[stevebrot]

Maybe for you, but I suspect that I will be hit hard by the K-3 weaknesses

That is a strange thing to say. A single Amazon review and the K-3 is less "comfortable" than your K-5II? I suggest you actually try one. I typically am not an AF shooter and when I do, I tend to use center point only and re-compose. That being said, I have found that I can confidently allow the camera free rein when things are really impossible.

A good example would this last weekend at my daughter's wedding. The reception venue was dimly lit and I was shooting with the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C). I put it on "P", enabled Auto-ISO, AF-C with full spread for the AF points and shot away with the camera floating around ISO 1600-6400 and with the aperture usually wide open.

Missed focus...not a problem and not once did the AF assist light come on. Dancers? No problem. People doing silly stuff? No problem.

BTW...not a fan boy and definitely not a big AF shooter.


Steve

[stevebrot]

You are trolling.

...and not even doing it well.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Using Canon or Nikon, shooting wildlife between foliage calls for manual focus skilz, Shanti. You might not get a second chance!

Absolutely! The folk around my area that shoot BIF (birds in flight) use manual focus and M-mode exposure for most of their work with both Nikon and Canon cameras and they also complain about AF issues.


Steve

[derekkite]

Absolutely! The folk around my area that shoot BIF (birds in flight) use manual focus and M-mode exposure for most of their work with both Nikon and Canon cameras and they also complain about AF issues.


Steve

Indeed. All of my friends are fighting with focus all the time and three brands are represented with no small amounts of money spent. A really well implemented feature may get you another shot or two on the day.

What I ask is that it not get in the way. The quick shift of the DA*300 is very very nice paired with back button AF. The Sigma 500 f4.5 lacks that feature, and it is a two step operation to switch in and out of auto focus.

And the biggest change from the K5 to the K3 for me was consistency. I can predict whether the K3 will get it or not, and it is up to me to get the results I want.

[Frater]

and the K-3 is less "comfortable" than your K-5II?

Thanks for your sincere (non fanboy-ish) post
Well, I'm not really comfortable with my K-5II any longer (since I started doing people as a hobby), so I think I need to get away from the K-5ii in the medium run. Just don't know where to go.

And it's not just this 3-star K-3 Amazon review (even though highly competent and consequently tagged as "most helpful"). If you roam through forums open-eyed and come across AF threads (at least those not yet contaminated by fanboy rants against non-fanboy posts), then you come across discouraging information regularly.

I don't have time to google up everything I came across, just digged out a few memorable examples.
Here's someone who found the K-3 far from good for tracking, or for available-light performance:
Thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/290441-k3-vs-k5iis-iq-af.html (03/15)

"K3 has more resolution than K5IIs but that is about it"

"In my experience both cameras suck at tracking. I was hoping K3 with its more focus points would be better. It perhaps is a little better. However, missed tracking shot percentage is way too high for my taste."

"I have shot Canons and Nikons in the past. I thought Canon was bad. K3 is just as bad in tracking. The only camera that has delivered in that department is Nikon"

"I sold my last Canon which was a 6D to switch to Pentax k5IIs. No regrets but I miss Canon's better focusing. 6D is by no means perfect but better than K5iis or K3 for fast action event work"

"I suffered with the K3 not focusing or missing the focus inside the church. The pro on the job was using a mid range Canon. I did not see what it was but he was blasting away shots like there was no tomorrow. I have mentioned in other threads too in PF. If I had to shoot events, I would have to go back to Canon or Nikon"

In the same thread, someone deemed the K-3 unsuitable for event work:

"Own K-5IIs and rented the K-3 for a week to try it out. I didn't buy the K-3 because image quality was a wash, for my 20x30 prints, and the autofocus was not substantially improved. In fact, now I shoot event work with a Canon 6D -- whose autofocus is great, by comparison."

in the other forum www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3629881 :
"Just returned a K-3 to lensrentals.com after a week of playing with it. I found the AF to be snappier than that on my K-5IIs, but it's still not in the same league for me as even a fairly plain vanilla Canon body like the 6D, and it's way behind the 7D."

