[mlt]

There's a firnware fix already! According to this dpr thread:

V 1.02 has solved Timer Modes: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Maybe not completely solved reading the thread entries, but on the correct track. Easy enough to set up a user mode with HC and SR set to off for doing work on a tripod.

[slartibartfast01]

There's a firnware fix already! According to this dpr thread:



V 1.02 has solved Timer Modes: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

As mentioned in that thread it doesn't fix the horizon correction issue. I am not even sure which issue it does fix.

[c.a.m]

As mentioned in that thread it doesn't fix the horizon correction issue. I am not even sure which issue it does fix.

I tend to agree. The DPR Pentax forum has several threads dealing with real and perceived blurred images. While there are a couple of very useful posts concerning the Horizon Correction + Timer issue, other posts have reported blurring that has not been replicated by other users.


- Craig

[Kunzite]

I tend to agree. The DPR Pentax forum has several threads dealing with real and perceived blurred images. While there are a couple of very useful posts concerning the Horizon Correction + Timer issue, other posts have reported blurring that has not been replicated by other users.

Testing isn't as easy as it sounds... unfortunately, too many are JumpingToConclusionsTM and don't like their methodology... I wouldn't say "challenged", but rather "clarified".
The Horizon Correction bug looks like a good find, though.

[mlt]

Testing isn't as easy as it sounds………….

Agree wholeheartedly. Any deviation from DPR’s exact test setup brings too many other factors that may or may not mitigate or magnify an issue. We’ll have to wait for word of the official firmware fix and a full retest by DPR.

[stevebrot]

I tend to agree. The DPR Pentax forum has several threads dealing with real and perceived blurred images. While there are a couple of very useful posts concerning the Horizon Correction + Timer issue, other posts have reported blurring that has not been replicated by other users.


- Craig

I seldom read from the DPR forums, mostly because of the quality of posts and multiple other factors. That said, some of the same failings might be at work here too. Examples from well-controlled test shots are often hard to get.


Steve

[LenH55]

As a prospective buyer of this camera I read with keen interest the review by DPR and posts by forum members here. The cavalier comments by DPR as to the camera possibly suffering from "shutter shock" is to an extent a sales killer. It now may be a sales killer for me if the source of all of these real or imagined issues are not identified and corrected. I seriously doubt that shutter shock is the cause of any significant vibration problems IMHO. Shutter design in modern cameras is an ever advancing process using extremely light and strong leaf materials and precise motion control. If anything, mirror slap, a software glitch or testing methodology would be more likely to be the cause of any problems.
If you have been following the factory updates issued in the past year or so it is interesting to note the extraordinary effort that Pentax has put into the mirror/shutter unit to prevent just the issues being discussed here. The anticipated 12fps capture rate apparently drove much of this redesign. Shouldn't be a problem with the electro/mechanical aspect of this camera but of course we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men.
If you want to look at the video detailing all this go to:
us.ricoh-imaging.com
Latest news
K3 mark iii product introduction
First video, dated 3/18/21
Approx. 10:20 in

Hope you guys here can somehow put this one to rest.

Len

[Larrymc]

As a prospective buyer of this camera I read with keen interest the review by DPR and posts by forum members here. The cavalier comments by DPR as to the camera possibly suffering from "shutter shock" is to an extent a sales killer. It now may be a sales killer for me if the source of all of these real or imagined issues are not identified and corrected. I seriously doubt that shutter shock is the cause of any significant vibration problems IMHO. Shutter design in modern cameras is an ever advancing process using extremely light and strong leaf materials and precise motion control. If anything, mirror slap, a software glitch or testing methodology would be more likely to be the cause of any problems.
If you have been following the factory updates issued in the past year or so it is interesting to note the extraordinary effort that Pentax has put into the mirror/shutter unit to prevent just the issues being discussed here. The anticipated 12fps capture rate apparently drove much of this redesign. Shouldn't be a problem with the electro/mechanical aspect of this camera but of course we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men.
If you want to look at the video detailing all this go to:
us.ricoh-imaging.com
Latest news
K3 mark iii product introduction
First video, dated 3/18/21
Approx. 10:20 in

Hope you guys here can somehow put this one to rest.

Len

Look, don't sweat this blown up issue. Just buy the camera and start enjoying it.

[stevebrot]

The cavalier comments by DPR as to the camera possibly suffering from "shutter shock" is to an extent a sales killer. It now may be a sales killer for me if the source of all of these real or imagined issues are not identified and corrected.

I don't believe their comments are cavalier. Occam's Razor applies. That does not mean I agree, only that it is a possible cause.

That said, something else is amiss here. The center softness magically self-corrects with default processing in DCU, persists with processing through dcraw, and strangely, the EXIF indicates that auto-correct was off for the DPR DNG file.

Perhaps a cement truck drove by their Seattle location?*

Whether potential buyers should be spooked is another thing entirely. Is there a design or manufacturing issue that made it through beta testing into production. I have my doubts. Concerted efforts to reproduce by users on this site have failed to reproduce and if it were that glaring our more technically astute members should be able to easily reproduce. The qualifications of many of our members are quite impressive and even fanboy engineers enjoy solving riddles with rigor.

