PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
drummercam Senior Member • Posts: 1,950
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review

Paul_R_H wrote:

drummercam wrote:

The public opinion has enough info already. Certainly, Pentaxian have seen enough "reviews" and enough of the camera itself to know the K-3III story. I'm not waiting with bated breath for DPR or anyone else to test anything I've not already done myself and gathered from others. Any reviews now are just going to spin what's already known

I don't agree with drummercam (whose contributions here I very much respect) ,. . .

Best wishes

Paul

Well, Paul I certainly do thank you for saying that.  Thanks very much.

My point about AF would be that Pentaxians knew in their hearts that K-3III wasn't going to cover the AF gap in K-3III, the first major attack on the AF citadel, in spite of the hype.  It may indeed be lamentable, while valid technology factors we don't know about might mitigate the lament.  But most Pentax users aren't here for the AF.  We know the shortfall.  For me, AF isn't the dealbreaker that it seems to be for some.  YMMV.

Smallish Pentax once again mass produced a really good camera.  I think very little undercuts that.  
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

 drummercam's gear list:drummercam's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital III Leica Q Pentax K-01 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-3 +11 more
Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 2,241
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review
2

Paul_R_H wrote:

drummercam wrote:

The public opinion has enough info already. Certainly, Pentaxian have seen enough "reviews" and enough of the camera itself to know the K-3III story. I'm not waiting with bated breath for DPR or anyone else to test anything I've not already done myself and gathered from others. Any reviews now are just going to spin what's already known

Hmmm, I don't really agree. There has been no review (that I've seen) which compares the C-AF of the K3-iii with that of common rivals, or a known standard.

And C-AF is my reason to upgrade or not - the image quality of my K3 ii is fine for me.

I know most people here dislike the DPR bicycle test, but I suspect that might be because Pentax bodies do badly at it. It's one of the few attempts by any major reviewing site to standardise an AF test.

The basic resolution and image quality of digital cameras reached the 'good enough' stage years ago, yet it's common for reviews to peer at grass and feathers shot in near-darkness to see if they can spot a difference between cameras. And the fact they often disagree shows there's too little difference to bother with.

Whereas underperforming C-AF has been the major cause of failed images for me for, well, ever.

I'd like to know whether the K3-ii solves the problem before I throw another £2000 in Pentax's direction.

You might say 'Well if you want an action camera you should have bought a Nikon or Sony' and you'd be right. Except I have a pile of Pentax lenses, so switching systems would be a £6000 matter. If I could solve the problem by a new £2000 Pentax I'd be happy.

But no review with a standardised test has yet demonstrated whether or not the K3 ii is a solid enough improvement. So I don't agree with drummercam (whose contributions here I very much respect) that "Any reviews now are just going to spin what's already known".

I'd be super-grateful if one of you guys could do a bicycle test with a K3 or K3 ii, and a K3 iii – ideally using a quick-focusing lens like the 55-300PLM or one of the new 70-200s. Make it hard enough that k3 ii scores a high failure rate, then see what the K3 iii can do.

But honestly I don't want to cause you to go to that sort of trouble. The reviewing sites should be doing it. DPR hasn't done it. Even Pentaxforums hasn't reviewed one yet. Does anyone know why the delay?

Best wishes

Paul

Quite reasonable it seems to me.  Yes, I have a Canon R6, so I don’t NEED amazing AF from a Pentax… but I would like to have to chimp less when I use my Pentax and be more certain the the non central AF points lock on that I think I have them locked on, and less focus and recompose needs than my KP currently dictates.  I love my KP, I really do, but I also know what I cannot easily do with it, and for that there is my R6.  I would be first to ditch my Canon equipment if Pentax even for 70% of the way there in regards to AF.  I am not saying they are not there, just not sure because no testing seems to confirm or deny it.

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Pentax KP Canon EOS R6 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 12-24mm F4.0 ED AL (IF) Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited +2 more
Jon Donahue Contributing Member • Posts: 844
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review
2

By all accounts, it's a great camera. True that, but that said, he missed that the K-3 III controls might be too confusing for some users (people like me). The lure of an advanced feature set with attendant complexity. A Ferrari vs a Cobra, as it were. But that's the joy of the Pentax multiverse... K-3 IIIs for you guys, and K-70s for us green button pushers. And Pentax lenses, even from way back when, for all of us. Which would be the real tragedy of mirrorless... a whole new lens mount, and for what? In the real world, what singular advantage does mirrorless have? But that's another day's rant!

