A tiny and personal test of some EVF

hikerdoc wrote:

Fogel70 wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

Pentax was wrong when they said people would come back to DSLRs, because there's no way people come back from MILC AF obviously. But Pentax should really try their best to compete with MILCs, even AF, in order to keep OVFs alive.

I sense Ricoh is looking more to a coexistence, solid cameras appealing to the senses with the OVF and to some sort of emotional satisfaction pushed in their marketing with the principles of photography. A competition with MILC is going to be predominantly metrics driven and a nonstarter. But, with proper subject choice, the resulting images will be indistinguishable, platform agnostic to the viewer. Pentax will happily accept an ongoing coexistence, in the same bag, with an MILC carrying a different logo.

The problem with this approach is that new users would need to be able to try Pentax DSLR before they buy to be able to get convinced of the unique experience.

But it is quite rare to find Pentax DSLR in local camera stores outside Japan.

You may be correct; I have no idea how retail camera stores look in Japan. But, check out the marketshare of DSLR vs MILC in Japan vs Europe or the Americas. Japan, at <12% as of October 2022, has a far lower DSLR marketshare of ILC than in these other regions where it still approaches 40% of ILC market. Japan also has a very low volume of DSLR shipments compared to these other regions. Even if camera stores in Japan still display Pentax DSLR, it is overwhelmingly the foreign markets in EU and Americas where DSLR of any brand are actually being purchased. If actually handling a DSLR in Japan is thought to be the key experience, overall numbers would suggest it is not yet working.

As a caveat, I am referring to CIPA data. It does not break down by individual brands within each segment, so no way of knowing if the progressively dismal overall DSLR numbers in Japan actually demonstrated a large domestic shift toward Pentax. I am sure Ricoh struggles trying to arrive at some winning strategy with Pentax.

https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-202210_e.pdf

I believe Pentax has a larger market share in Japan vs market share in the rest of the world. Asia seems to have been quicker to adapt to mirrorless than Europe and America, but DSLR market share is more about Canikon than Pentax.

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

hikerdoc wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

To offer the camera everyone is expecting, a fair price is going to be a relatively high price. A division already felt to be underperforming will need to generate a return. It will likely be directed toward a group of people looking for specific characteristics for a specific shooting style centered on the use of an OVF. At this point directing competition at MILC is probably futile, and in any event, a large subset of targeted users have already incorporated MILC into their gear. If necessary pricing is going to be seen as outrageous, and/or the products seen as not yet on par with old Canon and Nikon units it is probably best to just stop now.

Maybe. I have no knowledge regarding how well or bad K-3 III has succeeded.

There is always an optimal price point.

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

You know that because you have it or used it then ?

Fogel70 wrote:

I believe Pentax has a larger market share in Japan vs market share in the rest of the world. Asia seems to have been quicker to adapt to mirrorless than Europe and America, but DSLR market share is more about Canikon than Pentax.

Even if this is so, I feel that Pentax's reliance on a declining sector of the market, it's determination to be the 'last man standing' in the market for DSLRs, can only be a short-term solution. It's essentially defensive on an ever-decreasing base, however good the products are. I would really like to know what their management thinking is - I would guess that morale among the product development team must be extremely low in the circumstances.

timo wrote:

Fogel70 wrote:

I believe Pentax has a larger market share in Japan vs market share in the rest of the world. Asia seems to have been quicker to adapt to mirrorless than Europe and America, but DSLR market share is more about Canikon than Pentax.

Even if this is so, I feel that Pentax's reliance on a declining sector of the market, it's determination to be the 'last man standing' in the market for DSLRs, can only be a short-term solution.

You could say the same of Nikon with MILCs. ILCs in general is a declining market.

For Sony or even Ricoh though, it's like a side hobby.

It's essentially defensive on an ever-decreasing base, however good the products are. I would really like to know what their management thinking is - I would guess that morale among the product development team must be extremely low in the circumstances.

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

You know that because you have it or used it then ?

I know it because it is common knowledge. Moreover, it is very reasonable. As the K-3 III is the first camera from Pentax with good continuous AF.

Do you have any information to the contrary?

Roland Karlsson wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

You know that because you have it or used it then ?

I know it because it is common knowledge. Moreover, it is very reasonable. As the K-3 III is the first camera from Pentax with good continuous AF.

Do you have any information to the contrary?

I don't, but my common knowledge is as good as others.

I never heard of anyone owning both a (let's say) Nikon D500 and a K3III, latest firmware of course or at least recent, with serious knowledge of both, enlightning us with the differences regarding AF. If anyone has any source like that, I'm interested.

And then anyway there would need to be some clear domination, on most or all aspects of AF.

I'm talking about pdaf of course, live view AF is a lost battle

left eye wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Kerusker wrote:

Lessiter wrote:

The thing that I find most offputting with evf's is the whitebalance. Second thing is the lack of subtlety in the colour and contrast. It just looks ugly compared to what you see with your eyes.

