[Kunzite]

I knew the K-3 was "only" 220 g heavier (and a few mm larger) than my K-x, but I was still shocked the first time I picked up the K-3. I would love to shoot the K-3 in the small villages of France - but do I really want to carry this beast on my back IN-BETWEEN the small villages of France?

You'll get used to it.
And if you want light, the secret is in the lenses - less so in the camera

[runswithsizzers]

If you are looking for the closest modern equivalent of the your K-x, I would suggest the K-S1. It has a noticeable weight advantage over the K-3 (a bit lighter then the K-x), retains all the features of the K-x, and it's very affordable. If you can wait until spring, you might find that a new small Pentax model comes out, but historically they have released cameras like this in late spring or early summer, not to coincide with a camera show.

Yes, I am regretting buying the behemoth K-3 when the K-S1 is really more like what I need for this particular adventure. The only 2 things against the K-S1 for me are it's shortish battery life (vs. the K-3, K-01 and my K-x); and uncertainty about the probability of having an aperture block failure with this model.

This thread has conjured a shapeless rumor upon which we can project our camera fantasies. Shall we call the new model the Ricoh Rorschach? This rumored new model is not just a carrot-on-a-stick, but a golden ideal of the perfect camera - a camera to which all others are mere shadow images flickering on the cave walls. Who wouldn't want to wait a few months for that?

---------- Post added 12-25-16 at 06:59 PM ----------

You'll get used to it.

Your opinion, my back.

And if you want light, the secret is in the lenses - less so in the camera

I hear you about the lenses. No big fat zooms for me. My 3 primes together weigh 394g, or about 14 ounces.

[panonski]

pentax K 3 is indeed quite heavy. Specially paired with some zoom lenses.
I dont think it's an advantage, no matter how well is build.
...
yes, I ordered mine, and when it came I notice this mass.
...
when you get your camera in hand, with heavy lens (even midle heavy ) your hand become shaky very very fast.
Shooting from hand in shotting speeds below 1/100 - forget it.
...
that means you have to increase Iso, and that's well you know further...
...
Pentax SR does not work very well if I compaire it with my 5 Axis Oly...
K3 is inferior - you must really get attention to shaking.
I admit,
my shooting confidence with K3 is little tricky.
..
I just notice how easy is to make unsharp photo, where my Oly get the job in glance.
...
yes the solution is litlle lenses but in zoom variant, it's a hard mission.
...
I shoot with Pen almost three years from now, and this is most superb camera in every way, except sensor size and few MP less.
...
But, in practice candid shoots from Oly are just a pleasure to do. Pentax K3 ? Forget it.
...
Display from K3 is not even close to Oly's,
and that's goes to compositioning without OVF. In Oly's screen I can see everything, in Pentax this task is harder, tnx to bigger light reflection.
...
Pentax should use much more of this stuffs to impress me.
...
and much more...
...
* ! Merry Christmass everyone ! *

[JPT]

Yes, I am regretting buying the behemoth K-3 when the K-S1 is really more like what I need for this particular adventure. The only 2 things against the K-S1 for me are it's shortish battery life (vs. the K-3, K-01 and my K-x); and uncertainty about the probability of having an aperture block failure with this model.

I feel similarly about the K-5iis I bought last year. I find myself really bothered by the weight when I'm walking around of the whole day with it on my shoulder. It's certainly quite subjective, but for me the limit of what I can carry around without it bothering me is about 1kg. So If I have my K-01, the DA21, the DA40 and the FA77, I'm OK.

As for the K-S1, I have not seen any reports of the aperture failing. The PF survey, admittedly only had a small sample of respondents with the K-S1, but none reported the issue.
Pentax Aperture Block Failure Survey Results - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com
It seems like a fairly trouble-free model. As for the battery life, you'd probably want a spare, but it's a big part of the reason why the camera is lighter than the K-3 in the first place. A mirrorless model would likely have weak battery life as well.

If I were you, I would wait until at least March to see if something new comes along, and just get a K-S1 as cheaply as possible if it doesn't.

[x4rd]

pentax K 3 is indeed quite heavy. Specially paired with some zoom lenses.
I dont think it's an advantage, no matter how well is build.
...
yes, I ordered mine, and when it came I notice this mass.
...
when you get your camera in hand, with heavy lens (even midle heavy ) your hand become shaky very very fast.
Shooting from hand in shotting speeds below 1/100 - forget it.
...
that means you have to increase Iso, and that's well you know further...
...
Pentax SR does not work very well if I compaire it with my 5 Axis Oly...
K3 is inferior - you must really get attention to shaking.
I admit,
my shooting confidence with K3 is little tricky.

I tend to disagree completely. I'm shooting with my K-3 WITH GRIP and WITH DFA 70-200/2.8* at 1/80, 1/60 and I haven't had any problems. Maybe You should practise Your grip then

[panonski]

I tend to disagree completely. I'm shooting with my K-3 WITH GRIP and WITH DFA 70-200/2.8* at 1/80, 1/60 and I haven't had any problems. Maybe You should practise Your grip then

yes, I have sharp images with slower shooter speeds, but when you have to put camera higher to shoot crowd in concert or buildings or etc,
you cannot afford anything below 1/100 .
It's just the way it is with heavier lens or on zoom end.
...
If I must compare, and I have this oportunity every day, I must noticed -this heaviness is just not a friend at all...

