Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-01-2015, 12:08 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,812
Welcome aboard. I got a K3 earlier this month. Not needed as I already own a K5 and K5-IIs. My wife still doesn't know about the camera. Luckily it looks just like a K5. But to make myself feel better I got her a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX-300 to replace her old Kodak digital camera. Before I wrapped it, I "had" to perform a QC check on it. That camera is an impressive image capture device. Long zoom range. Impressive macro capabilities. For her it is perfect. Now it has me lusting after the Cyber-shot DSC-RX-10.

Plus the people with the KS-1's who have posted some images on this board got me wanting one of them too.

01-01-2015, 01:12 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,944
I am sure you will like the K3. The biggest reason to go with an interchangeable lens camera versus a fixed lens camera is for the ability to shoot with different lenses and get different looks. Particularly experimenting with older lenses can be a lot of fun.

I think you will find that the K3 files respond a lot better to processing (bumping up shadows, etc) than a smaller sensor camera.

Be sure to post some photos when your camera arrives!
01-01-2015, 08:25 PM   #18
Pentaxian
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,285
I've been shooting professionally for over 37 years and I have never had only "one" camera. I currently use the following every week: Nikon D800, Pentax K-3, and recently a Nikon Coolpix A (to carry with me at all times "just in case"). I also have a few large format cameras leftover from my film days. Long gone are my medium format cameras which I sold off a few years ago but if price were no option I could imagine adding a Pentax 645z to my stable.

The point of my ramble is that the two cameras you describe are very different (yet somewhat complimentary too). I believe having a very small, lightweight system paired with a full-frame or APS-C system makes a lot of sense these days. Fortunately, such a two-camera system is now well within the reach of many photographers and will cover you in most situations.

YMMV

Michael
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/
01-03-2015, 09:53 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Helsinki
Photos: Albums
Posts: 135
Funny, just this Christmas I got to use a FZ1000. My wife's uncle just sold his older Nikon and glass (kept his flash) and bought one. It was actually quite nice, for a bridge. AF was really fast, easy to hand hold (so light in comparison to my K-3).

He got tired of always changing lenses and felt that the FZ1000 would be better than whichever Nikon he had + a super zoom.

I couldn't really compare images since we were shooting different things, I don't have a flash, and I'm still bumming around with the DA 18-55 WR for my "normal / wide."

However, I can say that I doubt the FZ1000 would allow me to take an image like this:



and bring the shadows up to this:



Sure, its nothing I'd want to print or put in a portfolio (highlights are burned out, wasn't using a tripod since I was just out with the dogs, etc).

But it gives you some idea as to what ISO 100 on the K-3 is capable of.

01-03-2015, 04:06 PM   #20
Site Supporter
gebco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 284
Different uses. I used to use my K-x for all my photos. Now I only use it where a p&s or bridge won't be as good, as in your example. At typical family gatherings now, my wife takes out her compact camera while my DSLR stays stored away. They're only snapshots. On our recent vacation though, or at my kids' dance recitals, that is where the K-x shines.


QuoteOriginally posted by Finchj Quote
Funny, just this Christmas I got to use a FZ1000. My wife's uncle just sold his older Nikon and glass (kept his flash) and bought one. It was actually quite nice, for a bridge. AF was really fast, easy to hand hold (so light in comparison to my K-3).

He got tired of always changing lenses and felt that the FZ1000 would be better than whichever Nikon he had + a super zoom.

I couldn't really compare images since we were shooting different things, I don't have a flash, and I'm still bumming around with the DA 18-55 WR for my "normal / wide."

However, I can say that I doubt the FZ1000 would allow me to take an image like this:



and bring the shadows up to this:



Sure, its nothing I'd want to print or put in a portfolio (highlights are burned out, wasn't using a tripod since I was just out with the dogs, etc).

But it gives you some idea as to what ISO 100 on the K-3 is capable of.
01-04-2015, 03:24 AM - 1 Like   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Helsinki
Photos: Albums
Posts: 135
QuoteOriginally posted by gebco Quote
Different uses. I used to use my K-x for all my photos. Now I only use it where a p&s or bridge won't be as good, as in your example. At typical family gatherings now, my wife takes out her compact camera while my DSLR stays stored away. They're only snapshots. On our recent vacation though, or at my kids' dance recitals, that is where the K-x shines.
Yes, different uses. If I were only to have one (although I'd like to pick up a Q series camera sometime), I would have to choose the DSLR. The OP's choice of the K-3 + 18-135 is a good one. My parents have my old K-7 with an 18-135. I've only been able to use the 18-135 on a few occasions, but I found that it paired exceptionally well with the K-3's high ISO performance.