 Jon Donahue's gear list:Jon Donahue's gear list
Ricoh GR II Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-70
hikerdoc Veteran Member • Posts: 3,040
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review
1

Alex Sarbu wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

anware wrote:

Once you've removed the complexity of designing, manufacturing, assembling and aligning the mechanics of a mirror box mechanism, focus screen and pentaprism, the real question is - just why are mirrorless cameras so expensive?

You may be discounting the biggest cost; the human factor of paying the talent necessary to develop the processors, improve sensors, write the firmware, develop algorithms, etc. All manufacturers seem to be finding regions with inexpensive labor to manufacture and assemble parts in both DSLR and MILC, but you can’t put the engineering out to cheapest bid. How many years and hours of intellectual labor went into this new camera?
Conversely, one could see the real question as: why are DSLR still so expensive as we are basically tweaking designs and assembly procedures which have been in common use since the 1950’s? Every SLR/DSLR ever made has required aligning of mirror box, focus screen, and pentaprism.

DSLRs are every bit as difficult to make as a MILC, plus the mechanical complexity, plus the extra modules like PDAF, metering, in-lens AF support etc. (and minus the EVF).

Particularly the K-3iii is a completely new camera, not a "tweaking". IIRC the only components which were reused were the mount, the strap lugs and the hotshoe. Obviously, a DSLR has nothing in common with a 1950 camera.

At the same time, MILC makers are launching similar models with barely a difference between them.

Alex

I am not suggesting ease in manufacture of current DSLR. I am just amused by the dismissive attitude toward MILC development, which typically paints it as blind sheep misled by corporate profiteering motives.

The only dismissive attitude is in the article claiming that DSLRs should be cheaper because they're DSLRs and not MILCs.

Alex

Direct quote:

“Pentax put a lot of time and effort into making the K-3 Mark III, and it shows: it’s a huge leap in tech for a DSLR. But it’s still a DSLR in a mirrorless world, and that perception combined with a premium price might hold back Pentax’s latest $2,000 APS-C camera.”

I think we interpret that statement differently. I see it presenting three distinct factors that may affect acceptance of a great camera.

CIPA data would suggest that everywhere but in Europe the MILC accounts for the majority of sales in an increasing margin. I think the gap was narrowing even in Europe. That perception of shift in preference is wide spread. It will become increasinly difficult to find a review that does not raise that marketability issue.

His reference to price, in my read, is another factor that will limit sales. I interpret that as a specific impression on price rather than because it is just a DSLR. That sentiment on cost is prevalent in this very forum. As I am just retired, my feelings on what I can afford have changed.

I see the third factor in his statement as suggesting the APS-C format is less of a draw to those that would prefer the larger sensor of the K-1 series. Both of us fit in that camp.

Thanks for your input. Have a pleasant day.

D

 hikerdoc's gear list:hikerdoc's gear list
Apple iPhone 8
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,767
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review
2

Alex Sarbu wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

anware wrote:

Once you've removed the complexity of designing, manufacturing, assembling and aligning the mechanics of a mirror box mechanism, focus screen and pentaprism, the real question is - just why are mirrorless cameras so expensive?

It's called milking sheep

A mirrorless camera has fewer moving parts and a similar amount of solid state electronics to a DSLR. Camera makers have been working on thin margins for a while and they making much bigger margins on MILCs - another reason why they are pushing them so hard. But it's not purely greed. The camera market is smaller, so the R&D cost of MILCs - where stuff still needs to be invented - is spread over fewer units, than the R&D cost of DSLRs was 15-20 years ago when the market was booming.

You may be discounting the biggest cost; the human factor of paying the talent necessary to develop the processors, improve sensors, write the firmware, develop algorithms, etc. All manufacturers seem to be finding regions with inexpensive labor to manufacture and assemble parts in both DSLR and MILC, but you can’t put the engineering out to cheapest bid. How many years and hours of intellectual labor went into this new camera?

We know why the K3-iii is expensive - Ricoh need to make enough profit on it to justify their investment, or to pay for the next round of development (depending on whether you look backwards or forwards). The question is why does anyone think DSLRs should be cheap and MILCs expensive. Mirrorless is the architecture we build into $100 phones after all. And it's margins.

