How would you improve the K-3

Parry · 03-08-2014, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Built-in GPS?

Yes, that and WiFi.

If we're not going down the FF route, a different type of crop sensor. Like a Foveon or X-Trans . . . possibly. Something with much less noise at much higher ISO. Also with more dynamic range as we've slipped a wee bit in this department, not that I've really noticed a difference over the K-5IIs.

More focus points spread further across the sensor. Let's make the rule of thirds easier without the need to crop. AF and tracking AF to be class leading, only in the Nikon D4 class I mean.

Even more buffer capacity and the ability to optimize use the ultra fast cards (200mbps+).

An ability to project focus peaking through the viewfinder so you can use focus peaking without having to use Live View. Dunno if this is even possible?

No more mirror flops and battery issues. My K-3 still refuses to switch on about 10% of the time requiring battery removal to fix.

Make the selector knob (M, TAv, Av etc) out of metal or much better grade of plastic.

Better USB ports. I can't get the cable into the micro-USB port anymore on the K-3. Dunno what happened there? Also a better door on the ports than just a bit of rubber. Also try to get it down to one or two ports for charging and communication link.

Usual evolution of screen resolution above 9XX,XXX whatever dots.

Remove the pop-up flash. I know many like the pop-up flash but I'd prefer Pentax remove this and offer a smaller hotshoe flash at reasonable value. I have no idea why I want this but I wrote it anyway.

More than halve the physical size of the D-Li90 battery without losing capacity and include two battery slots in the body. [I'm just making this stuff up now whatever pops into the head]

starbase218 · 03-08-2014, 03:53 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Parry

I'm just making this stuff up now whatever pops into the head

If we are going there, I want a button labeled "Call Spock", and I expect him to respond.

O yeah, and a button so that Fanta comes out, in every taste available around the world, including the far-to-sweet red variant they like so much in Asia.

Parry · 03-08-2014, 05:35 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by starbase218

If we are going there, I want a button labeled "Call Spock", and I expect him to respond.

O yeah, and a button so that Fanta comes out, in every taste available around the world, including the far-to-sweet red variant they like so much in Asia.

It also needs to come with a Wurlitzer. Every DSLR should have a 1/5 scale Wurlitzer which only plays tracks from The Sound of Music integrated into the battery compartment.

It is us, here at Pentax Forums who are the real designers. The real innovators.

SteveTheOldMan · 03-08-2014, 06:57 AM

I didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if these have been mentioned already...
1. Faster focus, especially in low light!
2. Better tracking.
3. Less filling and tastes great! (Hey, there ya go...a beer dispenser! (A little image tilt can always be fixed later.) :-)
4. A real marketing plan.

Parry · 03-08-2014, 07:03 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by SteveTheOldMan

I didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if these have been mentioned already...
1. Faster focus, especially in low light!
2. Better tracking.
3. Less filling and tastes great! (Hey, there ya go...a beer dispenser! (A little image tilt can always be fixed later.) :-)
4. A real marketing plan.

Double edged sword the marketing plan.

On one hand if we want to keep using the K-mount into the future, Ricoh has to sell these things and associated bits 'n pieces. On the other hand, we don't want Pentax to end up like the big two where marketing rules over engineering.

A saving grace is that Pentax is very popular in Japan where I believe engineering excellence takes precedence over marketing hype and hyperbole . . . I hope.

Stagnant · 03-09-2014, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Parry

An ability to project focus peaking through the viewfinder so you can use focus peaking without having to use Live View. Dunno if this is even possible?

Did not Nikon implement some kind of a scale into the viewfinder of DF, that shows if the subject is in focus or not, when using manual focus lenses ? Actually I would rather have Pentax/Ricoh improve their lens line-up, to match the performance of K-3.

Parry · 03-09-2014, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Stagnant

Did not Nikon implement some kind of a scale into the viewfinder of DF, that shows if the subject is in focus or not, when using manual focus lenses ? Actually I would rather have Pentax/Ricoh improve their lens line-up, to match the performance of K-3.

Dunno.

Anyways my Bruv, how can you improve on the performance of a £50 M42 prime?

Yup, that's the Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135/3.5 using a replica M42>K-mount adapter because the genuine adapter rattles.

Biro · 03-10-2014, 01:33 PM

Count me among those who would like a K-3 with a 16mp sensor. I don't know that I need the added resolution of a 24mp sensor and RAW files open a lot slower compared with 16mp. They take up more space on one's hard drive as well. Yes, I could buy a leftover K-5 IIs. But then I wouldn't have the autofocus improvements of the K-3 -- which, to me, are the real reason to go for the latest camera.

