[someasiancameraguy]

Many of the folks complaining the most about this camera were unlikely to buy it from the get-go. I have said before, but there are several things that could draw folks to Pentax.

(1) Optical Viewfinder -- this is a big deal to some people and while Nikon and Canon have not given up their OVF cameras, it seems pretty clear that their days are numbered and going forward the majority of releases are going to be cameras with EVFs. Pentax has not only continued to release OVF cameras, they have made specific effort to make the viewfinder better on the K-3 III.

(2) The K mount. For all of the negativity about the horrible sound of screw driven lenses, they tend to focus very quickly, are quite small, and depending on the lens have excellent optics. Pentax is not releasing new screw driven lenses at this point (I think the last one was a tweak of the FA 35 f2), but they do continue to support it in all of their cameras, even the entry level ones. This backward compatibility is appreciated by those who shoot with Pentax and can make filling out a lens line up much cheaper. I know that MILCs allow for mounting all kinds of lenses via adapters, but certainly the majority of them don't support total auto focus of lenses that don't have in lens motors.

(3) Still Image Quality. While all camera brands pay lip service to improving still image quality, from my perspective, their actual focus seems to be improving video. Pentax has made a real effort to improve still image quality and over time they have consistently gotten better performance out of the sensors they have used than some of their competitors.

(4) APS-C line ups are excellent. For all of the talk earlier in this thread about their APS-C lens line up, Pentax has the DA * lenses (the DA *16-50 is getting re-done with a PLM motor), the DA 16-85, 18-135, several kit lenses, DA * primes, the DA 55-300 PLM (and several other 55-300 lenses), DA limiteds, and the DA 35/50. These lenses are of differing quality, but it really does feel as though Pentax has a lens that fits most price ranges, many have in lens motors and weather sealing and they have messaged clearly with the release of the DA *11-16 and planned redesign of the 16-50 that they are going to continue to support crop users in a way that Sony/Canon/Nikon haven't.

Is all of this enough to sell (a very expensive) K-3 III? I don't know, but what is clear to me is that Pentax has decided to pursue their own niche and that does feel smart. Trying to be Canon or Nikon or Sony won't work for them. It is much better if they find their own path and build cameras that fit with their ethos and price them as needed to continue making new gear. It won't be for everyone but clearly they have decided that if they build it, we will come.

I never said that Pentax should try to be Ca/nik/ony. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the distinctive features of Pentax reliably translates to great video possibilities that don't seem too hard to implement. All of those reasons you stated are things that also matter to me. Professionally I transitioned from the Canon 5D Mark III to the K-1 and it was just love at first shot so much that I bought a second copy and upgraded it to mark II, then bought a MZ-3 and MX for film work. It's great to buy into a lens system with both backward and forward compatibility. There's also frankly no comparison in the IQ and ergonomics of shooting Pentax when compared to other camera brands to the point that I stopped caring about ISO (the IQ at 12800 ISO is still very acceptable for photos meant for digital mediums), when I would shudder at the thought of shooting 3200 ISO on my old Canon.

It's a fair point to reason that me and a lot of other shooters who love the Pentax eco-system don't want to lose out on these defining features to just shoot video.

Edit: If it's within the budget of Ricoh, it sure wouldn't hurt the overall eco system to atleast have a body that does video half decently. It doesn't need to be class leading by any means nor should it be. Just a decent codec, clean HDMI out, and a basic PDAF with touch to focus interface, none of these things need to cost an arm and leg to do.

---

Last edited by someasiancameraguy; 10-28-2020 at 05:32 AM.

[ThorSanchez]

Perhaps a small point of clarification. I believe that my iPhone has a dedicated GPS receiver, so position location is possible even when there is no cellular coverage in remote locations. However, plotting the position on a map for navigation might not be possible if the 'map app' requires an internet connection.

- Craig

Most cell phones use AGPS, where they use cell towers to assist in the location finding. Do these phones have the capability to rely just on the satellite GPS when out of cell range? And if so, does the phone require a clear line of sight to the sky to make that work? Usually the phone is in a pocket when you're shooting.

[house]

Most cell phones use AGPS, where they use cell towers to assist in the location finding. Do these phones have the capability to rely just on the satellite GPS when out of cell range? And if so, does the phone require a clear line of sight to the sky to make that work? Usually the phone is in a pocket when you're shooting.

