Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Pentax K3 flagship announced

R

raist3d

Well-known member
As good as the K-3 is, I hardly see any "need" to upgrade from anyone holding a K-5. The K-5 is still pretty darn good.

- Ricardo
 
mediumcool

mediumcool

Active member
Jorgen Udvang said:
16 to 24MP represents around 22% linear increase in print size.
Click to expand...
And your point?

Photographic prints, like other *flat* objects, have two working dimensions: multiply them together and the result is called *area*. T

alking about linear measurements, as so many do with film and sensor size, is not always the most apposite approach.
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
mediumcool said:
And your point?

Photographic prints, like other *flat* objects, have two working dimensions: multiply them together and the result is called *area*. T

alking about linear measurements, as so many do with film and sensor size, is not always the most apposite approach.
Click to expand...
My point is that most people, when they hear or read "50% increase in size", they imagine a 50% linear increase. The reason is simple: It's the way we are brought up to think. Sizes of TV sets and computer screens are given in linear sizes, as is film. Even video camera resolution is measured that way. Digital still cameras represent one of rather few exceptions.

And when you sell or buy a print, you specify the linear size, like 50 x 70 cm, not 3,500 sq. cm.
 
T

tsjanik

Well-known member
raist3d said:
As good as the K-3 is, I hardly see any "need" to upgrade from anyone holding a K-5. The K-5 is still pretty darn good.

- Ricardo
Click to expand...
I agree. In my case it's my vision that needs upgrading, not my equipment :(

I found the review interesting simply because of the conclusion, which is quite opposite to the assumption that larger sensors always win.
 
R

raist3d

Well-known member
mediumcool said:
How about:

Decent video support (finally)

50% larger print size

“Hardly”?

;)
Click to expand...
Yes, hardly. If you need better video then sure, go for it. Print Size? If you are printing huge, sure but how many people are *really* printing that big? It's not like you can't print big as it is with 16 MP.

I can see a landscape photographer going for it since you always want more detail as a landscape photographer.

- Ricardo
 
Jim Radcliffe

Jim Radcliffe

Member
Tried the K3 and have returned it...

I posted this in the "Other" forum and wanted to share my thoughts with you guys here as well.

I received the Pentax K3 and kept it for 48 hours before returning it. My main reason for ordering the camera was what was described as faster AF and lower noise at high ISO settings.

Strike 1: I did not find the AF speed to be significantly increased over that of the K5 IIs. The key word here is significantly.

Strike 2: The noise reduction above ISO 800 was not a significant improvement to my eye. In fact, there appeared to be a bit of unexpected noise in shots with blue sky and good light. I found that a bit disturbing.

Strike 3: Upgrade cost was high for the marginal improvements in the areas that I was most interested in.

I don’t shoot action shots which require tracking. This is another area that has been improved on the K3 over the K5 but it did not apply to what and how I shoot. If that were critical to me, I may have kept the K3.

I don’t do video so those features and improvements are of no value to me.

The bottom line: The K3 is a gorgeous camera. It’s built like a tank and the new LCD, dual card slots and a few other tweaks are all great but in the end the K3 did not perform much better than my K5 IIs and I could not justify what was a $1295 upgrade for minor improvements over my K5 IIs for what and how I shoot. The AF is more accurate but that alone was not reason enough for me to keep the K3.

That said, if I owned any other K mount camera than the K5 IIs and was looking to upgrade, it probably would have been a keeper.

For those who might say that I did not give it enough time; I was looking for two things that are very important to me: significantly faster AF and much better high ISO noise performance. It did not take long to realize that these two areas had received incremental improvements rather than major improvements… in my opinion, of course.

Please do not take this as a K3 bashing, as it is not. The K3 is an outstanding camera, just not enough improvements in the areas I was interested in the most over the K5 IIs I already own. Understand that I judged the K3 based on my needs, your needs and expectations may differ greatly.

The K3 may very well be a dream come true for many.
 
R

Rich M

Member
Hi Jim......I read your review "over there" and I see your points. Your style of shooting and the images (gorgeous) that you shoot....many in lower light and perhaps higher ISO, do not play to the strengths of the K-3. Plus the K5IIs is a GREAT camera.

I have had the K-3 in hand for the last four days and it is a keeper. For me, with a really eclectic, a little bit of everything style of shooting, it is a definite evolution. The improved AF has rejuvenated a few lenses I was going to put on the block (specifically the DA 60-250mm....that lens now POPS into focus). They also must have done something to the screw drive motor.....the older FA lenses focus much quicker.
The AFS-C is a huge improvement over the K-5......I went down to the jump zone today and shot incoming chutists. With a Sigma 70-200mm, focus with the center weighted 9-point array, focus lock was very good.....and with all the menu options just scratching the surface.

