[repaap]

For me they look great! PP incamera, it shows power of this thing IMO.

Edit. WB, color all just there. Nice!

[Frater]

No, it looks like the Japanese version is out the camera, and German came through some CS6 post-processing (check the name and exif data).

Yes you are right! In the metadata's Software tag it sais: "Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)". How cheeky! But would you think they have done anything to the noise in CS6, which makes the noise worse?

I hope that rather sooner than later someone will deposit his/her RAWs somewhere in the Internet, e.g. showing an evening sky, so that one can validate the untampered, natural noise level at ISO=100 and higher. I'm more interested in RAW than in JPEG anyway.

[kenyee]

Pentax put USB3.0 in this new camera, which might come in handy. I myself never used USB port on any dSLR camera due to its slow file transfering speed. But now I'm gonna use this port to dump the pictures to my PC through USB3.0 connection that's for sure.

As mentioned in one of the other threads, they put in USB 3.0 HI-SPEED.
This is totally different than USB 3.0 SUPER-SPEED.

Hi-Speed is basically USB 2.0 speed:
"In USB 3.0, dual-bus architecture is used to allow both USB 2.0 (Full Speed, Low Speed, or High Speed) and USB 3.0 (Super Speed) operations to take place simultaneously"
USB 3.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it's basically a USB 3.0 connector on the camera body?
This IMHO is a sneaky thing to do which just makes me question other specs. I know this is called marketing, but it's to the point where it's deceptive....like "4K video" which is really timelapse frames autocompiled into 4K video

BTW, I pixel peeped this image sample:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3/ex/img/ex-pic01.jpg
Anyone know where the focus point is? Nothing seems crispy sharp if you pixel peep (unlike what I saw when pixel peeping the K10D)...

[snake]

How easy is it to switch between center and selection focus points?

For example, on the K5, I normally have it set to center, but then when I see the opportunity to shoot someone in portrait, I immediately hit the switch and it's been selected already for the point to the right of the center in a horizontal plane, I line it up with the eyes, and I'm done.

I find this direct access fairly crucial.

Frank,

Can you address this question, please?

[Frater]

BTW, I pixel peeped this image sample:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3/ex/img/ex-pic01.jpg
Anyone know where the focus point is? Nothing seems crispy sharp if you pixel peep (unlike what I saw when pixel peeping the K10D)...

I can't confirm your complaint. Yes I complained about this very JPEG as well, but only regarding its unnatural green coloring.

Regarding the resolution and details, I find it absolutely stunning, given the high sensor resolution. The "sharpness" setting as per Exif is strong, but I still don't see artefacts of over-sharpening. The JPEG processor does a good job in lens-adaptive sharpening from the center to the corners (as well as removing CA etc). I'm impressed here, to an extent, that I hope it isn't a cheat

They have chosen a lens (FA 43mm?) which seems to cope well with the sensor resolution.

I guess the reason for your complaint: are you surfing using the Internet Explorer? This one (and possibly other browsers) soften images severely, if viewed at other zoom levels than 100%. Then you should download the image do disk, and pixel-peep it using a non-softening viewer (could be even the Windows' built-in photo viewer).

[repaap]

I can't confirm your complaint. Yes I complained about this very JPEG as well, but only regarding ist unnatural green coloring.

Regarding the resolution and details, I find it pretty stunning, given the high sensor resolution. The "sharpness" setting as per Exif is strong, but I still don't see artefacts of over-sharpening. The JPEG processor does a good job in lens-adaptive sharpening from the center to the corners (as well as removing CA etc).

They have chosen a lens (FA 43mm?) which seems to cope well with the sensor resolution.

I guess the reason for your complaint: are you surfing using the Internet Explorer? This one (and possibly other browsers) soften images severely, if viewed at other zoom levels than 100%. Then you should download the image do disk, and pixel-peep it using a non-softening viewer (could be even the Windows' built-in photo viewer).

I agree with you in this. Even on my Ipadmini(wich is far from sharp and great color displaying) they do look sharp. And I do actually like colors too. Especially that frog, wich eye is super sharp and full of detail...

