[bencoskater]

found an K-3 III Eye-AF test video on YouTube (not sure if previously posted in this thread)
PENTAX K-3 Mark III - Eye-AF tracking Test (preliminary) with DFA*70-200mm F2.8 - YouTube

Not in this thread but in other threads yes

[Smolk]

Bigger is not necessarily better from a certain point onwards, unless you do not mind needing to look around the image and not see it "all at once".

There's still a lot bigger to be had that's useful; the LX was 0.95x, 98% FF. I'm used to my KXs with 0.88x, 93%. If the K-1 III gets to 80%, that's still not as good, but of course it does have AF now.

[thibs]

I think any referencing of the 50 mm lens (or any other) is complete nonsense.

It has always been done that way even in the film days. Not it means it's good, huh....

[beholder3]

There's still a lot bigger to be had that's useful; the LX was 0.95x, 98% FF. I'm used to my KXs with 0.88x, 93%. If the K-1 III gets to 80%, that's still not as good, but of course it does have AF now.

I hope you are aware that the KX x0.88 / 93% is the same as a x0,76 / 100%.

The LX viewfinder actually was 98%/95%, so it boils down to x0,88 / 100%.

And there obviously are all very good reasons why viewfinders are sized the way they are today. Even with EVFs - where you can go any size you want ignoring "brightness" issues and most optics issues, there are certain standards.

[pinholecam]

If you want to take a look at the beauty of this new camera, look here: Pentax K-3 Mark III initial review: Digital Photography Review . So far not too many negatives...

Pretty standard fair from DPR wrt Pentax.
They go through wordy hoops to put down on the features.


Examples:

"Ricoh describes it as a 25MP chip, but the cameras resolution is actually 25.7MP, raising the possibility that it's related to the one using in Fujifilm's X-T4 (albeit with a more conventional color filter array and no pixels masked for phase detection)."
>> Irrelevant... its 25mp and thats it, no need to draw any line to X-T4 to put it down that its "conventional color filter array" and "no pixels masked for phase detection"


"Though this could well mean noise reduction applied in to Raw data, as it did with the K-1 Mark II."
>> Again... putting it down before any shots were fired....


"But, even taking this into account, it would be equivalent to a 0.68x magnification finder on full-frame, making it only a fraction smaller than the 0.70x finder in the Pentax K-1 models. That's small by the standards of many mirrorless cameras, in which viewfinder size isn't dependent on the viewing angle of the sensor, but is the largest ever fitted to an APS-C DSLR."
>> The viewfinder is really a feat in engineering and commitment to the DSLR.
Instead of "Its the largest viewfinder ever made for the APSC" we get the above ...

"The K-1 II will offer better image quality if you mount full-frame lenses (and what are likely to be pretty competitive, albeit ~15MP, images when cropped to APS-C), but it uses an older AF system, can't shoot as fast, is heavier and can't shoot 4K video. The full-frame Nikon will again offer better image quality and has a very capable AF system. "
>> the same thing can be said for the FF Nikon, but they point it out on the K1ii


"Essentially, it's impossible to say whether the K-3 III makes sense for you without knowing why you're considering it. However, what should be clear is that it's a well-specced machine even compared with the latest mirrorless rivals, which means it's a fair step forward from older APS-C Pentaxes."
>> Pentax already said its about the DSLR shooting experience.... were they paying attention or the Pentax marketing guy did not tell them before handing one over?


"But that still assumes that these other cameras would make appropriate substitutes for the K-3 III. If you've spent a decent chunk of your life and your income building up a set of good Pentax lenses, that may not be the case."
>> No mention that this may be the only company that is dedicated to the DSLR as a system (while the rest are shakey or uncertain to say the least )


The only thing that catches my attention is that it was written by Richard Butler instead of the other past reviewers (notably Rishi?? ) , so perhaps the reason for the more tempered beatdown than 'wild made up problems / comparisons' by the other reviewer.

[c.a.m]

Since the K-3 Mark III was announced officially, DPReview has posted three articles that introduce the camera.

Their "Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 Mark III," a 12-panel overview, highlights a number of features and includes some really nice pictures of the new camera.

However, there are a couple of questionable statements.


Page 3, New sensor

"At the heart of the K-3 Mark III is a new 26MP APS-C sensor... That sensor should provide outstanding image quality and fast readout, but it doesn't come with any form of on-sensor phase-detection autofocus.

While this won't impact viewfinder shooting, photographers using live view and framing up their images (or video clips) on the rear screen will have to make do with the hunting associated with contrast-detect autofocus."

(my emphasis)

What's wrong with this? Well, imagine the difference in tone when "but" is replaced by "and." One is negative, the alternate is positive. Furthermore, the second statement totally ignores the possibility of focusing manually while in Live View -- a technique used by many photographers who enjoy their classic heritage lenses.



Page 12, Conclusion

"Thanks to rapid product cycles and a collectively short-ish memory of much of the consumer public (or perhaps just human beings in general), it may seem almost anachronistic to release an all-new flagship DSLR in the spring of 2021. However, our initial impressions are positive."