[Rondec]

yes, I have sharp images with slower shooter speeds, but when you have to put camera higher to shoot crowd in concert or buildings or etc,
you cannot afford anything below 1/100 .
It's just the way it is with heavier lens or on zoom end.
...
If I must compare, and I have this oportunity every day, I must noticed -this heaviness is just not a friend at all...

You should actually be more steady with a heavier camera than a light camera. There is a reason why they make weighted silverware for folks with bad essential tremor. I'm sure Olympus is good, but I certainly haven't had issues with shake reduction in Pentax cameras and I don't find it difficult to steady things.

On the other hand, you should be able to bump iso up roughly a stop from Olympus and get similar results, so maybe you just need to keep your shutter speed faster.

[Kunzite]

I feel similarly about the K-5iis I bought last year. I find myself really bothered by the weight when I'm walking around of the whole day with it on my shoulder. It's certainly quite subjective, but for me the limit of what I can carry around without it bothering me is about 1kg. So If I have my K-01, the DA21, the DA40 and the FA77, I'm OK.

Are you using a neoprene strap? Or in any case, one better than what's included in the camera?
I found it made my camera much more comfortable to carry.

[panonski]

You should actually be more steady with a heavier camera than a light camera. There is a reason why they make weighted silverware for folks with bad essential tremor. I'm sure Olympus is good, but I certainly haven't had issues with shake reduction in Pentax cameras and I don't find it difficult to steady things.

On the other hand, you should be able to bump iso up roughly a stop from Olympus and get similar results, so maybe you just need to keep your shutter speed faster.

speaking about technique - solution is well known. Bump Iso, and Shutter speed.
but almost imediatelly you will came to conclusion - why I have larger heavier camera, when I get same results with smaller, because you can control your things better without having to bump ISO.
...
so, it's kind of even in output quality terms, ( of course not everywhere ) .
...
I must point at one more thing. In portrait mode 3:2 is not quite what I want, and I feel good to cut upper part and bottom of picture every so and so, because it has to much empty space.
..
After croping is not the same thing when you naturally nail your shoot in 3:2 to get picture frame more balanced,
and this goes to other formats as well.
When you shoot in one aspect ratio things are not even to make another aspect ratio afterwards, because you already line up your subjects to cover your, let's say 3:2.
...
and that leads us, to less Mp, noiser pic, and again smaller camera ( in my case ) win, because for portrait shots 3:4 is much better choice...
ah....
Pentax (Ricoh) do you listen ? [COLOR="Silver"]

[SIZE=1]---------- Post added 12-26-16 at 05:34 AM ----------[/SIZ]

speaking about technique - solution is well known. Bump Iso, and Shutter speed.
but almost imediatelly you will came to conclusion - why I have larger heavier camera, when I get same results with smaller, because you can control your things better without having to bump ISO.
...
so, it's kind of even in output quality terms, ( of course not everywhere ) .
...
I must point at one more thing. In portrait mode 3:2 is not quite what I want, and I feel good to cut upper part and bottom of picture every so and so, because it has to much empty space.
..
Croping your pic in different ratio after shoot, is not the same thing when you already and naturally nail your shoot in 3:2 to get picture frame more balanced,
and this goes to other formats as well.
When you shoot in one aspect ratio things are not even to make another aspect ratio afterwards, because you already line up your subjects to cover your, let's say 3:2.
...
and that leads us, to less Mp, noiser pic, and again smaller camera ( in my case ) win.

[D1N0]

Just don't bother with Panonski Rondec. He is trolling.

[Rondec]

speaking about technique - solution is well known. Bump Iso, and Shutter speed.
but almost imediatelly you will came to conclusion - why I have larger heavier camera, when I get same results with smaller, because you can control your things better without having to bump ISO.
...
so, it's kind of even in output quality terms, ( of course not everywhere ) .
...
I must point at one more thing. In portrait mode 3:2 is not quite what I want, and I feel good to cut upper part and bottom of picture every so and so, because it has to much empty space.
..
After croping is not the same thing when you naturally nail your shoot in 3:2 to get picture frame more balanced,
and this goes to other formats as well.
When you shoot in one aspect ratio things are not even to make another aspect ratio afterwards, because you already line up your subjects to cover your, let's say 3:2.
...
and that leads us, to less Mp, noiser pic, and again smaller camera ( in my case ) win, because for portrait shots 3:4 is much better choice...
ah....
Pentax (Ricoh) do you listen ? [COLOR="Silver"]

[SIZE=1]---------- Post added 12-26-16 at 05:34 AM ----------[/SIZ]

speaking about technique - solution is well known. Bump Iso, and Shutter speed.
but almost imediatelly you will came to conclusion - why I have larger heavier camera, when I get same results with smaller, because you can control your things better without having to bump ISO.
...
so, it's kind of even in output quality terms, ( of course not everywhere ) .
...
I must point at one more thing. In portrait mode 3:2 is not quite what I want, and I feel good to cut upper part and bottom of picture every so and so, because it has to much empty space.
..
Croping your pic in different ratio after shoot, is not the same thing when you already and naturally nail your shoot in 3:2 to get picture frame more balanced,
and this goes to other formats as well.
When you shoot in one aspect ratio things are not even to make another aspect ratio afterwards, because you already line up your subjects to cover your, let's say 3:2.
...
and that leads us, to less Mp, noiser pic, and again smaller camera ( in my case ) win.