Parry · 03-10-2014, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Biro

Here's a thought that I'm sure I'll get in trouble over: What I'd really like is a K-3 with a 16mp sensor. I don't know that I need the added resolution of a 24mp sensor and RAW files open a lot slower compared with 16mp. They take up more space on one's hard drive as well. Yes, I could buy a leftover K-5 IIs. But then I wouldn't have the autofocus improvements of the K-3 -- which, to me, are the real reason to go for the latest camera.

As a K-5IIs and K-3 owner . . . yes. Although the K-3 is great to use, it is noisier than the K-5IIs. It's a very fine grain that kind of makes the photos pop in a particular way and it is manageable, more resolution means you can do more noise reduction without loss of clarity. But still, just don't pixel peep, even at the lower ISO's.

50/50 on this one.

I tend to think that more resolution isn't really needed over the IIs, but less noise and more DR would have been better than more resolution. Dunno. Rambling again. I ramble. I do. I do tend ramble on and not make much sense. Pay no attention to this rambling fool.

dosdan · 03-10-2014, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Parry

but less noise and more DR would have been better than more resolution.

More DR isn't usually useable due to real-world lens flare & glare issues in high-contrast situations.

Less noise is always nice.

I find I can sharpen K-3 images much more than K5 images. The later tend to look harsh when sharpened using the same settings. The obvious sharpness keeps impressing me. It may have been different if I'd come from a K5IIs.

Dan.

Parry · 03-10-2014, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by dosdan

More DR isn't usually useable due to real-world lens flare & glare issues in high-contrast situations.

Less noise is always nice.

I find I can sharpen K-3 images much more than K5 images. The later tend to look harsh when sharpened using the same settings. The obvious sharpness keeps impressing me. It may have been different if I'd come from a K5IIs.

Dan.

Yes, the biggest difference I've found is in post. Not that I've ever had a 'workflow', more an iterative style of randomly pulling sliders about until I get what I want. Bit like driving round and round until you find the right street rather than using a map.

northcoastgreg · 03-10-2014, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Parry

50/50 on this one.

I agree. In terms of image quality, it's a lateral move from the K-5 series of cameras to the K-3 -- except 50% larger files. The differences between K-5iis files and K-3 files strike me as negligible. Little more detail in the K-3, but more noise, a little less dynamic range. If you're going to increase my file sizes by 50%, you've got to do better than that.

If the K-3 had used the old 16 MP sensor, I probably would have bought it. Instead, I got the K-5iis.

If the K-3

**jbinpg** · 03-10-2014, 02:47 PM

Depends what type of photography you do. My two biggest uses are birding where the greater resolution of the K-3 allows almost freehand cropping yet still maintaining pixel level sharpness. The other type is astrophotography involving stacking of exposures which eliminates any worry about increased noise but where the increased resolution still holds up. So the K-3 sensor is a big win for me. Almost as important are the many improvements to the camera controls and abilities.

Jack

souless · 03-12-2014, 08:22 AM

I would like to add one more thing
Is it possible to add the minimum shutter speed based on the current focal length of the AF lens ?
one can take this further to let user setup 1, +-1/3, +-1/2 shutter speed than the current focal length of the AF lens
This is useful when using zoom focal lens, when using wide end you can have slower shutter speed than the one of the long end.
I am not sure if this should only apply to Av/Sv/hyper P mode or to all modes.

Biro · 03-12-2014, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Parry

As a K-5IIs and K-3 owner . . . yes. Although the K-3 is great to use, it is noisier than the K-5IIs. It's a very fine grain that kind of makes the photos pop in a particular way and it is manageable, more resolution means you can do more noise reduction without loss of clarity. But still, just don't pixel peep, even at the lower ISO's.

50/50 on this one.

I tend to think that more resolution isn't really needed over the IIs, but less noise and more DR would have been better than more resolution. Dunno. Rambling again. I ramble. I do. I do tend ramble on and not make much sense. Pay no attention to this rambling fool.

Parry, since you have both cameras, would you care to compare the autofocus abilities of the two cameras - the K-3 and the K-5 IIs?