[JinDesu]

I think it is simple to just say - manufacturer sample images tend to suck. Until we can get full resolution, lightly processed images on sharp lenses at their sweet points, it's difficult to clearly say if it is the camera's fault, or otherwise.

For example, when the D800 came out, Nikon's sample images were quite terrible - they shot a winter scene with branches at something like F16, and all the detail was blurred. If we had based the camera on those shots, it would have been pretty badly panned.

I am under the impression that sample images from manufacturers are aimed more at attracting the average eye, than showing off the sensor capabilities.

[repaap]

Sample images from manufactures must be quite neutral...there is no other way. We will see, proper images will be here soon.

[kadajawi]

I think the USB3.0 is just for using a cable to connect to your computer, same as the previous USB2.0 interface. This would save people needing a dedicated memory card reader. Not for conneting to a HDD or SSD.

That's too bad, cause how awesome would it be if we could just plug in an external hard drive and copy the files to the hard drive... for backup purposes, to get more space on the card, ...

[RBellavance]

used CTE with reversal setting. The rest were spread across different settings: Landscape, portrait, natural, bright.
Not a bad idea to show five different camera settings, no?

Not at all, it is a good idea.

Why pick on CTE in one shot?

I was replying the the person who was complaining about the color rendition of the green in the CTE image...

[Frater]

Nikon's sample images were quite terrible - they shot a winter scene with branches at something like F16, and all the detail was blurred.

Here, Ricoh shot the green scene at F11, where I would have expected that diffraction blur must creep in at this resolution. So I do admire the JPEG processor, for its successful diffraction blur removal (assuming the image isn't a cheat alltogether)

But before we get too excited, let's keep in mind, that Ricoh uses perfect, flawless mint lenses for making the shots. But the lenses available for purchase always have a slight flaw, e.g. near to an edge or to a corner. Or lets call it a slight deviation from the lens blur metadata supplied to the JPEG processor. I'm afraid that the more sophisticated a deblurring algorithm is, the more it is vulnerable to such deviations, and may generate surprisingly strong artefacts as a result. So I hope the processor will be tolerant and will happily adapt to lenses with usual slight optical tolerances. Actually I almost doubt it, because this would require an ad-hoc analysis of the RAW image data, requiring a huge amount of processing power?

So before we know the JPEG processor's response to non-pefect average lenses (those available to us), I better shouldn't praise it too much...

[kenyee]

I guess the reason for your complaint: are you surfing using the Internet Explorer? This one (and possibly other browsers) soften images severely, if viewed at other zoom levels than 100%. Then you should download the image do disk, and pixel-peep it using a non-softening viewer (could be even the Windows' built-in photo viewer).

Firefox. Click on the image and it goes to 100%. But it could be it being shot at f/11 w/ 1/8sec shutter speed.
The girl photos were a bit better, but not really ultrasharp either, though more of what I expected.

[jaad75]

But would you think they have done anything to the noise in CS6, which makes the noise worse?

Yes, first of all, they over-sharpened it.

BTW, I pixel peeped this image sample:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/engli...g/ex-pic01.jpg
Anyone know where the focus point is? Nothing seems crispy sharp if you pixel peep (unlike what I saw when pixel peeping the K10D)...

It's f/11 - the DOF is pretty deep and on this sensor diffraction starts consuming the resolution just above f/5.6, I guess...

[jaad75]

The girl photos were a bit better, but not really ultrasharp either, though more of what I expected.

Are you kidding? They are ultrasharp, just not oversharpened.

[Frater]

Talking about the girl http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3/ex/img/ex-pic03.jpg there are possibly other good news: If the anti-alias filter simulation (the sensor movement during exposure) was switched off, then the promised digital removal of aliasing artefacts would hold its promise. I don't see any artefacts here. I remember when Hoya presented their girl sample for the K-5iis, I saw slight aliasing color defects along some blond hairs in focus. But here with the K-3 they seem gone. On the other hand, all hairs are somewhat thick , which MAY be a hint, that the anti-alias filter simulation was switched on actually. I probably would have done this in this situation (if I was the photographer), because blond hairs are risky by nature.

One way or they other, it's good that one has the choice now.