Still, I find myself wanting something smaller and "less intimidating" than the K-3 for family occasions. Something I can fit into a pocket even.
01-04-2015, 11:31 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 12
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
The point of my ramble is that the two cameras you describe are very different (yet somewhat complimentary too). I believe having a very small, lightweight system paired with a full-frame or APS-C system makes a lot of sense these days. Fortunately, such a two-camera system is now well within the reach of many photographers and will cover you in most situations.

YMMV

Michael
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/
Part of the problem is that the FZ1000 is about the same size as a dSLR. I could see something like a Sony RX100 being more complementary. At least that you could fit into a jacket pocket. The only 2 real advantages I saw to the FZ1000 were video (which I'm not sure how much I'd use) and the extended Leica 400mm telephoto range which is still relatively fast. At the very least I'll need to add a second zoom lens to the K3 but I'll take my time with that and it gives me something new to research :-) Eventually the pricing on the FZ1000 will drop (likely when the RX10/ii is announced and I think that'll be a great buy in the $500-600 range later in the year. I'll probably pick one up then and do a shootout with the K3 just to see how it fares in terms of IQ, handling, and low-light shooting.

---------- Post added 01-04-15 at 01:37 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Finchj Quote

However, I can say that I doubt the FZ1000 would allow me to take an image like this:



and bring the shadows up to this:



Sure, its nothing I'd want to print or put in a portfolio (highlights are burned out, wasn't using a tripod since I was just out with the dogs, etc).

But it gives you some idea as to what ISO 100 on the K-3 is capable of.
Pretty impressive image recovery!
01-05-2015, 12:56 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by irishnutter Quote
BTW, I think my Pentax system would be the K3, BG5, 18-135, 50-300. Not sure how the quality of these 2 Pentax zooms would compare to the built-in Leica lens.
Don't forget that this is actually a slightly wider range of focal lengths (27-450mm equiv.) than the Panasonic FZ-1000. And you can combine those two lenses with even the cheapest modern Pentax DSLR body and come out better off than the Panasonic in just about every way but size/weight/convenience and video. So I think you did well.

01-08-2015, 06:17 PM   #24
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 88
Just curious, did you ever actaully 'test' drive either camera? Years ago, when I wanted to replace some cameras, my wife just wouldn't go with a digital SLR, and we saved about $600 by getting a Sony Cybershot DCS-HX100V. Sounded great on paper, 16 meg, and movies and it has some good manual overides. I actually got a few great pictures with it on some vacations.

But, when I started to follow my kid's activities, and my daughter does competitive Cheer (it's sort of a team gymnastics thing), I started getting so frustrated with it's speed that I almost got divorced over getting the Pentax. She thought I paid way too much (without understanding the research I did, and like you I started reading everything I could find).

In the end however, with a power zoom and the speed of the shots on the bridge camera, it just could not do what I wanted/needed it to do. It even has a 10 frame per second mode. BUT, after filling the buffer, it takes another minute to write it the card. In my daughters event, I'd have almost 40 - 60% downtime waiting for the camera to respond between save rate and zoom changes.

In the end, having a manual zoom, superior autofocus (and I wear glasses so that actually is important when the team is active on the mat) and just such a fast camera leaves the bridge so far in the dust I feel like it's comparing a Corvette to a Chevette. To give you an idea, in a two minute round that the girls typically do, I would end up with maybe 15 at most 20 shots with the bridge camera, and maybe about 40 or 50 for the event (over three distinct disciplines/rounds). With the Pentax I end up with over 300 and I'm actually happier with the usability or 'hit' rate with the Pentax.