03-10-2014, 01:33 PM	#53
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Count me among those who would like a K-3 with a 16mp sensor. I don't know that I need the added resolution of a 24mp sensor and RAW files open a lot slower compared with 16mp. They take up more space on one's hard drive as well. Yes, I could buy a leftover K-5 IIs. But then I wouldn't have the autofocus improvements of the K-3 -- which, to me, are the real reason to go for the latest camera. Last edited by Biro; 03-10-2014 at 01:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How would YOU market the Pentax Q?	cheekygeek	Pentax Q	41	06-11-2014 04:23 PM
B exposure for K-30, how long would you....	wed7	Pentax K-30 & K-50	12	10-06-2013 07:38 PM
How would you rate the video from the Pentax K-30?	memo90061	Pentax K-30 & K-50	23	11-05-2012 11:42 PM
People How would you improve this?	bdtalley	Photo Critique	9	06-13-2012 10:03 PM
How would you import the GPS-track to lightroom 3?	Wick Nole	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	02-17-2011 06:44 PM

03-08-2014, 03:39 AM	#46
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Built-in GPS? Yes, that and WiFi. If we're not going down the FF route, a different type of crop sensor. Like a Foveon or X-Trans . . . possibly. Something with much less noise at much higher ISO. Also with more dynamic range as we've slipped a wee bit in this department, not that I've really noticed a difference over the K-5IIs. More focus points spread further across the sensor. Let's make the rule of thirds easier without the need to crop. AF and tracking AF to be class leading, only in the Nikon D4 class I mean. Even more buffer capacity and the ability to optimize use the ultra fast cards (200mbps+). An ability to project focus peaking through the viewfinder so you can use focus peaking without having to use Live View. Dunno if this is even possible? No more mirror flops and battery issues. My K-3 still refuses to switch on about 10% of the time requiring battery removal to fix. Make the selector knob (M, TAv, Av etc) out of metal or much better grade of plastic. Better USB ports. I can't get the cable into the micro-USB port anymore on the K-3. Dunno what happened there? Also a better door on the ports than just a bit of rubber. Also try to get it down to one or two ports for charging and communication link. Usual evolution of screen resolution above 9XX,XXX whatever dots. Remove the pop-up flash. I know many like the pop-up flash but I'd prefer Pentax remove this and offer a smaller hotshoe flash at reasonable value. I have no idea why I want this but I wrote it anyway. More than halve the physical size of the D-Li90 battery without losing capacity and include two battery slots in the body. [I'm just making this stuff up now whatever pops into the head]

03-08-2014, 03:53 AM - 1 Like	#47
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by Parry I'm just making this stuff up now whatever pops into the head If we are going there, I want a button labeled "Call Spock", and I expect him to respond. O yeah, and a button so that Fanta comes out, in every taste available around the world, including the far-to-sweet red variant they like so much in Asia.

03-08-2014, 05:35 AM - 1 Like	#48
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Originally posted by starbase218 If we are going there, I want a button labeled "Call Spock", and I expect him to respond. O yeah, and a button so that Fanta comes out, in every taste available around the world, including the far-to-sweet red variant they like so much in Asia. It also needs to come with a Wurlitzer. Every DSLR should have a 1/5 scale Wurlitzer which only plays tracks from The Sound of Music integrated into the battery compartment. It is us, here at Pentax Forums who are the real designers. The real innovators.

03-08-2014, 06:57 AM	#49
SteveTheOldMan Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central MA, USA Posts: 63	I didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if these have been mentioned already... 1. Faster focus, especially in low light! 2. Better tracking. 3. Less filling and tastes great! (Hey, there ya go...a beer dispenser! (A little image tilt can always be fixed later.) :-) 4. A real marketing plan.

03-08-2014, 07:03 AM - 1 Like	#50
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Originally posted by SteveTheOldMan I didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if these have been mentioned already... 1. Faster focus, especially in low light! 2. Better tracking. 3. Less filling and tastes great! (Hey, there ya go...a beer dispenser! (A little image tilt can always be fixed later.) :-) 4. A real marketing plan. Double edged sword the marketing plan. On one hand if we want to keep using the K-mount into the future, Ricoh has to sell these things and associated bits 'n pieces. On the other hand, we don't want Pentax to end up like the big two where marketing rules over engineering. A saving grace is that Pentax is very popular in Japan where I believe engineering excellence takes precedence over marketing hype and hyperbole . . . I hope.

03-09-2014, 08:18 AM	#51
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	Originally posted by Parry An ability to project focus peaking through the viewfinder so you can use focus peaking without having to use Live View. Dunno if this is even possible? Did not Nikon implement some kind of a scale into the viewfinder of DF, that shows if the subject is in focus or not, when using manual focus lenses ? Actually I would rather have Pentax/Ricoh improve their lens line-up, to match the performance of K-3.