If you buy the camera and are disappointed with your results, send it back as defective for store credit or exchange for the Fuji product. That is what I would do...truly...**


Steve

* Much of Seattle north of the downtown proper and west of the monorail is built on fill created when Denny Hill was leveled and the resulting spoils pushed off towards Puget Sound to make the area now referred to as the Denny Regrade, a popular location for many business not needing a prominent public face. I have worked in the area and passing trucks are distinctly felt.

** When I took deliver of my K-3, I did a thorough evaluation of image quality and discovered quite quickly that my technique needed to spin up before I could evaluate the camera. That said, in theory, anyone capable of doing good work with a K-3II, K-70, or KP should be able to replicate those good results on the K-3iii, at least for static shooting with reasonable camera support in single shot mode.

[mtkeller]

As a prospective buyer of this camera I read with keen interest the review by DPR and posts by forum members here. The cavalier comments by DPR as to the camera possibly suffering from "shutter shock" is to an extent a sales killer. It now may be a sales killer for me if the source of all of these real or imagined issues are not identified and corrected. I seriously doubt that shutter shock is the cause of any significant vibration problems IMHO. Shutter design in modern cameras is an ever advancing process using extremely light and strong leaf materials and precise motion control. If anything, mirror slap, a software glitch or testing methodology would be more likely to be the cause of any problems.
If you have been following the factory updates issued in the past year or so it is interesting to note the extraordinary effort that Pentax has put into the mirror/shutter unit to prevent just the issues being discussed here. The anticipated 12fps capture rate apparently drove much of this redesign. Shouldn't be a problem with the electro/mechanical aspect of this camera but of course we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men.
If you want to look at the video detailing all this go to:
us.ricoh-imaging.com
Latest news
K3 mark iii product introduction
First video, dated 3/18/21
Approx. 10:20 in

Hope you guys here can somehow put this one to rest.

Len

You’ll notice a dearth of anyone being able to replicate the nonsense from DPR here. Even if it is a problem, just adjust ISO/aperture to avoid that small range of shutter speeds when shooting on tripod. It’s not an issue. The camera is amazing.

[Rico]

You’ll notice a dearth of anyone being able to replicate the nonsense from DPR here. Even if it is a problem, just adjust ISO/aperture to avoid that small range of shutter speeds when shooting on tripod. It’s not an issue. The camera is amazing.

So true mtkeller. DPR could have underexposed the ISO 100 and 200 images at a fast enough shutter speed then just adjusted in ACR. That is what they are doing to the files anyway. In ACR they adjust both exposure and white balance both the temperature and tint. What is the difference if they adjust the exposure by 2/3rd stop or 1.5. My years of reading DPR I don't think anyone there is professional enough to be adjusting the white balance temperature and tint.

I appreciate DPR posting RAW files for download for all the makers. It becomes a crux for them when they make statements that can be easily refuted by just downloading the files for yourself to take a look. When I first saw the DPR baked versions of the K-3III files I said these images can not be this bad. Downloading the RAW files I could see for myself they were very excellent. Better than the K-3III peers using the same sensor.

DPR is up front in the sense they do indicate they imbed a custom baked Pentax ACR profile. They only indicate this in the Info Tab for Pentax cameras and only the Pentax camera DNG files DPR uploads are saved with these Image Settings. All the other brands the files are uploaded set to how the file came out of the camera in ACR they open in Camera Raw default. The argument that DPR must do this as in the case of the K-3III for ACR because there is no profile yet from Adobe for the K-3III is really a mute lie.

The purpose to shooting DNG is that Adobe ACR will always be able to properly handle the file regardless if there is a "camera" profile or not from Adobe as those profiles are really so ACR can read the manufactures RAW fill prefix NEF RAF CR2 CR3 etc. DPR isn't shooting in Pentax PEF so there is no need to have a baked DPR imbedded profile for the Pentax DNG files.

DPR is doing a lot to the files by adjusting the exposure and white balance. They lift a whole layer of micro detail by doing this which makes the JPG files they posted look so terrible. Only one adjustment is really needed in ACR. There is color blooming happening so just adjusting the Saturation back to -10 or so controls this nicely without lifting out any detail. DPR's exposure and white balance adjustments only make the color blooming worse while also lifting out micro detail.

In DCU5 the info shown there for the DPR K-3III DNG files indicates DPR had both Lateral Chromatic Aberration Correction and Diffraction Correction set to On. Plus High-ISO Noise Reduction set to Auto. All three of these settings are doing something to the files whether these effects show up in JPG files only or if the DNG files have these settings imbedded as well I have no clue. Personally I never have those settings turned on.

DPR could have just posted the ISO 100 and 200 files extracted from the Pixel-Shift images instead of posting the blurry images. The blurry images are pointless for any serious evaluation which reflects on their standards. The point of DPR's Comparison scene is to try to keep things equal. DPR doesn't do this by then adjusting the files with special baked in profile settings that make the files look worse.

