[Winder]

The biggest problem is that people will have high expectations with the dual belief that Pentax should release the coming camera at or below 2000 dollars. You can't have both. If you want a D600 price, you get a D600-ish camera from Pentax. I would rather have something more D810/A7r II like, even if that means the price is 2800 or even 3000. The coming lenses for this camera are also going to be pretty pricey.

But people love to complain. The camera doesn't have an EVF, it is too big, it is too small, battery life isn't long enough, it has too many megapixels (or too few), the files are too big. It's sports score on DXO Mark is 35 points less than the A7s. The video is crap. There is no mechanical SR with the video. The auto focus doesn't work in video mode.

For me personally, I want a solid camera that takes really good still photographs and has excellent auto focus (and tracking), good low light capability.

The AF will make or break this camera. Ricoh wants to go after the professional, then they need professional AF.

[Mattox]

"The AF will make or break this camera. Ricoh wants to go after the professional, then they need professional AF". ........so true

[Dan Rentea]

I've never understood that weird MP vs. high ISO notion. The Sony a7R II has twice the resolution of the A7 II and still a much better high ISO performance. The 36 MP Nikon D810 has only a marginally (i.e. invisible in the real world) worse high ISO performance than the 24 MP and newer Nikon D750. Same applies for the 16 MP Nikon D4s, no relevant high ISO difference compared to the D810 or D800.

So it's not a simple 'less MP = better high ISO' equation. In practice, you can have both.

Plus, the theory is flawed in the first place. Smaller pixels will produce less advantageous signal-to-noise ratios, meaning more visible noise, but because the pixels are smaller the noise will be more fine-grained and thus less annoying, when comparing images at equivalent resolutions (100% view is not an appropriate way to compare images of different resolutions). And you can always apply stronger noise reduction in PP, because with more detail in the image you can also afford to lose more of it compared to a lower-resolution sensor.

Well, I recently went on a photo camp were most of the participants had Nikon cameras (the sponsor was Nikon and provided some camera to test).

D810 had a little more noise compared with D750 and with Nikon Df (same settings and lenses were used). And when we pulled the shadows a little bit in Lightroom, the noise was even more visible on D810. I thought is due to large number of megapixels from D810 camera.

Off topic: Another thing that I noticed is that Nikon D7200 had a little less noise compared with my K-3 II's images, at high ISO (we took the test with 50mm primes mounted on both cameras). On non moving subject, the Af on K-3 II was as quick as Nikon's Af. Even in very poor illumination the af from K-3 II was accurate and precise. When we had to shoot some tracking subjects, K-3 II had some difficulties to keep up. Still, I could see a clear advantage over the K-5 II (which I had) in this regard. But when the rain came, I became the king of the jungle.

On topic: Af and high ISO are important for me. The number of megapixels count also when I'm thinking on files size...I don't want to buy another computer along with a new camera and 1-2 new lenses.

[Zygonyx]

Thanks for sharing, what do you mean by "king of the jungle" in terms of gear performances comparisons ?

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 09-16-2015 at 07:33 AM.

[Rondec]

I've never understood that weird MP vs. high ISO notion. The Sony a7R II has twice the resolution of the A7 II and still a much better high ISO performance. The 36 MP Nikon D810 has only a marginally (i.e. invisible in the real world) worse high ISO performance than the 24 MP and newer Nikon D750. Same applies for the 16 MP Nikon D4s, no relevant high ISO difference compared to the D810 or D800.

So it's not a simple 'less MP = better high ISO' equation. In practice, you can have both.

Plus, the theory is flawed in the first place. Smaller pixels will produce less advantageous signal-to-noise ratios, meaning more visible noise, but because the pixels are smaller the noise will be more fine-grained and thus less annoying, when comparing images at equivalent resolutions (100% view is not an appropriate way to compare images of different resolutions). And you can always apply stronger noise reduction in PP, because with more detail in the image you can also afford to lose more of it compared to a lower-resolution sensor.

My understanding was that the reason that Sony went with fewer megapixels with the A7s was so that video would be better -- less line skipping, etc. I don't think the high iso was better because of fewer megapixels.

[tuco]

Shouldn't people have high expectations? Ricoh bought Pentax 4 years ago. 4 years of watching what Canon, Nikon, and Sony were doing and what was working, and what was not working. 4 years to design 1 camera. Yes. The expectations are high. The market doesn't reward average.

Nothing wrong with hope. But from what I've been reading the new 35mm Ricoh camera will have to be as capable as a D4s at action, nearly as good as a 645Z for landscapes, as small and light as a mirrorless and all at a $1500 USD price point or someone is going to be disappointed.

[Dan Rentea]

Thanks for sharing, what do you mean by king of the jungle in terms of gear performances comparaisons ?

