Ramblings of a k3 owner

atomx · 03-11-2014, 03:18 AM - **1 Like**

(Apologies in advance for my jumbled thoughts)

Its only been in the last ~8 months ive become obsessed with photography. I had previously purchased a Pentax k200d with a kit lens some years ago but never had time to use it.. It go sold off..
Last year I had to go overseas so I did some quick research and liked the Nikon range and ended up with a d5200 with 2 kit lens. I did look at Pentax but with all the doom and gloom about Ricoh taking over and the end of Pentax I figured my money was safer with Nikon...

On returning from holidays and enjoying documenting my trip I decided I needed a camera less menu driven.. Even some basic tasks on the d5200 involved going into info. menu... I wanted to essentially hold the camera to my ear and move the dials to adjust, EV comp, aperture, WB..etc.. Nikon d7100 was right at the top and was very close to getting one.. Key reasons for getting the K3 over the d7100, K3 has much bigger RAW buffer, solid feel of K3, interface and I hated the stacked dials on the d7100..

So ive had the k3 for about 2months now and im getting very comfortable with the camera. No shutter flop, or power on issues that many are crying about.. The "excess" noise compared to the k5 series isnt a comparison we should focus on, instead compare the k3 with other 24mp sensors cameras. If i compare the shots of my d5200 (which has 24mp sensor) to the k3 the noise is very similar. The k3 or d5200 pic's when at 100% are grainy but have more detail that the 16mp shots... Viewed at normal size the shots are detailed and crisp, as do the k5(ii)(s)...etc. I think we need to spend more time out shooting, working on composition, PP...etc rather than pixel peeping down to 100,200,300%, My aim and the aim of most photographers is have the viewer go "wow", "cool", "great shot"...etc or elicit some kind of a response.

Despite loving my k3 i do have a few niggles floating around im my head.. I will probably at some stage want to upgrade to full frame as I shot in low light and prefer not to use flash... At present I have a small investment in pentax, the k3, 35mm limited macro and sigma 17-70mm contemporary . I consider myself a nature shooter at present im focusing on landscapes and macro. Eventually I really want to get into birding and wildlife (non macro) photography but the 300mm f4 pentax with TC is a little short.. 400mm+ would be ideal...

So now the dilemma im facing is do I invest in pentax and purchase FA lenses from now on for my K3 so if/when pentax release a full frame my lense collection will function with it. The risk being the full frame camera never eventuates or Ricoh change the mount...etc...

Its very tempting to jump and invest in another system with a better lens range and future proof my "investment". Its a shame as the K3 is an awesome body... It its was labelled with "D7200" and a Nikon badge we would see many more k3's out there..

Sandy Hancock · 03-11-2014, 03:28 AM

The Sigma 500/4.5 is an awesome lens, but a DA*300 with the new teleconverter wont be far off, cheaper, more compact, and weather resistant.
Is there an APS-C kit from someone else which can offer that?

Just sayin'

Unregistered User · 03-11-2014, 03:52 AM

When it comes to wildlife I prefer the extra reach the APS-C gives compared to FF.

**Michaelina2** · 03-11-2014, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by atomx

Its only been in the last ~8 months ive become obsessed with photography. I had previously purchased a Pentax k200d with a kit lens some years ago but never had time to use it.. It go sold off..

Its very tempting to jump and invest in another system with a better lens range..

I do not understand...

Given what you said... What makes you think you have a delimma? If the K200 was above your skill/enthusiasm set, then...

What is it about this 'new' proposal that makes for a better fit?

Just curious... M

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-11-2014, 05:22 AM

I was going to use my K-5 as a backup to the K-3 but I'm so impressed with the K-3 I've been thinking of getting a second K-3 instead. Help! I've got a really bad case of CBA!

Barry Pearson · 03-11-2014, 06:50 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by atomx

So now the dilemma im facing is do I invest in pentax and purchase FA lenses from now on for my K3 so if/when pentax release a full frame my lense collection will function with it. The risk being the full frame camera never eventuates or Ricoh change the mount...etc...

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

The Sigma 500/4.5 is an awesome lens, but a DA*300 with the new teleconverter wont be far off, cheaper, more compact, and weather resistant.
Is there an APS-C kit from someone else which can offer that?

