[osv]

thx for the review, the stills portion of it was very helpful in making a buying decision.

the video review, however, was not so good.

1) no mention of the bitrate that the video and audio were being recorded at?

2) internal mic is mono, but does the external stereo mic jack record in mono or stereo? if it records in stereo, can the audio levels be controlled independently of each other? is the audio level in general controlled via an easily accessible menu, or ?? is there an external audio volume control knob? these things matter, because audio is 50% of the presentation.

3) "K-3 will autofocus during recording"... is irrelevant, because you shouldn't be using autofocus at all while recording, that's how amateurs use cheap camcorders, not how prosumer/professional video is shot... it's good that you covered it, tho, because most still photographers don't know how to shoot video, so they will unfortunately factor it into their buying decision.

[RockvilleBob]

Price comparison from B&H
K-3 ($1296.95) + Pentax 60-250mm F4 ($1396.95) = $2693.30
D610($1996.95) + Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 ($2396.95) = $4393.90
So if the prices I got from B&H are correct just the Pentax K-3 and Pentax 60-250 costs 12% more than just the Nikon lens
and the K-3 costs 35% less than the D610
And the Pentax combination tested costs 61% of the Nikon combination tested
How about an apples to apples comparison on all features including auto focus?
Is the comparison saying the choice a buyer faces is the Pentax solution for $2700 versus the Nikon solution for $4400?
The price of a 2014 Corvette Stingray Coupe is $51,000 so when we will compare performance versus a car costing $31,300 such as the 2014 Nissan Maxima are we surprised the Corvette will outperform the Maxima? And if so will we then say the Nissan engineers need to rethink what they are doing to compete with the Corvette?
If I had the money to buy a Corvette and that is the performance I wanted, then I agree, I would not look at the Maxima. However if I wanted the best performing $31,000 range car then the Maxima might be one of the cars I would compare others to when making a decision.
Let's get real on the comparison and why many people like me buy Pentax, price vs performance.
When evaluating the Nissan Maxima I do not feel Car and Driver would compare its performance to the Corvette and say Nissan has a way to go. If my mindset is to buy the best DSLR based on auto focus sports performance (much like buying a car for 0-60 performance) I would then agree with the AF comparison made in the forum and perhaps another camera/lens combination would even be faster with more keepers.
Overall I like the reviews in the forum and feel they provide good information. However the AF comparison and the conclusions are way off base.
It may be an apples to apples comparison would yield the same results - then that would be significant.

[Brazeal]

Or buy a D600 for $1500 and a Tamron 70-200 VC for ~ $1299 for a total of $2799 and get similar AF performance to the Nikon 70-200 VRII, or very close to it... If you don't want risk the shutter oil/dust problem on the D600, then add $500 to that for the D610. Is the better AF performance and better high ISO performance worth an extra $100-500? It is to me. To each their own...

[Pheo]

Price comparison from B&H
K-3 ($1296.95) + Pentax 60-250mm F4 ($1396.95) = $2693.30
D610($1996.95) + Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 ($2396.95) = $4393.90
So if the prices I got from B&H are correct just the Pentax K-3 and Pentax 60-250 costs 12% more than just the Nikon lens
and the K-3 costs 35% less than the D610
And the Pentax combination tested costs 61% of the Nikon combination tested
How about an apples to apples comparison on all features including auto focus?
Is the comparison saying the choice a buyer faces is the Pentax solution for $2700 versus the Nikon solution for $4400?
The price of a 2014 Corvette Stingray Coupe is $51,000 so when we will compare performance versus a car costing $31,300 such as the 2014 Nissan Maxima are we surprised the Corvette will outperform the Maxima? And if so will we then say the Nissan engineers need to rethink what they are doing to compete with the Corvette?
If I had the money to buy a Corvette and that is the performance I wanted, then I agree, I would not look at the Maxima. However if I wanted the best performing $31,000 range car then the Maxima might be one of the cars I would compare others to when making a decision.
Let's get real on the comparison and why many people like me buy Pentax, price vs performance.
When evaluating the Nissan Maxima I do not feel Car and Driver would compare its performance to the Corvette and say Nissan has a way to go. If my mindset is to buy the best DSLR based on auto focus sports performance (much like buying a car for 0-60 performance) I would then agree with the AF comparison made in the forum and perhaps another camera/lens combination would even be faster with more keepers.
Overall I like the reviews in the forum and feel they provide good information. However the AF comparison and the conclusions are way off base.
It may be an apples to apples comparison would yield the same results - then that would be significant.

This was the conclusion I came too - FF is much more affordable but it doesn't mean I can afford it.