Why bring up the question of 'out-dated' DSLRs? What role does this sentiment play in an otherwise objective presentation of the camera? Perhaps the author is pandering to a large part of their readership. Besides, the K-3 Mark III is totally consistent with Ricoh Imaging's vision.

- Craig

[Class A]

Format absolutely plays a role,

Yes, but...

100% magnification just means that the angle of view with a 50mm is the same angle of view as with your eyes.

... is not correct.

Magnification and AOV are two different parameters. They are only coupled, if you fix the output size.

The 50mm focal length is not special because it matches the AOV but because it is an approximation of the 43.27mm focal length that gives one exactly a normal perspective when viewing an image at a distance that is the same as the image diagonal. BTW, if the convention were to look at images at half the distance of the image diagonal, one would have to use 21.63mm to record the respective normal perspective.

A "normal perspective" neither exaggerates or lessen the angles in a scene (wide angles exaggerate angles, long focal lengths lessen them).

With Nikon it is a feat, with Pentax surpassing it, it isn't really good.

I'm not sure that "isn't really good" characterises what they wrote but it is true that in the D500 review conclusion the viewfinder is referred to as "the large viewfinder" while the K-3 III's viewfinder is labelled "small". I guess the justification might be that in 2016 the EVF competition was different than it is in 2021?

I think any referencing of the 50 mm lens (or any other) is complete nonsense.

Viewfinder magnification is defined that way and it makes sense, since it relates to how a user perceives the viewfinder image compared to the real scene.

BTW, when DPReview quote the FF-equivalent magnification they are doing it to give a sense of the effective size of the viewfinder frame. Even a slightly enlarged APS-C image will still be smaller than an FF image at 1:1 magnification.

---

Last edited by Class A; 04-06-2021 at 07:40 AM.

[reh321]

I think any referencing of the 50 mm lens (or any other) is complete nonsense.

My first two SLRs were kitted with 50mm lenses - it took me time to adjust to them, but I did use them.
I think would have preferred 45mm - like my two rangefinder cameras before them had.
I still have them - in fact I now have something like five 50mm lenses, but I tend not to use that focal length much since I use “APS-C”.

[biz-engineer]

VF magnification has nothing to do with how the image will look like in the final photo and everything about how large the finder is.

Wrong.

---------- Post added 06-04-21 at 19:47 ----------

100% magnification just means that the angle of view with a 50mm is the same angle of view as with your eyes.

Yes, correct. That's what I meant in my post.

---------- Post added 06-04-21 at 19:50 ----------

I think any referencing of the 50 mm lens (or any other) is complete nonsense.

I think you are right. We should refer to normal "view" instead of referring to a 50mm lens FL on FF.

---------- Post added 06-04-21 at 19:51 ----------

And: Bigger is not necessarily better from a certain point onwards, unless you do not mind needing to look around the image and not see it "all at once".

I agree and I disagree. It depends how the VF is designed. Ideally, you want to see the image as it was projected on ground glass on view cameras, then you have to fit this into a viewfinder... I think that is the problem.

[Serkevan]

Wrong.

So a photo taken with the K-1 (VF 0.7x) will look different than a photo taken with the ME (VF 0.97x). Good to know!

[Smolk]

I hope you are aware that the KX x0.88 / 93% is the same as a x0,76 / 100%. The LX viewfinder actually was 98%/95%, so it boils down to x0,88 / 100%.

So I concluded: 0.80x / 100% would still not be as good as the LX, while acknowledging that other factors come into play.

[swanlefitte]

It looks like there is a certain concensus that 0.78-0.80% is best according to evf systems. I assume this chart converts to effective magnification.
Mirrorless EVF Sizes | Neocamera

[Smolk]

It looks like there is a certain concensus that 0.78-0.80% is best according to evf systems. I assume this chart converts to effective magnification.
Mirrorless EVF Sizes | Neocamera

Thanks for this chart - that's interesting. Effective size is in this table: Digital Camera Viewfinder Comparison | Neocamera
Remarkably, the M43 Olympus OM-D E-M1X comes out quite high: apparently the size of its EVF is the same as that of say the Nikon Z7 which is FF.
The Sony A1 EVF looks as interesting as it is expensive.

I'm not sure why 0.78-0.80 would be best, apart from being the most common spec at just below the high end

[biz-engineer]

So a photo taken with the K-1 (VF 0.7x) will look different than a photo taken with the ME (VF 0.97x). Good to know!

Not at all. Viewfinder has no effect on taken picture, but the view of it before it's taken. Simply said, when I look thru the VF of my Pentax K1 with 50mm lens, the image viewed inside of the OVF "looks like"* if I look at the rear LCD display in live view with a ~75mm lens.

* "looks like", the ratio of distances perceived in the scene between foreground, mid-ground and background elements.

[gatorguy]

So looking thru the comments at DPR they are overwhelmingly on the positive side. I personally feel that the K3 III will get a fair review, especially considering a DSLR release is a bit unique now.