[iamwhoiam]

No K-3 in stock at the store. I did look at the GX7, the K-50, the Oly EM10 and the Oly EM1. The K-50 just didn't feel right to me nor did either of the Olympuses. The K-50 was being offered at an incredible price but something was lacking for me. I liked the grip of the GX7 but was not comfortable using it with my left eye. I felt that my nose kept rubbing against the LCD. I even tilted the viewfinder and although it helped with the nose rubbing I found it was hard to get adjusted to that position. I decided to try my right eye and was able to use it that way. I guess I'm "ambiocular". I've never tried using my right eye to take photos because it's just been natural for me to raise the camera viewfinder to my left eye. I liked the GX7...thought the EVF was very good, camera felt comfortable in my hands. Every time I went to use it, though, I would automatically pull it up to my left eye.

The salesperson told me he would get a K-3 from the warehouse so that I could come back tomorrow or Weds to check it out but it won't be in the store until tomorrow afternoon and I don't want to deal w/ the wonderful Los Angeles traffic at that time nor on the day before Thanksgiving.

So...I'm still on the fence. Maybe I should have bought the K-50 and saved $$$ but there was just something not right. Probably should have brought one of my lenses with rather than tried it out with the kit lens. I even felt that the EVF on the GX7 was better than the viewfinder on the K-50. I sometimes felt like I was looking through a tunnel and have never felt that way with my K-7, my Lumix G3 or any of my other cameras w/ viewfinders.

Since I at least got to hold the K-50 how do the ergonomics, grip and viewfinder compare with the K-3?

[iamwhoiam]

Am starting to be swayed towards buying the GX7. The weight and size compared to the K-3 is one of the factors. I was using both my K-7 and my G-3 today and I was reminded on how light the G-3 is and I believe the GX7 is even lighter. So much easier to carry around and it also takes excellent photos. Don't know anymore if the K-3 is the better choice for me but if you want to convince me of that, go ahead.

[crewl1]

Here's what I would tell you.
You have a K-7 and weight wise the K-3 is a little bit heavier. Size wise the difference is nil.
If you already have lenses the K-3 will breathe new life into them.
If you are in So Cal around the LA area we could meet and you could check out the K-3. With the holiday time is at a premium but send me a PM if you want to try work something out.

[iamwhoiam]

Thanks for your offer for the meeting. However, not the best time right now with the holiday.
I am assuming that the ergonomics of the K-3 are similar to the K-7. Haven't really examined the photos of the K-3 with a "fine tooth comb" but it does look fairly similar to the K-7.

[iamwhoiam]

Is it worth it to purchase the DA 50/1.8 for $116 as part of the K-3 bundle if I already have the FA 43/1.9? I don't see what the 50/1.8 would give me although that is a good price for the lens.

[crewl1]

I am assuming that the ergonomics of the K-3 are similar to the K-7. Haven't really examined the photos of the K-3 with a "fine tooth comb" but it does look fairly similar to the K-7.

They are very close, it will feel very familiar in the hand.

Is it worth it to purchase the DA 50/1.8 for $116 as part of the K-3 bundle if I already have the FA 43/1.9? I don't see what the 50/1.8 would give me although that is a good price for the lens.

Only if you wanted to get some cash back by selling the lens. There is not much difference focal length wise between the two, and you probably won't like the construction of the DA50 if you are spoiled by the the FA43.

[monochrome]

Buy both, return the one you don't like.

Now you know why Ricoh hates America.

[Steve.Ledger]

I'm sure they can handle the few returns, after all - US is their biggest market after Asia.
Consumer laws here in Australia don't make it quite so easy to return an item because you don't like it. That's up to the retailer to offer.

[GlennG]

Is it worth it to purchase the DA 50/1.8 for $116 as part of the K-3 bundle if I already have the FA 43/1.9? I don't see what the 50/1.8 would give me although that is a good price for the lens.

"Yes", if money is not too tight. Guess is that you would like the 50 less than the 43, but who knows. Probably could sell for that price, or even a little higher, and then you would also have more lens experience.

I'm sure they can handle the few returns, after all - US is their biggest market after Asia.

If you are a business and deciding that you are mostly going to do business over the internet, you should expect some (or a lot of) returns, and build your business accordingly. As long as you have a market to serve, that should be a good thing.

[MarkJerling]

I'm sure they can handle the few returns, after all - US is their biggest market after Asia.
Consumer laws here in Australia don't make it quite so easy to return an item because you don't like it. That's up to the retailer to offer.

Same here in NZ. You can return something if "it's not fit for purpose" or if it has some other fault, when most retailers will repair or replace with like.

[iamwhoiam]

The 540 flash for $50 was one of the things I was considering and was a plus for buying the K-3 but that option is no longer available so I'm going to wait and see if anything else comes up by Black Friday.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

The K7 and K-3 are worlds apart in terms of low light capability, AF, and overall image quality. The K-3 is at roughly half price compared to introduction MSRP. I have the K20D (slightly better in IQ due to its superior highlight roll off), and can confirm that the improvement is marked.

You are thinking long term - which is wise. The dSLR segment is quite mature, and progress is slower than three years ago (as in the K7 era). On the other hand, mirrorless will continue to improve in terms of AF responsiveness, lens offerings, and sensor quality. Economics argues for the K-3.

[Mikesul]

The K7 and K-3 are worlds apart in terms of low light capability, AF, and overall image quality. The K-3 is at roughly half price compared to introduction MSRP. I have the K20D (slightly better in IQ due to its superior highlight roll off), and can confirm that the improvement is marked.

You are thinking long term - which is wise. The dSLR segment is quite mature, and progress is slower than three years ago (as in the K7 era). On the other hand, mirrorless will continue to improve in terms of AF responsiveness, lens offerings, and sensor quality. Economics argues for the K-3.

There will certainly be improved cameras down the line, perhaps very soon, but as ScooterMaxi says economics argues for the K3 right now because any new camera will be much more expensive for the first few months, at least. Also it is usually wise to allow a month or two for problems to appear and, hopefully, be shaken out.

[Doundounba]

[...] as ScooterMaxi says economics argues for the K3 right now because any new camera will be much more expensive for the first few months, at least.

And, though I'm not sure where Nikon and Canon are at, the mirrorless competitors' prices haven't come down nearly as much as the K-3 has, either. X-T1? $1200. E-M1? Same. NX1 hasn't even shipped, I think, so let's not expect rebates on it's $1500 price-tag anytime soon. Even the two year-old GH3 is still selling for $900. Only the Olympus E-M5 has come down to ~$600 body-only and it's a much older model than the K-3.

That being said, this morning I'm having a few second thoughts about my $620 body-only, semi-impulse purchase of last night. It's still, for me, a lot of money, and perhaps more camera than I need/want. I'd resolved to stick with the K-01 for 6 more months, but the deal just seemed irresistible...

[normhead]

If the main issue here i weight, which it seems to be, why even look at a DSLR.... why not look at something like an XG-1?