New image of K-3!?

Vylen · 09-26-2013, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by bossa

PS2> The width of the lens is too big in relation to the placement of the buttons around the mount - It covers them way more than it should considering the lens is not tapered or does not have any flared conical sections in it's profile. The body is probably bigger than a K-5 and the extra weight also hints at that (if that's a true spec).

Compare against an official K-5 pic with an 18-135mm mounted

There's no real discernible difference.

Uluru · 09-26-2013, 07:21 PM

Observing the new photo. The new camera has gained more volume, around and below the mode dial. Whatever tech it comes with, it definitely needed more space to fit in.

johnmflores · 09-26-2013, 07:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by SimonomiS

Just to stoke the fires a bit further...

So it is smaller!!!

Definitely APS-C then. Great that they can squeeze what's expected to be improved performance into an even smaller package. Makes for an arguably smaller package than the darling of APS-C Fuji X-Pro. K-3 plus a fistfull of primes = bliss

Maybe they'll be ecologically responsible and recycle the K-7/K-5 body for the mythical FF! They should call it the Pentax Unicorn and get it over with.

mamethot · 09-26-2013, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

So it is smaller!!!

I'm not so sure it is smaller... Take a look at the IR port, the strap lugs or the shutter button, they seem to be smaller than the ones on the K-5. They could in fact be smaller but I would submit that these are standard parts reused on every models. I believe that the lens in front is oversized (photoshop) to make the body look smaller.

The Kurly One · 09-26-2013, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by bossa

OK, well presented guys

Guess that means We'll all need to buy new grips....

johnmflores · 09-26-2013, 08:05 PM

And vs. K-50

devorama · 09-26-2013, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

So it is smaller!!!

Definitely APS-C then. Great that they can squeeze what's expected to be improved performance into an even smaller package. Makes for an arguably smaller package than the darling of APS-C Fuji X-Pro. K-3 plus a fistfull of primes = bliss
...

I don't think the new K-3 will be smaller. I'm guessing the K-3 leak photo was taken with a wide angle lens from a closer distance than the official K-5 photo. Since the 18-135 lens protrudes a decent distance, this closer perspective on the K-3 will make the relative size of the lens diameter appear larger than it does on the K-5 photo. Basically, this is the same reason you don't take a close portrait of someone with a wide angle lens. It makes their nose look big. If you then scale the big-nosed K-3 to match a regular-nose, er... lens K-5, it makes the K-3 body look relatively smaller.

For further proof of this, look at the strap lug on right side (camera's left). On the K-3 photo, you can see through the hole. But not so on the K-5. This means the camera that took the photo was closer to the K-3 than the camera that shot the K-5.

noser · 09-26-2013, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

So it is smaller!!!

.. snip ...

Maybe they'll be ecologically responsible and recycle the K-7/K-5 body for the mythical FF! They should call it the Pentax Unicorn and get it over with.

So that would make the K-U? Oh wait, it's FF, so that would make it the ...

F-U.

Bah. It does look smaller. The K5 is already at the limit for me. I can't reach the ISO button while using the hand strap as it is.

I miss my K10D / K20D body size.

I guess that's why I haven't sold them...

**seventhdr** · 09-26-2013, 08:12 PM

This all assumes that the K-3 was photographed using a lens with the same focal length as the K-5 was photographed with and that they were the same distance away!!

A more wide angle lens at a closer distance would yield the same view of the lens, but the K-3 camera would appear smaller because it is slightly further away from the front on the lens.

We won't be able to tell anything conclusively until we see the actual camera.

Regards

Chris

bossa · 09-26-2013, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

And vs. K-50

Can you do one with all 3 cameras in there using the K-50 as a reference against the K-5 John?

bossa · 09-26-2013, 08:30 PM

Looking carefully at the perspective of the form the K-3 does appear to have been shot from a closer distance and/or with a shorter FL.

The mode dial slopes away and there is a hint of linear perspective along the bottom of the camera as well. The body is probably the same size as the K-5.

WerTicus · 09-26-2013, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by LFLee

awesome!
Not much difference! WIFE WON'T NOTICE!!

ROFL, that is exactly what i was thinking... Whoever designs these Pentax cameras is a genius, not only will they sell more due to the elimination of WAF but he does not have to do any work! :P

johnmflores · 09-26-2013, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by seventhdr

This all assumes that the K-3 was photographed using a lens with the same focal length as the K-5 was photographed with and that they were the same distance away!!

A more wide angle lens at a closer distance would yield the same view of the lens, but the K-3 camera would appear smaller because it is slightly further away from the front on the lens.

