[clackers]

Do people really care that much about 22 vs 26mp? (etc)

And it is the most expensive Pentax APS-C ever made, and if you predicted it wouldn't sell, you were wrong.

There *is* a niche market for informed camera owners like Pentaxians for a camera with more resolution than the D500, higher dynamic range, less noise, image stabilisation in the body so you don't have to pay for lenses with them - including vintage glass, pixel shift, BSI sensor and the massive viewfinder - 1.05 magnification vs 0.67, a product that unlike Nikon the company actually believes in.

I can tell you that despite the negativity of internet forum posters, AFAIK, the importers to Australia got their sums wrong and the shipment was sold out just on pre-orders. A second June shipment is already completely sold too, IIRC, and so it's a waiting game for Aussie Pentaxians.

Try to get hold of the special Limited package, bet you can't! Silver went real early, perhaps there are still blacks to be found.

So here's the situation in Japan, courtesy of the great forum member JPT. I assume you won't be buying one, but that's not our fault, that's on you, Lee.

K-3 Mark III and GR III topping one Japanese sales chart - PentaxForums.com

---

Last edited by clackers; 06-05-2021 at 09:01 PM.

[LeeRunge]

And it is the most expensive Pentax APS-C ever made, and if you predicted it wouldn't sell, you were wrong.

There *is* a niche market for informed camera owners like Pentaxians for a camera with more resolution than the D500, higher dynamic range, less noise, image stabilisation in the body so you don't have to pay for lenses with them - including vintage glass, pixel shift, and the massive viewfinder - 1.05 magnification vs 0.67.

I can tell you that despite the negativity of internet forum posters, AFAIK, the importers to Australia got their sums wrong and the shipment was sold out just on pre-orders. A second June shipment is already completely sold too, IIRC, and so it's a waiting game for Aussie Pentaxians.

Try to get hold of the special Limited package, bet you can't! Silver went real early, perhaps there are still blacks to be found.

So here's the situation in Japan, courtesy of the great forum member JPT. I assume you won't be buying one, but that's not our fault, that's on you, Lee.

K-3 Mark III and GR III topping one Japanese sales chart - PentaxForums.com

Your assuming wrong that I’m not buying one, I actually just stated that I was. But I am waiting for a sale.

Don’t get me wrong Clackers, I hope it sells in massive numbers because it’s good for Pentax. But I think the strong sales are just thirsty Pentaxians who are getting to quench that AF-C drought. I’m there with them. And silver will probably be impossible to find.

Remember that headline is in the midst of others like Nikon being completely out of stock for months, not hard to outsell the competition when they can’t sell anything. Nikon either got hit by bad luck or bad planning and probably lost a lot of Z6ii sales due to that. I actually ordered one, waited over a month then picked up the Z5 instead, which fortunately they firmware upgraded and made much better in low light. But it’s not a lightning fast shutter (unless you use the 30fps 8mp trick). Anyway Nikon lost a Z6ii there. But the Z5 for $1200 is a lot of camera for the money and quite fun to use. The viewfinder is huge if you don’t mind an EVF.

And as a positive point for Pentax, I could just buy a D-500 but I actually want the K-3 iii because I know how feature rich Pentax’s are. And I love the ergo’s and button layout. I still have to look down at my Nikon’s/Fuji/Olympus and wonder why they did it that way when I can pick up my K-3 and it’s organic to use. So I never sold the glass and waited. I’ll wait a bit longer for the price to come down though. I just wish they had offered this K33 5 years ago and I’d have saved a lot of money!

I do hope they’ll have a 150-600 at some point to give that AF-C something to play with for wildlife. For now it’ll be my 60-250.

As for DR and all that, honestly I have a shelf full of different cameras now from M43 to FF and if I can’t get the image I want from any of them it’s my fault. They all have excellent image quality. Even my iPhone 12 in ProRaw is exceptional for what it is. The M43 being a bit more difficult if your don’t get exposure on point and the K-3 following it. But I have enough skill that it doesn’t happen much. Every camera out there today has a great sensor in it. To Pentax’s credit they always seem to finish last but finish strong by getting more out of those sensors.