"Autofocus was noticeably improved over the K-5IIs with all four lenses, but still had issues. The K-3 would frequently fail to lock focus (in AF-S) even in decent light with the 16-50 and the 50-135, meaning I would have to hunt around for a focus point it could read. Sometimes it stuttered back and forth several times before locking. The 7D with a cheap 28-135 IS lens never failed to find focus and generally focused more quickly. Likewise with the 6D."

So you see, the K-3 is not yet the body I would be dreaming about [for MY current work, YMMV]. It's just not up to the standards set by others.
Therefore one of my hopes is, that
(1) the new FF body will be all new (not an old K-3 in a new casing with just a bigger sensor plus some new gimmicks),
(2) will be released as an APSC version as well, and
(3) that APSC will be GOOOOD for everyone this time and ´
(4) not overpriced hopefully.

If anything of the above won't become true, I'm going to make up my mind between two other alternatives.
(1) the new Nikon D7200 (good AF, and it fixed all the minor annoyances the D7100 had, like the small RAW buffer or banding)
(2) the Fuji X-T1 (actually hoping for a successor as well, with better button ergonomics).

I believe with today's super resolutions, getting rid of the front/backfocus issues (their non-calibratable dependency on object distance, zoom positions, light sources, and even aperture), becomes paramount for image quality in enthusiasts' photography. That's why I believe, that mirrorless is the future of enthusiast photography, esp. with phase AF integrated onto the sensor (like the X-T1). Maybe not perfect yet for all circumstances as of today, but this is the future.

So currently I'm stalled between these three options (waiting for an APSC descendant of the Pentax FF, or going for the Nikon D7200, or going for the Fuji X-T1 or its successor).

[philbaum]

Thanks for your sincere (non fanboy-ish) post
Well, I'm not really comfortable with my K-5II any longer (since I started doing people as a hobby), so I think I need to get away from the K-5ii in the medium run. Just don't know where to go.

And it's not just this 3-star K-3 Amazon review (even though highly competent and consequently tagged as "most helpful"). If you roam through forums open-eyed and come across AF threads (at least those not yet contaminated by fanboy rants against non-fanboy posts), then you come across discouraging information regularly.

I don't have time to google up everything I came across, just digged out a few memorable examples.
Here's someone who found the K-3 far from good for tracking, or for available-light performance:
Thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/290441-k3-vs-k5iis-iq-af.html (03/15)

In the same thread, someone deemed the K-3 unsuitable for event work:

So you see, the K-3 is not yet the body I would be dreaming about [for MY current work, YMMV]. It's just not up to the standards set by others.
Therefore one of my hopes is, that
(1) the new FF body will be all new (not an old K-3 in a new casing with just a bigger sensor plus some new gimmicks),
(2) will be released as an APSC version as well, and
(3) that APSC will be GOOOOD for everyone this time and ´
(4) not overpriced hopefully.

If anything of the above won't become true, I'm going to make up my mind between two other alternatives.
(1) the new Nikon D7200 (good AF, and it fixed all the minor annoyances the D7100 had, like the small RAW buffer or banding)
(2) the Fuji X-T1 (actually hoping for a successor as well, with better button ergonomics).

I believe with today's super resolutions, getting rid of the front/backfocus issues (their non-calibratable dependency on object distance, zoom positions, light sources, and even aperture), becomes paramount for image quality in enthusiasts' photography. That's why I believe, that mirrorless is the future of enthusiast photography, esp. with phase AF integrated onto the sensor (like the X-T1). Maybe not perfect yet for all circumstances as of today, but this is the future.

So currently I'm stalled between these three options (waiting for an APSC descendant of the Pentax FF, or going for the Nikon D7200, or going for the Fuji X-T1 or its successor).