The phones I've used do fine without network connection. I frequently use offline map apps and the gps locks in (not as fast as networked) and I can record gpx tracks without proper reception.

I've never had a smooth ride connecting and maintaining a connection between phone and camera however. Imagesync worked then broke for a year or two the started working again after a couple of updates... this stuff needs to be solid to be useful. Most camera users seem to complain about the phone apps. I've not heard of anyone saying their app works great.

[iheiramo]

Most cell phones use AGPS, where they use cell towers to assist in the location finding. Do these phones have the capability to rely just on the satellite GPS when out of cell range?

Yes, but first connection may take very long. I used to turn AGPS off and rely satellites only when navigating with phone on travel to cut roaming charges. Naturally I had preloaded the needed maps to phone.

[Rondec]

I never said that Pentax should try to be Ca/nik/ony. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the distinctive features of Pentax reliably translates to great video possibilities that don't seem too hard to implement. All of those reasons you stated are things that also matter to me. Professionally I transitioned from the Canon 5D Mark III to the K-1 and it was just love at first shot so much that I bought a second copy and upgraded it to mark II, then bought a MZ-3 and MX for film work. It's great to buy into a lens system with both backward and forward compatibility. There's also frankly no comparison in the IQ and ergonomics of shooting Pentax when compared to other camera brands to the point that I stopped caring about ISO (the IQ at 12800 ISO is still very acceptable for photos meant for digital mediums), when I would shudder at the thought of shooting 3200 ISO on my old Canon.

It's a fair point to reason that me and a lot of other shooters who love the Pentax eco-system don't want to lose out on these defining features to just shoot video.

Edit: If it's within the budget of Ricoh, it sure wouldn't hurt the overall eco system to atleast have a body that does video half decently. It doesn't need to be class leading by any means nor should it be. Just a decent codec, clean HDMI out, and a basic PDAF with touch to focus interface, none of these things need to cost an arm and leg to do.

I totally think that Pentax should improve video on their cameras, I just don't think they should ignore still photography improvements. I guess I am just trying to sort out in my mind the things I think that Pentax brings to the table that are separate from the other camera brands.

In some ways Fuji does some of these things better for crop photography, but at the same time they have gone the mirrorless route, use the whole xtrans sensor array and have chosen not to have full frame as something folks can transition to (they don't have full frame compatible lenses so I suppose that isn't a big deal to their users). Anyway, I do think that there are still some things that Pentax does really well and where they can stand out from the crowd.

[ThorSanchez]

The phones I've used do fine without network connection. I frequently use offline map apps and the gps locks in (not as fast as networked) and I can record gpx tracks without proper reception.

I've never had a smooth ride connecting and maintaining a connection between phone and camera however. Imagesync worked then broke for a year or two the started working again after a couple of updates... this stuff needs to be solid to be useful. Most camera users seem to complain about the phone apps. I've not heard of anyone saying their app works great.

Yes, but first connection may take very long. I used to turn AGPS off and rely satellites only when navigating with phone on travel to cut roaming charges. Naturally I had preloaded the needed maps to phone.

Thanks, that's good to know.

[Breakfastographer]

Frankly, I'm shocked the name is K-3 Mark III, given that there is a new body design.

That is the only argument you can make against it. The argument for it is that from a naming perspective, it's the most sensible choice, conservative or not.

Of the suggestions that I've read that weren't completely nuts and weren't K-3 III:

• K-2 is presumably reserved for some future second full-frame line, just in case.
• KN or K-N or K "nu" with a Greek letter makes it seem closer to the KP than K-3 II, so at least somewhat misleading. I admit I thought this name would be cool for a while.
• K-6 was probably the front runner of the numeral options at least in my opinion.

So in the end, I think "K-3 Mark III" won simply because there wasn't a better alternative.

[LeeRunge]

I totally think that Pentax should improve video on their cameras, I just don't think they should ignore still photography improvements. I guess I am just trying to sort out in my mind the things I think that Pentax brings to the table that are separate from the other camera brands.

In some ways Fuji does some of these things better for crop photography, but at the same time they have gone the mirrorless route, use the whole xtrans sensor array and have chosen not to have full frame as something folks can transition to (they don't have full frame compatible lenses so I suppose that isn't a big deal to their users). Anyway, I do think that there are still some things that Pentax does really well and where they can stand out from the crowd.

