[MJSfoto1956]

As a long time Nikon shooter, the much-anticipated Nikon D500 certainly has my interest. However the Pentax K-3ii is much smaller/lighter and offers comparable specs (e.g. 24Mp vs 20Mp, 8.3fps vs 10fps, etc.) for one third the price ($700 vs $2000). It will be interesting to see what Pentax does with the next iteration of the K-3 series!In spite of having waited for the D500 for five years, I'm not seeing any "must have" features that would encourage me to give up my K-3ii. Which say a lot: Pentax really got it right when they designed the K-3 series.



Michael

[bxf]

+1.

For some of us, size definitely matters.

[FantasticMrFox]

I assume the D500's gib advantage over the K3 II is AF performance for sports and action shots. Plus an articulating touch-screen, and automatic AF fine-tuning for lenses.

So I guess someone keen on action would clearly favour the D500, while for someone who isn't interested in that the D500 would offer little over the excellent K3 II.

[Spodeworld]

I'm not sure it is worth the cost difference, but the AF system, reputed amazing high ISO capabilities (at least the one test a concert photographer did) and articulating touch screen would suggest nice advantages over the K-3 for those who don't mind shelling out the substantial difference.

[boriscleto]

We just have to wait and see what trickles down from the K-1 to the K-3 III*...

*or whatever it ends up being called

[Adam]

When shooting with large/long lenses (probably the primary use case for the D500), having a larger and heavier body can be advantageous.

I believe the D7200 is closer to the K-3's specs/size, right?

[MJSfoto1956]

I believe the D7200 is closer to the K-3's specs/size, right?

I think it fair to say that the D7200 is a step below the K-3 in that it "only" offers 6fps, has a plastic/magnesium body, and no focus peaking (as well as lacking those Pentax-only unique features like pixel-shift, SR in body, and GPS/Astrotracer). Costs a bit more too.

This suggests to me that forthcoming Pentax K-1 FF will be likely be priced aggressively while offering similar specs as the D810 as well as offering Pentax-only unique features, making for a compelling value/price offering.

Michael

[starjedi]

I think it fair to say that the D7200 is a step below the K-3 in that it "only" offers 6fps, has a plastic/magnesium body, and no focus peaking (as well as lacking those Pentax-only unique features like pixel-shift, SR in body, and GPS/Astrotracer). Costs a bit more too.

This suggests to me that forthcoming Pentax K-1 FF will be likely be priced aggressively while offering similar specs as the D810 as well as offering Pentax-only unique features, making for a compelling value/price offering.

Michael

I cannot wait for K3iii this autumn! But it will be hard to make a choice between k3iii and k1...

[RGlasel]

I cannot wait for K3iii this autumn!

Unless the K-1 is a dud and Pentax want to give their camera body sales a quick boost, I don't think you will see the K-3II successor in 2016. The K-3II successor will most likely incorporate new components from the K-1 and be priced 20-25% above the K-3II, similar to how the K-3 and K-5II were positioned.

[darylk]

Comparing the above with the image I've linked to this post, it looks like the full frame K-1 will be substantially smaller in width and maybe around the same height as the crop sensor D500. Quite an accomplishment in my opinion. Size comparison between the new Pentax full frame and K-3 DSLR cameras | Photo Rumors

[Adam]

I think it fair to say that the D7200 is a step below the K-3 in that it "only" offers 6fps, has a plastic/magnesium body, and no focus peaking (as well as lacking those Pentax-only unique features like pixel-shift, SR in body, and GPS/Astrotracer). Costs a bit more too.

This suggests to me that forthcoming Pentax K-1 FF will be likely be priced aggressively while offering similar specs as the D810 as well as offering Pentax-only unique features, making for a compelling value/price offering.

Michael

The K-3 has many advantages (many are "unique to Pentax"), but so does the Nikon (advanced AF, built-in wireless, larger buffer size, 1080/60p, etc.). Nothing to rave about but I'd consider them in the same market segment, whereas the D500 is clearly aimed at professionals (and those pros have been longing for a D300 replacement for quite some time).

If you want to be in the K-3's price range, I believe the D7100 is still available. Nikon isn't as nice as Pentax when it comes to new product price depreciation

[yucatanPentax]

As a long time Nikon shooter, the much-anticipated Nikon D500 certainly has my interest. However the Pentax K-3ii is much smaller/lighter and offers comparable specs (e.g. 24Mp vs 20Mp, 8.3fps vs 10fps, etc.) for one third the price ($700 vs $2000). It will be interesting to see what Pentax does with the next iteration of the K-3 series!In spite of having waited for the D500 for five years, I'm not seeing any "must have" features that would encourage me to give up my K-3ii. Which say a lot: Pentax really got it right when they designed the K-3 series.
Michael

Michael,

Thank you for posting the bright side of the competition picture!

It's sorta depressing to keep running into those who are so severely critical of Pentax when these are really fine cameras and lenses.

I understand when someone is disappointed that a certain thing doesn't work exactly as they wished or think there is an advantage or two on the competition's side. However, that's the way of ALL electronics these days: There's a constant shift up and down up and down with each release. Leapfrogging is normal. Someone somewhere is always going to have a "new thing," then others will catch up or pass them, over and over. That's life.

It's nice to hear the bright points in the light of such frequent criticism from the "glass half empty / we're doomed" crowd.

[Alex645]

I think it fair to say that the D7200 is a step below the K-3 in that it "only" offers 6fps, has a plastic/magnesium body, and no focus peaking (as well as lacking those Pentax-only unique features like pixel-shift, SR in body, and GPS/Astrotracer). Costs a bit more too.
Michael

I think an argument could be made either way here as the D7200 has a superior flash system available, flash sync at 1/250" vs. 1/180", 51 vs. 27 AF points, about 20% more pixels in the rear screen, a ton of self-timer options, etc. A couple of plus points for the K3II is a USB 3 port vs. USB 2 and that it is cold rated down to -10C vs. the D7200 at 0C.

I don't see one as being significantly better than the other. The main differences is that the K3II is $300 cheaper with SR. The D7200 excels with multiple flash setups and AF speed. I love Pentax jpegs, but prefer Nikon RAW. The Sony sensors are virtually the same, so it's mainly the processor that is creating differences. Now if you want to talk about a step down, then I'd say the Canon flagship APS-C 7D II. The 7DII is $700 more than the K3II, 20MP vs. 24MP, 3" rear screen vs. 3.2", much lower ISO performance in low light, but is the AF champ of the three.

In terms of the size comparison, the D500 is really for the D300s users upgrading. Size and ergonomics does matter and I think that's why many of us are less than objective when it comes to the feel, the sound, the weight, and the shape of our cameras.

[pathdoc]

When shooting with large/long lenses (probably the primary use case for the D500), having a larger and heavier body can be advantageous.

Larger, yes (big zooms are a pain on the ME/MX, a breeze on the K-5 by comparison); heavier, not so sure IMO.

[RobA_Oz]

Thanks for the comparison. The D500 is very close in size to the D300s, but its slightly "hunched" appearance makes it seem bigger. I notice that the D500 doesn't have a focus assist light, whereas the D300s does, suggesting that low-light AF performance is now greatly improved.