Originally posted by MJKoski No I do not say FF is best solution for everything as it has wrong aspect ratio to begin with. My point of view is that Pentax *excels* at base ISO imaging. Therefore:
1) Sell all crop gear
2) For tripod (or otherwise slow paced shooting), get used K-1 MK1 and few suitable FF-lenses
3) For anything else, switch to mirrorless
That's a perfectly valid point of view, but a lot of folks will disagree with you - not least those who are committed to APS-C for use-case-specific reasons and/or personal preferences. Many of us don't shoot with a tripod much, if at all, preferring to travel light (I haven't used my own tripod in over a year, except for AF fine adjustment tests). Then, there are many who don't
want to shoot mirrorless with EVF. Even with those that might be happy to do so, a good number of them won't want to maintain both Pentax K-mount and other-brand mirrorless systems in parallel. I
do, but for very specific and personal reasons (that won't be relevant to most folks)... and I
don't recommend it. It's an expensive undertaking... and since it's the cost of the K-3III that seems to be at the root of your concerns and recommendations, it doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by MJKoski Has it been proven/hinted by a 3rd party that K-3 MK3 improves AF (tracking)? And IF it does, with what lenses? How will the old screw/SDM drives respond? What are the other reasons to buy the MK3? Better IQ? Sure bet against K-3 MK2, not so sure against KP. KP pulled quite a stunt with its base ISO IQ.
There's no proof yet that the K-3III demonstrates improved AF tracking, since no-one has publicly claimed access to the camera for extended testing. Until it's released and/or reviewed, we can only make an educated guess, based on our knowledge that components of the AF system are most
certainly new, and AF performance from a new body has never been
worse than previous generations of the same line. Regarding interaction with existing lenses, we don't know if any improvement in AF might be realised with existing screw-drive and SDM lenses. We can be quite confident it should play well with the DA*11-18 f/2.8 and fast-focusing DA55-300 PLM. Furthermore, based on my recent session with Ricoh Imaging UK, I don't think we have long to wait for the new DA*16-50... and as a new model we can expect that to leverage AF performance improvements. That's a pretty capable APS-C ultrawide-to-long-tele kit right there. Plus, since the excellent full-frame D FA150-450 is nippy enough in the AF department, I'm guessing it should pair nicely with the new crop-sensor camera, resulting in a quality combo for long tele work... but we'll have to wait and see.
IQ comparisons with the KP aren't particularly relevant, IMHO, since the target audience is somewhat different. Whilst the KP is a very fine camera, the feature set, specifications and ergonomics aren't directly comparable. Even if the K-3III's IQ is only marginally better, there are significant reasons to choose it over the KP if those reasons are relevant to the individual. Still, I
do think we'll see meaningful improvements in IQ compared even to the KP... but it's the whole package that will be compelling, not just that one aspect in isolation.
As for other reasons to buy the K-3III, you must have missed my
previous response:
Originally posted by BigMackCam It doesn't make much sense to buy a full frame K-1II if you want high resolution on an APS-C capture area, high-fps deep-buffer continuous shooting, more advanced metering, almost frame-wide 101-point AF, 4K video with sensor stabilisation, in a body that's smaller and lighter and uses smaller lenses - to mention just a few K-3III specifics. We've discussed this many times before in these forums, Matti... The K-1II and K-3III share similarities in that they're both K-mount digital SLRs, but they're different tools that are ideally suited to different use cases and requirements. Choosing one over the other just because it's cheaper or seems to be better value due to the "bigger sensor = better camera" fallacy is a simplistic and poor basis for decision, and might result in the photographer buying the wrong camera to fit their personal requirements...
There's more to the K-3III than I've mentioned above, but I'd say these are
some of the
key reasons. Plus, of course, there's the oft-mentioned viewfinder which, reportedly, is almost indistinguishable from that in the K-1II due to the 1.05x magnification. That's not a reason to
choose APS-C, but it's one more reason to
stay with it if that's what you already shoot. Then, you can add to that the format-related benefits for certain types of photography... wildlife, birds in flight, sports, concerts etc., where the crop sensor combined with available glass gets you tighter framing of the subject than un-cropped "full frame". Sure, you can shoot crop mode with the K-1II... but you have to compose using a reduced viewfinder area and get 16MP (or is it 15MP?) images, which limits scope for further cropping and/or larger-size printing. Indeed, I think we'll see quite a few K-1 and K-1II owners adding a K-3III to their kit for specific use cases.
These things might not resonate with you, but they will for many. As always, different folks are best served by different solutions...
Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-21-2021 at 05:09 PM.