I’ll be sure to post about it when the time comes and I get my hands on one. I’ll be building out slowly the z line as I’m enjoying mirrorless, but I enjoy DSLR as well and as you said Nikon is probably moving on, so why not give that money to Pentax who’s pledged to stick with it. The day’s of huge sales numbers are over for all these brands. I think Nikon will follow a small but profitable model after the restructure and be in 3rd place, they seem to have all indications as coming into the green now with mainly just more expensive full frames from now on out to enthusiasts and professionals. Pentax has already been in that model for a while.

I need a new 16-50 as well so hopefully that’s released in time for when I pick it up.

[c.a.m]

If I’m a new buyer looking I see this:
- Far less lenses, with anemic third party support. Good luck with that 150-600.
- A tiny buffer to hamstring that frame rate-Slower cards to help with that effect
-Still doesn’t hit the D-500 mark for AF-C-Less focus points, less cross type, see above.
-No flip screen for wildlife photographers to get low or other uses
-A lower resolution screen compared to a 5 year old camera.

@LeeRunge, I know that you're positive about the K-3 Mark III and Pentax in general, so no challenge there. Not meaning to poke you with a rebuttal stick; just proposing that there are various ways of assessing potential options. Maybe a prospective buyer will stumble upon this thread!

I would agree that a new buyer might assume the relative weaknesses in this list. However, upon deeper research and consideration, that new buyer could conclude:

Lenses. I'm glad to see this one at the top of your list -- lenses are critical in a system. Except for the long zoom at 600 mm, one could conclude that the Pentax line covers a sufficient range from 10 mm to 560 mm, albeit in several different marques. The D FA 150-450 almost reaches that specialty focal length, but not quite. While a fulsome lens lineup -- and extensive third-party options -- may seem preferable upon first glance, an objective buyer should determine their own use cases and needs.

Sheer numbers of lenses is not necessarily a good measure of comparison. I think that the Pentax line could serve every genre of photography except the longest-FL wildlife, and it includes several top-notch models.

Buffer. I believe that the K-3 III has a larger buffer than the D500. Here's what Imaging Resource found when they tested the D500 in 2016 (copied from another post I made).

Nikon D500 Review - Performance

Performance test of Continuous High mode: 14-bit RAW (lossless, compressed) + JPEG (Large, Fine), using a Lexar Pro 2933x 64 GB XQD 2.0 card rated at 400 MB/s write.

The D500 achieved "10.2 frames/sec for 27 frames total then slowed to an average of 3.83 fps with a full buffer. Time to clear 27-shot buffer: 4 seconds." (No indication of the AF mode)

The K-3 III specifications indicate that the RAW+ continuous shooting is rated up to 30 frames at 12 fps [11 fps with AF] but the shooting speed is slower when shooting with a "high ISO sensitivity."

Memory Cards and buffer clearing. Certainly, the D500 has a specification for faster cards. However, at this point I don't think we've seen any detailed tests or measurements that would provide a fair comparison. I hope that Imaging Resource provides this quantitative data for the K-3 III.

AF Points and AF.C Comparison. As you've suggested in other remarks, real-world comparisons of AF performance would be more useful than comparing specifications. The brief DPReview video review seemed to speak positively about both cameras in the 'Weaving Jordan Running Test', but that was hardly a definitive evaluation. At this point, I think that an objective buyer would have to wait for credible comparisons.

Flip Screen. No question, the K-3 Mark III does not suit a buyer who needs -- or strongly desires -- this feature. No Pentax for them.

Rear Monitor Screen. The point about the Pentax's lower resolution is valid. It's difficult to find a spec for the pixel count (vice dots). Imaging Resource states the K-3 III has 540K pixels; the D500 spec indicates 590K. Certainly, the Nikon has more pixels; whether the 9% increase makes a real-world difference is hard to say, but I'd think not. Perhaps there are advantages to the lower-density screen, such as power management.

Overall, I would agree that a prospective new buyer might shy away from Pentax. However, I wonder whether such aversion would be based on an underlying negative tone that the Pentax brand seems to have garnered over the years, or recent comments in a few reviews that it's suited mainly for existing Pentax users, instead of a deeper, objective analysis of the new camera and the Pentax system. Ultimately, I really don't think that a lot of folks would bother to do that research.

