[PALADIN85020]

I subscribe to both Shutterbug and Popular Photography. I find the latter publication more informative and useful. I also let my Shutterbug subscription lapse - too much advertising and super-technical stuff designed for PhotoShop experts and studio lighting freaks. They did offer a great deal on a 3-year subscription for peanuts (must be getting desperate), so I took them up on it, hoping they'd publish an occasional gem or two. I look forward to Popular Photography every month - usually good practical info, reviews, and pictures I can learn from. Shutterbug - not so much.

John

[CDW]

Months ago I told my wife to not renew my subscription to Shutterbug when the current one expires. The magazine seems directed towards studio/commercial and wedding/portrait photography which is of no interest to me as a landscape/nature photographer. The magazine has been slimmed down from the old days when it was printed on cheap newsprint paper stock and loaded with mail order ads. But the reviews aren't very revealing and generally don't provide much depth. I would also agree Popular Photography is more interesting although it pretty much caters to the Canikon crowd. It's pretty difficult to find any US print photography publication spending much time reviewing anything outside of the entry and mid-level of the market. DP Review is OK but I find I actually prefer Imaging-Resource in terms of a balance between text/testing and ability to download RAW files for comparison purposes.

[slipdm16]

I received a Shutterbug subscription as a gift (I had actually wanted Pop Photo), but nonetheless opened the June issue today to find the K-3 review! Interestingly, the pictures they posted of the camera had the 18-55 DA-L WR lens included - not sure if this was a "fair" test given the lens used, but thought they gave a good (positive) review of the camera, the only negatives were canned (no articulating viewfinder, WiFi, GPS) and color accuracy (blue shift towards violet), but this wasn't that relevant as I assume they meant OOC JPEGs, not RAW. They praised the resolution lines, build quality and low noise (luminance), but as someone else said, omitted the AA-simulator.

Anyways, about the magazine, I took it with me on some flights, and it's a good quick read (if you skip the ads) with some interesting articles on technique but as another reviewer said, focuses on wedding/industry professionals a lot. They also get stuck in the weeds with technical details and don't give enough real-world perspective to their reviews.

[Winder]

I received the June 2014 issue of Shutterbug today and was completely dumbfounded to find that NOT ONCE did they mention the K3 ability to simulate AA filter with sensor shake reduction technology! Probably its most groundbreaking feature!

Now I am fairly new to Shutterbug so don't really know its' reputation. But this really undercuts my confidence in the publication.

I have shot around 7,000 frames so far, and I have yet to turn it on to even play or test it. The 24MP APS-C sensor shouldn't need an AA filter very often. This is technology that would have been useful on the K-5IIs.

[lsimpkins]

not sure if this was a "fair" test given the lens used, but thought they gave a good (positive) review of the camera, the only negatives were canned (no articulating viewfinder, WiFi, GPS) and color accuracy (blue shift towards violet).

First sentence in the review mentions a "massive body". This immediately made me question the validity of all that followed. Another major complaint was highly saturated colors (in the default "bright" color mode - duh)! This, like their other reviews, was based on testing by BetterNet which is TIPA affiliated. Didn't TIPA just designate the K-3 one of their 2014 award recipients? The overall tone of the review wouldn't seem to support that.

[CDW]

There were certainly loose ends in the review. As an example, the comment about the highly saturated colors of the LCD display in the default mode, should have been accompanied by a statement of the fact that it is easily changed in the menu system and of no relevance if you're shooting RAW. Likewise, the use of 'massive' to describe it's size was a bit strange, considering the camera is built to so-called professional standards of construction and weather sealing, and actually is substantially smaller than Nikon and Canon DSLR equivalents.

One can argue the need of the adjustable AA filter but it is an interesting technological design point that was completely ignored whereas it was a point of interest in all the other K3 reviews by other sites and publications.

I did send an email to Shutterbug expressing my dissatisfaction with the review and received a reply to the effect the AA filter system and other technical points would be discussed in an upcoming issue where the K3 is named a Product of the Year. We shall see.