[Serkevan]

The link is: PENTAX K-3 Mark III

Availability "end of april" in Germany. The pricing is disappointing, it is the same as K1-II and 500,-€ more expensive than Nikon D500.
I was expecting 1,700 - 1,800€.
Seems that opens the way to a next FF around 2,500€.

Yep, it's very expensive. I'd expect the price to go down to ~1700-1800€ in a year. This is early-adopter, R&D-funding price.
A FF at 2500€ would even be acceptable; the 5D4 still sells for over 3000€ and a 500€ premium over the K-1ii wouldn't be so terrible considering the upgrades (this, of course, depending on the sensor and final performance).

[Jonathan Mac]

It looks like a beautiful camera in every respect, but for the first time ever DPR's usual "only really for existing Pentax users" may be right. It's just too expensive given what you can get elsewhere for the same, or less, money. Perhaps if Ricoh had gotten their a*ses in gear designing a new flagship APS-C when the mark II was discontinued then it would have been a better prospect in a market two or three years younger.

As it is, this is really just for the really dedicated APS-C users who don't like EVFs. I would love to get one some day but the price would need to drop significantly for that to happen.

[repaap]

Yep, it's very expensive. I'd expect the price to go down to ~1700-1800€ in a year. This is early-adopter, R&D-funding price.
A FF at 2500€ would even be acceptable; the 5D4 still sells for over 3000€ and a 500€ premium over the K-1ii wouldn't be so terrible considering the upgrades (this, of course, depending on the sensor and final performance).

I’m absolutely positive about this new direction with tech and price(even if it is quite much) and direction Ricoh is taking us. It does mean that I don’t have to think about other ‘better specs brands’ that much anymore. We will have to see this camera in reviewers hands to actually see what it is all about, but it is very promising all in all.

I hope to see K-1 with ‘killer’ specs and price close to 2800€ .

It. Should make terrific match to K-3III.

Ps. There is still going to be cheaper K-70 kind camera. Too..

[mee]

It looks like a beautiful camera in every respect, but for the first time ever DPR's usual "only really for existing Pentax users" may be right. It's just too expensive given what you can get elsewhere for the same, or less, money. Perhaps if Ricoh had gotten their a*ses in gear designing a new flagship APS-C when the mark II was discontinued then it would have been a better prospect in a market two or three years younger.

As it is, this is really just for the really dedicated APS-C users who don't like EVFs. I would love to get one some day but the price would need to drop significantly for that to happen.

If I still had a ton of Pentax gear then I would be on the hook for one of these. It's a significant improvement over the K-3 II.


If I were just starting out or moving from a beginner kit with no lens baggage, I'd just get the D500. It looks to be a better camera with a significantly much better lens system for a lot less money.


I agree though price and features 2 or 3 years ago would have made so much more sense, competitively. But it looks like they didn't want to compete and instead opt to be the last man standing and milk a legacy brand until its red. I notice this in the gaming industry too. There are some labels that develop IPs and release products which are cutting edge and competitive in the market, huge budgets and fanfare, and then there are others that buy older almost forgotten IPs and milk them while slowly building new features or tweaking the platform light to moderately.


I think this is more a step on a longer path for them to being a/the primary DSLR brand in the future. But in doing so by trickling funds and slowly developing out the system in a very conservative fashion. This is probably the biggest risk they've taken.

[repaap]

users who don't like EVFs.

I'd say that this is pretty much what I'd also think. Price will get down, for sure. I'm sure that around 1800 it isgoin to get more people going for it, if it will keep up what it is.


While mirrorless segment is getting more and more polarised and diverse, it is also very much tech driven. As we see what is going on.


This camera is not going there. And that might be also one thing what will get people to choose this. That said, propably many will wait K-70 next model. Or go mirrorless and have to buy new set of everything, like many has already done, because there was not anything like this when those came and no one of them could believe Pentax could be at there some day.


For me this seems like huge, because I get to use my K-mount with out adapters and get quite good performance out of them with out adapters. This camera combined with K-1 and next model of that, will increase usability in many ways with K-mount lenses. So it is not for aps-c users only.

I was looking for more info about video and so far from DPR it does seem like it is 8-bit video. On sample what I saw was quite nice actually. But after I saw examples of new AF and how it works, that is what really do make me excited about this new camera. I'll keep up updating my video cameras towards pure video and have pentax K-3III for run&gun 8 bit 4K and more so as pure photo machine.

---------- Post added 03-31-21 at 14:25 ----------

If I still had a ton of Pentax gear then I would be on the hook for one of these. It's a significant improvement over the K-3 II.


