, you need to carry how many primes?
I don't think you're going to be able to argue that you have as many or more lenses to choose from compared to C or N either.
I'm not saying Pentax is producing an inferior product, just that it seems like a disproportionate percentage of their user base seems to feel the need to compensate for...something...and attempts to do so with incessant whining.
Similar to what we're seeing all over this comment section.
semorg: I think the biggest advantage of this camera over Nikon D7100 is the built-in image stabilizer. Sadly, DPreview didn't seem to mention that in their conclusion. I guess their tests are just confined to studio setup images.
Are you serious?!
"DP Review made a big mistake here and only wants to punish us "Pentax whiners"."
Really? Oh man, they gave it a gold award! They really god you good! Burn!
Aside from the fact that they're aimed at different demographics of consumer, are you really arguing the K-3 as a compact alternative?
Lay off the good drugs before you come post.
Smokymtnhiker: Finally a finished review, but unjustly harsh regarding video in the overall score in order to help Canon and Nikon.
There should be two (2) separate scores for cameras with video capability:
Can you buy the camera as two separate units, one for video and one for stills?
Then why should they get two scores? That's what the little breakdown at the end is for.
hydrospanner: In this section:
Pentax fanboys who've spent the last few months whining about no K-3 review switching over to whining about the K-3 review.
Jeez, for a bunch that wanted so badly to know what the folks at DPR thought of the thing, it really looks like you were only waiting to pick them apart and tell them why they're wrong for disagreeing with you.
For as much as the average Pentax evangelist seems to want to convert Canon & Nikon users, the way they've earned a reputation as the biggest whiners makes me never even want to give Pentax a try if it means I'll turn into that!
I'm slowly starting to figure out what I'll do if/when my D300 kicks the bucket and there's no D400...I was leaning K-3 for a while, but with the way the users seem to be compensating for something, I might rather go m43...they're bad, but they're not AS bad...
So you have a good camera...fantastic. Why are you still whining around?
Nikon D300 users are still operating a "current" camera released in 2008 and they don't need nearly the cheese of the Pentax crowd that just got a wonderful body delivered to them.
In this section:
Heie2: I'm a Pentax fan, and while I prefer the WG series, the first to allow RAW shooting will get my money.
RAW. IN. AN. EVERYTHING-PROOF. P&S.
Waterproof + RAW + PASM + IS + Fast Glass + Big Sensor
I know (I guess) it's asking a lot...but that's the camera that'd get me to Fry levels of "Shut up and take my money." no matter who released it.
Bonus points for retro styling (waterproof P&Ss don't have to look like alien spacecraft), an XZ style lens ring, focus peaking, HDR, multi-shot NR, and a lens shutter-cap.
This entire debacle is a big missed opportunity for Nikon.
In the end, they're having to do what should have been done in the first place anyway, but now it's perceived as a negative, with them grudgingly providing customer support because they've been forced into it, and every time someone reads a story about it, it reminds them of the negativity.
Had they been proactive, and as soon as the issue was discovered, offered free maintenance/replacement/upgrading to all D600 owners, it would have been less costly for them, and great for their PR image.