Leave it to Leica to present a point and shoot with a horribly crippled interface, excruciatingly slow load time, middling image quality (have you looked at the supposedly "nuce" images attached to this article?) for something supposedly high-end, and poor ergonomics, and claim that it is revolutionary and merits a nearly $2k pricetag.
As usual, the Leica sycophants will drool all over it, but it's becoming increasingly sad to watch this once-proud company lift its leg to its own legacy. Unfortunately, a luxury price tag does not equal relevance in the digital age, and the technical and advantages they had in the film era which, while overstated, were at least real, simply aren't there any more.
Wow, completely unimpressive sample images (even in the handful where the photographer actually managed to hit the focus correctly). And while it's no Hasselblad Lunar, I don't get those who think this is a particularly attractive camera. If anything, the look is "Ikea" generic.
Yet somehow the cult of Leica will survive.
Marty4650: Another really nice DSLR from Pentax.... and at a very reasonable price.
The should sell a lot of these.
Ricoh has stated and shown that they are willing to grow their camera segment under the Pentax label. They already have shown that they could slay Canon in the business imaging arena by slowly and inexorably grinding away. I don't expect Ricoh to challenge Canon and Nikon right away, but 3 years from now, I expect their lens lineup, as well as their market share, will be much expanded.
marike6: From the K-3 preview: "Build quality remains top-notch, with an all-metal body that is a sharp contrast to the plasticky bodies on the Canon 70D and Nikon D7100".
From the D7100 review: "The D7100 features a solidly-built magnesium alloy body that offers moisture and dust resistance."
We get that the K3 like the K5 is solid. But not sure why some reviewers feel compelled to spin tales about one body to promote another. Having a brief play with the D7100 at B&H, my impression was more inline with the second reviewer's assessment. "Plasticky" implies a low-end, T4i or D3200 type of body which is not at all what the D7100 is.
But I've always like the K5 (and the K30, one of the best deals in photography right now) and this new release looks great.
But the D7100 -DOES- have quite a bit more plastic in its construction than the K5. Anyone who has held both cameras can tell you the latter is much more solidly built. If the K3 is built similarly (and judging by its weight, it is), it is like the difference between an SUV (a rugged vehicle, sure), and a tank.
Marcin Mo111347cicki: I'm torn between my love for Pentax and hate for Ricoh for what it did. Reduce Pentax to the level of Lumix or Cybershot? Really? I guess I'm not the only one...
You do realize that for the vast bulk of its history (i.e. up until 2002), there was no company named "Pentax," and that the name referred to a camera -line- produced by Asahi corporation, right? And there was only a "Pentax Corporation" from 2002-2006, when they were bought by Hoya?
So basically things are back to normal for the brand.
Peiasdf: Just checked out Pentax's lens line up and I cannot find a single fast normal prime. The cheapest "50mm" is 35mm f/2.4 at $180 while the fastest is 31mm f/1.8 at $1,000. Where is the cheap f/1.4~f/1.8?
Good cameras, weird ass lens line up.
The Pentax-FA 50mm 1.4 is generally available for around $300 new in box. Don't think it's still in production, though. A cheap 50mm 1.8 is also about to go into production under the Pentax-DA line at a MSRP of $250. The DA* 40mm 2.8 pancake is quite nice but is definitely a step up in the price bracket.
There are also tons of old k-mount fast primes, both manual and auto focus, and since Pentax is one of the few manufacturers that has committed to legacy compatibility, using them is quite painless.