We won't be able to tell anything conclusively until we see the actual camera.

Regards

Chris

Originally posted by bossa

Can you do one with all 3 cameras in there using the K-50 as a reference against the K-5 John?

Here you go.

Interesting theory about perspective distortion. If you look at the product shots from the K-5 to the K-50 and now the supposed K-3 they are amazingly, remarkably similar save for changes in lighting to accentuate the contours of each camera. And from the original K-5 to the K-50 we're talking about several years. That leads me to believe that they have some sort of strict formula for taking these product shots, maybe even some custom rig and rules for camera distance, focal length, etc... to ensure consistency. If the K-3 shot is indeed a fake, they took some care to mimic the official product shots or are decent photochoppers.

That said, wanted to test the focal length theory so I have added some additional guidelines to features on the inside of the 18-135. Those features are not on the same plane as the green ring that I used to align with, and focal length differences might be revealed therein. At the size and resolutions that we have available, I'm not seeing much in it.

Granted, the K-3 is not appreciably smaller than the K-5 as I've depicted. It's about a 6% difference or so (I need to scale the K-3 by 106% to approximate the size of the K-5).

So could that 6% difference be explained away by a different focal length? Perhaps. But after all of this I think at least one thing is for certain - the K-3 ain't bigger than the K-5.

innivus · 09-26-2013, 08:54 PM

Adam, are you getting in on the Yoda-speak now?

Originally posted by Adam

Only slightly different from the K-5 it looks like.

Uluru · 09-26-2013, 09:08 PM

All right. Here's the solution.

If you don't use a lens as a measure, but shutter release button and size of the logo, and align one picture above another, the bodies match in width.
So I believe the grip will fit too. But, the K-3 is a bit taller. Just a little. A bit bigger / different pentaprism / magnification? Don't know.

However, as said above, K3 has gained a bit in volume here and there, has more stuff in it.

09-26-2013, 07:29 PM - 1 Like	#138
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by SimonomiS Just to stoke the fires a bit further... So it is smaller!!! Definitely APS-C then. Great that they can squeeze what's expected to be improved performance into an even smaller package. Makes for an arguably smaller package than the darling of APS-C Fuji X-Pro. K-3 plus a fistfull of primes = bliss Maybe they'll be ecologically responsible and recycle the K-7/K-5 body for the mythical FF! They should call it the Pentax Unicorn and get it over with. Last edited by johnmflores; 09-26-2013 at 08:16 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sale of image, requires "20x30 image size digital image" ?	NeverSatisfied	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	32	03-29-2013 05:38 AM
What is the Shutter Count of the first image of a brand new K5?	TropicalMonkey	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	16	01-31-2013 01:45 AM
Latest FF K-3 leaked Image?	Clinton	General Talk	16	09-14-2012 06:00 AM
"Chassuer d'Image" - K-01 review = 3/5	Jean Poitiers	Pentax K-01	12	05-19-2012 10:26 PM
Which one out of the 3 image? (BW scanned)	SuperAkuma	Post Your Photos!	12	03-05-2009 08:28 PM

09-26-2013, 07:20 PM	#136
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Originally posted by bossa PS2> The width of the lens is too big in relation to the placement of the buttons around the mount - It covers them way more than it should considering the lens is not tapered or does not have any flared conical sections in it's profile. The body is probably bigger than a K-5 and the extra weight also hints at that (if that's a true spec). Compare against an official K-5 pic with an 18-135mm mounted There's no real discernible difference.

09-26-2013, 07:21 PM	#137
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Observing the new photo. The new camera has gained more volume, around and below the mode dial. Whatever tech it comes with, it definitely needed more space to fit in.

09-26-2013, 07:48 PM	#139
mamethot Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Greater Montreal Area Posts: 736	Originally posted by johnmflores So it is smaller!!! I'm not so sure it is smaller... Take a look at the IR port, the strap lugs or the shutter button, they seem to be smaller than the ones on the K-5. They could in fact be smaller but I would submit that these are standard parts reused on every models. I believe that the lens in front is oversized (photoshop) to make the body look smaller.

09-26-2013, 07:59 PM	#140
The Kurly One Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 233	Originally posted by bossa OK, well presented guys Guess that means We'll all need to buy new grips....