If I were just starting out or moving from a beginner kit with no lens baggage, I'd just get the D500. It looks to be a better camera with a significantly much better lens system for a lot less money.


I agree though price and features 2 or 3 years ago would have made so much more sense, competitively. But it looks like they didn't want to compete and instead opt to be the last man standing and milk a legacy brand until its red. I notice this in the gaming industry too. There are some labels that develop IPs and release products which are cutting edge and competitive in the market, huge budgets and fanfare, and then there are others that buy older almost forgotten IPs and milk them while slowly building new features or tweaking the platform light to moderately.


I think this is more a step on a longer path for them to being a/the primary DSLR brand in the future. But in doing so by trickling funds and slowly developing out the system in a very conservative fashion. This is probably the biggest risk they've taken.

I do agree and especially with that last phrase. Besides, there is basically nothing preventing them to continue developing mirrorless tech. For exmple with GR(there is some GR tech in this one too) and when time is right, they just release unique mirrorless -like K-01- but better.

[jersey]

I think "for who" will depend a lot on future Ricoh moves. If Ricoh follows soon with either K-1/3 or K-70 replacement then K-3/3 may by a tool of choice for action photographers who want robust DSLR with mount that will be updated with both new bodies and lenses in future.

If there is no follow up then DPR may be right and this camera will be only for people who are already invested into system, have lenses they like and do not want to move as their current stuff works ok. No one outside of Pentax stable will consider this camera without any sort of prospect of future development of K-mount.

[Serkevan]

I'd just get the D500. It looks to be a better camera with a significantly much better lens system for a lot less money.

I don't think that's really the case. I'd take the K-3iii in IQ any day, and (waiting for AF tests) the only advantage the D500 has is a tilt screen. The K-1 shoots even a touch faster, has a slightly bigger OVF (that should also be quite brighter), has almost assuredly MUCH better high-ISO performance and most of the lenses that Pentax doesn't have are... kinda very expensive on Nikon. Unless you're thinking of the Sigma/Tamron cheaper super-telezooms.

Not to mention that if you buy the D500 you're getting Nikon's excellent FF long glass (true, but FF means heavier and expensive) at the cost of having only their very basic APS-C lineup for anything non-super-tele, if you can call two kit zooms and a couple primes a "lineup"

I'd never buy the D500 as a "I don't want to carry 2-3 specialist bodies" camera. The K-3iii is closer* there.


*No tilt screen is a bummer, but I'm anyway looking forward for the K-1iii :P

[MMVIII]

If I still had a ton of Pentax gear then I would be on the hook for one of these. It's a significant improvement over the K-3 II.


If I were just starting out or moving from a beginner kit with no lens baggage, I'd just get the D500. It looks to be a better camera with a significantly much better lens system for a lot less money.


I agree though price and features 2 or 3 years ago would have made so much more sense, competitively. But it looks like they didn't want to compete and instead opt to be the last man standing and milk a legacy brand until its red. I notice this in the gaming industry too. There are some labels that develop IPs and release products which are cutting edge and competitive in the market, huge budgets and fanfare, and then there are others that buy older almost forgotten IPs and milk them while slowly building new features or tweaking the platform light to moderately.


I think this is more a step on a longer path for them to being a/the primary DSLR brand in the future. But in doing so by trickling funds and slowly developing out the system in a very conservative fashion. This is probably the biggest risk they've taken.

Excuse me, this might be your opinion, but I largely disagree.

The D500 can't even compete with the KP in most areas of the IQ. It has no IBIS and is left with a large lens portfolio, that will very likely be frozen at what it is.

Why on earth would I now consider a D500 if I wasn't in the need of it until now, while the K-3III opens an additional asset to a system that is strong in many aspects but had some room for improvement in regard to action shooting and moving subjects.

On the contrary, the situation seems much more comparable to the time when everyone in Nikon land was waiting for the successor of the Nikon D300 line but they wanted to lure everyone into the new hype FF DSLR, while Pentax brought the K-3 which many, also Nikon users, considered as a worthwhile continuation of the neglected Nikon line.
Same might be happening to the D500, it's an abandoned line, and there might be some who actually liked it...

[gatorguy]

It looks like a beautiful camera in every respect, but for the first time ever DPR's usual "only really for existing Pentax users" may be right. It's just too expensive given what you can get elsewhere for the same, or less, money. Perhaps if Ricoh had gotten their a*ses in gear designing a new flagship APS-C when the mark II was discontinued then it would have been a better prospect in a market two or three years younger.

