[Rondec]

DPR is generally objective in its reviews, and given the amount of time they spent with the K-3 I'd say they about nailed it.

Is this a fast action camera? It can be used as such, but I doubt any sports shooters would opt for it. Is it heavy compared to its size? Hell yes - over 2 pounds with the battery grip. Add to that the amount of heavy 30-year-old glass you can mount and your bag can suffer serious bloat.

But the main features are really at the top of this class of camera: great image quality, excellent noise performance at low ISO, good at high ISO. Excellent all-metal build, excellent viewfinder and LCD monitor.

And they are right about the AA simulator: mainly hoopla to offer a crutch to those who are unsure about buying a camera without an AA filter. I shoot a lot of vineyards and moire can be an issue in the background - but is always fixable in post. I've never used the AA simulator and I really like the sharpness the K-3 sensor delivers.

So the 83% is about right: DPR rarely if ever scores above 89%. So given this review and DxO raving about the sensor I think we can say Ricoh has done a good job. Best APS-C DSLR on the market!

You mean the second best APS-C SLR on the market. Clearly it is outclassed by the D7100.

[Ayoh]

According to their test the Fuji X-T1 has better continuous focus performance. Now they do not show any supporting test results or specify what lenses were used - especially since fuji has no long lenses). But if is true that is surely embarrassing. Why can't the managers at Pentax understand that AF is an important consideration for a lot of customers and that they need to put significant effort in the design. Same goes for video.

[ENicolas]

You mean the second best APS-C SLR on the market. Clearly it is outclassed by the D7100.

I don't know - they seem about neck-and-neck.

[dgrPhotos]

I used the D7100 for a couple of months and it would be hard to say which is "better". I can definitely say the lenses I have for Nikon focus faster and that would be the advantage I would give to Nikon.

[Class A]

still at 83% vs D7100 at 85% and on par with 70D at 83%

That's probably due to the fact that they classify the K-3 as a "semi-pro" whereas the Nikon D7100 is just a "mid-level" camera.

I don't see the logic in harping on JPG issues (some of them to do with default settings) for a "semi-pro" camera.

As I predicted, they did not include "Built-in sensor-shift shake reduction effectively stabilizes all mountable lenses" as a "Pros" point (again).

The following pros for the D7100

• 3.5mm Stereo mic and headphone inputs
• 100% viewfinder coverage

apply to the K-3 as well but are not mentioned as pros for the K-3.

I'll read the review now; it is a bit sad to find so many issues in the first two minutes.

[JPT]

It's a good review. Full of useful information about how the camera performs. Just don't fixate too much on the numbers at the end because most people would place a different weighting on the various factors.

The findings of the AF test are just the same as the PF review anyway. Ricoh needs to produce lenses with better focusing motors. Few would disagree with that.

Actually, this review has pushed me towards getting a K-5II rather than waiting for a price drop for the K-3. So in that sense it has been informative to my purchasing decision, which is how a review should be.

[monochrome]

Originally posted by monochrome Quote I haven't read the revew.

You should. It is actually pretty good, except of course for the endless digest of the menus...

I really can't abide that place, good, bad or indifferent.

AF performance on a car moving towards me is not a standard the I use to evaluate a camera. In my entire life I have never taken a photograph of anything moving toward me so quickly that FOCUS could not keep up - Auto Focus or Manual Focus. If I needed that capability I probably would get a Nikon.

Again, as I wrote before, I don't read any of their reviews because I am not in the group they deem the market standard. If they evaluate Pentax against the standard for which it is designed and rate Pentax's attainment of THAT standard, then and only then would it be a fair review.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-10-2014 at 09:28 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

I really can't abide that place, good, bad or indifferent.

AF performance on a car moving towards me is not a standard the I use to evaluate a camera. In my entire life I have never taken a photograph of anything moving toward me so quickly that FOCUS could not keep up - Auto Focus or Manual Focus. If I needed that capability I probably would get a Nikon.

with you so far...

If they evaluate Pentax against the standard for which it is designed and rate Pentax's attainment of THAT standard, then and only then would it be a fair review.

That's nuts. The 'standard' of the 7D was shoddy 2009 high-ISO performance. If I designed a camera today with the 7D sensor-performance as my goal then dpreview would chastise me for it and would be correct in doing so.

[Rondec]

with you so far...



That's nuts. The 'standard' of the 7D was shoddy 2009 high-ISO performance. If I designed a camera today with the 7D sensor-performance as my goal then dpreview would chastise me for it and would be correct in doing so.