The increased megapixels.....well, the good, a greater ability to crop. The bad...low light, high(er) ISO noise....but not much.

The thing that sold it for me though was the brighter viewfinder and focus peaking. Manual focus is now a dream. LiveView focus is so much quicker, accurate and the control dials easily put it into magnified view.

So, I understand your perspective and POV, and if I were you, I would stick with the K5IIs. For me......there is no way this is going back. :p
 
ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jim,

I hear you and understand your points. What I am specifically interested is, how much better is the viewfinder, compared to the K5IIs and also AF - they must be better at least due to Pentax marketing.

For me the K3 would be the camera to stay in the Pentax system, not only 24MP, which I find as the optimum for APSC sensor size (maybe I am alone here) combined with hopefully faster AF at least for some lenses and better OVF. And there are some great new announcements, all very appealing for me as the new 55-300 and the 20-40.

I would be very interested in your opinion, but finally it all plays for me only if the K3 is with it,

thanks

Peter
 
Last edited:
mediumcool

mediumcool

Active member
Re: Tried the K3 and have returned it...

Jim Radcliffe said:
Strike 2: The noise reduction above ISO 800 was not a significant improvement to my eye. In fact, there appeared to be a bit of unexpected noise in shots with blue sky and good light. I found that a bit disturbing.
Click to expand...
This is the one concern that I have regarding the K-3: the fact that 50% more photo-sites are crammed into the same APS sensor means that noise reduction must be better simply to maintain the status quo, let alone improve the situation. If the high-ISO noise is slightly inferior, it would make sense for me to keep my K-5 as part of the Pentax kit.

The video support and improved focus-tracking in the K-3 would be a significant bonus for me, as would the 50% increase in pixels.

Well reasoned, Jim.
 
B

baudolino

Well-known member
Well, I just decided to get one of these and forget about the Nikon DF that I was also considering. Reasons? (1) Just managed to get a nice copy of the SMC Pentax-F* 300mm F4.5 ED [IF] lens off ebay that will be going with me on a safari in the Spring. (2) still remember the nice colours produced by the K5 that I owned for a while and sold and (3) I still want to get the 43/1.9 limited lens that I like so much on film (not sure how good it is on digital but I am prepared to risk it). So back to the Pentax camp, with one foot (the other is firmly in the Leica camp...).
 
ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
baudolino said:
Well, I just decided to get one of these and forget about the Nikon DF that I was also considering. Reasons? (1) Just managed to get a nice copy of the SMC Pentax-F* 300mm F4.5 ED [IF] lens off ebay that will be going with me on a safari in the Spring. (2) still remember the nice colours produced by the K5 that I owned for a while and sold and (3) I still want to get the 43/1.9 limited lens that I like so much on film (not sure how good it is on digital but I am prepared to risk it). So back to the Pentax camp, with one foot (the other is firmly in the Leica camp...).
Click to expand...
Sounds great!

I have similar issues obviously with Nikon (Df) and really not up to spend my money again into that camp. Th K3 would give me all I loved in the K5IIs like colors, small size, durability, razor sharp images, lovely DNG files PLUS the possibility to use some of the really outstanding Limited Pentax lenses - especially I am after the new 20-40.

So as soon as you have some experience with the K3 please start posting results and your findings here. All the best luck with your decision already now!
 
P

Paratom

Well-known member
baudolino said:
Well, I just decided to get one of these and forget about the Nikon DF that I was also considering. Reasons? (1) Just managed to get a nice copy of the SMC Pentax-F* 300mm F4.5 ED [IF] lens off ebay that will be going with me on a safari in the Spring. (2) still remember the nice colours produced by the K5 that I owned for a while and sold and (3) I still want to get the 43/1.9 limited lens that I like so much on film (not sure how good it is on digital but I am prepared to risk it). So back to the Pentax camp, with one foot (the other is firmly in the Leica camp...).
Click to expand...
I have used the 43/1.9 on the K5IIs and like it quite a bit. Wide open its not the greatest but if you stop it down a little bit it has a very nice rendering, color and bokeh. I like specially for taking images of my kids and the images come out very natural.
 
B

baudolino

Well-known member
Thanks for the feedback; I liked the 43/1.9 on film a lot and then the 40/2.8 pancake was also quite sweet on the K5, even fully open. So I'll need to decide between the two.
 
P

Paratom

Well-known member
baudolino said:
Thanks for the feedback; I liked the 43/1.9 on film a lot and then the 40/2.8 pancake was also quite sweet on the K5, even fully open. So I'll need to decide between the two.
Click to expand...
I think its nice to have f1.9 just in case the light is really low.
Plus its FF in case Pentax brings a FF-Camera in the future.

I believe to remember that the FA lenses have a little warmer color rendering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top