The Sigma is explicitly FF. The DA* 300mm is FF in practice. Both are super lenses! Ricoh/Pentax would be stupid to change away from the K-mount for FF - the K-mount was originally designed for 35mm film!

(I don't know whether the DA* 300mm with new Pentax Teleconverter will be FF. My Teleconverter arrives Thursday, then I can stick them on my Z1-P and find out).

VoiceOfReason · 03-11-2014, 07:40 AM

The Sigma 150-500 covers full frame and has awesome reach.

RonHendriks1966 · 03-11-2014, 07:45 AM

Well with curretn technics you can invest in Pentax lenses and shoot for the coming 10 years even if there never will be a new camera. The K-3 is perfect for what you want.

alexcox · 03-11-2014, 08:26 AM

Pentax make great APS-C cameras and have a splendid range of lenses. They also make a medium format camera and lenses. They don't make a full frame camera and haven't made a full frame lens in a long time. Why photographers are fixated on full-frame cameras is a mystery to me (how many people make massive prints?). If you want one, Sony, Canon and Nikon await you. But why?

**Rondec** · 03-11-2014, 10:24 AM

I don't know. I feel like the K3 is about perfect from landscape/wildlife standpoint. You will have a hard time getting more reach with a full frame camera, without getting a 600mm lens and when shooting landscapes, I prefer to be at low iso on a tripod. It sounds to me like your big restriction right now is not in your camera, but in your lenses. Looking at a DA 15 or 21 limited and something on the long end (that depends on what you want to spend -- Sigma 150 to 500 up to the Sigma 500mm prime) would suddenly make your shooting experience quite different.

Barry Pearson · 03-11-2014, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by alexcox

Pentax make great APS-C cameras and have a splendid range of lenses. They also make a medium format camera and lenses. They don't make a full frame camera and haven't made a full frame lens in a long time. Why photographers are fixated on full-frame cameras is a mystery to me (how many people make massive prints?). If you want one, Sony, Canon and Nikon await you. But why?

Some current lenses are FF. D-FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro is FF. DA* 55mm, DA* 200mm, and DA* 300mm cover the field of a 35 mm camera.

What does "massive prints" mean? My *istD printed well at A3. Later cameras printed well at A3+. The K-3 will print well at A2. (With good lenses). Are you talking about something a lot bigger than that? I don't think printing big is the primary reason for FF, is it?

**monochrome** · 03-11-2014, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

I don't think printing big is the primary reason for FF, is it?

Actually - DoF arguments to the contrary - IMHO like clarity on a larger print is the only justification for a larger sensor; FF >> MF >> and up.

AquaDome · 03-11-2014, 11:09 AM

135 format digital cameras aren't for lower light or larger prints. They are for consumers who are momentarily vaguely-dissatisfied and willing to spend a buck to move on to their next vaguely-dissatisfied moment.
There are actual professionals who make very good use of 135 format digital equipment. The rest of those cameras are like big SUVs moving one person and no cargo down the road. To each their own.
You can shoot 135 film for about 50 cents a pic with very little investment up front. How long does that take to add up to a 135 format digital camera and lens? You could buy a 4x4 and drive to better locations for that kind of money.

Unregistered User · 03-11-2014, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

The Sigma 150-500 covers full frame and has awesome reach.

Taking the K-3 with DA*300 and upsamling to the equivalent of the size the Sigma gives on 500mm the DA*300 image is sharper and more detailed. The Sigma 150-500 is not very sharp over 300 mm. Also it is not very sharp at the edges.

Parry · 03-11-2014, 04:32 PM

Pixel peeping is the road to hell.

Just don't do it.

The K3 noise actually sharpens pics up when viewed normally.

What I really want for my K5IIs and K3 is an M42 adapter with no movement as my fake and original flush fit adapters both move about when fitted.

If you want sharp get a Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135mm f/3.5.

