Madaboutpix: Having shot my K-7 for nearly five years now (without a single malfunction), a couple of days ago I finally ordered a standard K-3 to replace it. Given that I passed by the K-5 and K-5 IIs, I'm fairly confident that I will see some improvement over my old camera. And I don't feel cheated now just because Ricoh has come up with this Prestige Edition. When I'm out and about shooting, I usually try to blend in, rather than draw attention to myself. After all, I want people to act naturally, almost as if I wasn't there.
Still, this is clever marketing on Ricoh's side: You get into the news, you may interest some more people for a serious camera who appreciate the good looks, and then may grow to love it for what it is capable of as a photographic tool. At this price point it cannot even be dismissed as rip-off, and I agree that the gunmetal-grey styling bespeaks some taste.
I have the K-7, K-5 IIs, and the K-3. If you skipped the K-5 series and went straight from the 7 to the 3....the first time you look at the first, make sure you are strapped into your chair...
And I thought the sexiest camera ever made couldn't be any sexier.
mosc: I thought it would be f2.8-f4, like the sped up 55-200 they offer. This is just a double price pentax lens. I'm sure it will be a little sharper throughout than the pentax version (which is a much older lens to be fair), I just think Fuji at it's best is pushing APS-C past the capabilities of it's competitors offering a nice niche between the APS and FF products of other lines.
With no FF system to worry about, Fuji's focus on APS-C should mean they can beat the standard offerings. Fuji's a little more expensive but that makes sense if they're delivering brighter apertures on the same size sensor.
2.8-4.0 vs 3.5-5.6 is a difference.
3.5-4.8 vs 4.0-5.6? Negligible.
ck139: "The Pentax 18-135WR has poor optical quality".Really? You have used one? My copy at least has perfectly acceptable optical quality. Is it as good as a wide aperture prime lens? No. If the Fuji version has even better optical quality than the Pentax then that will be excellent.
Everyone that has a Pentax 18-135 WR knows that the photozone review of the 18-135 WR is incompatible with reality.
The 18-135 WR isn't prime sharp, but it's a phenomenal lens for what it does, especially when stopped down.
waxwaine: "But if it's a DSLR-shaped thing that you need..."
Traduction: If you want to waste 600usd, don´t know what you want as a camera except that is something to hang on you neck to convince yourself and other fools you know photography, run to this cr6p. If you it´s not your case, runaway from this cr6p.
Clearly you are smoking something phenomenal.
Retzius: The D3300 is a tidy little camera but I don't think they can keep offering the same thing over and over again anymore. My guess is the D3400 is where we will see the EVF/OVF jump.
At this size and form factor mirrorless is really the best option. The target buyer for this camera really has nothing to gain by purchasing a OVF Dslr. 90% of the folks who buy this camera never even change the lens or print an image. For all the boasting about APS sensor performance and OLPF filter removal these things don't even pertain to most of the images these cameras will ever make.
At this price point, $650, you can get much much more for your money. Heck, you can get the Pentax K500 with lens for $399 and it actually has useful features like a large 100% viewfinder with a high eye point and the ability to use AA batteries if you run out of batteries at Disneyland. 16mp images may actually be better for this target segment as the files are a bit smaller and take up less room on the card.
BarnET - the HD 55-300 is much better than the 70-300, while being smaller, much wider (55 vs 70mm), and weather sealed - the only consumer telezoom on the market be sealed. And as Retzius mentioned - every lens is stabilized on your Pentax.
There are some missing lenses, sure. Every mount could argue that. But I entirely disagree with you that the bodies have the wrong mount. The K mount offers the best value for money on the market presently for the beginner through advanced amateur. Only when niche needs are paramount (tilt-shift, super fast tele, both prime and zoom, extreme macro, and FF DOF control) does it presently fall short, and I won't argue that. But I wouldn't trade my K mount (bodies/lenses) for anything Canikon offers because for my needs (travel and documentary photography in lightweight and cost effective manner) the Pentax system as it stands today trumps the hell out of Canikon's offerings. And that's without focusing on features like IBIS and weather sealing.
DaytonR: What an interesting camera , Nikon has raised the bar for entry level SLR`s. Its amazing how much cameras have come in a few years !
Rofl - nice one.
As someone that uses both 16 and 24 mpx (K-3 and K-5 IIs/K-30, the latter is identical to the K-50), there are inherent benefits to the 16 mpx sensor over the 24 for those that do not need it (i.e. beginners).
16 is not "yesterday's APS-C news" you fool. Especially when this segment is just looking for a better camera than their iPhone to put on facebook (which, in case you didn't know, is 1.5 mpx at MAX).
Also, don't forget the K-50's offering over the K-500 - full weather sealing.
All canikon entry/mid-entry level cameras are a pathetic joke compared to the K-50/K-500's features. 24 mpx is apparently the only thing 'better' and that's a con imo for this segment.
