[reh321]

Let's be honest, their "new, modernized camera" has very few better specs than a nearly 5-year old competitor, and in some instances like the RAW buffer, worse. Admittedly, this competitor also took a very long time to become available as an update to the previous body.

To be completely honest, ‘superiority’ depends on which factor you look at.

For example, I am lured by the Canon M50 at times.
It is priced similarly to my KP, but I did a comparison yesterday and discovered that the KP has greatly superior high ISO performance {which is true in most comparisons}.

If you had purchased a D500, you would now own a camera inferior to the K-3iii at high ISO values made by a manufacturer not committed to the mount used by the D500.

---

Last edited by reh321; 02-23-2021 at 08:13 AM.

[texandrews]

I'm curious about some of the comments about "old" technology/specs.


If this is about video(mostly here in Pentax land that seems not to be the case), then indeed we're behind the best spec'd cameras today. But if video is high on your list of needs, Pentax shouldn't have ever been your brand of choice in the first place, so it seems an odd complaint. If the new camera has good 4K output, I may indeed buy it. I don't need bleeding edge tech here---and in fact, the head of our AV department really discourages anything beyond 4K because of the loads it puts on post processing (even with some of the nice things, like panning and zooming in post...). The new Sony A1 is the camera to beat now. It's also 6.5K buck-a-roonies. That's not including the powerful new computer you'll need.

As far as the other features are concerned for still photography....what is it people are really lacking for their photography? Sports pros aren't shooting Pentax I don't think. And while the 5DmkIV's I use for video at work maybe have faster AF than my Pentax cameras, the Pentax's are more likely to get the focus right the first time in low light where I am mostly shooting. Higher iso's are no comparison, Pentax wins by a wide margin. I think the files are overall better. Not seeing much from the L glass we've got that is making me go "WOW!". My Pentax glass is just as good as far as I can see.

So, what are you pros shooting Pentax lacking? I am actually curious, and I'll start with saying I'm lacking much better tethering, and a bit more flexibility in mirror-up and timer shots.

If you're not a pro, then how do you qualify your need for the best specs? Is your photography bumping up against specs limitations, and would you be better served all around with a switch to another system, and how so?

[ThorSanchez]

I'm curious about some of the comments about "old" technology/specs.


If this is about video(mostly here in Pentax land that seems not to be the case), then indeed we're behind the best spec'd cameras today. But if video is high on your list of needs, Pentax shouldn't have ever been your brand of choice in the first place, so it seems an odd complaint. If the new camera has good 4K output, I may indeed buy it. I don't need bleeding edge tech here---and in fact, the head of our AV department really discourages anything beyond 4K because of the loads it puts on post processing (even with some of the nice things, like panning and zooming in post...). The new Sony A1 is the camera to beat now. It's also 6.5K buck-a-roonies. That's not including the powerful new computer you'll need.

As far as the other features are concerned for still photography....what is it people are really lacking for their photography? Sports pros aren't shooting Pentax I don't think. And while the 5DmkIV's I use for video at work maybe have faster AF than my Pentax cameras, the Pentax's are more likely to get the focus right the first time in low light where I am mostly shooting. Higher iso's are no comparison, Pentax wins by a wide margin. I think the files are overall better. Not seeing much from the L glass we've got that is making me go "WOW!". My Pentax glass is just as good as far as I can see.

So, what are you pros shooting Pentax lacking? I am actually curious, and I'll start with saying I'm lacking much better tethering, and a bit more flexibility in mirror-up and timer shots.

If you're not a pro, then how do you qualify your need for the best specs? Is your photography bumping up against specs limitations, and would you be better served all around with a switch to another system, and how so?

How many pros are shooting Pentax? I'm not sure any of this is being driven by professional photographers. A pro Pentax shooter at the Olympics, Super Bowl, World Series, World Cup, etc would truly be a unicorn.


But I think there are a fair number of amateur Pentax users who like to take pictures of kids, birds, sports, animals, and weaving bicycles that move and could benefit from a modern tracking autofocus system and higher frame rates. Pentax also sold a lot of K-5s and K-3s to people who are still using those cameras that are getting a little long in the tooth but would really like things such as better connectivity, tethering, more user modes, KP-like high ISO performance, and at least reasonable video specs. I think those things are the driver. They wanted to give current Pentax users a camera that's doesn't have to be marketed mostly as a slower-paced field and landscape camera because of system limitations.

[surfar]

the customers they betrayed 3 decades ago.

Hmmm, by technologically ADVANCING their products.

Seems like the customers liked the betrayal when you consider HOW many bought said products.

Why dont you compare the market share Canon had with their FD series to their EF series,it seems like they made the correct decision and GAINED customers.

---------- Post added 02-24-21 at 04:28 AM ----------

The new Sony A1 is the camera to beat now

If you believe the marketing propoganda?

Have they improved the WR?Did it pass the sprinkler test?

How are those ergonomics?The lens release button is nice for giving the user practice catching that heavy glass.