By that standard, they should "chastise" all Canon sensors. The 70D, which got nice remarks from DP Review with regard to "high iso performance" scores exactly the same as the 7D with regard to dynamic range, sports iso score (854 vs. 926) on DXO Mark testing. Maybe jpegs are a different animal, but the K3 kills the 70D in testing.

Class A probably has it right, that the K3 is somehow put into a different class from the 70D and D7100 (semi-pro versus mid level) and so it gets treated differently. Not sure why. Price wise they are pretty close.

[monochrome]

with you so far...



That's nuts. The 'standard' of the 7D was shoddy 2009 high-ISO performance. If I designed a camera today with the 7D sensor-performance as my goal then dpreview would chastise me for it and would be correct in doing so.

So, we shouldn't evaluate Pentax as a smaller, higher quality, ergonomically thoughful, field camera, a COMPETITIVE but not class leading action camera, with excellent and distinctive IQ and a tradition of fine optics to go with it?

We are compelled to evaluate Pentax as if those characteristics at which Pentax leads don't add value, but a mite slower autofocus in two-decade-old DA lens designs is a primary detractor?

That's nuts. Buy a Nikon then.

I hope everyone is happy if Ricoh succumbs to the Borg and releases a CaNikonyTax FF just to make Richard Butler's review acceptable.

[ElJamoquio]

By that standard, they should "chastise" all Canon sensors.

Yup. They're clearly inferior and should be marked as such. In the larger scheme of things the camera can still be recommended of course.

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 06:26 AM ----------

So, we shouldn't evaluate...

That's not at all what I said. In fact I agreed that the AF wasn't that big of a deal to me. I'm fine with it.

Nevertheless (if the AF is slower) DPR should make a note of such and attach whatever weighting they deem is appropriate. I don't care if Pentax wanted BIC AF or a MF camera, Pentax's design intent is of no concern to me. The actual performance of the design for my needs is what is critical.

[Rupert]

I read the review, it is pretty impressive in my view. I was troubled by this line in the conclusion....

"At which point it's only really the Fujifilm X-T1 that can match the K-3 in every major respect, and that's some pretty serious competition."

I am a Pentax shooter, but also admire Fuji and my two little Fuji X10 and X20 cameras. I have been contemplating the X-T1, so have done a lot of reading, forum searching, and feature/result comparisons with the K3. A lot of time has been spent viewing the use and results of both cameras.
I find that statement to be pure BS. The X-T1 has striking good looks and is smaller, but it ends there. The K3 is more camera by a wide margin for those that want a FULL Featured camera with literally thousands of available lenses and enough MP to crop to your hearts content. We could make a list of the K3 advantages, and it would be long....so how did DPR come up with this quirky statement?

If.....I buy the X-T1 it won't be because it beats the K3, and it certainly isn't a better value, it will be because of the good looks and my past satisfaction with my X10/X20. Which makes me not too smart...but smarter than the idiot that wrote that in DPR.

Regards!

[monochrome]

Pentax's design intent is of no concern to me. The actual performance of the design for my needs is what is critical.

Pentax, then, didn't design a camera to meet your needs. Doing so was not their intent. Pentax designed a camera to meet my needs. K3 meets my needs far better than any other camera available.

However, since all cameras are apparently judged against a hypothetical standard set of needs imputed from DPR's correct or imagined bias in favor of AF speed on a subject moving quickly towards the camera, a Pentax camera can not and will not at this time receive an accurate review at DPR.

In reality the only real problem with the review is the problem with all reviews - an assigned numerical value to the camera so that it can be ranked against other cameras. The body of the review is fairly accurate (excepting the lack of attention given to several differentiating Pentax features, as discussed above) - it is the numeric rating value that is confounding.

[Fauxton]

You mean the second best APS-C SLR on the market. Clearly it is outclassed by the D7100.

DPReview rates the K3 in the Semi Pro category with what would assume a different scale to rate it with. The 7100 and the D70 are rated as Mid Level. So the fact that the 7100 is 85 or the K3 was 83 is immaterial. No bragging rights to the 7100 or 70D for having a higher score in a lower category.
And that is if you even understand DPReview scoring system. Byzantine at best.

Lastly and frankly I'm glad the DPReview site is free. I would not have paid for that review. It was poorly done, biased and late.

[jsherman999]

As I predicted, they did not include "Built-in sensor-shift shake reduction effectively stabilizes all mountable lenses" as a "Pros" point (again).

How on earth can that not be considered a 'Pro'. It's a huge, definitive pro. Perhaps they'll modify the summary adding it if approached about it