[Parallax]

so should we make it easier for the mods ?

" that is the question "

If you want to make it harder for the mods the question you need to ask yourself is "Do I feel lucky?"

[reh321]

If you want to make it harder for the mods the question you need to ask yourself is "Do I feel lucky?"

I favor making it easy on the mods - at least someone is on the job 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unlike another photo forum I used to post at where the owner treated it as a 8-day a day, 5 days a week, job - even though I have felt at times they have been too willing to label some criticisms of Pentax as being "Pentax bashing"; some decisions by Pentax have caused them harm.

[Smolk]

Frankly, I don't necessarily think the K-3iii is overpriced. It is expensive - but that's not the same.

That's exactly what I think.

Though my long-lasting products go quite a while back, to the 50's and 70's... I never quite bought into digital apart from a dalliance with the Sigma DP2 and 3 Merrill (great cameras, but no VF, the dealbreaker). A K-x was bought for work and quickly discarded (too small OVF).
My film cameras cover FF and MF and give me a lot of joy. But sometimes I miss photos, due to the weather, or due to the necessity of capturing something very fast. So I hope this camera will provide me with more opportunities while maintaining the sheer pleasure of manual control.
For sheer joy, I only have to look at my Rolleiflex 2.8C, MPP Microflex or Agfa Super Isolette. I have enough film stock to last quite a few years more! I also have the KX in black, twice, which I enjoy enormously (but on this long trip I don't have one with me).

[reh321]

That's exactly what I think.

Though my long-lasting products go quite a while back, to the 50's and 70's... I never quite bought into digital apart from a dalliance with the Sigma DP2 and 3 Merrill (great cameras, but no VF, the dealbreaker). A K-x was bought for work and quickly discarded (too small OVF).
My film cameras cover FF and MF and give me a lot of joy. But sometimes I miss photos, due to the weather, or due to the necessity of capturing something very fast. So I hope this camera will provide me with more opportunities while maintaining the sheer pleasure of manual control.
For sheer joy, I only have to look at my Rolleiflex 2.8C, MPP Microflex or Agfa Super Isolette. I have enough film stock to last quite a few years more! I also have the KX in black, twice, which I enjoy enormously (but on this long trip I don't have one with me).

I get much more "joy" from my KP than I ever got from my film cameras.
I get better rendering of what I am looking at - and I can capture variations on the scene as often as I want to at no extra cost.

---

Last edited by reh321; 04-14-2021 at 12:55 PM.

[repaap]

Frankly, I don't necessarily think the K-3iii is overpriced. It is expensive - but that's not the same. And like you said, Pentax has made very long-lasting products so far. My K-1 is technically 5 years old. I expect it will last at least a couple more... and if I can get 7 years out of a 2500€ K-1iii, I'll probably be willing to shell out for a new one. Now I wait for the DFA21*. It might very well be the first lens I buy new, and it's a lens I don't need. This hobby means quite a bit to me, and a company that focuses on the user experience and doesn't make disposable devices like, for example, most smartphones are, deserves the money IMO.


*Okay, I also wait to see the full reviews of the K-3iii - I wanna get excited for the next FF

I do occasionally get some money out of this ‘hobby’ as I’m not trained professional, calling it as hobby too. As it has been said before, K-3 III is pricey, and I do agree that it is not overpriced. With the same conclusion as you came up, I thought about K-3 III. I’ll propably use it for 4 yrs and divided in 4 it does become like 500€/year. Shoot every day atleast 2 shots you’v got something like 60 shots and that will do 720 shots/year. Which is less than 1€/shot. From those 720 shots I could sell couple and get most of my money back.and keep on shooting for free.

Even if it is a hobby and you want to use that fast shutter even at weekends it will be really good bang for Buck all in all.

I was running one day and going through things to tell my self and if asked, to my wife. Same logic will follow with K-1III. Should be all good.

And if it’ll bring smile on your face while doing it, it will be very good investment all in all.

[SteveinSLC]

Well, it's definitely not expensive compared to the number of $5000+ pro cameras coming out from the other manufacturers. Sony, Nikon and Canon all bringing out one or more new bodies at that level. If there's that much of a market for those, surely the K3.3 doesn't look too bad.

[Spodeworld]

I don't know if people are going to look at it that way - it's an APS-C and people don't expect APS-C cameras to be in the $2K range.

Well, it's definitely not expensive compared to the number of $5000+ pro cameras coming out from the other manufacturers. Sony, Nikon and Canon all bringing out one or more new bodies at that level. If there's that much of a market for those, surely the K3.3 doesn't look too bad.

[ThorSanchez]

I don't know if people are going to look at it that way - it's an APS-C and people don't expect APS-C cameras to be in the $2K range.

The Nikon D500 was the exact same price as the K-3 III at release, except that the D500 came out five years ago. In 2021 dollars that's about $2200.