03-11-2014, 03:18 AM - 1 Like	#1
atomx Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Melbourne,Australia Posts: 67	Ramblings of a k3 owner (Apologies in advance for my jumbled thoughts) Its only been in the last ~8 months ive become obsessed with photography. I had previously purchased a Pentax k200d with a kit lens some years ago but never had time to use it.. It go sold off.. Last year I had to go overseas so I did some quick research and liked the Nikon range and ended up with a d5200 with 2 kit lens. I did look at Pentax but with all the doom and gloom about Ricoh taking over and the end of Pentax I figured my money was safer with Nikon... On returning from holidays and enjoying documenting my trip I decided I needed a camera less menu driven.. Even some basic tasks on the d5200 involved going into info. menu... I wanted to essentially hold the camera to my ear and move the dials to adjust, EV comp, aperture, WB..etc.. Nikon d7100 was right at the top and was very close to getting one.. Key reasons for getting the K3 over the d7100, K3 has much bigger RAW buffer, solid feel of K3, interface and I hated the stacked dials on the d7100.. So ive had the k3 for about 2months now and im getting very comfortable with the camera. No shutter flop, or power on issues that many are crying about.. The "excess" noise compared to the k5 series isnt a comparison we should focus on, instead compare the k3 with other 24mp sensors cameras. If i compare the shots of my d5200 (which has 24mp sensor) to the k3 the noise is very similar. The k3 or d5200 pic's when at 100% are grainy but have more detail that the 16mp shots... Viewed at normal size the shots are detailed and crisp, as do the k5(ii)(s)...etc. I think we need to spend more time out shooting, working on composition, PP...etc rather than pixel peeping down to 100,200,300%, My aim and the aim of most photographers is have the viewer go "wow", "cool", "great shot"...etc or elicit some kind of a response. Despite loving my k3 i do have a few niggles floating around im my head.. I will probably at some stage want to upgrade to full frame as I shot in low light and prefer not to use flash... At present I have a small investment in pentax, the k3, 35mm limited macro and sigma 17-70mm contemporary . I consider myself a nature shooter at present im focusing on landscapes and macro. Eventually I really want to get into birding and wildlife (non macro) photography but the 300mm f4 pentax with TC is a little short.. 400mm+ would be ideal... So now the dilemma im facing is do I invest in pentax and purchase FA lenses from now on for my K3 so if/when pentax release a full frame my lense collection will function with it. The risk being the full frame camera never eventuates or Ricoh change the mount...etc... Its very tempting to jump and invest in another system with a better lens range and future proof my "investment". Its a shame as the K3 is an awesome body... It its was labelled with "D7200" and a Nikon badge we would see many more k3's out there..

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New K3 Owner with question	Bigdomino	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	01-10-2014 01:10 PM
Greeting.......new K3 owner	southpaw	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	12	01-07-2014 11:59 AM
New K3 owner from DFW TEXAS	bass3587	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	3	12-21-2013 11:42 PM
New K3 owner and first Pentax	Robotman	Welcomes and Introductions	5	11-21-2013 08:05 AM
Leaping from K-x to K-5 rather than a K-7 – ramblings of a new owner…	HenrikDK	Pentax DSLR Discussion	50	05-13-2011 07:54 AM

03-11-2014, 03:28 AM	#2
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	The Sigma 500/4.5 is an awesome lens, but a DA*300 with the new teleconverter wont be far off, cheaper, more compact, and weather resistant. Is there an APS-C kit from someone else which can offer that? Just sayin'

03-11-2014, 03:52 AM	#3
Unregistered User Guest	When it comes to wildlife I prefer the extra reach the APS-C gives compared to FF.

03-11-2014, 05:00 AM	#4
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Originally posted by atomx Its only been in the last ~8 months ive become obsessed with photography. I had previously purchased a Pentax k200d with a kit lens some years ago but never had time to use it.. It go sold off.. Its very tempting to jump and invest in another system with a better lens range.. I do not understand... Given what you said... What makes you think you have a delimma? If the K200 was above your skill/enthusiasm set, then... What is it about this 'new' proposal that makes for a better fit? Just curious... M

03-11-2014, 05:22 AM	#5
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,839	I was going to use my K-5 as a backup to the K-3 but I'm so impressed with the K-3 I've been thinking of getting a second K-3 instead. Help! I've got a really bad case of CBA!

