Originally posted by civiletti Yes, of course, but more or less according to one's photographic needs and interests. I am almost always on a tripod with self-timer at iso 80, which I cannot use on the K-3. So, for me, it is mostly about sensor and lens. If I were into sports or photojournalism, the K-3 would be an improvement.
I agree, but that is for the most rational photographer. If the sensor has banding problems, missing ISO like the ISO 80, or anything else that is essential for a photographer, then its a good critique.
However, some people just bash the k-3 without the features it has. They also bash the noise it produces and how the sensor is not up to par with other cameras, while bashing on the dynamic range. Yet there are minor differences in each camera, and it is all up to the features that one person needs. If the iso of nikon d7100's camera is needed, those 40 more points of iso that the d7100 has against the k-3, then go for it! Yet if people say it's not up to par with nikon's, well it is not that big of a difference. That 0.3 ev is not that noticable, and even dxomark says that it isn't!
Yet, there are people who do see that there are some features that have been removed for other essential features for a targeted audience to enjoy. What you stated is exactly how people should view a camera. Not, "That sensor is terrible, I'm not buying."
No one said that, but I have a feeling that someone will eventually post that, and it is just despicable (imo).