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 :)
Pulled out on its own like that, that sentence doesn't have the emphasis quite where I intended it.
I was trying to answer the question 'should I buy a K-3' for: a Pentax owner, someone without a significant attachment to another system and for someone who already has some nice non-Pentax lenses. The answers to which are yes, maybe and probably not.
What it's missing is the stress on the degree of commitment to another system: if you've got a couple-of-generations-old Canon Rebel, it's worth considering - if you own a 70-200 F2.8 for a different mount, it's probably not.
I've amended the statement to: 'For Pentax owners, it's well worth upgrading to, and good enough to make Pentax worth considering if you have no serious commitments to another system.'
Which makes the emphasis less ambiguous.
camerosity: How about a real world sample gallery from the Nikon 1 V3?? Cmon dpreview, stop flaunting your overt bias toward Canon and against Nikon!
Our use of cameras is biased towards those we *have*. Until Nikon sends us a camera, it's quite hard to shoot a gallery with it.
brycesteiner: "The Micro Four Thirds system, originally developed by Olympus and Panasonic, now lists Carl Zeiss, Astro Design, SVS-Vistek, Kenko Tokina, Cosina, Schneider-Kreuznach, JK Imaging, Tamron, View Plus, Photron and Blackmagic Designs as members. Sigma also makes lenses for the system."
I thought Kodak is a part of the consortium too. They have their own m4/3 out now too.
@macky patalinghug - JK Imaging has only licensed the right to use the Kodak name.
Eastman Kodak still exists, it's just that it is now focused on ['packaging, function and digital printing'](http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/About_Kodak_Top/Our_Company.htm). It licenses its name to other companies, including JK Imaging and Kodak Alaris (the company that bought its Personal Imaging and Document Imaging businesses).
JK Imaging, which has licensed the rights to use the Kodak name, is a member of the Micro Four Thirds system.
Lab D: This looks like some info on the sensor involved. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/altasens-introduces-4k-and-beyond-sensor-252786951.html
Good find - we'll update the story shortly.
BJL: The 21x12mm mentioned in the article is a bit smaller than Super35mm, which is 24.9mm wide. So either that is a typo, or JVC is proposing a slightly smaller variant of 35mm cinema format (there are already plenty of variants around!). It is also only a 1.7mm larger image circle diameter than the 22.5mm diagonal of the official 18x13.5mm of official 4/3" format, even if current MFT sensors are a bit smaller than that.Since many lenses cover a comfortably larger image circle that the format they are for (in particular, longer than normal lenses and zooms at all except their shortest focal lengths), I doubt that vignetting will be much of a problem. Also, mild vignetting in the corners of a video frame could be corrected with "lens correction" firmware.
There are no figures from JVC yet - the *around* 21 x 12mm figure we quoted is the one used by Blackmagic for its 4K production camera.
We know of several other sizes described as 'Super 35' many of which are essentially 16:9 crops from APS-C sensors (around 23.5mm width). We were trying to give an idea of scale and stress that Super 35 isn't what still photographers think of as 'full frame/35mm.'
We have to assume it'll be something towards the smaller end of what could be described as 'Super 35' for it to work within the imaging circle of Micro Four Thirds.
jeremiah_rubix: what about burst mode for raw files with action photography. couldnt find any numbers in press release. speculation was that it would be high.
They say 14-bit Raw, but that's also what's they state about the A7.
peevee1: "Max resolution 4240 x 3832"
Huh? 1.1:1 ratio, almost square? Are you sure DPR? And it does not look like 12mpix to me. :)
Sorry about that. Now fixed.
Lan: In other news, Sony also announced Europe falling off the face of the planet ;)
What about 50p?
It may well be that Sony has only announced the US version. I wouldn't be surprised to find there's a EU version that shoots 50p, 25p and 24p.
Same as A7, based on the preliminary specs we've seen.
mpgxsvcd: Does this thing only record 4K to an external device?
bossa: Rumor has it that Nikon is about to release a D300 replacement called a D9300 (I'm not sure if that's an April 1st joke that came late).
I wonder if that camera will get a full review before the K-3 review is finished. DPR could well have been playing with a pre-release version of that camera and have been working on a review of it for a few weeks for all we know.
I've been trying to ensure it was this week, but early next week, by the time they've been edited, is a possibility.
The K-3 will be our next review.
Class A: Regarding the AA-filter simulator: In the past you said it was a "wise of Nikon" to offer the D800 in addition to the D800E.
The D800E has 36MP and you supported the decision to also offer a version with an AA-filter so why is it now the "least important" aspect of the K-3 that, at only 24MP, it is essentially two cameras in one?
At 24MP the likelihood of moiré and other artefacts is higher than at 36MP and I'm surprised by the viewpoint that choosing a bad lens, a different f-stop, or hand-holding are appropriate means to combat the ill-effects of a missing AA-filter.