Choices in your finished pictures are good, and I can't imagine you'll ever get bored with the K3. Happy snapping!
01-12-2015, 09:46 PM   #25
rfg
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Don't forget that this is actually a slightly wider range of focal lengths (27-450mm equiv.) than the Panasonic FZ-1000....
This is a good point - and for traveling especially I would find 28mm not quite wide enough. I'm using my Sigma 17-70 at 17mm pretty regularly. Anyway enjoy your new K-3!
06-23-2015, 05:59 PM   #26
wgb
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Mendocino County, Northern California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 31
Bought FZ1000 Sold K-3 & lenses

I'm absolutely amazed to be saying this, but after buying an FZ1000, I have sold my K-3 and 5 lenses (to B&H for more than twice as much used as I paid for the FZ1000 new). Check out the 2 photos that I have just uploaded to my gallery, wgb, and you'll see why (though the temple shot, handheld indoors at 1/15, f/3.7, ISO 1600, was cut from 9MB to 2.7MB, and doesn't quite do the original justice; and by the way both the temple shot and the dragonfly are crops, the dragonfly by quite a bit). There's a great website featuring the FZ1000 from Andrew Smallman in Australia at Camera Ergonomics. As he makes abundantly clear through rigorous comparisons and analysis in dozens of articles, we are really entering a new era here. The FZ1000 is simply that good, and the only regret that I have about no longer having my K-3 outfit, is that I have always loved the Pentax Forum and the great community of Pentax shooters here.
06-23-2015, 06:19 PM   #27
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by wgb Quote
I'm absolutely amazed to be saying this, but after buying an FZ1000, I have sold my K-3 and 5 lenses (to B&H for more than twice as much used as I paid for the FZ1000 new). Check out the 2 photos that I have just uploaded to my gallery, wgb, and you'll see why (though the temple shot, handheld indoors at 1/15, f/3.7, ISO 1600, was cut from 9MB to 2.7MB, and doesn't quite do the original justice; and by the way both the temple shot and the dragonfly are crops, the dragonfly by quite a bit). There's a great website featuring the FZ1000 from Andrew Smallman in Australia at Camera Ergonomics. As he makes abundantly clear through rigorous comparisons and analysis in dozens of articles, we are really entering a new era here. The FZ1000 is simply that good, and the only regret that I have about no longer having my K-3 outfit, is that I have always loved the Pentax Forum and the great community of Pentax shooters here.
I guess beauty is only in the beholders eyes.... I just don't see that it can compare to my k-3 images. I have seen people (friends) using the FZ1000 and they also claim that it is good; but if you can not see the difference in the IQ, there is no point of keeping the k-3. But nonetheless, I am happy for you that you like your images and the FZ1000 works out fine for you. To me, it is not worth paying the same for a bridge camera as a DSLR.

The two images you refer to are good for you but to me, they are rather flat and lack of colour depth. But that is fine if you are happy with it.

