[pinholecam]

As I've said earlier, the Nikon bias is evident or its some misguided 'truth' that this site is seeking.

The AF comparison to the D610 is lame.
Lame in this review, though it can be welcome in another separate article.
I can understand the comparisons to K5IIs since this is a Pentax forum and users are interested on whether a move up to the K3 will be significant.
But comparing with a D610 within a review makes far less sense. (poor editorialship at the least)
Not to mention that the lenses used were not at all close in price; known AF speed; aperture; focal length.
Again, why the need to dampen the enthusiasm by putting the D610 vs K3 AF test as 'Nikon's perfect foil' to a Pentax camera? In a Pentax Forum? In a Pentax review?


I do appreciate the hard work running through and working on the samples though.
So thanks on that part.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 11-12-2013 at 04:53 PM.

[falconeye]

I have to disagree, this isn't a lens/camera combined test this is a test of the new autofocus module. This should have been tested against it peers the 70D and the d7100 a well as the k-5 II all using the same lens.

I think what you describe is an equally interesting test. Just comparing the AF.C modules, ideally configuring burst modes for all cameras to same speed too.

Who am I to decide which test would be more fair? IMHO, both are.

The test done would be a comparison of how the rigs perform if you need a job been done today. Btw, some would invert the question and see it as a lens AF test where the body is the cheaper part going to be replaced anyway. I.e., which lens has best AF.C performance and which body options exist today?

The test proposed would be a comparison of the current state-of-the-art of respective AF engineering teams, removing lens performance from the equation. More academic what I usually prefer. Here, I am not sure though. Pentax did not announce a new fast focus 50-135/2.x to complement the K-3.

[falconeye]

It would be nice to have standardised AF.C tests.
...
This test is done by a French site
...
SR tests were standardised by having the camera on a vibration table
...
In 2013, it shouldn't be hard to perform a standardised DSLR SR test.

Dan, the problem is web economics.

There are still photo magazines in Germany testing still camera's SR using vibration tables. Or DxOLab, Chasseur d'Images or FNAC labo doing better than average work. Or look at Roger Cicala with his recent aquisition of an optical bench for better lens testing. Point is, none of them earns the money in the web. And photozone.de is driven by idealism more than anything else.

Trouble is that the most popular web sites (like engadget etc.) just copy-paste content from elsewhere w/o adding any value. But absorb all money to be earned.

Even DPReview which earns best among photography sites only does shallow and subjective reviews. Now relying on DxO for the hard work. Which isn't a bad thing but shows how the money flows.

And it now won't become better with the slowing interest in photography as a whole.

So, we'll have to wait for a "Value Web" where providers of real and fresh content earn most of the money and not those who retweed or retumblr ... Then I see new guys popping up filling the gap for content which is clearly missing now.

The real shame though I think is that all the good and scientific content already paid for by us tax payers is locked up behind publishers' store fronts.

[souless]

They both have 100% coverage. The K-3's finder is slightly larger, but personally I don't think it bears any practical significance as the difference is hardly discernible side by side. Regardless, it's still best in class.

Thank you for reply!

I just came across this thread about the bounce flash overexposed,
could you please test it if you have a chance?
Thank you in advance!!

---

Last edited by souless; 11-12-2013 at 07:04 PM.

[Alizarine]

I'm surprised that Pentax did make some adjustments to the flash. Many events photographers would be happy with the bounce overexposure problem solved!

Also, adding manual control to the built-in flash is a good thing (something even entry-level Nikon cameras can do). K-3, such a fine camera. Too bad I don't need it... yet.

[IchabodCrane]

I'm surprised that Pentax did make some adjustments to the flash. Many events photographers would be happy with the bounce overexposure problem solved!

Also, adding manual control to the built-in flash is a good thing (something even entry-level Nikon cameras can do). K-3, such a fine camera. Too bad I don't need it... yet.

It's been reported a dozen times that the K-3 doesn't seem to have any bounce flash problems.

[Alizarine]

It's been reported a dozen times that the K-3 doesn't seem to have any bounce flash problems.

An official review confirmation was something I looked forward to, and seeing it there is the big thing for me. Not that I don't believe "reports" but it's still better from a voice of authority. Kind of like lens performance evaluated in photozone.de or sensor performance through DxO

[IchabodCrane]

An official review confirmation was something I looked forward to, and seeing it there is the big thing for me. Not that I don't believe "reports" but it's still better from a voice of authority. Kind of like lens performance evaluated in photozone.de or sensor performance through DxO

A high-ranking exec at Ricoh/Pentax said it was fixed.

[derekkite]

I would be wary of autofocus tests because they are easy for the manufacturers to code for. I'm certain that Pentax as well as others have test cases that they develop to, probably many, then reinforce the tests with trusted user experience. For example, I am very impressed with the abillty of the K-3 to pick out a small subject in a busy scene for focus. Already the shots showing up in some threads are displaying this capability. But I ran into a corner case the where the subject was in a busy surrounding that was slightly fore and behind the subject, just outside the depth of field. It seemed to confuse the AF logic. I have before and since taken shots where a clear line the size of the center focus point through a busy foreground was easy to focus.