Tracking AF performance and low-light static focusing are 2 different categories of performance. The K3's low light static AF is superb and was confirmed by a Popular Photography comparison test against the D7100, i believe. They admitted that their instruments didn't go down that low - i.e. -3ev.

Nikon obviously believes in the -3ev standard set by Pentax because the Nikon D7200 advertises their NEW -3ev low light standard like they just invented it themselves. They mention it sometimes in every other paragraph. For weddings, i would think moire difficulties might be a significant item. K3 has 2 optional levels of anti-moire control that can be switched in - something Nikon can't do. I do about 10 theater play's dress rehearsals, headshots, promos a year for Key City Public Theatre, so my K3 gets plenty of action. On some very dim scenes, it struggles with IQ and the only thing that will fix that is FF camera IMO or a low light zoom faster than f2.8. I guess the alternative would be 2 cameras at a time, which i've tried - and it works.

As to tracking AF, i don't know how that compares to Nikon. Popular photography timed response times to a D7100 and reported that sometimes the Nikon was faster and sometimes the K3 was faster depending on the light conditions.

As to full frame cameras, i don't know myself which way i'm going on that. I like the Sony's fully quiet A7s electronic shutter and its superb dynamic range up to 100,000 iso. A friend has used 60,000 iso a few times on his camera. I do a lot of low light work so that appeals to me. However the current price of $2500 for it seems a bit too much for what i need it for. I would continue to use my K3 for normal shooting and would use the A7s for the low light work. I'm not unhappy with the K3 so lack a lot of motivation to change to another camera

And the Pentax FF is an unknown at this time. So i wait with a K3 - there are far worse fates

[Frater]

As to tracking AF, i don't know how that compares to Nikon. Popular photography timed response times to a D7100 and reported that sometimes the Nikon was faster and sometimes the K3 was faster depending on the light conditions.

I interpreted the quoted postings, that the K-3 often doesn't seem to track at all at times, i.e. tends to fail tracking in real photographic people/event situations (those apart from testing labs' controlled testing scenarios). The issue is probably not so much counting milliseconds or whatever Pop Photo actually counts in their testing Scenarios

Sometimes I believe strongly in testing (e.g. what DxO labs does with sensors), but for anything which has to do with keeper rates, e.g. autofocus related, I tend to not believe testers (because they don't have anything useful to say regarding keeper rates). Instead I trust real users which are using and comparing different models of different brands in their daily work (the latter rules out single-brand fanboys). That's just a personal decision on trust and credibility.

I skip the full frame, because the bulk and weight (of the lenses alone) are just disgusting to me as real pentaxian. If I was keen on going heavy, big, and spending a couple of thousands of Dollars/Pounds/Euros on new gear, I never would have entered Pentax in the first place.

Rather than on Pentax FF, I have an eye on Fujifilm's recent fast progress with everything (compact lenses and bodies with pro level quality), which changes the APSC landscape currently from the upper end.

-OR-
a K-3 successor if it makes a wonder happen.

-OR-
the Nikon D7200, now that the RAW buffer size, and dark banding noise issues are fixed.

---

Last edited by Frater; 03-25-2015 at 01:14 AM.

[Rondec]

I interpreted the quoted postings, that the K-3 often doesn't seem to track at all at times, i.e. tends to fail tracking in real photographic people/event situations (those apart from testing labs' controlled testing scenarios). The issue is probably not so much counting milliseconds or whatever Pop Photo actually counts in their testing Scenarios

Sometimes I believe strongly in testing (e.g. what DxO labs does with sensors), but for anything which has to do with keeper rates, e.g. autofocus related, I tend to not believe testers (because they don't have anything useful to say regarding keeper rates). Instead I trust real users which are using and comparing different models of different brands in their daily work (the latter rules out single-brand fanboys). That's just a personal decision on trust and credibility.

I skip the full frame, because the bulk and weight (of the lenses alone) are just disgusting to me as real pentaxian. If I was keen on going heavy, big, and spending a couple of thousands of Dollars/Pounds/Euros on new gear, I never would have entered Pentax in the first place.