What do they do really well that stands out from the crowd in 2020?

Fuji is tactile in so many good ways. Pentax doesn't offer that. It's just a standard DSLR body, well built but it's not Fuji with great dials and a "get the tech out the way" design philosophy. Fuji Primes are way sexier IMO then Pentax, FAST and many are weather sealed unlike the limited lenses.

If I were brand new today I would be buying into Fuji not Pentax. They have hybrid viewfinders so you can have your OVF and your EVF.

No full frame? They have better medium format. And at this point the APS-C sensors are basically as good as full frame. KP for example looks basically the same as my D750 at high iso, it's extremely close. I guess if you want tons of megapixels, but then, medium format or A7R IV with 61 megapixels.

[Kuzma]

Without any doubts, it will be a pretty nice camera. But... right now all major producers are fighting for mirrorless cameras market and offering some really advanced and affordable products. And at the same time Ricoh announced the APS-C DSLR that they have had to release 3 years ago... Besides, it will cost $1,900! Nikon Z5 is just $1,296 worth. It certainly doesn't look like a promising way to develop a company or at least its camera division. The industry is being changed fast and Ricoh really needs to find its place in that new context.

[normhead]

What do they do really well that stands out from the crowd in 2020?

Fuji is tactile in so many good ways. Pentax doesn't offer that. It's just a standard DSLR body, well built but it's not Fuji with great dials and a "get the tech out the way" design philosophy. Fuji Primes are way sexier IMO then Pentax, FAST and many are weather sealed unlike the limited lenses.

If I were brand new today I would be buying into Fuji not Pentax. They have hybrid viewfinders so you can have your OVF and your EVF.

No full frame? They have better medium format. And at this point the APS-C sensors are basically as good as full frame. KP for example looks basically the same as my D750 at high iso, it's extremely close. I guess if you want tons of megapixels, but then, medium format or A7R IV with 61 megapixels.

Thread hijack alert...... extreme bias exhibited.....

[LeeRunge]

Without any doubts, it will be a pretty nice camera. But... right now all major producers are fighting for mirrorless cameras market and offering some really advanced and affordable products. And at the same time Ricoh announced the APS-C DSLR that they have had to release 3 years ago... Besides, it will cost $1,900! Nikon Z5 is just $1,296 worth. It certainly doesn't look like a promising way to develop a company or at least its camera division. The industry is being changed fast and Ricoh really needs to find its place in that new context.

Asking $1900 for APS-C when the Z-5, A7Rii, RP, Z6 etc all cost less and will most likely outperform the K3 iii is probably not going to win new users. OVF is not that strong a "feature". Also Fuji XPro 3 has both OVF and EVF for around that price and it's made with sexy titanium.

[Kunzite]

So in the end, I think "K-3 Mark III" won simply because there wasn't a better alternative.

Perhaps they're watching the forums, and just like with the "why the screen is fixed" article they wanted to end the debate, "is this, or the KP the true K-3 II successor"?

Pentax is listening! - and pulling their hair out after all the nonsense we're writing.

[Pål Jensen]

Asking $1900 for APS-C when the Z-5, A7Rii, RP, Z6 etc all cost less and will most likely outperform the K3 iii is probably not going to win new users. OVF is not that strong a "feature". Also Fuji XPro 3 has both OVF and EVF for around that price and it's made with sexy titanium.

It is a diffent format. For different users. A Nikon F5 costed more than a Pentax 6X7 - not to mention a Leica....

[LeeRunge]

Thread hijack alert...... extreme bias exhibited.....

Correct I'm not heavily bias toward Pentax. Burn the witch!

I'm just making the point that in 2020 it's not an easy market and Pentax needs to compete.

Hopefully, the K3 iii has top of the line AF-C and a best in class APS-C sensor, I'll be first to congratulate and be excited for that. But I'm not blind to the fact that it's seriously competitive in the camera world and other brands are offering some juicy products for less.

If this forum is only for those who will only praise Pentax and never say anything other than praise then that's a sad state of affairs.

[Pål Jensen]

Perhaps they're watching the forums, and just like with the "why the screen is fixed" article they wanted to end the debate, "is this, or the KP the true K-3 II successor"?

It is Canon style naming strategy. At least now we know who it is targeted at. However, it makes guessing the name of coming models less entertaining. We will have the K-1 III and maybe the K2 (FF) as well at some point.