---------- Post added 02-24-21 at 04:46 AM ----------

So far, the biggest thing I have seen with new mirrorless lenses is that they are quite a bit more expensive...

In some cases thats correct.However they are superior product,capable of better results.

Other cases the lenses didnt exist in the older mount which is a step forward if you need it.

[normhead]

How many pros are shooting Pentax? I'm not sure any of this is being driven by professional photographers. A pro Pentax shooter at the Olympics, Super Bowl, World Series, World Cup, etc would truly be a unicorn.

Your casual meander from "pros" to "sports shooter" was curious at best. You do know not all pros are sports shooters don't you? In fact, very few of them are.

Of the pros I know personally, one wildlife shooter (for Ontario Outdoors- Canon FF), commercial product shooter (Nikon FF), wedding guy (Pentax K-5), commercial catalogue photographer (Canon FF), Craft show seller (Nikon D810). These are all people I know... how many sports shooters do you know?

It might be a little conceited to think you need what the guys who shoot the Olympics need. There is a clear distinction between, "have to get the shot or don't get paid" and "I'd like the shot but it doesn't really matter if I don't get it." Everyone likes to pretend they need what the top dogs need. It gets old.

But the funniest thing is the deafening silence when someone posts pictures of something someone on the forum has said can't be done with a Pentax. There's a difference between "don't want to" and "can't." A distinction lost on some people.

[Wheatfield]

Hmmm, by technologically ADVANCING their products.

Seems like the customers liked the betrayal when you consider HOW many bought said products.

Why dont you compare the market share Canon had with their FD series to their EF series,it seems like they made the correct decision and GAINED customers.[COLOR="Silver"]

Canon dropped support entirely for the FD line within a few years of coming out with the EF mount and left those customers high and dry.
But you knew that.
The betrayal had nothing to do with their introduction of the EOS line and everything to do with the very rapid dropping of all support for the FD line after assuring those customers that they would be supported going forwards.
I can try to explain this in smaller words if you need me to.

---------- Post added Feb 23rd, 2021 at 11:52 AM ----------

In some cases thats correct.However they are superior product,capable of better results.

This is a declarative sentence that may not be factual.

[surfar]

I can try to explain this in smaller words if you need me to.

Go on.

---------- Post added 02-24-21 at 05:00 AM ----------

after assuring those customers that they would be supported going forwards.

What exactly did they say?

[normhead]

Go on.

Thats why I never say that. Some people would rather ask me to use smaller words, rather than use a dictionary themselves.

[Wheatfield]

Go on.

---------- Post added 02-24-21 at 05:00 AM ----------



What exactly did they say?

No, I think I'm done with you. At this point, you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Bye.
You've been Boriscletoed

[surfar]

You've been Boriscletoed

Buy an Ostrich!

[texandrews]

If you believe the marketing propoganda?

Have they improved the WR?Did it pass the sprinkler test?

How are those ergonomics?The lens release button is nice for giving the user practice catching that heavy glass.

I was speaking about video in my post. No, I was interested in the video evaluation done by the 2 guys I trust most now over at DPR. Have no idea about the WR---doesn't seem to me to be as critical for videographers because the other gear they have to use isn't always WR. As far as the ergonomics are concerned, I'll wager a camera at this price point is going to be used with a video rig/cage, so again, not as important. As far as the heavy glass is concerned....Huh?

[reh321]

N

Canon dropped support entirely for the FD line within a few years of coming out with the EF mount and left those customers high and dry.
But you knew that.
The betrayal had nothing to do with their introduction of the EOS line and everything to do with the very rapid dropping of all support for the FD line after assuring those customers that they would be supported going forwards.

but they also gained lots of us.

I switched to Canon from Pentax in 1995 because of their EF system.
It was so much quieter than what Nikon and Pentax had to offer at the time - they eventually got to the same place now, but switching anyway, I would have gained nothing if they had moved slowly maintaining compatibility,

Now, only Nikon lenses with in-lens motors are compatible with their MILC adapters, but every Canon lens constructed in the past thirty-some years is.

But the ancient history of the advent of AF has little to do with the K-3iii's being delayed.

[tibbitts]

If you had purchased a D500, you would now own a camera inferior to the K-3iii at high ISO values made by a manufacturer not committed to the mount used by the D500.

Well, if you had purchased a D500, at least you would have had a camera for roughly the past five years now.

[surfar]

I was speaking about video in my post. No, I was interested in the video evaluation done by the 2 guys I trust most now over at DPR.

Yes, they gave a favourable report.Other reports not as favourable.One opinion I saw was something along the lines of "around smartphone capability".Other very capable video/video centric bodies will come soon(Sony$ announcement today could be interesting?).

---------- Post added 02-24-21 at 06:20 AM ----------

but every Canon lens constructed in the past thirty-some years is.

As well as some of the third party products.

[Wheatfield]

but they also gained lots of us.

I'm sure the thousands of FD users whose lens investments were turned into poo by Canon are comforted by that.