Conversely, one could see the real question as: why are DSLR still so expensive as we are basically tweaking designs and assembly procedures which have been in common use since the 1950’s? Every SLR/DSLR ever made has required aligning of mirror box, focus screen, and pentaprism.

There's a high (but roughly constant) bill of materials cost and assembly cost for the reflex parts of an SLR. It is assumed that less R&D is going into SLRs so it should be possible to sell them at lower margins offsetting their greater cost to make.  But that assumption doesn't hold for the K3-iii - it had a high R&D cost (compared with other SLRs) some new things were integrated which hadn't been in a Pentax before. I know from Formula one making something which is already fast faster is expensive (top teams used to spend 3 to 5 times what the back-of-the-grid teams spent to make a car that was 1% faster), and I don't think the super fast FPS the 3-iii manages was cheap to implement. And because of where the market is they will probably sell few K3-iiis than the sold K10Ds or K7s or K5s.

DSLRs are every bit as difficult to make as a MILC, plus the mechanical complexity, plus the extra modules like PDAF, metering, in-lens AF support etc. (and minus the EVF).

Particularly the K-3iii is a completely new camera, not a "tweaking". IIRC the only components which were reused were the mount, the strap lugs and the hotshoe. Obviously, a DSLR has nothing in common with a 1950 camera.

All true. But once you've built the K7 you're not doing anything ground breaking with the body shells of the K5/3/1/3-iii, that should be fairly cheap to do. A main board with a new CPU is something they've done half a dozen times. A 50s camera is a very different beast but if this is your 8th decade making SLRs a lot of the new "parts" are things you've designed on more than one past occasion - the top plate / prism cover is new but the person who designed the one for the super A could do that. But figuring out how to make a shutter go at 12 FPS, or to get the low-res AE sensor to help the AF system, that's new work. If you had asked the *ist-D designers to do that they would have it was impossible, it needs some of the work done since, and new innovation.

The new inventions for SLRS have mostly dried up, and have happened over 60+ years, and for DSLRs a lot happened when the market was a lot bigger.  Innovation is happening with MILCs (although whether that innovation is worth having is another question).

At the same time, MILC makers are launching similar models with barely a difference between them.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
henricoo Regular Member • Posts: 101
It makes no sense...
1

It makes no sense to suggest that new high end DSLR's are in competition with MILC's.

K-mount owners like me with lots of glass will be loyal to the K-mount. IQ-wise the law of diminished returns is already there. All modern >24 Mp APS-C and >36 MP FF deliver superb IQ for those who can handle them.  I will replace my K1ii and KP when it stops working or when they are technologically wise end of life.

Nowadays cams have a life span from 5 - 10 years. That's the main reason sales decline. The tsunami of sales years ago was caused by the change from analogue to digital, first the APS-C wave, then FF wave, and for many years the steep improvement of IQ of these generations of cams.

People now and on entering serious photography without any mount loyalty, most of the time will pick up a MILC. Only those who are in DSLR already will maybe renew with new (high end) DSLR's as long as they are not seduced to switch to MILC's using a full functional adapter for their old glass.

So, however,  DSLR's are a declining market, MILC's are the upcoming. It will take some years but that is the reality. MILC's are easier to produce, more compact and basically cheaper.

Pentax did a great job for Pentaxians to offer the new K3iii. Hopefully there will be a K1iii and maybe maybe a new 645 also. But in low frequency and not cheap because of the little volumes.

Maybe in the long turn there will be Pentax MILC's again, to use the advantages of new sensor technology with integrated AF. That most likely will be K-mount based bodies using the longer flange distance for K-mount loyal people that still massive exist. If not, I expect Pentax will diminish further on and disappear in the history books of photography...

 henricoo's gear list:henricoo's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Pentax KP Pentax K-1 II
Photodog2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,542
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review
2

Better review than others. With the usual annoying qualifiers like it's not mirrorless, it's not FF. I think it is annoying because experienced enthusiasts will already have their own views on this, but it does influence beginners and casual shoppers. I think what has already happened is that Pentax is being purchased by photographers who are not crowd followers and have the self-confidence to make their own decisions irregardless of reviewer opinions. It does take a certain level of experience to get to that stage so I do worry about the future of Pentax when it comes to getting new adopters to get started on the system.