Last edited by aleonx3; 06-24-2015 at 11:15 AM.
06-24-2015, 11:36 AM   #28
wgb
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Mendocino County, Northern California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 31
I wouldn't argue about differing notions of beauty, but I have made a very close comparison between pix from the FZ1000 and the K-3 (with 5 lenses, including 2 primes and a DA* zoom). I posted the FZ1000 temple shot in my gallery because I've never gotten a handheld no-flash indoor shot at 1/15 of a second ISO 1600 that looked that good from my K-3. Nor have I gotten a better or sharper 400mm equiv shot than the dragonfly pic I also posted, not even with the 60-250 I used to have, which is also 400mm equiv max (in part, perhaps, because I don't use a tripod, and would typically need a much faster shutter speed and hence higher ISO to offset camera shake with the much heavier K-3/60-250 combo). And even the bokeh is impressive in that dragonfly shot. Plus note that I took both within moments of each other, with no change of lens needed. If you're interested in a more rigorous comparision, though (and I only use RAW to compare), try downloading the ISO 80 RAW still life file for the FZ1000 from Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Samples, as well as the companion file for the K-3 (taken with a super sharp 70mm Sigma macro lens, by the way), sharpen and adjust the files in a program like Lightroom, and see if you can then detect any significant difference, even at 1:1. You'll see why Andrew Smallman does not refer to the FZ1000 as a "bridge camera" any more, but rather as a Fixed Zoom Lens Camera (FZLC), and why he also sold all his DSLR equipment after he got the FZ1000, and considers it to truly be a "game changer." It's certainly not perfect, and it doesn't do every conceivable thing, but it's good enough so that even most very picky photo enthusiasts and semi-pros would probably find it all they need. And contrary to the post above, the RAW files DO handle whatever I throw at them in DxO and Lr 5 without a problem (completely unlike any of the "bridge cameras" I've had in the past), and I've found I can adjust things like color depth however I like. Personally, I get far more good shots, and far fewer missed shots these days, so I am indeed happy. Mighty happy.
06-26-2015, 06:18 AM   #29
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by wgb Quote
I wouldn't argue about differing notions of beauty, but I have made a very close comparison between pix from the FZ1000 and the K-3 (with 5 lenses, including 2 primes and a DA* zoom). I posted the FZ1000 temple shot in my gallery because I've never gotten a handheld no-flash indoor shot at 1/15 of a second ISO 1600 that looked that good from my K-3. Nor have I gotten a better or sharper 400mm equiv shot than the dragonfly pic I also posted, not even with the 60-250 I used to have, which is also 400mm equiv max (in part, perhaps, because I don't use a tripod, and would typically need a much faster shutter speed and hence higher ISO to offset camera shake with the much heavier K-3/60-250 combo). And even the bokeh is impressive in that dragonfly shot. Plus note that I took both within moments of each other, with no change of lens needed. If you're interested in a more rigorous comparision, though (and I only use RAW to compare), try downloading the ISO 80 RAW still life file for the FZ1000 from Panasonic FZ1000 Review - Samples, as well as the companion file for the K-3 (taken with a super sharp 70mm Sigma macro lens, by the way), sharpen and adjust the files in a program like Lightroom, and see if you can then detect any significant difference, even at 1:1. You'll see why Andrew Smallman does not refer to the FZ1000 as a "bridge camera" any more, but rather as a Fixed Zoom Lens Camera (FZLC), and why he also sold all his DSLR equipment after he got the FZ1000, and considers it to truly be a "game changer." It's certainly not perfect, and it doesn't do every conceivable thing, but it's good enough so that even most very picky photo enthusiasts and semi-pros would probably find it all they need. And contrary to the post above, the RAW files DO handle whatever I throw at them in DxO and Lr 5 without a problem (completely unlike any of the "bridge cameras" I've had in the past), and I've found I can adjust things like color depth however I like. Personally, I get far more good shots, and far fewer missed shots these days, so I am indeed happy. Mighty happy.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the K-3 and the FZ1000. I can only say that you chose to believe in what you want to believe in. Whether it is a "game changer" or not, it is just a writer's claim on DPR, no more no less.
Enjoy your photographic experience....

Last edited by aleonx3; 06-26-2015 at 07:26 AM.
06-26-2015, 12:12 PM   #30
wgb
Junior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Mendocino County, Northern California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 31
I believe in what the relevant evidence supports, aleonx3, and for me, Andrew Smallman, and many others, the FZ1000 has indeed unquestionably been a game-changer. For those needing razor thin dof, the widest of wide angle lenses, the longest of telephoto lenses, and/or the best possible performance at the highest ISOs, the K-3 or other fine ILC will clearly make a better choice (albeit at a radically higher price and heavier weight with all the requisite lenses, not to mention the extra bulk). But for most enthusiasts and even semi-pros, the FZ1000 (or Sony RX-10 II) will offer far greater value and convenience, far fewer missed shots, and far more good shots, along with, for the first time in such a package, IQ that is truly excellent up to print sizes that most of us will never go beyond. There is a huge amount of advertising promoting the sale of ILCs, so a great many people will, to follow your homily, believe what they are led to believe. Given half a chance, however, and some open-minded people who take the time and trouble to rigorously evaluate the evidence, I believe that the FZ1000 and the FZLCs that follow, will, as technology evolves even further, render most ILCs obsolete. I enjoyed my K-3, DA*, primes, and zooms for the several years I had them, but I do not miss them at all and now find myself simply forgetting about the equipment and enjoying my photography. I would be thrilled, by the way, if Pentax, which has been my favorite camera brand since the early 1970s, some day came out with an FZLC that is even better than the Panasonic FZ1000, and I very much hope that they do, but for now the FZ1000 more than suffices.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, articles, comparisons, dozens, dslr, ergonomics, fz1000, image, images, iq, k-3, k3, leica, lens, lumix, pentax, pentax k-3, quality, range, shot, system, temple
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blind test: K-3 vs K-5 IIs Adam Pentax K-3 216 02-28-2015 10:39 AM
Panasonic Fz1000 pictures guillermovilas Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 10-13-2014 09:32 AM
K-3 Shake Reduction vs K-5iis SR zoolander Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 04-21-2014 04:30 AM
The k-5IIs vs. K-3 wedding photography difference. nicoprod Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 02-13-2014 06:44 AM
K-3 vs K-5 Hands on Video (Ergonomics) Adam Pentax K-3 18 10-22-2013 11:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top