I suspect it is impossible to code or design for all the corner cases, and for one user they might be shooting all corner cases compared to the majority of users. The ability to configure or bias behaviors in certain ways is vital. There are aspects that can be measured however; shutter press to exposure time, average af call to af acquisition time, time from af acquisition to exposure. Repeated accuracy. Ability to focus on a given subject through varying light levels. Manufacturers coding for these tests would improve the general focus experience.

[Adam]

Thank you for reply!

I just came across this thread about the bounce flash overexposed,
could you please test it if you have a chance?
Thank you in advance!!

It seems to be fixed thanks to the new metering system, which was causing the issue before. That's why it couldn't be addressed through firmware on the K-5.

[danny09]

Adam
While carefully watching the Video Mode demonstration one can hear a distinct 'tick' sound in the video. I remember K5 had similar behavior. Does K3 also exhibit the same annoying behavior? (i.e. 'tick' sound recorded after a fixed time interval)?

[awaldram]

As I've said earlier, the Nikon bias is evident or its some misguided 'truth' that this site is seeking.

The AF comparison to the D610 is lame.
Lame in this review, though it can be welcome in another separate article.
I can understand the comparisons to K5IIs since this is a Pentax forum and users are interested on whether a move up to the K3 will be significant.
But comparing with a D610 within a review makes far less sense. (poor editorialship at the least)
Not to mention that the lenses used were not at all close in price; known AF speed; aperture; focal length.
Again, why the need to dampen the enthusiasm by putting the D610 vs K3 AF test as 'Nikon's perfect foil' to a Pentax camera? In a Pentax Forum? In a Pentax review?


I do appreciate the hard work running through and working on the samples though.
So thanks on that part.

As I pointed out elsewhere
Using the same 'Journalistic license' run the review in your head but use the d600, d610 and the canon 1ds mk4 fitted with canon EF 200m F2 L.

We could rightfully conclude Nikon has made very little progress catching up with Canon and seems to have spent no effort at all improving the AF from the older model.

Yet the conclusion would be slightly less Biased and ridiculous than the PF d610 F2.8 Vs k3 F4 comparison.

I mean besides the obvious lens capability differences the Nikon get twice as much light to work with and is quicker really .... No Shxt Sherlock !

I'd go even further remove the k3 customization pages ..menu's etc to be left with the core of the review and whats left would be more at home in a D610 review on a Nikon site than in a supposedly Pentax orientated site.

With a large collection of expensive PK fitting glass I go to a supposedly 'Pentax' review and expect comparisons with PK mount bodies K5,k5ii and K50 with a summary of what the competition is offering at the same class point, This review delivered nothing , how does the k50 compare to the k3 , why is 25% better AF " no improvement over k5ii"

This review though having lot of effort applied has nothing to differentiate it from the 1000's of reviews that will appear on the myriad of non brand web sights and is some ways is less useful.

Adam needs to decide what his web sight is aiming to deliver and what his market is, If as this review seem to indicate He wants a generalist Nikon biased sight then maybe a name change is in order ?

Maybe commercial concerns have reduced this site to 'more of the same'.?

[awaldram]

Adam
While carefully watching the Video Mode demonstration one can hear a distinct 'tick' sound in the video. I remember K5 had similar behavior. Does K3 also exhibit the same annoying behavior? (i.e. 'tick' sound recorded after a fixed time interval)?

The tick on the k5 is not the camera but dodgy 'PC' codecs that can't handle the slightly unusual AV interlacing used in the Mjpeg (there is no click in the stream).

Use a better Codec or recode using handbrake etc and the 'click' will vanish.

As the K3 uses mp4 (h264) it will be using a different codec on your PC to decode so is unlikely to have the same issue with your PC.

[RockvilleBob]

I would like to see an amendment to the existing Forum review auto focus section which would:
!) Delete, temporarily, the D610 results and editorial remarks Pentax needing to catch up
2) State that the auto focus section of the review will be revised to show how the K-3 stacks up to its competition - the Canon and Nikon cropped sensor cameras using a common lens - I propose the Sigma 70-200 2.8
3) In addition to comparing the K-3 to its competitors the soon to be added auto focus result will also include the FF Nikon d610 also using the same lens as the other cameras
4) I would also like to see the K-5 and older cameras included to better serve the Pentax community
If I wrote the review I might also include the previously published auto focus comparison was not as good as it should have been, being driven to get something out quickly, in providing readers with a good comparison of performance to the competition.

[Rondec]

As I've said earlier, the Nikon bias is evident or its some misguided 'truth' that this site is seeking.

The AF comparison to the D610 is lame.
Lame in this review, though it can be welcome in another separate article.
I can understand the comparisons to K5IIs since this is a Pentax forum and users are interested on whether a move up to the K3 will be significant.
But comparing with a D610 within a review makes far less sense. (poor editorialship at the least)
Not to mention that the lenses used were not at all close in price; known AF speed; aperture; focal length.
Again, why the need to dampen the enthusiasm by putting the D610 vs K3 AF test as 'Nikon's perfect foil' to a Pentax camera? In a Pentax Forum? In a Pentax review?


I do appreciate the hard work running through and working on the samples though.
So thanks on that part.

The only thing that this section told me is that SDM is slow (I already knew that). The 50-135 and the DA *55 are pretty much useless when it comes to tracking. At least use a Sigma lens with HSM to make the comparison closer and be a better judge of the camera and less a judgement on SDM. Or, use a screw driven lens.