- Craig

[luftfluss]

One thing I've realized over years of comparing kits is that it is not entirely sensible to try to duplicate one manufacturer's lineup with another's. Pick the gear that is most appealing from each manufacturer (plus third-party) and create configurations that speak to you. They might be significantly different from one another.

[LeeRunge]

@LeeRunge, I know that you're positive about the K-3 Mark III and Pentax in general, so no challenge there. Not meaning to poke you with a rebuttal stick; just proposing that there are various ways of assessing potential options. Maybe a prospective buyer will stumble upon this thread!

I would agree that a new buyer might assume the relative weaknesses in this list. However, upon deeper research and consideration, that new buyer could conclude:

Lenses. I'm glad to see this one at the top of your list -- lenses are critical in a system. Except for the long zoom at 600 mm, one could conclude that the Pentax line covers a sufficient range from 10 mm to 560 mm, albeit in several different marques. The D FA 150-450 almost reaches that specialty focal length, but not quite. While a fulsome lens lineup -- and extensive third-party options -- may seem preferable upon first glance, an objective buyer should determine their own use cases and needs.

Sheer numbers of lenses is not necessarily a good measure of comparison. I think that the Pentax line could serve every genre of photography except the longest-FL wildlife, and it includes several top-notch models.

Buffer. I believe that the K-3 III has a larger buffer than the D500. Here's what Imaging Resource found when they tested the D500 in 2016 (copied from another post I made).

Nikon D500 Review - Performance

Performance test of Continuous High mode: 14-bit RAW (lossless, compressed) + JPEG (Large, Fine), using a Lexar Pro 2933x 64 GB XQD 2.0 card rated at 400 MB/s write.

The D500 achieved "10.2 frames/sec for 27 frames total then slowed to an average of 3.83 fps with a full buffer. Time to clear 27-shot buffer: 4 seconds." (No indication of the AF mode)

The K-3 III specifications indicate that the RAW+ continuous shooting is rated up to 30 frames at 12 fps [11 fps with AF] but the shooting speed is slower when shooting with a "high ISO sensitivity."

Memory Cards and buffer clearing. Certainly, the D500 has a specification for faster cards. However, at this point I don't think we've seen any detailed tests or measurements that would provide a fair comparison. I hope that Imaging Resource provides this quantitative data for the K-3 III.

AF Points and AF.C Comparison. As you've suggested in other remarks, real-world comparisons of AF performance would be more useful than comparing specifications. The brief DPReview video review seemed to speak positively about both cameras in the 'Weaving Jordan Running Test', but that was hardly a definitive evaluation. At this point, I think that an objective buyer would have to wait for credible comparisons.

Flip Screen. No question, the K-3 Mark III does not suit a buyer who needs -- or strongly desires -- this feature. No Pentax for them.

Rear Monitor Screen. The point about the Pentax's lower resolution is valid. It's difficult to find a spec for the pixel count (vice dots). Imaging Resource states the K-3 III has 540K pixels; the D500 spec indicates 590K. Certainly, the Nikon has more pixels; whether the 9% increase makes a real-world difference is hard to say, but I'd think not. Perhaps there are advantages to the lower-density screen, such as power management.

Overall, I would agree that a prospective new buyer might shy away from Pentax. However, I wonder whether such aversion would be based on an underlying negative tone that the Pentax brand seems to have garnered over the years, or recent comments in a few reviews that it's suited mainly for existing Pentax users, instead of a deeper, objective analysis of the new camera and the Pentax system. Ultimately, I really don't think that a lot of folks would bother to do that research.

- Craig

Well thought out points Craig and I agree with much of your points. Personally I have a 150-600 Sigma C that is quite good for what it costs although I think the Tamron G2 is supposed to be a bit better. There’s like 4-6 options if I remember correctly in that range for Nikon. I really wish one of those was made in K mount as I feel like it’s a gap in the line, I think Pentax is pretty strong below 450mm though.

