[acoufap]

Kerrick James posted a hands on review as well (on YouTube), in which he looked at that and stated his rough comparison is that the ISO 12800 on the K-3 III was roughly equivalent to to ISO 3200 on the K-1 II. An approximate 2 stop increase...over a FF!

The thing that many people dont get about a $2k price tag, is that this camera has updated every aspect of the K-3 II by a large margin...more than just the usual small generational increments. There are also many aspects of this camera that CANT be measured by numbers on a spec sheet. To me, it almost looks as if Ricoh said 'Hey...lets take the K-1 II, update EVERYTHING in it, and put an APSC sensor in it'. When virtually every aspect of the new K-3 III is the best of that feature in any current Pentax body, of course its going to cost more than $999.

While I do wish that a few things could have been included on this body, Im excited for it. Having invested quite a bit into DA* lenses, it makes far more sense for me to drop $2k on this body and make full use of its features, vs $2k on a FF and be forced to use it in crop mode. Frankly...every Pentaxian should be excited for this body! If its not a body for you...fine, but these technology advances will find their way into a future K-1 III and very likely a future K-70/KP replacement.

Yes, IMO this new K-3 is a huge step.

But depending on what are your demands are and where you come from, it may be your choice or not. I found @StephenObermeier 's

You Tube

You Tube

very good. He shows some features and his opinion about them and he also says that this camera may not be the right for everyone.

Absolutely reflects what I'm thinking. Because of really great APS-C camera improvements in different features it would be a great addition to my kit. ;-)

[robbiec]

Brought up some valid points. K-3 series has been since its release a snappy machine and the iii extends that. From what I've seen on the images, the iii vs the earlier models looks to have a less gritty image which is down to the newer sensor I suppose. It's a case of different tool for different jobs, the K-1 has the moon lander screen which is more focused for landscape or jobs that are to be more considered and it is the night sky tool of choice whereas the iii is pick up, put to your eye, press the ttrigger and snappy comes into its own then.

[reh321]

Brought up some valid points. K-3 series has been since its release a snappy machine and the iii extends that. From what I've seen on the images, the iii vs the earlier models looks to have a less gritty image which is down to the newer sensor I suppose.

I would expect the 'accelerator' to have a part in this also.

[Smolk]

From what I've seen on the images, the iii vs the earlier models looks to have a less gritty image...

Do you mean less texture, which might not be a good thing, or less noise?

[robbiec]

Do you mean less texture, which might not be a good thing, or less noise?

No, K-3 Raw file will always need NR added as it is a gritty file with a roughness to it that I didn't see with a K-5iiS or K-1 files. That's the impression I'm seeing touring the Web looking at the pre prod iii images. I still remember the surprise I got when first comparing a K-5 file with a K-3 - for sure the latter had more detail and resolution but it needed more work to clean up.

[Smolk]

The Sigma DP Merrill images showed great texture, but the downside of the Foveon sensor is noise. Sometimes it worked out great, sometimes it didn't, DR was relatively low.
The roughness, is that due to pixel size or density? Which might explain the difference with K-1 and K-5?

[PentaxScott]

What more would you have liked to see in the K3 III ?

They are really minor things:

Having a GPS unit onboard would have been nice. I know that there were issues with space due to the new pentaprism, so it was a piece that had to be removed. This isnt a deal breaker to me at all because we have an alternative in the O-GPS1 unit (which I do own for use on my K-5).

Having a secondary SD slot as a UHS-1 instead of dual UHS-2 slots is also intriguing, since they are backwards compatible with slower cards. This may come down to a lack of space if the processing chips are bigger for UHS-2 (or heat or power concerns), but it seems like a bit of odd choice. Again, not a deal breaker since there is at least one UHS-2 slot.

A fixed screen is the biggest sticking point. I know its been explained on why they did what they did, but Ive been in a number of situations where Ive had to put the camera in an odd position (ie - on the ground), and had real challenges composing the image due to being unable to use the viewfinder, and unable to really see the screen (think wildlife shooting, any large movements and youve spooked your target away). There were some rumors that we may be able to use our phones as a monitor for LV in a sense, but I dont know if that has been confirmed or not. If thats the case, it would solve 95% of my concern making this a non issue for me.

[mtkeller]

It’s confirmed that the Image Sync app will be usable in the way it is for other cameras with WiFi, so it will function as live view, controlling settings, etc. Honestly, I more often use Image Sync than the flippy screen on my K-70 since I can put the camera on a Platypod (or the ground) and then just put myself in a comfortable position while controlling the camera from my phone. I can always move the camera a bit with my foot if I need to.

The latest Japanese review that has been circulating here today also indicates that image transfer speeds via wireless are three times faster, which would be huge.