Loving my K3 right now

[danny09]

Price comparison from B&H
K-3 ($1296.95) + Pentax 60-250mm F4 ($1396.95) = $2693.30
D610($1996.95) + Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 ($2396.95) = $4393.90
So if the prices I got from B&H are correct just the Pentax K-3 and Pentax 60-250 costs 12% more than just the Nikon lens
and the K-3 costs 35% less than the D610
And the Pentax combination tested costs 61% of the Nikon combination tested
How about an apples to apples comparison on all features including auto focus?
Is the comparison saying the choice a buyer faces is the Pentax solution for $2700 versus the Nikon solution for $4400?
The price of a 2014 Corvette Stingray Coupe is $51,000 so when we will compare performance versus a car costing $31,300 such as the 2014 Nissan Maxima are we surprised the Corvette will outperform the Maxima? And if so will we then say the Nissan engineers need to rethink what they are doing to compete with the Corvette?
If I had the money to buy a Corvette and that is the performance I wanted, then I agree, I would not look at the Maxima. However if I wanted the best performing $31,000 range car then the Maxima might be one of the cars I would compare others to when making a decision.
Let's get real on the comparison and why many people like me buy Pentax, price vs performance.
When evaluating the Nissan Maxima I do not feel Car and Driver would compare its performance to the Corvette and say Nissan has a way to go. If my mindset is to buy the best DSLR based on auto focus sports performance (much like buying a car for 0-60 performance) I would then agree with the AF comparison made in the forum and perhaps another camera/lens combination would even be faster with more keepers.
Overall I like the reviews in the forum and feel they provide good information. However the AF comparison and the conclusions are way off base.
It may be an apples to apples comparison would yield the same results - then that would be significant.

Rockvillebob is on a roll..fast and furious...well said !

[RockvilleBob]

Or buy a D600 for $1500 and a Tamron 70-200 VC for ~ $1299 for a total of $2799 and get similar AF performance, or very close to it... If you don't want risk the shutter oil/dust problem on the D600, then add $500 to that for the D610. Is the better AF performance and better high ISO performance worth an extra $100-500? It is to me. To each their own...

That was my original suggestion - if you want to compare the AF of the K-3 @ $1296.95 to the AF performance of the D610 @$1996.95 ( a 55% increase in price over the K-3) then why not use the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens, a lens common to both. For 55% more the D610 should do better but would it be enough for those with a lot of K mount lenses to add another body and lens mount? Probably not a big enough performance advantage for they type of shooting I do but for others it might be justified.
My suggestion was to do the test again and make the lens common.

[David&karen]

We still have a question about the PDAF: will it prioritize a eye on facial pictures? Here is the example: do a pic of someone where they hold their hands palm up in front of their face but to the sides so as to not obscure the face. Leave the K3 on 27 point AFs and let it focus. On Nikon and newer Canon bodies the camera locks onto the closest eye(if the head is turned) or on both eyes and ignores the hands completely. There programmed to do that and if your a wedding photog it can be a great help to get the brides face in focus. Can someone please try this 10-15 times and see what % it will do it? On the Nikon it locks around 95% of the time as described, Canon I don't know for sure since I left that platform at the end of 2009.

D&K

[Brazeal]

My suggestion was to do the test again and make the lens common.

Sounds good to me!

[IDude]

We stand behind the following lenses as the best of the best from Pentax (or for Pentax):
FA 31mm limited
DA 35mm limited macro
DA 70mm limited
FA 77mm limited
DFA 100mm macro
DA* 55mm
DA* 60-250mm
DA* 300mm
Sigma 35mm F1.4
Sigma 85mm F1.4
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8

FA 43mm and DA 40mm aren't the best any more? Did I miss something?

[Dave L]

Helpful review for still photographers but disappointing for those for whom video is also important to see no comparison of video quality between K-5 and K-3. Not helpful for those with or without K-5 who are thinking of upgrading to K-5II/s or K-3 and who need video to be as good as possible (especially handheld).

The suspicion will be that K-3 video isn't as good in some important respects as K-5 video, so the comparison was left out (unlike in the stills sections)..

[philbaum]

I thought the review was terrific, in many ways, but choked on the AF comment that the K3 was not up to the competition when only one attribute was tested, and that against a FF camera with f2.8 lens compared to the F4 lens used on the K3.

Also, I expect the low light focusing ability to -3ev is an excellent attribute for someone wanting to do low light camera work. I cannot find anywhere on depreview whether other cameras, especially aps size sensors, even have this capability. The Canon D5 Mark II has f2.8 rating center focus sensor, but not sure it has the 4 f2.8s that the K3 has. My point being there are other attributes as well besides "tracking" such as accuracy. To dismiss the K3 AF system as "not up to the competition" is unfair when only 1 attribute and one camera, a FF at that, was used. Already some comments to the article are saying that they will not buy the K3 because the AF is lacking.

I understand testing limitations, but please don't imply a more comprehensive conclusion than the simple AF test would justify.

[shaX 07]

Great review, awesome camera! I would buy one if I thought I knew how to use it properly!