I guess I like all brands of camera but it should be a strong statement here that dispite having a host of Nikon glass I’m waiting to get the K-3 iii over a Nikon body. When I saw the dpreview swerve test (huge grain of salt calling that a “test”) I knew I would be happy. Pentax never needed to beat the D-500 for me to buy it. The rest of Pentax’s strengths in full feature set, ergonomics etc makes up for the small difference in AF-C, or any buffer difference for that matter. I like shooting with them. I think I mentioned a while back that if it was as good as my D-750 I would be more than happy. And I’m quite confident it exceeds that camera’s AF capability.

So despite coming off negative I just like to try and give other brands a fair shake on here sometimes. Nikon’s are good cameras. But Pentax does have better controls and ergonomics, and more features. I give Nikon some credit though they don’t cripple them as much between the versions as much as they used too. But they really can’t because they need to survive. Nikon is now a much smaller brand with a model for selling less cameras at a profit. Similar to Pentax. In some ways I like that because it means you have to try harder to get sales instead of just being the “most sold” which somehow sells itself in a way.

Great counterpoints and probably useful information for a prospective buyer reading through this thread. I’m buying the K-3 iii by the way prospective buyer.

---------- Post added 06-07-2021 at 01:57 AM ----------

One thing I've realized over years of comparing kits is that it is not entirely sensible to try to duplicate one manufacturer's lineup with another's. Pick the gear that is most appealing from each manufacturer (plus third-party) and create configurations that speak to you. They might be significantly different from one another.

No it’s tough to translate. Especially with Pentax. Just look at the limited primes, they’re just unique in focal lengths. And I’ve found with a bunch of different kits that sometimes one lens is just weirdly special with that brand. The 45mm 1.8 is like that with Olympus to me. I love my 60-250 DA* even though it’s got slow SDM. I like the 16-50 a lot too even though it wasn’t technically perfect. For Nikon the Z primes are exceptional and I honestly like their JPEG engine a lot. None of them really totally dominate. My flickr page is a mix of those camera’s and other than the Sony RX100 stuff I think they all generate great images. I don’t like that Sony though, something is always off when I use it colors wise.

[luftfluss]

For Nikon the Z primes are exceptional and I honestly like their JPEG engine a lot. None of them really totally dominate. My flickr page is a mix of those camera’s and other than the Sony RX100 stuff I think they all generate great images. I don’t like that Sony though, something is always off when I use it colors wise.

I've been so impressed with the Nikon Z colors. I'm no colormonger, but the Z jpegs look as good as anything out there. DXO PhotoLab has a setting for emulating the Z colors - among dozens of other cameras - and it is my favorite for use with my older lenses, the punchiness works so well without being over the top.

[clackers]

I think Nikon will follow a small but profitable model after the restructure and be in 3rd place, they seem to have all indications as coming into the green now with mainly just more expensive full frames from now on out to enthusiasts and professionals.

The Nikon decline had been on before covid and recent supply problems, Lee. It looks like going mirrorless has just accelerated their decline.

As Thom Hogan (a Nikonphile) has said, for many years, the top three in cameras kind of followed a 45%, 30%, 15% marketshare model. Nikon aimed for 45% with lots of new products/discounting/marketing/promotions/buying social influencers, etc - all things some have wanted Pentax to spend money on, and they've ended up at 15 percent, hopelessly behind, and abandoning ordinary consumers.

That has ramifications for the entire company, because the prediction is that revenue will slide further. Pentax is a negligible contributor or drain on Ricoh's global resources, it makes no difference either way, but for Nikon, cameras and lenses are about a third of the corporation's revenue, so that division's performance is a serious problem. It just lost more money annually than any camera company ever did in history, including Olympus in the bad final years.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing your pics with the new Katie whenever you get it. The new DA*16-50 I think will be as much a leap forward from the older version as the K-3 III was to the Mark II. But it will probably have a commensurate price tag.

Could be a few Pentaxians looking to sell kidneys or plan bank jobs!