As it is, this is really just for the really dedicated APS-C users who don't like EVFs. I would love to get one some day but the price would need to drop significantly for that to happen.

Well of course it is, tho I expect some FF DSLR's users might be tempted too.

Obviously those who are convinced, right or wrong (ain't marketing great?), that mirrorless is the superior ond ONLY platform for the future, won't be considering a DSLR from any other brand either so Pentax is not losing out on a sale they might otherwise have had if only they had been willing to give it away closer to cost. I suppose they could have priced it at $1500 but changed the mount to make up those profits from required new lenses and adapters. That's a common trick that Pentax didn't stoop to.

So clearly Pentax is appealing to OVF advocates, those who either tried mirrorless and didn't like it or simply prefer OVF. Period. That applies to a significant percentage of current photographers IMHO, shooters that won't give up on their DSLR's as long as there are new cameras released with new capabilities and improvements being introduced. Enter Pentax.

Considering that specific market, Pentax is positioned well IMO and the K3III is conceivably the most capable new stills camera there is for those photographers. I can see some current Nikon or Canon users considering one since Pentax is the only camera manufacturer unequivocally stating they are committed to the DSLR market. Not even a lens mount change to force buyers into new lenses, so that millions of very capable and compatible K-Mount glass both vintage and new are ready to use with no costly adapter needed. They've even optimized the use of those older pre-digital lenses, plainly another indication of their dedication to the Pentax line of gear.

For those DSLR pros and prosumers their "other" camera brand seems to be abandoning them. Adapt or go away.

[bxf]

I'd just get the D500. It looks to be a better camera

I don't know enough to dispute or confirm this statement, so can you tell me why it is so, especially since we do not yet have comprehensive tests or comparisons of the K3-iii?

[repaap]

I don't know enough to dispute or confirm this statement, so can you tell me why it is so, especially since we do not yet have comprehensive tests or comparisons of the K3-iii?

Sorry, I’m not sure if I did actually write so, regardless. Based on what we have now. I’d actually say what D500? New pro aps -c is here.

[Mike.P®]

I had the D500 & Sigma 150-600mm sport (currently have the K-1/150-450mm and 7D MKII/Sigma 150-600mm Sport) and the Nikon was an excellent camera and IMO wiped the floor with every previous Pentax with regard to tracking/AF speed/Buffer. If the K-3 (3) is half as fast it will be good enough, my concern is the Pentax lens selection, as good as the 150-450mm is it's not long enough to attract serious wildlife photographers, Pentax needs a whatever - 600mm prosumer lens whether they join up with Tamron again or make one from scratch.

[house]

but for the first time ever DPR's usual "only really for existing Pentax users" may be right. It's just too expensive given what you can get elsewhere for the same, or less, money.

I'm not sure. There are just so many people with to much money out there. The world is splitting at ever quicker pace and generating a couple of well off people for every 10000 it makes destitute. It's quite clear that a lot of camera buyers run multiple, expensive, systems. I can see some getting a Pentax just to run that feel occasionally.

I think Pentax strategy and timing is great. There is a certain milc fatigue with even reviewers getting bored with the 10th iteration of video features.

[mtkeller]

I had the D500 & Sigma 150-600mm sport (currently have the K-1/150-450mm and 7D MKII/Sigma 150-600mm Sport) and the Nikon was an excellent camera and IMO wiped the floor with every previous Pentax with regard to tracking/AF speed/Buffer. If the K-3 (3) is half as fast it will be good enough, my concern is the Pentax lens selection, as good as the 150-450mm is it's not long enough to attract serious wildlife photographers, Pentax needs a whatever - 600mm prosumer lens whether they join up with Tamron again or make one from scratch.

Seems reasonable to me. No need for Tamron to put VC in it. Slap some HD coatings on the glass, add some weather seals, and put a Pentax badge on it.

[MMVIII]

I had the D500 & Sigma 150-600mm sport (currently have the K-1/150-450mm and 7D MKII/Sigma 150-600mm Sport) and the Nikon was an excellent camera and IMO wiped the floor with every previous Pentax with regard to tracking/AF speed/Buffer. If the K-3 (3) is half as fast it will be good enough, my concern is the Pentax lens selection, as good as the 150-450mm is it's not long enough to attract serious wildlife photographers, Pentax needs a whatever - 600mm prosumer lens whether they join up with Tamron again or make one from scratch.

That's interesting. I'm not in the long range shooting, but wouldn't the DA 1.4 teleconverter make quite a usable "200-600" out of that lens?