And what do you mean the wrong mount? You can keep your behemoth lenses and I'll keep my Limiteds and weather sealed lenses ;)
Super486: 645Z for landscape/portraits and K-3 for action would be a great combo!
Guess it seems the guys shooting sports and wildlife professionally with the K-3 are also utter nonsense...
shaocaholica: Why is the body so long? Flange back is ~7cm. Seems like they could have made it ~2cm shorter.
I'm sure you are far more competent in this manner than Ricoh's own engineers.
People make sure you scroll to image 8 ;)
turvyT: I think that the AF test made with any dslr or mirrorless would produce similar or worse results. If the biker alters the height of his head or chest or the photographer moves some inches the camera, some parts of his shirt can easily come into or loose focus. Regarding dpreview testers not liking K3 jpeg colors, as many have said, is a matter of taste. I don't have a K3, but in Flickr one can easily see that Pentax colors are probably the nicest, reds included. And if we all use our tastes to rate others, we could begin really beating on the general quality of dpreview samples. I any case, being a Nikon user I find their jpeg colors tend to the cold palette. I wouldn't judge that as a con, neither the warm Pentax tendency.
>whose very design suggests that the intention was to simply prove the stereotype.
But that would mean that DPR were biased against Pentax...
photosen: Great review; it's a monster of a camera, and just the thing to appease any concerns over the Ricoh take over. Who would have thought Pentax king of the APS-C lineup (if probably not sales)?
Pentax has been king of the APS-C lineup since the K-5 - the K-3 just further solidifies that lead ;)
(unknown member): 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.
>IBIS is not a plus on a DSLr. It's a defnite minus, handicapping the AF and metering sensors, particularly at longer focal lengths where the view looks like an earthquake through a knothole. No coincidence that the AF tracking isn't very good. IBIS on a DSLR is really a very bad bargain and leaves the Pentax at a definite disadvantage.
You really have not the slightest clue of what you are talking about. Not even remotely.
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...
@Eli Allan - 100% you hit the nail on the head.
A200Eric: Thank God. Now we can move from "dpreview hates pentax because they refuse to review the k3" to "dpreview hates pentax because wrote an unfair review." YAY!
> I don't think it's a need to justify their purchase so much as a desire not to see the little guy squished, or the company quelled, when they've found it has great merit, unique usefulness, and even drives some of the innovation in the industry.
D1N0: Strangely you have set this in semi-pro like the K-5, but the K-5 II(s) is in mid level. This is a direct competitor for de Nikon D7100 and de Canon 70D, which are in mid level. Maybe semi-pro should start a bit lower. K-3 D7100 70D A77 OMD-EM1 , X-pro1.
So AF is up to date but the lenses aren't? Great con people. But There are also sigma and tamron alternatives out there for Pentax and not all pentax lenses are slow (and not all of them are even meant to be fast). Guess you needed a replacement for de no longer missing dedicated movie button ;).
What's interesting is that DPR criticizes Pentax for its lenses in a camera review when it comes to the AF ability of the system.
But never mentions the Limiteds when it comes to the IQ, uniqueness, and plain joy to shoot in the most compact package of any DSLR system made.
Retzius: I can't believe you ended the review with this:
"It's not a camera to change systems for, but it's well worth upgrading to, and good enough to make the Pentax system worth considering if you have no existing commitments."
In effect, you are bluntly saying "don't buy this camera if you are a Nikon or Canon user."
Nikon and Canon will be happy now :)
>What, exactly, could the owner of a Canon of Nikon system accomplish, that would would not be possible unless they switched to Pentax?
Weather sealing? In kit lenses?Ergonomics?APS-C camera with APS-C lenses, not FF behemoths?In-Body Image Stabilization?AF all-metal lenses?
Need I go on?
Heie2: Also, for how long this review took, this might just be the slimmest and most empty review DPR has published in such a long time.
Gives off the impression of "FFS, just publish the damn thing already."
I really had high hopes DPR would finally get it right...
I am well aware of what it takes write an in-depth review, and also the nuances to do so in order to conduct autofocus comparisons. I invite you to read here, which I wrote in its entirety: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-55-300mm/autofocus.html Just that one page is what I'm pointing you to, but if you still feel I am not competent enough to judge your effort, I invite you to read that entire review.
I acknowledge that it took longer than you thought. The above took me 3 months as opposed to the 1 I thought it would. I also acknowledge the delayed start, much to my chagrin and dismay.
But what I still don't understand is the 70D and the D7100 really don't compare to the K-3 and yet to the uninformed and easily impressionable, the perception you've reinforced is that the K-3 barely matches and ultimately lags the other two, when that is absolute garbage. "Pentax D400" or "Pentax 7DII," as you ignored.
I once respected DPR as the photographic authority. No more, Sir.