The D500 was a fine body (really an APS-C version of the D5), but like the Sony A9, I believe very few people actually bought one, and the K-3 III you're dreaming about is simply a better camera, IMHO. If someone called it the best APS-C DSLR ever made, I'd think, sure, that's reasonable. I've read here and on Facebook lots of K-1 owners drooling at the technologies finding their way into its Mark III. And why not? With the bigger form factor they'd certainly get inbuilt GPS and flippy screen, too, without compromising the tough build quality.

---

Last edited by clackers; 06-07-2021 at 10:25 PM.

[Dieseler]

... and the massive viewfinder - 1.05 magnification vs 0.67,

The 0.67 figure you are quoting for the D500 is the 35mm (FF) equivalent figure. The same equivalence for the K3III is 0.7.

Or 1.05 (K3III) vs 1.00 (D500) in APSC terms.

I can tell you that despite the negativity of internet forum posters, AFAIK, the importers to Australia got their sums wrong and the shipment was sold out just on pre-orders. A second June shipment is already completely sold too, IIRC, and so it's a waiting game for Aussie Pentaxians.

Try to get hold of the special Limited package, bet you can't! Silver went real early, perhaps there are still blacks to be found.

Sorry to say Clackers, but it appears as if the Limited kits and the bodies are in stock at CRK as of today anyway:

[LeeRunge]

The Nikon decline had been on before covid and recent supply problems, Lee. It looks like going mirrorless has just accelerated their decline.

As Thom Hogan (a Nikonphile) has said, for many years, the top three in cameras kind of followed a 45%, 30%, 15% marketshare model. Nikon aimed for 45% with lots of new products/discounting/marketing/promotions/buying social influencers, etc - all things some have wanted Pentax to spend money on, and they've ended up at 15 percent, hopelessly behind, and abandoning ordinary consumers.

That has ramifications for the entire company, because the prediction is that revenue will slide further. Pentax is a negligible contributor or drain on Ricoh's global resources, it makes no difference either way, but for Nikon, cameras and lenses are about a third of the corporation's revenue, so that division's performance is a serious problem. It just lost more money annually than any camera company ever did in history, including Olympus in the bad final years.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing your pics with the new Katie whenever you get it. The new DA*16-50 I think will be as much a leap forward from the older version as the K-3 III was to the Mark II. But it will probably have a commensurate price tag.

Could be a few Pentaxians looking to sell kidneys or plan bank jobs!

The D500 was a fine body (really an APS-C version of the D5), but like the Sony A9, I believe very few people actually bought one, and the K-3 III you're dreaming about is simply a better camera, IMHO. If someone called it the best APS-C DSLR ever made, I'd think, sure, that's reasonable. I've read here and on Facebook lots of K-1 owners drooling at the technologies finding their way into its Mark III. And why not? With the bigger form factor they'd certainly get inbuilt GPS and flippy screen, too, without compromising the tough build quality.

Nikons’ been in a free fall for a few years as you mentioned. I do think they’ll stabilize back into profit again in the next year though. Smaller Nikon that it was. The Z camera’s really are pretty solid and the files are excellent from them. I don’t think they’re totally doomed, just a smaller version than in the past, although I think they’ve been in a cycle like that before. I do think they’ll be growing in Z sales over the years. Th 6 and 7ii appear to be selling well, it’s hard to tell though with the chip shortages. We’ll see over the coming year if they stop the bleeding. The Z’s really do have top of the line images SOOC, hardly any work needs to be done. The mirrorless camera’s still have some issues though with certain subjects, like small songbirds. The AF algorithms don’t do as well as a DSLR yet for those subjects. So they have some positives they do better and negatives like that. It’s by no means a strait forward one is better than the other situation imo from having both.

I don’t know how many D500’s sold but probably a fraction of the D750 and 850 sales. I’d rather have the K3-iii, even if it doesn’t match the 500 exactly for AF. Pentax adds so many features and for a DSLR you can’t beat a Pentax for controls. I’m also perfectly happy with AF-C at the D-750’s level or beyond. That’s plenty enough for me to get what I need without frustration. One of the frustrations but benefits of learning with a K-7 and K-5 is I learned a lot of techniques for fast moving subjects to work around the AF-C. So with anything that works well it’s now pretty easy. I’m sure the K3iii will feel easy and I’ve waited a long time for that.