03-09-2014, 08:46 AM	#52
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Originally posted by Stagnant Did not Nikon implement some kind of a scale into the viewfinder of DF, that shows if the subject is in focus or not, when using manual focus lenses ? Actually I would rather have Pentax/Ricoh improve their lens line-up, to match the performance of K-3. Dunno. Anyways my Bruv, how can you improve on the performance of a £50 M42 prime? Yup, that's the Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135/3.5 using a replica M42>K-mount adapter because the genuine adapter rattles.

03-10-2014, 01:41 PM	#54
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Originally posted by Biro Here's a thought that I'm sure I'll get in trouble over: What I'd really like is a K-3 with a 16mp sensor. I don't know that I need the added resolution of a 24mp sensor and RAW files open a lot slower compared with 16mp. They take up more space on one's hard drive as well. Yes, I could buy a leftover K-5 IIs. But then I wouldn't have the autofocus improvements of the K-3 -- which, to me, are the real reason to go for the latest camera. As a K-5IIs and K-3 owner . . . yes. Although the K-3 is great to use, it is noisier than the K-5IIs. It's a very fine grain that kind of makes the photos pop in a particular way and it is manageable, more resolution means you can do more noise reduction without loss of clarity. But still, just don't pixel peep, even at the lower ISO's. 50/50 on this one. I tend to think that more resolution isn't really needed over the IIs, but less noise and more DR would have been better than more resolution. Dunno. Rambling again. I ramble. I do. I do tend ramble on and not make much sense. Pay no attention to this rambling fool.

03-10-2014, 01:59 PM	#55
dosdan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,741	Originally posted by Parry but less noise and more DR would have been better than more resolution. More DR isn't usually useable due to real-world lens flare & glare issues in high-contrast situations. Less noise is always nice. I find I can sharpen K-3 images much more than K5 images. The later tend to look harsh when sharpened using the same settings. The obvious sharpness keeps impressing me. It may have been different if I'd come from a K5IIs. Dan.

03-10-2014, 02:05 PM	#56
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Originally posted by dosdan More DR isn't usually useable due to real-world lens flare & glare issues in high-contrast situations. Less noise is always nice. I find I can sharpen K-3 images much more than K5 images. The later tend to look harsh when sharpened using the same settings. The obvious sharpness keeps impressing me. It may have been different if I'd come from a K5IIs. Dan. Yes, the biggest difference I've found is in post. Not that I've ever had a 'workflow', more an iterative style of randomly pulling sliders about until I get what I want. Bit like driving round and round until you find the right street rather than using a map.

03-10-2014, 02:17 PM	#57
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by Parry 50/50 on this one. I agree. In terms of image quality, it's a lateral move from the K-5 series of cameras to the K-3 -- except 50% larger files. The differences between K-5iis files and K-3 files strike me as negligible. Little more detail in the K-3, but more noise, a little less dynamic range. If you're going to increase my file sizes by 50%, you've got to do better than that. If the K-3 had used the old 16 MP sensor, I probably would have bought it. Instead, I got the K-5iis. If the K-3

03-10-2014, 02:47 PM	#58
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	Depends what type of photography you do. My two biggest uses are birding where the greater resolution of the K-3 allows almost freehand cropping yet still maintaining pixel level sharpness. The other type is astrophotography involving stacking of exposures which eliminates any worry about increased noise but where the increased resolution still holds up. So the K-3 sensor is a big win for me. Almost as important are the many improvements to the camera controls and abilities. Jack

03-12-2014, 08:22 AM	#59
souless Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Taipei Posts: 110	I would like to add one more thing Is it possible to add the minimum shutter speed based on the current focal length of the AF lens ? one can take this further to let user setup 1, +-1/3, +-1/2 shutter speed than the current focal length of the AF lens This is useful when using zoom focal lens, when using wide end you can have slower shutter speed than the one of the long end. I am not sure if this should only apply to Av/Sv/hyper P mode or to all modes.

03-12-2014, 11:56 AM	#60
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Originally posted by Parry As a K-5IIs and K-3 owner . . . yes. Although the K-3 is great to use, it is noisier than the K-5IIs. It's a very fine grain that kind of makes the photos pop in a particular way and it is manageable, more resolution means you can do more noise reduction without loss of clarity. But still, just don't pixel peep, even at the lower ISO's. 50/50 on this one. I tend to think that more resolution isn't really needed over the IIs, but less noise and more DR would have been better than more resolution. Dunno. Rambling again. I ramble. I do. I do tend ramble on and not make much sense. Pay no attention to this rambling fool. Parry, since you have both cameras, would you care to compare the autofocus abilities of the two cameras - the K-3 and the K-5 IIs?