I think Pentax has to figure out this problem and look for solutions to it. While the K3iii is a great camera and deserves all the enthusiasm, I think the future of Pentax will be decided more by sales of cameras like the K-70 and future products in the lower price ranges. There are things too that Pentax can do in the lens front since they probably still make more money from lens sales than body sales. While Pentax is doing great things in the premium lens categories, it's been awhile since they did anything in the entry and mid-level lens categories.

 Photodog2's gear list:Photodog2's gear list
Pentax K10D Pentax K-5 IIs Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Sony a7 II +9 more
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 12,810
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review

hikerdoc wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

anware wrote:

Once you've removed the complexity of designing, manufacturing, assembling and aligning the mechanics of a mirror box mechanism, focus screen and pentaprism, the real question is - just why are mirrorless cameras so expensive?

You may be discounting the biggest cost; the human factor of paying the talent necessary to develop the processors, improve sensors, write the firmware, develop algorithms, etc. All manufacturers seem to be finding regions with inexpensive labor to manufacture and assemble parts in both DSLR and MILC, but you can’t put the engineering out to cheapest bid. How many years and hours of intellectual labor went into this new camera?
Conversely, one could see the real question as: why are DSLR still so expensive as we are basically tweaking designs and assembly procedures which have been in common use since the 1950’s? Every SLR/DSLR ever made has required aligning of mirror box, focus screen, and pentaprism.

DSLRs are every bit as difficult to make as a MILC, plus the mechanical complexity, plus the extra modules like PDAF, metering, in-lens AF support etc. (and minus the EVF).

Particularly the K-3iii is a completely new camera, not a "tweaking". IIRC the only components which were reused were the mount, the strap lugs and the hotshoe. Obviously, a DSLR has nothing in common with a 1950 camera.

At the same time, MILC makers are launching similar models with barely a difference between them.

Alex

I am not suggesting ease in manufacture of current DSLR. I am just amused by the dismissive attitude toward MILC development, which typically paints it as blind sheep misled by corporate profiteering motives.

The only dismissive attitude is in the article claiming that DSLRs should be cheaper because they're DSLRs and not MILCs.

Alex

Direct quote:

“Pentax put a lot of time and effort into making the K-3 Mark III, and it shows: it’s a huge leap in tech for a DSLR. But it’s still a DSLR in a mirrorless world, and that perception combined with a premium price might hold back Pentax’s latest $2,000 APS-C camera.”

See? A DSLR in a mirrorless world. But I would choose another quote, "especially when you consider it is a DSLR system and not mirrorless like most of its competitors".

Slight when compared to other articles, but it's there

I think we interpret that statement differently. I see it presenting three distinct factors that may affect acceptance of a great camera.

CIPA data would suggest that everywhere but in Europe the MILC accounts for the majority of sales in an increasing margin. I think the gap was narrowing even in Europe. That perception of shift in preference is wide spread. It will become increasinly difficult to find a review that does not raise that marketability issue.

CIPA disproves the MILC world claim (or perception, or whatever). Yes, MILCs outsell DSLRs - by a small margin, and with everyone but Pentax pushing MILCs.

Then, the concept of a niche product - I assume DSLRs will eventually reach that stage - is workable, and doesn't imply lower prices.

His reference to price, in my read, is another factor that will limit sales. I interpret that as a specific impression on price rather than because it is just a DSLR. That sentiment on cost is prevalent in this very forum. As I am just retired, my feelings on what I can afford have changed.

I see the third factor in his statement as suggesting the APS-C format is less of a draw to those that would prefer the larger sensor of the K-1 series. Both of us fit in that camp.

Hmm... If I was to choose now... If I had some trips planned to Danube's Delta...

Thanks for your input. Have a pleasant day.

D

Thanks, have a nice day.

Alex

-- hide signature --

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +9 more
MyReality
MyReality Senior Member • Posts: 2,139
"Suitability" Is Too Vague
1

"Why issuing a pre-assessment and says that this camera is only suitable for the Pentaxians and not suitable for others!!"

It may be "suitable" to others, if they can tear themselves away from what the have now.

In my case, I can have the Canon 90D for $1400.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 +4 more
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 12,810
Re: It makes no sense...

henricoo wrote:

Maybe in the long turn there will be Pentax MILC's again, to use the advantages of new sensor technology with integrated AF.

That's not really necessary... I described already a DSLR configuration which is using on-sensor AF with the optical viewfinder.

Alex

-- hide signature --

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +9 more
PentUp Senior Member • Posts: 2,709
Re: "Suitability" Is Too Vague

MyReality wrote:

"Why issuing a pre-assessment and says that this camera is only suitable for the Pentaxians and not suitable for others!!"