I do hope they bring a K-1 iii with the improvements of the K3, that will be an excellent camera. And if Nikon and Canon really are just letting the DSLR’s sunset Pentax will be in great shape for OVF users with a solid K3 and new K1 as alternatives in shooting experience. Those three will be beating each other senseless with camera refreshes over the next few years trying to grab market share.

You’re probably right about organ donation for the 16-50, hopefully it’s not ridiculous. That was one of my most used lenses until the SDM died and I’d like another.

Now how do we talk Sigma or Tamron into bringing over a 150-600 for Pentax?

[clackers]

The 0.67 figure you are quoting for the D500 is the 35mm (FF) equivalent figure. The same equivalence for the K3III is 0.7. ... it appears as if the Limited kits and the bodies are in stock at CRK as of today anyway

Ah, yes, thanks for the corrections, Dieseler!

Ricoh have announced the silver kit is all gone, so every remaining copy must be in the hands of distributors like CRK.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3-3/premiumkit/

[clackers]

Nikons’ been in a free fall for a few years as you mentioned. I do think they’ll stabilize back into profit again in the next year though.

But not into revenues, Nikon's own optimistic forecast says their challenge is for the camera division to cope with the uncharted territory of sales of less than IIRC 150 billion yen annually. That's not the company Nikonians recognize.

But they'll have to cope with that.

Breaking even is not acceptable to shareholders and lenders, by the way. They want eight percent and above profit, and will withdraw investment if they can't get it.

This was the dead weight of the Olympus camera division on the rest of their company, and the Sony camera division on the current corporation, too.

Pentax is in the situation of not either helping or hindering Ricoh's global targets, it's that small.

Now how do we talk Sigma or Tamron into bringing over a 150-600 for Pentax?

It's hard to see how either would do it, given that lens profits have tumbled in exactly the same way as cameras.

Neither have been released AFAIK for Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, and they are more popular mounts than Pentax. It's just economics, they know there would not be enough buyers to make a profit.

Perhaps Tamron could be approached by Ricoh to supply a DFA150-600 in the manner of the recent 70-210, but again, the numbers have to work. That's a different Excel spreadsheet.

[LeeRunge]

But not into revenues, Nikon's own optimistic forecast says their challenge is for the camera division to cope with the uncharted territory of sales of less than IIRC 150 billion yen annually. That's not the company Nikonians recognize.

But they'll have to cope with that.

Breaking even is not acceptable to shareholders and lenders, by the way. They want eight percent and above profit, and will withdraw investment if they can't get it.

This was the dead weight of the Olympus camera division on the rest of their company, and the Sony camera division on the current corporation, too.

Pentax is in the situation of not either helping or hindering Ricoh's global targets, it's that small.




It's hard to see how either would do it, given that lens profits have tumbled in exactly the same way as cameras.

Neither have been released AFAIK for Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, and they are more popular mounts than Pentax. It's just economics, they know there would not be enough buyers to make a profit.

Perhaps Tamron could be approached by Ricoh to supply a DFA150-600 in the manner of the recent 70-210, but again, the numbers have to work. That's a different Excel spreadsheet.

I’d be happy with a Pentax rebranded Tamron G2 version. I do wonder with Sigma’s lens conversion..... They have Pentax mount listed.


SIGMA MOUNT CONVERSION SERVICE
Sigma will convert the current mount of your Sigma Global Vision lens to another of your choice. Sigma lenses currently from the Contemporary, Art or Sports line, in Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax mounts can be converted to Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax*. They cannot be converted to either an APS-C or a Full Frame format.

[Class A]

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of discussing the review or the D500 vs K-3 III debate, just a couple of points:

Plenty of users have been doing fine with in lens stabilization forever.

You could say that about MF vs AF or old (pre K-3 III) Pentax AF-C vs modern day AF-C as well.
If some technology is useful than it does not really matter whether people made do without it in the past.

IBIS has real advantages over lens-based IS, so much so that DPReview now mention it as a negative if a camera body does not support IBIS. Of course, when Pentax had that as a unique selling proposition they had not woken up to that fact yet, but now they clearly recommend IBIS.