Well, I am shooting with a full frame camera most of the time now, so the k3 feel petit in comparison. I don't find stabilization to be an issue and there are plenty of megapixels either way to crop into whatever ratio I should choose with either a K3 or a K-1.

But there aren't any bad cameras out there right now and each one of us should shoot with what makes us happiest. There is no arguing over taste (or ergonomics or preferred camera size)....

[panonski]

Well, I am shooting with a full frame camera most of the time now, so the k3 feel petit in comparison. I don't find stabilization to be an issue and there are plenty of megapixels either way to crop into whatever ratio I should choose with either a K3 or a K-1.

But there aren't any bad cameras out there right now and each one of us should shoot with what makes us happiest. There is no arguing over taste (or ergonomics or preferred camera size)....

Guess no, so I'm only speaking of my preferences.
Personally I dislike croping after, because , as I said, - not same thing.
When you innitially have one ratio, your framing is different, and when I say different I mean - you will capture totally different pics,
and that's why you cannot say - Oh, I'll crop it later.
.. With different ratios, everything in framing is change,
you'll probably be standing in different positions, and just aftewards zooming can't solved that.
..

[Rondec]

Guess no, so I'm only speaking of my preferences.
Personally I dislike croping after, because , as I said, - not same thing.
When you innitially have one ratio, your framing is different, and when I say different I mean - you will capture totally different pics,
and that's why you cannot say - Oh, I'll crop it later.
.. With different ratios, everything in framing is change,
you'll probably be standing in different positions, and just aftewards zooming can't solved that.
..

I guess I don't really see this point, although I have heard others mention it as well. The golden ratio isn't 4:3 and most common printing sizes aren't either. 4 by 6, 5 by 7, 8 by 10 or, even displaying on the (now typical) 16 by 9 monitors will require some type of cropping, regardless of the sensor proportions. It isn't that you are shooting with cropping in mind it is that your end display/print will make that decision for you.

[panonski]

you cannot see the difference because you maybe are not proper framing shooter, and you cannot see it.
Go back to film era, and made a picture without resizing, or croping.
...
You know what is most used aspect ratio in Rembrandt works ?
...
4:3. 3:2 was never my cup of tea, you can call it personal taste

[mecrox]

The reason I bought the K-3 instead of the K-70 is because I was afraid the K-70 might inherit the dreaded aperture box failure of it's predecessors, the K-30 and K-50. Can anyone really say THAT problem is behind us until Ricoh says: "Oh yeah, sorry about that. We figured out what the problem was and we fixed it" ? Lacking that, only time will tell. And that kind of time, I don't have.

Sadly, I do not have a Pentax dealer in my home town, so I was not able to actually see (and feel) a K-3 before I bought mine. Sure I read the specs, so I knew the K-3 was "only" 220 g heavier (and a few mm larger) than my K-x, but I was still shocked the first time I picked up the K-3. I would love to shoot the K-3 in the small villages of France - but do I really want to carry this beast on my back IN-BETWEEN the small villages of France?

If I was going to accept the risk of having an aperture block failure in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime trip, then I would probably get a K-S1 which is 22g LIGHTER than my K-x (and which also has the highly desirable pentaprism viewfinder). The K-S1 is also quite a bit less expensive than the K-70.

Personally, I don't care about megapixels. In fact I would prefer 16MP to 20MP, and 20MP to 24MP; I don't need the extra resolution, so the larger files only complicate my digital life. For the same sensor size, don't more pixels also increase noise levels in low light? Personally, I don't care about flippy screens, or weather resistance, or FPS, or GPS. All I care about is which camera will work with my DA primes, is reliable, will give me a pretty good image, and which is also small and light enough to carry all day, every day, without becoming a cursed burden.

Right now, I'm not sure there is any such camera in the Pentax lineup.

But *IF* Pentax were to release an upgraded version of the K-01 (K-02?) with a decent EVF, in a package similar in size and weight to the current K-01 or K-S1, then life would be good.

A good M43 camera, one very good zoom and one fast prime - probably the most effective kit if you are travelling light and value ease of use. Equivalents on Fuji or Sony, though swings and roundabouts (no IBIS on Fuji, not such a great choice of lenses on Sony).

Otherwise, if you want a quality body on Pentax, I suspect you would have to start with at least a K70 for your primes. I used to travel with a Kx, K5, K3 etc and three or four DA primes - great fun but not the most convenient and the field curavature on the wider primes could be a pita. An advantage of M43 is that the good zooms, while bigger than a prime of course, aren't vast and their quality is deffo prime-like. Things like the 12-40mm f2.8 or the 12-35mm f2.8. Probably the nearest on Pentax would be the well-received 16-85mm.