[ffking]

Having a secondary SD slot as a UHS-1 instead of dual UHS-2 slots is also intriguing, since they are backwards compatible with slower cards. This may come down to a lack of space if the processing chips are bigger for UHS-2 (or heat or power concerns), but it seems like a bit of odd choice. Again, not a deal breaker since there is at least one UHS-2 slot.

Quite a few Nikons and Canons (I think) and maybe Sonys use two different cards - probably for similar reasons - but it seems a common situation - not ideal, as you say, but one has to assume that there's a good reason

[gatorguy]

They are really minor things:

Having a GPS unit onboard would have been nice. I know that there were issues with space due to the new pentaprism, so it was a piece that had to be removed. This isnt a deal breaker to me at all because we have an alternative in the O-GPS1 unit (which I do own for use on my K-5).

Having a secondary SD slot as a UHS-1 instead of dual UHS-2 slots is also intriguing, since they are backwards compatible with slower cards. This may come down to a lack of space if the processing chips are bigger for UHS-2 (or heat or power concerns), but it seems like a bit of odd choice. Again, not a deal breaker since there is at least one UHS-2 slot.

A fixed screen is the biggest sticking point. I know its been explained on why they did what they did, but Ive been in a number of situations where Ive had to put the camera in an odd position (ie - on the ground), and had real challenges composing the image due to being unable to use the viewfinder, and unable to really see the screen (think wildlife shooting, any large movements and youve spooked your target away). There were some rumors that we may be able to use our phones as a monitor for LV in a sense, but I dont know if that has been confirmed or not. If thats the case, it would solve 95% of my concern making this a non issue for me.

There's more than a few reviewers as well as Pentax themselves who say the K3 III is not positioned as a landscape camera. That's the strength of the K1. The K3 III should be considered for action, wildlife, sports, people "doing things", image captures involving movement. IMHO that's a very good reason lack of on-board GPS and a flip screen can be forgiven.

As one of them said, you can absolutely do landscapes and static images with one and get great results, but that's not why Pentax developed this particular camera.

[Pål Jensen]

There's more than a few reviewers as well as Pentax themselves who say the K3 III is not positioned as a landscape camera. That's the strength of the K1. The K3 III should be considered for action, wildlife, sports, people "doing things", image captures involving movement.

As one of them said, you can absolutely do landscapes and static images with one and get great results, but that's not why Pentax developed this particular camera.

Pentax call it an "active field camera". That includes landscapes. I find the K-1 to big and bulky for landscapes. Not to mention the lenses...
The K-3 III is an all-rounder; a camera that can be used for everything without sacrificing much.

[PentaxScott]

It’s confirmed that the Image Sync app will be usable in the way it is for other cameras with WiFi, so it will function as live view, controlling settings, etc. Honestly, I more often use Image Sync than the flippy screen on my K-70 since I can put the camera on a Platypod (or the ground) and then just put myself in a comfortable position while controlling the camera from my phone. I can always move the camera a bit with my foot if I need to.

The latest Japanese review that has been circulating here today also indicates that image transfer speeds via wireless are three times faster, which would be huge.

Then Im even more excited than before (which excitement was already pretty high). For someone who has invested quite a bit into DA* lenses, a high end APSC makes more sense right now than a K-1 II, and in a few years, if that situations changes...we will have a K-1 III with all these new advancements in said body. For me, I never look at my images and say "Gee, this would have been SO much better if I had shot in on a FF". Im content with APSC and having a body which handles and feels like the K-1, in a compact APSC package. If the IQ and image tracking is as good as some of the better early hands on reviews have indicated, Ill be owning this camera a lot sooner than later

[gatorguy]

Pentax call it an "active field camera". That includes landscapes. I find the K-1 to big and bulky for landscapes. Not to mention the lenses...
The K-3 III is an all-rounder; a camera that can be used for everything without sacrificing much.

To me "field camera" means light and compact to carry, something the K1 is not, rather than a camera for taking photos of fields, aka landscapes. Active is... well, active of course. So a compact camera intended for action.

As you said it will do great landscapes too, but if that's your only or perhaps primary interest Pentax believes the K1 will serve you better and several reviewers agree. My K1 gets used for "people stuff" on a regular basis but it's definitely not an ideal "active field camera" which is why I'm 95% on board with preordering the K3 III.

[reh321]

Pentax call it an "active field camera". That includes landscapes. I find the K-1 to big and bulky for landscapes. Not to mention the lenses...
The K-3 III is an all-rounder; a camera that can be used for everything without sacrificing much.

Not everything - most everything.
I have used the flippy LCD twice in the more than two years since I purchased my KP.
The "flippy" LCD surely is a small sacrifice - get over it ..... this is apparently not for you if the "flippy" LCD is a strict requirement for you.
It is not within my budget - I will wait and see what the K-70 replacement is like.

[Zygonyx]

Well, imho the 645Z is unbeatable in landscaping amongst Pentax SLRS