It’s a gimmick that only works on still life, which can be easily done in post processing if needed

PixelShift cannot be emulated in post-processing.

You might be thinking of so-called "Dynamic PixelShift" which is a bad name for "super-resolution imaging". The latter can be achieved by post-processing, but true "PixelShift" cannot, at least not in all circumstances, I believe. True PixelShift reliably obtains all RGB components for each sensel position on the the sensor. This increases colour resolution and avoids colour-moiré. If moiré occurs in all shots you take for a super-resolution image then I doubt it will cancel out overall, but I could be wrong.

I don't regard PixelShift as a gimmick. Although it has limited applications, when it can be used, it provides IQ that you'd otherwise could only obtain with much more expensive equipment. Working with a single file (and a Pixel-Shift capable raw developer) is more convenient than having to take a lot more super-resolution shots that need combining in special software.

Far less lenses, with anemic third party support.

This is a argument that is often levelled against Pentax.

First, I agree it would be nice if third-party support were as it used to be (with Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. still supporting K-mount).

However, second, perhaps there is more third-party support left than you think?
Have a look at the FF lenses that can be bought new in K-mount.
These are just the FF lenses, there are many more APS-C lenses and along with Fuji Pentax has the most dedicated APS-C lineup in the industry. Other manufacturers have bigger FF lineups, but in particular for an APS-C camera like the K-3 III it is nice to have lens options that were designed with a view to compactness and lightness.

Third, there is a used market which is not as convenient to use compared to buying new, but should not be discarded either.

Fourth, many of the lenses not available in K-mount from stores right now are not exactly sold in large numbers. In other words, few photographers actually need/want lenses that Pentax currently does not offer. Having potentially access to more lenses as a Nikon shooter would not help me at all. I have all the Pentax lenses I'll ever need/want and I believe many photographers are in the same boat. For what they actually need and are prepared to pay for, the K-mount is not really a limiting factor.

Remember not everyone is in a rose colored glasses Pentaxian bubble who’s doing these reviews.

I don't think one needs to wear "rose-coloured glasses" to appreciate Pentax gear.

For sure, the K-3 III is not for everyone. Many users are better off with a mirrorless camera, or the D500 for that matter. However, there are some photographers for which the K-3 III represents the best option. This is a fact which is not based on brand-bias or an unwarranted mirrorless aversion.

Although the reviewer did a good job of highlighting some of the benefits of the K-3 III, I wish he had not joined the chorus of essentially asking "But are there actually users for this camera?", making the tacit assumption that everyone should admit that mirrorless technology is he way to go and one would be odd for not agreeing. Reviewers, in general with very few exceptions, do not sufficiently appreciate that different users have different priorities and that a product does not have to hit the mainstream fashion of the day in order to be the "best", as it only needs to be the "best choice for a particular user".

[LeeRunge]

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of discussing the review or the D500 vs K-3 III debate, just a couple of points:


You could say that about MF vs AF or old (pre K-3 III) Pentax AF-C vs modern day AF-C as well.
If some technology is useful than it does not really matter whether people made do without it in the past.

IBIS has real advantages over lens-based IS, so much so that DPReview now mention it as a negative if a camera body does not support IBIS. Of course, when Pentax had that as a unique selling proposition they had not woken up to that fact yet, but now they clearly recommend IBIS.


PixelShift cannot be emulated in post-processing.

You might be thinking of so-called "Dynamic PixelShift" which is a bad name for "super-resolution imaging". The latter can be achieved by post-processing, but true "PixelShift" cannot, at least not in all circumstances, I believe. True PixelShift reliably obtains all RGB components for each sensel position on the the sensor. This increases colour resolution and avoids colour-moiré. If moiré occurs in all shots you take for a super-resolution image then I doubt it will cancel out overall, but I could be wrong.

I don't regard PixelShift as a gimmick. Although it has limited applications, when it can be used, it provides IQ that you'd otherwise could only obtain with much more expensive equipment. Working with a single file (and a Pixel-Shift capable raw developer) is more convenient than having to take a lot more super-resolution shots that need combining in special software.


This is a argument that is often levelled against Pentax.

