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.