The K-3III files DPR posted are also very askew tilting down to the left. They are way off compared to the other cameras. Which also effects they way they look especially when zoomed in 200% compared to images properly squared.

B&H Photo in Manhattan has the K-3III in store now both Black and Silver for handling. They had no lens on them so I did not get to see the viewfinder. Excellent ergonomics. Compact size.

[mlt]

So true mtkeller. DPR could have underexposed the ISO 100 and 200 images at a fast enough shutter speed then just adjusted in ACR. That is what they are doing to the files anyway. In ACR they adjust both exposure and white balance both the temperature and tint. What is the difference if they adjust the exposure by 2/3rd stop or 1.5. My years of reading DPR I don't think anyone there is professional enough to be adjusting the white balance temperature and tint.

I appreciate DPR posting RAW files for download for all the makers. It becomes a crux for them when they make statements that can be easily refuted by just downloading the files for yourself to take a look. When I first saw the DPR baked versions of the K-3III files I said these images can not be this bad. Downloading the RAW files I could see for myself they were very excellent. Better than the K-3III peers using the same sensor.

DPR is up front in the sense they do indicate they imbed a custom baked Pentax ACR profile. They only indicate this in the Info Tab for Pentax cameras and only the Pentax camera DNG files DPR uploads are saved with these Image Settings. All the other brands the files are uploaded set to how the file came out of the camera in ACR they open in Camera Raw default. The argument that DPR must do this as in the case of the K-3III for ACR because there is no profile yet from Adobe for the K-3III is really a mute lie.

The purpose to shooting DNG is that Adobe ACR will always be able to properly handle the file regardless if there is a "camera" profile or not from Adobe as those profiles are really so ACR can read the manufactures RAW fill prefix NEF RAF CR2 CR3 etc. DPR isn't shooting in Pentax PEF so there is no need to have a baked DPR imbedded profile for the Pentax DNG files.

DPR is doing a lot to the files by adjusting the exposure and white balance. They lift a whole layer of micro detail by doing this which makes the JPG files they posted look so terrible. Only one adjustment is really needed in ACR. There is color blooming happening so just adjusting the Saturation back to -10 or so controls this nicely without lifting out any detail. DPR's exposure and white balance adjustments only make the color blooming worse while also lifting out micro detail.

In DCU5 the info shown there for the DPR K-3III DNG files indicates DPR had both Lateral Chromatic Aberration Correction and Diffraction Correction set to On. Plus High-ISO Noise Reduction set to Auto. All three of these settings are doing something to the files whether these effects show up in JPG files only or if the DNG files have these settings imbedded as well I have no clue. Personally I never have those settings turned on.

DPR could have just posted the ISO 100 and 200 files extracted from the Pixel-Shift images instead of posting the blurry images. The blurry images are pointless for any serious evaluation which reflects on their standards. The point of DPR's Comparison scene is to try to keep things equal. DPR doesn't do this by then adjusting the files with special baked in profile settings that make the files look worse.

The K-3III files DPR posted are also very askew tilting down to the left. They are way off compared to the other cameras. Which also effects they way they look especially when zoomed in 200% compared to images properly squared.

B&H Photo in Manhattan has the K-3III in store now both Black and Silver for handling. They had no lens on them so I did not get to see the viewfinder. Excellent ergonomics. Compact size.

What is needed is an easily recreated test target for both line, pattern, and color checking that can be used by any test site to put all tests on an equal footing. This would help to eliminate web site biases, either real or perceived.

[stevebrot]

In DCU5 the info shown there for the DPR K-3III DNG files indicates DPR had both Lateral Chromatic Aberration Correction and Diffraction Correction set to On. Plus High-ISO Noise Reduction set to Auto. All three of these settings are doing something to the files whether these effects show up in JPG files only or if the DNG files have these settings imbedded as well I have no clue. Personally I never have those settings turned on.

With the possible exception of High-ISO noise reduction*, they are all JPEG only unless applied in PP. DCU will apply them automatically.


Steve

* There was speculation as early as the K-3 that some NR may be applied in low level processing of sensor output based on this setting. I don't know about current thoughts on the matter, though I do have a custom profile set on my K-3.

[stevebrot]

Downloading the RAW files I could see for myself they were very excellent. Better than the K-3III peers using the same sensor.

Sorry for being contrary, but processing the DNG to linear TIFF in dcraw shows softness similar to to what DPR posted. See full resolution center crop below processed from IMGP0436.DNG (100 ISO):

Similar to a data dump from RawDigger, this is about as close as one can get to seeing least-processed output from RAW. For more information on linear TIFF, Google "dcraw linear tiff".

FWIW...the corners actually performed a bit better.


Steve

[Rico]

What is needed is an easily recreated test target for both line, pattern, and color checking that can be used by any test site to put all tests on an equal footing. This would help to eliminate web site biases, either real or perceived.

Sadly DPR's Studio Comparison Scene Tool should be that equal footing. DPR just doesn't use it that way. They are picking and choosing DPR standards to apply to each brand to fit their narrative instead of letting the files speak for themselves. Which anyone can do since DPR post's the files for download. I did.