It may be "suitable" to others, if they can tear themselves away from what the have now.

In my case, I can have the Canon 90D for $1400.

The 90D is a great camera and great for BIF if that is what people are interested in (despite the mirrorless crowd insisting that DSLR's can't match the AF of MILCs for BIF... and that's enough acronyms for one sentence!) There is an Aussie guy from Queensland (MuzzaAus) who posts a lot in the Nature and Wildlife Photography forum who's BIF images with a 90D (sometimes an 80D) and Canon 100-400 are absolutely superb!

I seriously considered the 90D back when in the gloom of not knowing if the K3iii would ever arrive. However, the cost of switching to Canon and replacing all my equivalent lenses in EF mount dwarfed the cost of eventually buying a K3iii in the mount that all my lenses carry.

But I do look at MuzzaAus' photos with envy, of course also with the knowledge that he's a far better photographer than I am anyway!

 PentUp's gear list:PentUp's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Pentax K-x Pentax K-5 II Pentax K-50 Pentax K-3 Mark III +11 more
PentUp Senior Member • Posts: 2,709
Re: PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review

Photodog2 wrote:

Better review than others. With the usual annoying qualifiers like it's not mirrorless, it's not FF. I think it is annoying because experienced enthusiasts will already have their own views on this, but it does influence beginners and casual shoppers. I think what has already happened is that Pentax is being purchased by photographers who are not crowd followers and have the self-confidence to make their own decisions irregardless of reviewer opinions. It does take a certain level of experience to get to that stage so I do worry about the future of Pentax when it comes to getting new adopters to get started on the system.

I think Pentax has to figure out this problem and look for solutions to it. While the K3iii is a great camera and deserves all the enthusiasm, I think the future of Pentax will be decided more by sales of cameras like the K-70 and future products in the lower price ranges. There are things too that Pentax can do in the lens front since they probably still make more money from lens sales than body sales. While Pentax is doing great things in the premium lens categories, it's been awhile since they did anything in the entry and mid-level lens categories.

I tend to agree with that... no, not 'tend'... do agree with that.

 PentUp's gear list:PentUp's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Pentax K-x Pentax K-5 II Pentax K-50 Pentax K-3 Mark III +11 more
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 12,810
Re: "Suitability" Is Too Vague

MyReality wrote:

"Why issuing a pre-assessment and says that this camera is only suitable for the Pentaxians and not suitable for others!!"

It may be "suitable" to others, if they can tear themselves away from what the have now.

In my case, I can have the Canon 90D for $1400.

A good camera, but I'm not sure it makes much sense to buy into the EF/F systems.

Alex

-- hide signature --

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +9 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,672
Re: because
1

John_A_G wrote:

anware wrote:

Once you've removed the complexity of designing, manufacturing, assembling and aligning the mechanics of a mirror box mechanism, focus screen and pentaprism, the real question is - just why are mirrorless cameras so expensive?

I suspect it's 3 fold:

1. ILC markets are declining, so costs will stay up because there are less buyers

2. Manufacturing costs likely higher for some of the components because it's new technology

3. Engineering / software development costs are higher because of the new technology

I'm continuously amazed that people want prices of ILCs to keep coming down. Why would they? Price of laptops hasn't come down. Price of phones hasn't come down. Price of most consumer electronics never really comes down. Oh, and price of cars keeps going up too. Why do you expect the pricing of an ILC camera to behave differently?

People have been conditioned that electronics in general keeps getting simultaneously better and cheaper.  Certainly it's true of computers.  Mirrorless has been expected to take over the world for the same reasons, but it hasn't happened yet.  I think many underestimate the complexity of a mirrorless viewfinder.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
MyReality
MyReality Senior Member • Posts: 2,139
Re: "Suitability" Is Too Vague
2

" (despite the mirrorless crowd insisting that DSLR's can't match the AF of MILCs for BIF..." -- I just read 2 days ago on this forum that the opposite was true and I think it was verified by DPR more than once.

Anyway, from my own experience, I discovered that the weakest link in the camera/lens combo for birding and actions is the failure of the lens to acquire focus fast enough at high shutter speeds.

I doubt that the bad experiences reported about the K3III are the fault of the body.  I am guessing that most likely it is technique with the body and lens matching.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 +4 more
MyReality
MyReality Senior Member • Posts: 2,139
Re: "Suitability" Is Too Vague
3

It makes sense if a person has enough lenses.  I can only use one body at a time anyway.