09-26-2013, 08:05 PM	#141
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	And vs. K-50

09-26-2013, 08:06 PM	#142
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	Originally posted by johnmflores So it is smaller!!! Definitely APS-C then. Great that they can squeeze what's expected to be improved performance into an even smaller package. Makes for an arguably smaller package than the darling of APS-C Fuji X-Pro. K-3 plus a fistfull of primes = bliss ... I don't think the new K-3 will be smaller. I'm guessing the K-3 leak photo was taken with a wide angle lens from a closer distance than the official K-5 photo. Since the 18-135 lens protrudes a decent distance, this closer perspective on the K-3 will make the relative size of the lens diameter appear larger than it does on the K-5 photo. Basically, this is the same reason you don't take a close portrait of someone with a wide angle lens. It makes their nose look big. If you then scale the big-nosed K-3 to match a regular-nose, er... lens K-5, it makes the K-3 body look relatively smaller. For further proof of this, look at the strap lug on right side (camera's left). On the K-3 photo, you can see through the hole. But not so on the K-5. This means the camera that took the photo was closer to the K-3 than the camera that shot the K-5.

09-26-2013, 08:09 PM	#143
noser Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Calgary, AB CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Originally posted by johnmflores So it is smaller!!! .. snip ... Maybe they'll be ecologically responsible and recycle the K-7/K-5 body for the mythical FF! They should call it the Pentax Unicorn and get it over with. So that would make the K-U? Oh wait, it's FF, so that would make it the ... F-U. Bah. It does look smaller. The K5 is already at the limit for me. I can't reach the ISO button while using the hand strap as it is. I miss my K10D / K20D body size. I guess that's why I haven't sold them...

09-26-2013, 08:12 PM	#144
seventhdr Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,440	This all assumes that the K-3 was photographed using a lens with the same focal length as the K-5 was photographed with and that they were the same distance away!! A more wide angle lens at a closer distance would yield the same view of the lens, but the K-3 camera would appear smaller because it is slightly further away from the front on the lens. We won't be able to tell anything conclusively until we see the actual camera. Regards Chris

09-26-2013, 08:17 PM	#145
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by johnmflores And vs. K-50 Can you do one with all 3 cameras in there using the K-50 as a reference against the K-5 John?

09-26-2013, 08:30 PM	#146
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Looking carefully at the perspective of the form the K-3 does appear to have been shot from a closer distance and/or with a shorter FL. The mode dial slopes away and there is a hint of linear perspective along the bottom of the camera as well. The body is probably the same size as the K-5.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-26-2013, 08:50 PM	#147
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Originally posted by LFLee awesome! Not much difference! WIFE WON'T NOTICE!! ROFL, that is exactly what i was thinking... Whoever designs these Pentax cameras is a genius, not only will they sell more due to the elimination of WAF but he does not have to do any work! :P

09-26-2013, 08:51 PM	#148
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by seventhdr This all assumes that the K-3 was photographed using a lens with the same focal length as the K-5 was photographed with and that they were the same distance away!! A more wide angle lens at a closer distance would yield the same view of the lens, but the K-3 camera would appear smaller because it is slightly further away from the front on the lens. We won't be able to tell anything conclusively until we see the actual camera. Regards Chris Originally posted by bossa Can you do one with all 3 cameras in there using the K-50 as a reference against the K-5 John? Here you go. Interesting theory about perspective distortion. If you look at the product shots from the K-5 to the K-50 and now the supposed K-3 they are amazingly, remarkably similar save for changes in lighting to accentuate the contours of each camera. And from the original K-5 to the K-50 we're talking about several years. That leads me to believe that they have some sort of strict formula for taking these product shots, maybe even some custom rig and rules for camera distance, focal length, etc... to ensure consistency. If the K-3 shot is indeed a fake, they took some care to mimic the official product shots or are decent photochoppers. That said, wanted to test the focal length theory so I have added some additional guidelines to features on the inside of the 18-135. Those features are not on the same plane as the green ring that I used to align with, and focal length differences might be revealed therein. At the size and resolutions that we have available, I'm not seeing much in it. Granted, the K-3 is not appreciably smaller than the K-5 as I've depicted. It's about a 6% difference or so (I need to scale the K-3 by 106% to approximate the size of the K-5). So could that 6% difference be explained away by a different focal length? Perhaps. But after all of this I think at least one thing is for certain - the K-3 ain't bigger than the K-5.

09-26-2013, 08:54 PM	#149
innivus Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Bronx NY Posts: 340	Adam, are you getting in on the Yoda-speak now? Originally posted by Adam Only slightly different from the K-5 it looks like.

09-26-2013, 09:08 PM	#150
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	All right. Here's the solution. If you don't use a lens as a measure, but shutter release button and size of the logo, and align one picture above another, the bodies match in width. So I believe the grip will fit too. But, the K-3 is a bit taller. Just a little. A bit bigger / different pentaprism / magnification? Don't know. However, as said above, K3 has gained a bit in volume here and there, has more stuff in it.