mpgxsvcd: Is this the first camera that Dpreview didn’t even give a Silver or Gold award to?
They had a gold stamp on it for a while, at least. I saw it. Maybe it was pulled.
Reviewed already? Why did DPR skip Pentax K-3?
LXNights: For me it's the K-3. Pentax made up in a big way for their previous lapse in video by giving a proper and solid operating system here, including the addition of a plug to use earphones, which is vital for people like myself well versed in video. The ability to choose between using the anti-alliasing (sic) filter is nothing short of brilliant, in addition to the other features well documented here on DPreview. And the price point makes it a slam dunk. This is a very important camera for Pentax because it shows they can make a sturdy professional machine (notice I didn't say enthusiast) that can compete with anyone, it also points to a future that is very bright indeed. I've been shooting with Pentax for nearly 40 years, and despite recent tough times, I remain as proud as ever for what they have accomplished, and where they are going, and the K-3 is indicative of that. Thank you, Pentax-Ricoh.
"This is a very important camera for Pentax because it shows they can make a sturdy professional machine (notice I didn't say enthusiast) that can compete with anyone."
I agree, but also think Pentax has shown they can compete with anyone for a very long time. LX anyone?
The only APS-C camera that will top a K-3 is a K-3II.
Don't like "Relatively unrefined onscreen interface" . . .
What? This is a camera, not an iPad.
How do it know?
I am guessing that Pentax K-30 was not on this list because, yes, it is identical to K-50 except for the outward form and a couple of minor updates in the K-5, but also because DPR lists only currently produced models (I assume).
That said, the K-50 and K-500 should switch positions on this list.
BUT, if price point is a factor (after all, we're talking about "Consumer" models), Pentax K-5, K-5II, and K-5IIs should be 1, 2, 3 -- even if they are no longer being made. Hands down, there is no better, more capable "consumer value" camera in the DSLR camera market at the moment than a Pentax K-5.
JackM: If it was constant f/2.8 this might have been interesting.
But how much larger would it be? filter size 67mm? 72? 77? Pentax still has the old ME Super ethic: small -- and being very, very good at what you do with it -- is beautiful.
"Look at this Instacrap . . . "
space romance as a filter name? That's like weathered barn as a paint color - i.e., silly.
zakaria: Well done Pentax as usual .thanks Richo for keeping k 5 body!
Retaining the battery all the way from the K-7 is also nice. I'll now have three interchangeable back-ups for the battery in the K-3, all from other cameras.
Agree about the body form. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The basic K-5 ergonomics were perfect. There are only so many ways to fit a tool like this into the human hand. Pentax has it right.
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.
DPR has spun negative on Pentax before, believe me. Look at their review of the K-01. Every actual user of that camera, to a man, it seems, likes that camera far better than the review would have predicted. The negativism against the design and the designer was over the top, and became more than merely negative spin -- it probably helped kill the camera as a product line. OTOH, their review of the original K-5 was great, and predicted a very well loved and robust camera.
Regardless of DPR pointing our "Ricoh" on the back, K-3 looks very much like something from the old guard of Asahi Pentax tradition to me. The K-3 ergonomics, menus, and interface points descend from Pentax DSLR's even before Hoya. There is an innovation or two, in the tradition of innovation that DPR also points out. Not to mention K-mount -- Long Live K-mount. It's a Pentax as far as I'm concerned, and I salute those Pentax employees, bought and sold again and again, for their tenacity and obvious pride in making really great cameras.
toomanycanons: Delete your Facebook account. Simple.
I think it's time Facebook should be given the St. Loius Toodle-oo.
The Pentax Ltd's: Fabulous IQ, meticulous aluminum machining and build quality, compact form, distinctive hoods, APS-C optimized, one 49mm CPL fits all, and a dedicated case that will hold at least 4 of these lenses if you choose to have it. All 5 of these lenses needed no upgrade necessarily because they were excellent already, but they are nonetheless worthy of the effort. The bokeh improvements are probably considerable in at least two of them, and it is in keeping with the Pentax tradition that perfection in these already nice lenses was something yet to strive for . . . and deliver. Complaints about such highly distinctive effort from Pentax leave me cold. This kind of work is why I've stayed with Pentax for 40 years. I'm glad I have only 4 of the original Ltd's. It leaves me the space to own the last one in this new incarnation, and I'll be yet again an early adopter of a Pentax lens (and one of the new flashes).
drummercam: "A now-ubiquitous in-camera HDR feature is available in the Q7."
It would be nice if DPR exercised their corporate memory to say something like this:
"The now-ubiquitous in-camera HDR feature -- a feature first made available, BTW, by Pentax in their K-7 DSLR -- is also available in the Q7."
Which is to say, Pentax seldom gets due credit for its innovations.
No implementation of any feature from any camera maker is perfect at first issue. But that was not my point anyway. My point goes to DPR's approach to reviewing Pentax products.
"A now-ubiquitous in-camera HDR feature is available in the Q7."
There's a lot of rare earth metals in that number of phones, all of which had to be mined somewhere, often under dangerous and exploitive conditions. Production of the phones has other problems. The industry creating such neat, clean gadgets in fact has, like most industries, a rather toxic footprint.
drummercam: As a brand, my sense is that a chief Pentax characteristic has been the willingness to try novel things in cameras, with the occasional home run as a result (e.g., off-the-film-plane metering on the LX). Another is the ability to produce really top-notch glass when they want to (part of which was optics in the medical industry, and eyeglass lenses, I think -- I don't know if they still do that. Did Hoya strip that away?), and some world class lenses (e.g., 31mm). Another characteristic has been steadfastness to K-mount. Another has been really good form factors (MZ-S and especially K-7/K-5, which is deservedly a long-lived flagship as a result). My hope has been for one more home-run out of the park camera body. If it happens, they have declared that it will still say Pentax on the front. But the bottom ID plate will now say just Ricoh, apparently. I just hate to see "Pentax" disappear from that location, and it makes me wonder what remains of the Pentax / Asahi Optical "old guard."
I can't argue with your switch to Canon, bokane. Another chief characteristic of Pentax -- adding to my list above -- has been avoidance of full frame. The FA Limited 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm literally begged for a full frame body. Even the DA 40mm Limited works on full frame.