First, I agree it would be nice if third-party support were as it used to be (with Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. still supporting K-mount).

However, second, perhaps there is more third-party support left than you think?
Have a look at the FF lenses that can be bought new in K-mount.
These are just the FF lenses, there are many more APS-C lenses and along with Fuji Pentax has the most dedicated APS-C lineup in the industry. Other manufacturers have bigger FF lineups, but in particular for an APS-C camera like the K-3 III it is nice to have lens options that were designed with a view to compactness and lightness.

Third, there is a used market which is not as convenient to use compared to buying new, but should not be discarded either.

Fourth, many of the lenses not available in K-mount from stores right now are not exactly sold in large numbers. In other words, few photographers actually need/want lenses that Pentax currently does not offer. Having potentially access to more lenses as a Nikon shooter would not help me at all. I have all the Pentax lenses I'll ever need/want and I believe many photographers are in the same boat. For what they actually need and are prepared to pay for, the K-mount is not really a limiting factor.


I don't think one needs to wear "rose-coloured glasses" to appreciate Pentax gear.

For sure, the K-3 III is not for everyone. Many users are better off with a mirrorless camera, or the D500 for that matter. However, there are some photographers for which the K-3 III represents the best option. This is a fact which is not based on brand-bias or an unwarranted mirrorless aversion.

Although the reviewer did a good job of highlighting some of the benefits of the K-3 III, I wish he had not joined the chorus of essentially asking "But are there actually users for this camera?", making the tacit assumption that everyone should admit that mirrorless technology is he way to go and one would be odd for not agreeing. Reviewers, in general with very few exceptions, do not sufficiently appreciate that different users have different priorities and that a product does not have to hit the mainstream fashion of the day in order to be the "best", as it only needs to be the "best choice for a particular user".

I enjoy IBIS, I’ve got it on my current K-3 and enjoyed it on the K7/5 i had before that, I always though it was nice with the primes. I have to say though I didn’t miss it much using my D-750 with primes. That camera has good higher iso performance so it wasn’t a big deal to add a bit of shutter speed. I have it again on the Z5 though and that body can also sync with the lens ibis so even more stabilization. Pentax was way ahead of the game with IBIS though. I remember how much people talked down about it but I thought it’s a better idea then in lens.

As far as lenses, I have a full Pentax kit and I only miss not having a 150-600.

Pixelshift seems very limited to still life to me. I guess though for some types of images it would be useful. I rarely shoot stuff that still though, so wasted on me i think.

Good observation on lens sales. I think most of us here have had what we needed now for a very long time. I think I bought my last Pentax lens 6-7 years ago now. I only want one currently (unless they have a 150-600) and it’s the replacement 16-50 as mine has had the SDM failed for a number of years.

Dpreview definately was poking the Pentax users with the dinosaur theme. Lots of them now are all about the new shiny mirrorless cameras because they need new and exciting to get the views. It’s all about the ad revenue. The honest reviews I’ve seen show each has strengths in different situations and it’s not clear cut either way. DSLR still has some real advantages in AF on certain subjects, Mirrorless has big advantages on shutter noise and video use, which some need. The newer lenses at least on my Z are extremely quiet. And in silent shutter it’s a real advantage if you were in a noise sensitive environment or for close wildlife.

I’ve already thought out what I needed and I like having different cameras to use as I just enjoy photography and varying what I shoot with. Pentax is going to be my DSLR kit into the future, Nikon mirrorless. Out of Fuji/Olympus and those two that’s what I personally like to use the most. Pentax has the best controls imo. Olympus the most compact with the smaller OMD and lighter lenses, it’s genuinely compact, the OMD EM1 line and pro lenses loose much of that.

I look forward to getting the K3 iii once the price lowers. I’ll wait patiently. Nikon Z’s are on a hell of a sale right now for the Z5 and 6. The Z5 is a lot of camera for what it’s currently priced at for Father’s Day.

[Dieseler]

Ricoh have announced the silver kit is all gone, so every remaining copy must be in the hands of distributors like CRK.

Premium Kit | PENTAX K-3 Mark III | RICOH IMAGING

Yep, so if you still want one folks, get in now!