[Class A]

Chris Gampat of the Phoblographer here.

Hi Chris,

welcome to pentaxforums! I'm sorry if you didn't receive the warm welcome you deserve.

It is great that you joined to make your comments and are available for a dialogue!

AFAIC, your "first impressions" article is clearly not a "camera review" (yet) and that should have required no further clarification.

In the hope that you'll find them useful, here are a few comments on your "First impressions" article:

I really like your product shots. They are very well done and I particularly like the lighting. You seemed to have used a second, warm light source and this gives the images a very nice touch.

I'm not too impressed with the K-3 sample images, though. They appear to be underexposed quite a bit. Most have very high contrast and the highlights are already blown out or wouldn't take any further exposure, so it seems a lower contrast (or lower contrast scenes) would be appropriate. But even some shots (e.g., with the three people waiting for the pedestrian light to turn green) that could have taken more exposure were left rather dark. I'm not sure why. I'm using a calibrated monitor, BTW.

Regarding the text; you write:

"but there are some things that are irking us a bit."

What are those things that irked you a bit so far?
Is it just the getting used to the camera controls?
Being critical is good in my book, but the reader should know what it is you are not convinced of yet.

"Essentially, the processor can mimic the look of having an AA filter on the sensor,"

This sounds as if the Anti-Aliasing is done in software.

However, the K-3 moves its sensor in either a linear or circular fashion (user choice) to create motion blur that replaces the blur a regular Bayer-AA-filter would have created. This innovative technique, I feel, deserves a better characterisation.


What do you mean by

"...make it feel as if its Vin Diesel on steroids."

I really don't know what you want to express with this comparison.
Do you feel the camera looks too muscular?

Does it have too many edges?

I feel that the K-7/K-5/K-3 are rather nice examples of "form follows function" and have very little in terms of visual language elements.

"Indeed, if you’re not a Pentax user natively it may take some time to get used to."

Isn't that a given?

Why do you feel that has to be mentioned? Do you feel that a Canon or Nikon DSLR does not take some time to get used to (for someone who is unfamiliar with them)?

I can tell from first hand experience that a Canon 6D was very hard to operate without having read a manual. I can use my Pentax DSLRs in the dark and find that all the controls are in very natural positions and they seem self-explanatory. If I did not know better -- after all there are many happy Canon users out there -- I'd say the Canon 6D was a user interface failure.

So unless a particular model really commits some user interface crimes then I find it not even worth mentioning that it takes time to get used to it, as the latter is the case with the vast majority of cameras, isn't it?

I believe there are a few things one can say objectively, e.g., that it is unnecessary to force the photographer to make their left hand leave the lens (that it normally supports and operates) in order to use the ISO button. Pentax DSLR place the ISO button in such a way that allows a "one hand" operation, i.e., the left hand can support the lens at all times. Even if it isn't a heavy long lens, being forced to change the grip seems wrong to me.

For photographers used to changing ISO the Nikon way, the Pentax approach may seem unnatural, but I feel the ergonomics should be evaluated in an as unbiased (in the sense of "not influenced by habit") way as possible.

I understand that the "first impressions" are not the final review yet and that you may change your mind about Pentax ergonomics, but even in a "first impressions" article I wonder what the reader gains by learning that you are not used to shooting with Pentax DSLRS (unless there is more than that, of course).

"though we’re more partial to the Nikon in terms of ergonomics."

Why is that?

Again, as the reader I'd like to know what it is you prefer about the Nikon ergonomics. Are menu items quicker to access? Are buttons in better places and why are these places better?

"We really wish that Pentax put an eye-sensor in though that shut off the LCD when your eye comes to the viewfinder."

I don't own a K-3 and haven't checked the manual, but I'm confident that you can just turn off the LCD status display. That saves battery power and all the necessary information is available from the top-LCD and/or viewfinder anyhow.

"When we allowed the camera to automatically pick a focusing point out of the entire range, the camera usually opted for the center despite us really not wanting to use the center."

How can any camera know what you want to focus on?
Cameras obviously cannot read minds so they must use some strategy to determine which of multiple focus targets to prioritise. Contrast, distance and other factors will be used to pick a target.
Are you saying that the K-3 prioritises the centre AF area more than other cameras?
Is that a repeatable observation?

I hope you do not perceive the above comments as niggling or hurt feelings of a Pentax fanboy. When ever Pentax deserves criticism in my eyes, I'm open and often vocal about it. So I'm not trying to question everything little bit of criticism you expressed towards the K-3, I'm just trying to help to make the article (or better, the final review) more useful for readers.

Thanks for making it this far!

And welcome to the forum again.

[civano]

The Phoblographer has completed his review and even mentioned Pentax Forums:

Review: Pentax K3 - The Phoblographer

[pinholecam]

What a load of bull.

Can't fault the camera so now faults lenses and option of lenses?
He got more CA out of his few weeks that I have had in 5yrs

He still emphasise that the AA is software....

IQ bested by D7100? Come on.... BS


This guy is just a Nikon fanboy who baited everyone here by posting here, pretending to be consultative.