EVF is about as ugly as the data which are captured by the digital sensor resp. digital camera and what is created from this data - the image - when compared to real nature.

No, it is uglier. You did forget two things.

1. The display has huge limitations, e.g. dynamic range, color fidelity and resolution.
2. The EVF needs to integrate to 60 Hz. Which means that it cannot expose more than approx. 1/100 second.

don’t multiples of 60 also produce a flicker-free display?

1/120th, 1/180th, 1/240th etc, as would 1/30th etc.

No, this is not a matter of interference. It tries to take 60 pictures a second. If the exposure time is shorter, that is no problems. It is only when it is longer.

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

You know that because you have it or used it then ?

I know it because it is common knowledge. Moreover, it is very reasonable. As the K-3 III is the first camera from Pentax with good continuous AF.

Do you have any information to the contrary?

I don't, but my common knowledge is as good as others.

I never heard of anyone owning both a (let's say) Nikon D500 and a K3III, latest firmware of course or at least recent, with serious knowledge of both, enlightning us with the differences regarding AF. If anyone has any source like that, I'm interested.

And then anyway there would need to be some clear domination, on most or all aspects of AF.

I'm talking about pdaf of course, live view AF is a lost battle

DPReview made this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpDDp3QEF34

It is not, of course, any serious test. But, their opinion was that D500 was a more mature AF machine, but the K-3 III was a great improvement.

And my point is that this seems to be the common opinion. I have seen no serious test though. And serious tests of AF are notorious for being questioned anyways.

hikerdoc wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

I never heard of anyone owning both a (let's say) Nikon D500 and a K3III, latest firmware of course or at least recent, with serious knowledge of both, enlightning us with the differences regarding AF. If anyone has any source like that, I'm interested.

That is a comparison Ricoh cannot win. How do you incorporate “AF has now reached the performance level of a discontinued competition camera from 7 years ago” into a marketing campaign? The K-III has to be accepted for what it is. There are several very skilled photogs in this forum whose work does not appear at all limited with the K3-III. The time window for deciding between D500 and K3-III has in essence closed.

That is, of course, true.

The start for this subthread was what price Pentax reasonable can set for the the K-1 III when it comes and also what price is reasonable for K-3 III.

But, of course, as Pentax no longer has any competition in the DSLR market, except for obsolete cameras, it is 100% up to Pentax what price they can set.

I think you can divide buyers into three categories.

• Those that only want an Pentax/OVF. They will not buy anything else. They will probably buy the camera at a rather high price. If the price gets too high, they will not buy any camera at all, using the old one.
• Those that do want to use Pentax/OVF, but are not foreign to an EVF. They can live with it. If they have to.
• Those that already have changed to the EVF bandwagon and see no (important) problems with that.

Only (a portion of) the first group can even think of paying a premium price for a K-1 III.

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

You know that because you have it or used it then ?

I know it because it is common knowledge. Moreover, it is very reasonable. As the K-3 III is the first camera from Pentax with good continuous AF.

Do you have any information to the contrary?

I don't, but my common knowledge is as good as others.

I never heard of anyone owning both a (let's say) Nikon D500 and a K3III, latest firmware of course or at least recent, with serious knowledge of both, enlightning us with the differences regarding AF. If anyone has any source like that, I'm interested.

And then anyway there would need to be some clear domination, on most or all aspects of AF.

I'm talking about pdaf of course, live view AF is a lost battle

At the "other" forum, someone does have both (one of the admins). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/210-pentax-k-3-iii/444781-k3iii-owner-now-ive-bought-d500-too-so.html

Kobie M-C wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

JeremieB wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

hikerdoc wrote:

I think the eventual release of K1-III will be an interesting test. Canon supplies dwindling, Nikon perhaps still producing a few aging models, and Pentax with the only new or even recent product release. All eyes on that OVF.

I am afraid that Pentax, in that situation, dare to take an outrageously high price. They already have done that with K-3 III. It was, when it came out, the most expensive APS-C DSLR for many years. This kind of pricing for K-1 III will, in that case, make the test skewed.

And NOTE - even if the AF quality step for K-3 III was gigantic, it still was not on par with Canon and Nikon OVF.

You know that because you have it or used it then ?

I know it because it is common knowledge. Moreover, it is very reasonable. As the K-3 III is the first camera from Pentax with good continuous AF.

Do you have any information to the contrary?

I don't, but my common knowledge is as good as others.

I never heard of anyone owning both a (let's say) Nikon D500 and a K3III, latest firmware of course or at least recent, with serious knowledge of both, enlightning us with the differences regarding AF. If anyone has any source like that, I'm interested.

And then anyway there would need to be some clear domination, on most or all aspects of AF.

I'm talking about pdaf of course, live view AF is a lost battle

At the "other" forum, someone does have both (one of the admins). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/210-pentax-k-3-iii/444781-k3iii-owner-now-ive-bought-d500-too-so.html

Many thanks for this !!

I'll read that.