Any camera without an AA-filter at less than 100MP is essentially incomplete and is either unusable in certain situations or requires the photographer to work around the camera's limitation. The fact that many people do not find a lacking AA-filter to be an issue is just a reflection on the fact that they are not taking shots that are sharp at the pixel level, but not proof of how superfluous AA-filters are.
@Class A - having tested the AA filter simulation on and off, there isn't a huge difference and you'll only see that difference in certain circumstances (low ISO, sharp lens, on a tripod...). As I *explicitly state*, I'm not trying to dismiss the feature, it's just that it's not the most significant feature on the K-3, even though it's the most discussed.
I'll expand on this in the full review, to be published in the next few days.
completelyrandomstuff: Regarding iso noise:
Nikon D7100 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6Pentax K-3 Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6Canon 70D: Exif: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/3200, F-stop: 5.6Olympus E-m1: Iso 25600, Shutter: 1/5000, F-stop: 5.6
Come on Dpreview, that's not a standardized comparison... You put side-by-side two different exposures and suggest they are comparable.
No wonder a couple of the cameras look worse if you expose their shots with 2/3rds of the light!
Ok, this might take several messages:
The Nikon and Canon's shutters only go up to 1/4000th, so we can't shoot them at 1/5000th. Instead the lights will have been reduced by 1EV. As such it's actually those two cameras that have received 1/3EV less light (I'd need to download the images again to check their brightnesses - if those shots are slightly under-bright and the other two cameras are slightly over-bright, then there may be virtually no difference in ISO accuracy (or shutter accuracy) between them.
@completelyrandomstuff - DxO does not report ISO accuracy or even test it. What they show is a comparison between the way ISO is used by the industry vs. the ISO definition DxO uses for its testing. It *does* tell you how the manufacturer is balancing noise and highlight DR, it **does not** tell you about whether ISO is being mis-stated.
Everlast66: The logarithmic scale of the X axis in a way hides the huge range of some of the cameras going to 200 and 300mm equiv. with most of the other lenses going up to 100mm.At first it looks strange how Canon lens engineers managed to outperform all others by making their lens faster at all equiv. apertures while still having virtually the same range, untill you look closely at the numbers on the X axis and realise their lens is 5x while some others are 8x or more.Also if compact cameras are considered ones with fixed lenses (non interchangeable) then probably the Nikon Collpix A and Sony RX1 should be put there as well as dots (having fixed focal lengths)
Actually, the log scale *shows* the difference in field of view that you get at each focal length.
100mm is twice as zoomed-in as 50mm (half the field of view)200mm is twice as zoomed-in again, so it represented by the same distance.300mm is only 50% more zoomed-in, so the distance on the scale is essentially the same as the difference between 24mm and 35mm, since that's closer to the perceptual difference.
mosc: The RX10 is clearly in the wrong category. Except for the fact that it's kit lens can't be removed, it lines up much more closely with the K3, the 70D, and the D7100. It's every bit as expensive and the dimmensions aren't that dissimilar. It's "fixed" kit lens compares very similarly to the 18-135/140 lenses that those cameras have. A little slower at wide, a little faster at tele, very similar range. And the price of all the cameras I mentioned here was within $100 unlike this hodgepodge category it got lumped into.
@2eyesee - Likes or not, I do take your point. We're looking to be able to present this information in a number of better ways, so that there would be roundups based on price, or capability, rather than simply class/category.
So, while we need to make do with this for now, in the long run I hope we can satisfy both approaches.
CDC1: How would the Fujifilm XQ1 compare to these? It looks like it should be pretty competitive.
The XQ1 did OK but didn't especially stand out in the [High-end pocketable compact roundup](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9935181366/high-end-pocketable-compacts-2013-roundup/4).
deep7: "While image quality in this class won't compete with a good mirrorless camera paired with a good lens". Actually, the G1X certainly competes. I have an EM1 and good lenses and a G1X and speak from experience. In fact, the G1X image quality is every bit as good as the Canon 60D I recently sold.
Then again, is the G1X series really in the same class as the others? Only on body size. Better to think of the original as a Fuji X100 with a zoom lens and crappy viewfinder...
In the RX10 review, you'll find that camera compared to two APS-C cameras with 18-1XXmm lenses (Canon 1.6x crop and 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 and Sony 1.5 crop with 18-105mm F4). In fact, go to the review today and you'll find [we've already added the G1 X II to the chart](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10/#focal_length_chart).
Nobody is suggesting the G1 X II and RX10 don't compete with interchangeable lens cameras (hence those comparisons being explicitly made in the review). However, this chart is taken from a comparison of fixed lens, moderate sensor size cameras, and is quite crowded enough just making those comparison.
2eyesee - I'm not arguing that an APS-C camera with longish zoom isn't a relevant comparison (which is why we make *precisely* those comparisons in the RX10 review).
However these roundups are by common category and, while the RX10 doesn't fit well into any category, it makes more sense here than anywhere else. Here it's alongside other cameras with comparatively bright zoom lenses with a moderately-sized sensor, which makes some (if not perfect) sense. Whereas no amount of bulk or cost suddenly makes it a DSLR.