[JinDesu]

Eh... I guess if the body lacks flaws, it's somewhat reasonable to find flaws in the full system to inform readers. Not that I agree with his criticisms of the lenses - I mean, lens for comparable lens, Pentax fares even or slightly better/worse than CaNikon. We just don't have as many lenses.

They should really clarify the AA filter sentence - it is moving the digital sensor to physically simulate blur, not a digital post process to simulate an AA filter.

[Class A]

The following quotes make it obvious that the author does not know what they are talking about:

"For example, if you want to change the focusing point manually, you need to reach all the way down to the bottom at the back, move the point around, and then shoot. "

"While they have wonderful bokeh and great image quality, Pentax’s legendary primes are a tad soft when compared with many modern optics."

"In our Sunny 16 tests we found the Pentax K3 to underexpose by 1/3rd of a stop. By modern standards, that is actually quite normal and leads us to believe that the camera houses a Sony sensor as their cameras tend to do this the most."

"So if you want the filter, you’ll need to enable the digital simulation that the camera can deliver."

"In terms of overall APS-C sensors, Fujifilm’s X Trans sensors are the best in the business."

"It’s a solid camera with excellent image quality, but held back a bit by the lenses. "

Rather embarrassing.

P.S.: I had hoped that the full review would feature some nice photography other than the product shots. No such luck, unfortunately.

[danny09]

What a load of bull.

Can't fault the camera so now faults lenses and option of lenses?
He got more CA out of his few weeks that I have had in 5yrs

He still emphasise that the AA is software....

IQ bested by D7100? Come on.... BS


This guy is just a Nikon fanboy who baited everyone here by posting here, pretending to be consultative.

Even if he is a Nikon fanboy, what difference does it make?

You are being too harsh on Chris Gampat IMO!
He isnt dissing the K3 but merely saying Canon and Nikon and Fuji have better offerings, a fact that we all know

[Class A]

...Canon and Nikon and Fuji have better offerings, a fact that we all know

Pardon?

This is just as wrong as many statements in the review.

[DogLover]

Even if he is a Nikon fanboy, what difference does it make?

You are being too harsh on Chris Gampat IMO!
He isnt dissing the K3 but merely saying Canon and Nikon and Fuji have better offerings, a fact that we all know

If you are speaking of the equipment in your list, then you are correct, the others do have better offerings. If not, then you are just trolling.

[RockvilleBob]

Just to check thoroughness of Phoblographer reviews I read the review of the Nikon D7100 Review: Nikon D7100 - The Phoblographer maybe I missed it int he review or the Pros and Cons but the poor continuous shooting performance of the Nikon D7100 is missing - Their review states:

• Continuous shooting speed up to approx. 7 fps to keep you ready for almost any moment

What is missing in this review is that in RAW mode the D7100 can only do this for a few shots and then the speed drops to 2 to 3 fps see

You Tube

You Tube

and imagine how the D7100 will keep you ready for almost any moment.



This slower rate of shooting is even noted in the review in PCMAG Nikon D7100 Review & Rating | PCMag.com which still gave the camera a good review but did point out this obvious weakness.



I guess I will hold PCMAG reviews in higher regard than I have in the past.

[twitch]

I do wonder how the Phoblographer gets through so many reviews of camera equipment, the output is huge. I guess quality is sacrificed for quality.

[Rondec]

Even if he is a Nikon fanboy, what difference does it make?

You are being too harsh on Chris Gampat IMO!
He isnt dissing the K3 but merely saying Canon and Nikon and Fuji have better offerings, a fact that we all know

What is Fuji doing in that list? I don't think you can argue that Fuji has a more complete portfolio of glass or equipment, or anything else. Clearly Canon and Nikon have more options with regard to glass and in particular with regard to flash photography. But that general disrespect of Pentax's glass is just silly.

Pentax glass is sharp. There was a post a while back which had comparison shots between the Sigma 35 f1.4 (which is probably sharper than Nikon's 35mm), and the FA 31 limited and the FA 31 measured up quite well. If people aren't getting sharp photos with Pentax glass, it isn't because the glass isn't good.

[Parallax]

Pardon?

This is just as wrong as many statements in the review.

Hey, cut him som slack. He has a blog, so he must be credible.

[bxf]

Pardon?

This is just as wrong as many statements in the review.

If you are speaking of the equipment in your list, then you are correct, the others do have better offerings. If not, then you are just trolling.

What is Fuji doing in that list? I don't think you can argue that Fuji has a more complete portfolio of glass or equipment, or anything else. Clearly Canon and Nikon have more options with regard to glass and in particular with regard to flash photography. But that general disrespect of Pentax's glass is just silly.

Pentax glass is sharp. There was a post a while back which had comparison shots between the Sigma 35 f1.4 (which is probably sharper than Nikon's 35mm), and the FA 31 limited and the FA 31 measured up quite well. If people aren't getting sharp photos with Pentax glass, it isn't because the glass isn't good.

Am I the only one who takes the wink at the end of danny09's post as meaning that he's not being serious?

[DogLover]

Am I the only one who takes the wink at the end of danny09's post as meaning that he's not being serious?

If that's the case, then he really needs to work on his sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek or whatever he was going for.

[tabl10s]

If you are speaking of the equipment in your list, then you are correct, the others do have better offerings. If not, then you are just trolling.

Hahaha.