03-11-2014, 06:50 AM - 1 Like	#6
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by atomx So now the dilemma im facing is do I invest in pentax and purchase FA lenses from now on for my K3 so if/when pentax release a full frame my lense collection will function with it. The risk being the full frame camera never eventuates or Ricoh change the mount...etc... Originally posted by Sandy Hancock The Sigma 500/4.5 is an awesome lens, but a DA300 with the new teleconverter wont be far off, cheaper, more compact, and weather resistant. Is there an APS-C kit from someone else which can offer that? The Sigma is explicitly FF. The DA 300mm is FF in practice. Both are super lenses! Ricoh/Pentax would be stupid to change away from the K-mount for FF - the K-mount was originally designed for 35mm film! (I don't know whether the DA* 300mm with new Pentax Teleconverter will be FF. My Teleconverter arrives Thursday, then I can stick them on my Z1-P and find out).

03-11-2014, 07:40 AM	#7
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	The Sigma 150-500 covers full frame and has awesome reach.

03-11-2014, 07:45 AM	#8
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well with curretn technics you can invest in Pentax lenses and shoot for the coming 10 years even if there never will be a new camera. The K-3 is perfect for what you want.

03-11-2014, 08:26 AM	#9
alexcox Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Colestin, OR Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 79	Pentax make great APS-C cameras and have a splendid range of lenses. They also make a medium format camera and lenses. They don't make a full frame camera and haven't made a full frame lens in a long time. Why photographers are fixated on full-frame cameras is a mystery to me (how many people make massive prints?). If you want one, Sony, Canon and Nikon await you. But why?

03-11-2014, 10:24 AM	#10
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I don't know. I feel like the K3 is about perfect from landscape/wildlife standpoint. You will have a hard time getting more reach with a full frame camera, without getting a 600mm lens and when shooting landscapes, I prefer to be at low iso on a tripod. It sounds to me like your big restriction right now is not in your camera, but in your lenses. Looking at a DA 15 or 21 limited and something on the long end (that depends on what you want to spend -- Sigma 150 to 500 up to the Sigma 500mm prime) would suddenly make your shooting experience quite different.

03-11-2014, 10:57 AM	#11
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by alexcox Pentax make great APS-C cameras and have a splendid range of lenses. They also make a medium format camera and lenses. They don't make a full frame camera and haven't made a full frame lens in a long time. Why photographers are fixated on full-frame cameras is a mystery to me (how many people make massive prints?). If you want one, Sony, Canon and Nikon await you. But why? Some current lenses are FF. D-FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro is FF. DA* 55mm, DA* 200mm, and DA* 300mm cover the field of a 35 mm camera. What does "massive prints" mean? My *istD printed well at A3. Later cameras printed well at A3+. The K-3 will print well at A2. (With good lenses). Are you talking about something a lot bigger than that? I don't think printing big is the primary reason for FF, is it?

03-11-2014, 11:07 AM	#12
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Barry Pearson I don't think printing big is the primary reason for FF, is it? Actually - DoF arguments to the contrary - IMHO like clarity on a larger print is the only justification for a larger sensor; FF >> MF >> and up.

03-11-2014, 11:09 AM	#13
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	135 format digital cameras aren't for lower light or larger prints. They are for consumers who are momentarily vaguely-dissatisfied and willing to spend a buck to move on to their next vaguely-dissatisfied moment. There are actual professionals who make very good use of 135 format digital equipment. The rest of those cameras are like big SUVs moving one person and no cargo down the road. To each their own. You can shoot 135 film for about 50 cents a pic with very little investment up front. How long does that take to add up to a 135 format digital camera and lens? You could buy a 4x4 and drive to better locations for that kind of money.

03-11-2014, 11:22 AM	#14
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason The Sigma 150-500 covers full frame and has awesome reach. Taking the K-3 with DA300 and upsamling to the equivalent of the size the Sigma gives on 500mm the DA300 image is sharper and more detailed. The Sigma 150-500 is not very sharp over 300 mm. Also it is not very sharp at the edges.

03-11-2014, 04:32 PM	#15
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	Pixel peeping is the road to hell. Just don't do it. The K3 noise actually sharpens pics up when viewed normally. What I really want for my K5IIs and K3 is an M42 adapter with no movement as my fake and original flush fit adapters both move about when fitted. If you want sharp get a Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135mm f/3.5.