No one with Nikon didn't want to stay in the rain and take pictures on the model we had at our disposal.

Why? Well, high end cameras from Nikon were provided by Nikon and they didn't allow us to use them in the rain, and the ones which had D7000, or D7100/D7200 were a little afraid. They knew that they cameras are weather resistant (according to the Nikon's manual), but they didn't want to test their cameras along with my Pentax.

I even provoked them saying that I will donate my camera if there is anyone with Nikon D7000/D7100/D7200 willing to stay in the rain along with my Pentax K-3 II, as long as I'm willing to stay. Well, I still have my camera.

And we also had 2 guys with Sony A77 II. In very poor illumination (see the image below), Sony cameras simply couldn't focus. We had to light the model's face with a flashlight in order for them to focus. Very disappointed with focusing system from A77 II...

And again, in the same conditions, my K-3 II has managed to focus even without the help from the focus assist lamp.

By the way, I'm the one from the right, with a hood on his head.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 09-16-2015 at 07:48 AM.

[Kunzite]

With only those requirements, I can already name a few who will be disappointed

[Zygonyx]

Why? Well, high end cameras from Nikon were provided by Nikon and they didn't allow us to use them in the rain, and the ones which had D7000, or D7100/D7200 were a little afraid. They knew that they cameras are weather resistant (according to the Nikon's manual), but they didn't want to test their cameras along with my Pentax.

Marketingwise, astounding.

[Mattox]

Interesting info regarding the k3ii af. I unfortunately haven't tested it. So it's great to know if I do go to the k3 if the ff is too expensive

[monochrome]

The AF will make or break this camera. Ricoh wants to go after the professional, then they need professional AF.

Which professional?

It isn't the camera, really. It's the lenses. And whether the review community chooses to evaluate the AF ability to freeze the seams on a 100mph fastball LEAVING the bat at 11fps with a 600mm lens. Or capture a crossing Merganser, tracked, against a bright backdrop handheld. Or crossing Rallye cars. Or Downhill Skiing. If it isn't quite up to Canon, so what?

If they test for 24~70 and/or 70~200 inside an unlit church or party-lit wedding reception no-flash and it isn't up to a D810, then that's a big disappointment.

There are so few true professional shooters we all should know these top-line cameras are made for sale to ego-driven, something-envy consumers, who all want to buy some honking pro sports camera - but who ever gets an NFL sideline Credential?

[totsmuyco]

19 days to go

[Winder]

Which professional?

It isn't the camera, really. It's the lenses. And whether the review community chooses to evaluate the AF ability to freeze the seams on a 100mph fastball LEAVING the bat at 11fps with a 600mm lens. Or capture a crossing Merganser, tracked, against a bright backdrop handheld. Or crossing Rallye cars. Or Downhill Skiing. If it isn't quite up to Canon, so what?

If they test for 24~70 and/or 70~200 inside an unlit church or party-lit wedding reception no-flash and it isn't up to a D810, then that's a big disappointment.

There are so few true professional shooters we all should know these top-line cameras are made for sale to ego-driven, something-envy consumers, who all want to buy some honking pro sports camera - but who ever gets an NFL sideline Credential?

Since the D750 has better AF than the D810 or the D4, I'm not sure your point is relevant. The D4 isn't the Nikon king of AF. Its the Nikon king for frame rates and low light. The 11fps with a 600mm lens has nothing to do with AF.

The largest single market for professional photographers is wedding and family portrait. So tracking a flower girl who gets spooked and runs down the isle in a dim church is pretty important.

[monochrome]

Since the D750 has better AF than the D810 or the D4, I'm not sure your point is relevant. The D4 isn't the Nikon king of AF. Its the Nikon king for frame rates and low light. The 11fps with a 600mm lens has nothing to do with AF.

The largest single market for professional photographers is wedding and family portrait. So tracking a flower girl who gets spooked and runs down the isle in a dim church is pretty important.

How often does that really happen? I mean really, let it go.

Who cares about the King of Autofocus? That isn't the goal, is it? It has the be THE BEST AF camera or it's nothing?

This is all typical Pentax reviewer/user behavior - trash it before we even know what it is.




I can't even AGREE with this guy.

[rawr]

tracking a flower girl who gets spooked and runs down the isle in a dim church is pretty important

To be honest, that's the sort of task I'm pretty sure even a K-3 and something like the Sigma 17-70 HSM or the DA* 16-50 could handle.

It has the be THE BEST AF camera or it's nothing?

There is a tendency for Pentaxians to compare cameras like the K-3 II against the pinnacle of what's out there from every brand, regardless of price or specialisation. Our standards are high! [if sometimes a bit unrealistic].