[aurele]

This just my opinion about batteries, but I'm really shocked by how many people buy the third party batteries. I think more people should consider buying the official batteries rather than the third party equivalents. For two reasons:
1. It supports the brand better (more about that below)
2. Their performance seems to be a little better, and they are guaranteed to work safely. For example, Ricoh has a new fast charger available for the K-3 III battery. This must have been tested with the official batteries to ensure safety, but I doubt any testing was done with unofficial batteries.

It's true that the Ricoh accessories can look overpriced, but I think it's best to look at it holistically. Ricoh is supporting camera and lens development for K-mount, which is a rather difficult/marginal business to be in these days. They are not making huge profits, so are they really "overpricing"? Accessories have always been a way for the camera companies to earn some extra profit. Other batteries might seem like better value, but there is value in supporting the company that develops the cameras and lenses we want.

Obviously some people are genuinely hard up and it's a significant difference to them so there is some value in having third party batteries available. But in a lot of cases, people have a choice of whether to support Ricoh (and Pentax) with a purchase or save a few pennies and not support them.

Short version : after a year using 3rd party batteries that were not that cheap, they all last 1/3 of the original. So i will end up spending twice the price of a single batterie, on a two year span, to get a single batterie. Should have gotten the original one from the start

[reh321]

Short version : after a year using 3rd party batteries that were not that cheap, they all last 1/3 of the original. So i will end up spending twice the price of a single batterie, on a two year span, to get a single batterie. Should have gotten the original one from the start

My experience has been totally different.
I am getting as much life from my "Kastar", and at least 2/3rd's as much from my "Wasabi".
Neither of us has any experience with the K-3iii, which this thread is allegedly about.

[FozzFoster]

it's an APS-C and people don't expect APS-C cameras to be in the $2K range.

The D500 MRSP is $2100 CAD.
The K-3 III MRSP is $2500 CAD.
Only ~15% increase, no?
Small increase to afford.
D500 is only 20MP compared to the K-3 III 26MP and more critically why would I buy a D500 these days? Canon has seemingly abandoned OVF. Also, consider Pentax minute market share.
Besides comparing outside the brand, let's compare within the brand - the K-3 III costs the same as a K-1 II, but it appears to me that the K-3 III may top the K-1 in all but format size.
I feel for my full frame brethren who plan to afford the K-1 III, the cost will surely increase respectively.

[Wheatfield]

I don't know if people are going to look at it that way - it's an APS-C and people don't expect APS-C cameras to be in the $2K range.

They will learn to expect it when full frame cameras are in the 3k+ range.
The cost of digital cameras used to be in the sensor. I recall that almost 1/3 of the cost of the *istD was the sensor. Production cost of chips has got to have come down a lot over the past 2 decades. I rather imagine that the price difference between an APS-C sensor and a full frame one isn't a that great any more.

[phoebus]

Short version : after a year using 3rd party batteries that were not that cheap, they all last 1/3 of the original. So i will end up spending twice the price of a single batterie, on a two year span, to get a single batterie. Should have gotten the original one from the start

I have two original batteries, and a lot of cheaper copies. I label my batteries with the purchase date, and none of the 3rd party batteries have survived more than 3 years with good endurance. My original K-5 battery from 2012 still holds it's charge fairly well and the K-1 battery from 2016 is still fully functional. I would say that 'buy well, buy once' might not fully describe the situation for batteries, but the evidence certainly favours the expensive originals. Suffice to say I will not bother with any more cheap ones.

As an aside, I am so pleased that Ricoh have stuck with the same battery for all the K-n models (where 'n' is a single digit or '01') (and 645). Keep it simple is a good plan.

[house]

The Nikon D500 was the exact same price as the K-3 III at release, except that the D500 came out five years ago. In 2021 dollars that's about $2200.

The thing is that five years is quite a lot in tech. Making the same though experiment over 15 years would make that obvious. No one would buy a camera with 15 year old specs for the inflation adjusted price people paid 15 years ago.

The general consensus is that mirrorless in itself is a huge leap because video, wysiwyg, zebras etc are considered important. Most of those buyers used to shopping for moar specs won't turn on a dime and say ooh ahh shutter feel and connection to the subject. In time they might though and that's Pentax gamble. I do think we're starting to reach a plateau where a considerable segment of photographers will feel that the tech is good enough and start looking for other qualities.

[Kunzite]

The general consensus is that mirrorless in itself is a huge leap because video, wysiwyg, zebras etc are considered important. Most of those buyers used to shopping for moar specs won't turn on a dime and say ooh ahh shutter feel and connection to the subject. In time they might though and that's Pentax gamble. I do think we're starting to reach a plateau where a considerable segment of photographers will feel that the tech is good enough and start looking for other qualities.

There is no such thing as a "general consensus". There's the large mass of insecure sheep which would go with what's more popular, but then some people are able to choose for themselves (and yes, some of them are choosing mirrorless).

As for the price, I believe you misunderstood - that was the price of an APS-C flagship, and Pentax making their own a few years later means they'd have to price it about the same.