Rather than on Pentax FF, I have an eye on Fujifilm's recent fast progress with everything (compact lenses and bodies with pro level quality), which changes the APSC landscape currently from the upper end.

-OR-
a K-3 successor if it makes a wonder happen.

-OR-
the Nikon D7200, now that the RAW buffer size, and dark banding noise issues are fixed.

It sounds to me like you probably would be better going with Nikon. You say that you trust "real users," but you discount all real users who are positive as being fan boys, therefore you are left with a handful of negative reviews. The K3 tracking isn't great, probably the D7100 is some better and if that is crucial to you, then you should get a Nikon.

It is odd to me that you bring up Fujifilm, as their tracking is pretty poor and their cameras struggle with auto focus in low light settings.

[philbaum]

With regard to K3's tracking ability, i've spent a few hours trying to track seagulls flying over a seaside pier area. If the seagulls were too close to me, the K3 and probably any other camera had no chance to track them. But farther away, the K3 did engage and was showing tracking abilities. As i was doing this, a friend with her Nikon D7000 showed up and was amazed that i was even attempting to track seagulls. The 50-135 lens i was using, although an superb landscape lens, was probably never designed to be a tracking lens

I'm very doubtful of any claims of tracking ability without documented planned comparison testing between cameras and lenses. Does a Nikon D7X00 with DX consumer type lenses have the same tracking ability as another friend with his D4 and its cadre of $10 to 15K lenses - i doubt it. Show me the data and i'll believe it. The rest of it like my anecdotal story is just story telling and mythology.

[derekkite]

With regard to K3's tracking ability, i've spent a few hours trying to track seagulls flying over a seaside pier area. If the seagulls were too close to me, the K3 and probably any other camera had no chance to track them. But farther away, the K3 did engage and was showing tracking abilities. As i was doing this, a friend with her Nikon D7000 showed up and was amazed that i was even attempting to track seagulls. The 50-135 lens i was using, although an superb landscape lens, was probably never designed to be a tracking lens

I'm very doubtful of any claims of tracking ability without documented planned comparison testing between cameras and lenses. Does a Nikon D7X00 with DX consumer type lenses have the same tracking ability as another friend with his D4 and its cadre of $10 to 15K lenses - i doubt it. Show me the data and i'll believe it. The rest of it like my anecdotal story is just story telling and mythology.

This. The Nikon and Canon have sophisticated algorithms and multiple settings. In the field it comes down to operator skill as well as speed of the lens. If time allows and the subjects are close, the DA*300 works quite well, but is limited in length and the SDM is slow. The 500 f4.5 Sigma has the screw drive mechanism, is fast and if you keep the subject in the viewfinder it tracks quite well. I have no problem locking focus with my 35mm limited, or the FA43. Both my 90mm Tamron and F100 macro take their time to accurately find focus, but once there is right on.

It is more the lens than the body that matters. The K-3 has quite good focusing ability, but most of the lenses are not up to it's capability. The K-3 is consistent at least, does what you expect, and from there it is up to you.

[boriscleto]

Now that I have a K-3 a new camera will be announced within a few months. Just like when I bought a K-5 in 2012...

[clackers]

Now that I have a K-3 a new camera will be announced within a few months. Just like when I bought a K-5 in 2012...

But you would have bought both at low prices - smart cookie! :-)

[Tom777]

The best things ricoh could do for the K-3 II is an articulating (touch)screen, sensor based phase detect AF for video and live view. wifi, add the hr an clarity modes and it will be a killer.

Agree 100%


Tom G

[gaweidert]

Now that I have a K-3 a new camera will be announced within a few months. Just like when I bought a K-5 in 2012...

You too? I did the same thing myself.

[anemone]

Touch screen on DSLR. NO! At least my screen is full of nose prints. Think how many mistouches that would generate.

And then they put Android on it as it was designed to be camera OS. And every time you unlock camera you get nice swipe print on the screen too.