[djc737]

I thought the review was terrific, in many ways, but choked on the AF comment that the K3 was not up to the competition when only one attribute was tested, and that against a FF camera with f2.8 lens compared to the F4 lens used on the K3.

Also, I expect the low light focusing ability to -3ev is an excellent attribute for someone wanting to do low light camera work. I cannot find anywhere on depreview whether other cameras, especially aps size sensors, even have this capability. The Canon D5 Mark II has f2.8 rating center focus sensor, but not sure it has the 4 f2.8s that the K3 has. My point being there are other attributes as well besides "tracking" such as accuracy. To dismiss the K3 AF system as "not up to the competition" is unfair when only 1 attribute and one camera, a FF at that, was used. Already some comments to the article are saying that they will not buy the K3 because the AF is lacking.

I understand testing limitations, but please don't imply a more comprehensive conclusion than the simple AF test would justify.

This actually caused me to change my mind about getting a K-3. I do birding photography and am sometimes embarrassed by the lack of proper AF in my K-5. My birding club is Canon exclusive. While they are blasting away, I am watching the K-5 trying to focus 15 feet away when the action is 40 feet out. I had hoped that the K-3 would at least match the latest C bodies. The K-5 and the FA limiteds are great in the city on the street but it just can't hang with the big boys out in the field. Seems I will be returning to Canon for that aspect of my photography.

[derekkite]

This actually caused me to change my mind about getting a K-3. I do birding photography and am sometimes embarrassed by the lack of proper AF in my K-5. My birding club is Canon exclusive. While they are blasting away, I am watching the K-5 trying to focus 15 feet away when the action is 40 feet out. I had hoped that the K-3 would at least match the latest C bodies. The K-5 and the FA limiteds are great in the city on the street but it just can't hang with the big boys out in the field. Seems I will be returning to Canon for that aspect of my photography.

I would try one before selling your whole kit. I do birding and experienced the same frustration with the K-5. The K-3 is a huge leap forward. My K-3 with DA*300 doesnt match my friend with his D7100 and VR 300 2.8, but I didn't spend close to $6k on the lens either. It finds focus accurately, the focus points are small enough to focus on the detail that I want, it is less distracted by intervening brush etc. I'm still at the point where I'm seeing what it does, and I've also found situations where it won't do what I want. But compared to the K-5, in most cases it just does what I want it to do. I found that I was fighting the K-5 to try to get it to focus on what I wanted. With the K-3 it seems that I haven't quite figured out how to tell it in some circumstances.

I disagree with the review on that point. With my shorter lenses and screw drive the PDAF is not dramatically better, except for the low light capabilities. It is a different story with the long lenses. It is much improved. I'm taking shots already that I didn't bother pointing the K-5 at. I have no idea how it compares to the Canon and Nikon comparable offerings. How about a 300mm f4 aps-c comparison? Or a bigma on all three?

Take a look at the 300mm and longer lens club. There are a few shooters with the K-3 showing their stuff and sharing their experiences.

[dosdan]

The problem with the test is that the most awaited question, the quality of the AF, which has been so seriously lacking up to a least the K-5, was answered rather subjectively.

For me, who tries to shoot a lot of sports with the K-5, it's the AF.C performance that I really want to know about. The adjustment speed of the Sigma 70-200/f2.8 HSM should be sufficient to reduce the factor of lens AF speed from the mix, allowing more attention to be focused on the camera's AF.C tracking performance. I agree with falconeye that the logical comparison in the Nikon range would be a D7100, not the D610, both with Sigma 70-200/F2.8 HSM lenses.

It would be nice to have standardised AF.C tests. This would require shooting from the same location, with equivalent lenses & settings, of say a car coming at a certain angle and speed towards-across the camera. Ideally, the lighting needs to be similar to ensure repeatability, if not from day to day, at least on the same day. This test is done by a French site (http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/editorial/labo/reflex_2012.pdf, http://www.fnac.com/Pentax-K-5-II-Noir-Obj-Pentax-Smc-DA-18-55-mm-f-3-5-5-6-...6/w-4#labofnac), but not widely known outside Europe.

Another thing is subject colour. Tests could include similarly- and a differently-coloured subject to the background to determine how well colour is being used to maintain the lock on the subject.

Also a similarly-coloured nearer, unwanted subject, e.g. emulating the situation of two players in similar jerseys but one spectating and one acting. During the pan, the influence of the unwanted nearer object coming into frame would be evaluated. Ideally, this requires a motorised panning head.

Years ago, I remember that consumer videocam SR tests were standardised by having the camera on a vibration table at two speeds to emulate muscle tremors and shooting a video clip of a subject from the camera. (Was it on Jim Kerr's DVSPOT website?) This wasn't very high-tech, but it was good at communicating how well the SR performed. In 2013, it shouldn't be hard to perform a standardised DSLR SR test.

Dan.