I like Pentax, but I think that they do not have lenses for birding or action matched to what that body can do.  You can have the best camera body in the world, but if the mechanics of the lenses are not able to acquire focus fast enough in AF Servo than you may have to wait.

I am a general photographer, so I would use that body with other lenses.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 +4 more
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,767
Re: "Suitability" Is Too Vague
1

MyReality wrote:

" (despite the mirrorless crowd insisting that DSLR's can't match the AF of MILCs for BIF..." -- I just read 2 days ago on this forum that the opposite was true and I think it was verified by DPR more than once.

Anyway, from my own experience, I discovered that the weakest link in the camera/lens combo for birding and actions is the failure of the lens to acquire focus fast enough at high shutter speeds.

The mirrorless crowd insist that anything else can't do 101 things. Take eye focus, if you listen to them photography from the 1850s to 2010s couldn't produced a properly focused portrait.

It is certainly true with older lenses that screw drive, and some of the weaker in-lens motors can't shift the focusing elements in 1/12th second.  I think a lot of lenses date from a time where that wasn't a requirement.

 James O'Neill's gear list:James O'Neill's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +3 more
henricoo Regular Member • Posts: 101
Let's turn it around...

I am not sure using a semi transparent mirror to use sensor AF would function without problems... Putting a piece of relative thick glass 45° in the light beam results in a slightly different projection compared with the mirror slapped up. So how more precise will that be than the conventional calibrated methodology with a second mirror and AF sensors. In your suggested solution the sensor collects far less light than a pure MILC collects what will be a disadvantage also for AF sensitivity. Most light will be transported to the optical viewfinder, if not, the advantage of the "bright" viewfinder in the K3iii disappears.

And let's turn it around. In case no DSLR's existed but just MILC, should it be realistic to assume a camera brand would developed a DSLR to solve problems of a MILC? I don't think so...

In 2006 I bought the Sony R1, the very first non-DSLR 10 MP APS-C camera using a EVF and  a articulating screen. Now 15 years later I still use that camera and it still works fine. Sony combined that innovation with the now how take over from Konica Minolta what resulted in their line of MILC's. Sony's strategy from R&D- and commercial point of view has been extremely succeful so far.

Nevertheless I think the K3iii is a great camera for K-mount users and the lifeline for Pentax is that zillion K-mount lenses sold over near 50 years now. They have to produce attractive cameras that support that mount, and they really do so far, but at low frequencies. I really hope there will be more successors to come for APS-C, FF and 645.

Holding that lifeline in the future, for sure I can imagine once there will be a K-mount MILC, despite the recent stated Pentax strategy to stay in DSLR. In case there will be a Sony/Nicon/Canon/Fuji-like MILC with K-mount I would not hesitate to buy one.

 henricoo's gear list:henricoo's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Pentax KP Pentax K-1 II
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 12,810
Re: Let's turn it around...

henricoo wrote:

I am not sure using a semi transparent mirror to use sensor AF would function without problems... Putting a piece of relative thick glass 45° in the light beam results in a slightly different projection compared with the mirror slapped up. So how more precise will that be than the conventional calibrated methodology with a second mirror and AF sensors.

Fortunately, I don't have to solve whatever technical problems implied by this solution

In your suggested solution the sensor collects far less light than a pure MILC collects what will be a disadvantage also for AF sensitivity.

The SLR's AF already collects "far less light". I don't think it's impossible to reach -4EV in the future (matching the K-3iii... except the K-3iii reaches -4EV only in the center).

Most light will be transported to the optical viewfinder, if not, the advantage of the "bright" viewfinder in the K3iii disappears.

Nope, the optical viewfinder already collects "far less light". There might be no difference between a standard SLR, or there might even be a positive difference - given the removal of the metering system (less light loss in the pentaprism?).

And let's turn it around. In case no DSLR's existed but just MILC, should it be realistic to assume a camera brand would developed a DSLR to solve problems of a MILC? I don't think so...

There's nothing to turn around. This is just a possible evolution for the DSLR.

Alex

-- hide signature --

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +9 more
MyReality
MyReality Senior Member • Posts: 2,139
Re: "Suitability" Is Too Vague

True. Some people do not need excuses:

https://www.walteriooss.com

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads