[c.a.m]

How about a DSLR review by someone who appreciates DSLRs? This is like a review of a car with manual transmission and a sporty suspention, by someone who much prefers automatic transmission and a smooth "fluffy" ride.

We've seen several similar reviews of the K-3 Mark III. It seems to me that the review community is having difficulty grasping the notion that not all cameras need to be mirrorless. I think that we're seeing a bandwagon effect.

Here's another statement from the AP review: "With mirrorless cameras now comfortably outselling DSLRs, clearly the K-3 Mark III needs to offer a distinct selling point to enthusiast photographers."

So what does this really mean, and does it make any sense?

Drawing on recent CIPA data for ILC cameras, during January to May 2021, DSLRs accounted for 44% of ILC shipments, while MILCs tallied 56%. Yes, MILCs are being shipped in greater numbers, but DSLRs still represent a sizable portion of the market. So, this notion of "comfortably outselling" DSLRs is ill-founded at the outset.

The second phrase is really strange. The reviewer seems to suggest that because the K-3 Mark III is not a mirrorless camera, i.e., not part of the majority market, it really needs a unique selling proposition. But, isn't this the case with any camera, mirrorless or DSLR -- or any product? Why must the DSLR class be singled out for the uniqueness requirement? (That said, the review commends the optical viewfinder.)

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 07-15-2021 at 01:07 PM. Reason: typo

[mtkeller]

Here's another statement from the AP review: "With mirrorless cameras now comfortably outselling DSLRs, clearly the K-3 Mark III needs to offer a distinct selling point to enthusiast photographers."

It seems like from the tone of the full thing, simply being a DSLR (and not mirrorless) is a distinct selling point.

[ChristianRock]

It seems like from the tone of the full thing, simply being a DSLR (and not mirrorless) is a distinct selling point.

For some, obviously, it is.

For others (like me) being a DSLR with an OVF is a selling point. I'm not jumping ship and it's not really because I'm a "die hard Pentax fan", I just like optical viewfinders better.

They could have easily said "mirrorless outsell DSLRs now but DSLRs still have over 40% of the market". See, sticking to facts instead of naratives really makes a difference, doesn't it? But unfortunately the world we live in right now is all about narratives and facts can even be considered "misinformation" (which is different from false information - it's just information that doesn't fit the narrative). But I digress...

[lesmore49]

As far as selling points go, one that I think has always been underestimated is how a camera looks. I prefer the appearance of an SLR/DSLR. I do like the mirrorless / rangefinder type look....but only in a Leica rangefinder.

A Pentax DSLR...say K5, K1, K3, KP.....looks solid, exudes quality. In contrast many mirrorless cameras don't have that same quality look, even those that attempt to appear like a DSLR...you know the ones with the faux pentaprism, buttress appendage at the top of the body.

Of course, this is my view.

[phoebus]

I used to receive AP weekly, back in the days of paper media... but when the author of the back page opinion died, I cancelled my subscription. By that point, Mr Westlake had fully poisoned the main reviews to favour mirrorless in a totally biased (and illogical) way, so the wonderful critical review of photographic history by the bearded intellectual was the only remaining value.

Having just read the K-3 iii review, it tries so hard to acknowledge it's brilliance, but can't help but diss it for not being mirrorless.

Now I know mirrorless - I own an Olympus M1X with the lovely 300mm f4 lens, but it is not a Pentax. Ergonomically it is usable, just. I've never tried a Fuji XT-4. I strongly suspect that it is still not a Pentax.

My K-1 is a joy to use. My M1X is technically impressive, but a total pain to just pick up and use. The flicker of the viewfinder is just so noticeable with fast moving birds, the buttons and joystick are just not in the right place, the raw files are 12 bit and can't dig the shadow detail of a Pentax DNG in 14 bit. I'm leaning towards trading the M1X for the K-3 iii and accepting a lower technical capability for the better ergonomics.

Amateur Photographer used to be a respected journal, but seems to have lost its way in the last 5+ years. As @BigMackCam noted, Pentax may just outlive AP.

[ramseybuckeye]

I have not read the review, but reading the posts here I am guessing Amateur Photographer has amateur reviewers, it's only fitting.

[bilybianca]

Very confusing how they define the optical viewfinder: "Pentaprism, 0.7x equivalent magnification". The number should be 1.05 (no "equivalence"). Especially since the new viewfinder is one of the strongest usp's of this camera.

The same magazine defines the Nikon D500 VF as "Pentaprism, 2x magnification (true number is 1.0), 100% coverage" , and the Nikon D7500 as "Pentaprism, 0.94x magnification, 100% coverage".

Kjell

[mtkeller]

From my opinion this review is made on a rush and using stereotypes

" This is, however, very much a specialist camera for those who like to shoot still images using an optical viewfinder."
The formulation above made me to not trust this review.
I am convinced that Pentax K-3 III capabilities are way beyond capturing only still images.
I own a Pentax K20 D and is still a very capable camera for capturing action events so I doubt that Pentax regressed so much in this 13 years since the K2 was released.

Still images are being contrasted with video there, not referring to static subjects vs subjects in motion.

[Toma]

Still images are being contrasted with video there, not referring to static subjects vs subjects in motion.

Yes you are right, I was in a hurry when I wrote the comment, Now I deleted it.

[Harriet L]

I tackled the editor of AP about the lack of Pentax coverage, when he did a talk for my club, and he seemed to be saying to me that Pentax wasn't a big enough player in their opinion, never mind the history etc.

[normhead]

That was definitely not worth reading.
Their one valid complaint was the price, which according to the writers should be the same as camera with no IBIS, no-pixel shift, cheap plastic bodies, less functional viewfinders. etc.

In short, not much appreciation for the Pentax way. My take on the review is they prefer cameras that are trashy and flashy. I always want to keep in mind what kind of biases I'm dealing with.

However that being said, as a person who bought his first Pentax in 67, the pice is too high for me. I can't argue with that one.
I'm a little confused by the claim there is no focus confirmation. On my K-3 a red square flashes and there's a beep. has that been removed from the K-3II?
I also have confirmation in live view with the whole DoF being highlighted? Did they take that our as well?

So, bottom line, the review is crap. it presented ignorant mis-information, and made numerous errors. I'm not impressed.
And I don't even own the camera.

My advice, go with the IR review.

"A general theme throughout this Field Test will be 'attention to detail.' I don't think that's evident anywhere more than with the K-3 III's camera body and design. It genuinely feels like every aspect of the camera's design and how you interact with it has been very carefully and precisely considered. I'm not sure if the K-3 III is a swan song for DSLRs (I hope not), but I'm confident in saying that it's the best example of the DSLR form factor. It's a fantastic camera to use unless you want a tilting display, that is.

I prefer writers who take more care to control their own personal biases.

[BigMackCam]

I tackled the editor of AP about the lack of Pentax coverage, when he did a talk for my club, and he seemed to be saying to me that Pentax wasn't a big enough player in their opinion, never mind the history etc.

If that was in fact his meaning, then shame on AP for pandering to the mass market. I guess that's what sells the most magazines, though even that doesn't seem to be working for them these days...

[Kunzite]

If that was in fact his meaning, then shame on AP for pandering to the mass market. I guess that's what sells the most magazines, though even that doesn't seem to be working for them these days...

I wonder if they (and certain websites) are not intentionally trying to grab more readers by Othering specific brands.

[RobA_Oz]

I read that article a few days ago. While the body of text was reasonably fair, if somewhat limited, it was the regular sprinkling of the commentary with (unfavourable) comparisons with the Fujifilm X-T4 that really irritated me. Given that it’s an opinion piece, naturally comparisons with the competitors’ offerings is fair comment, but they should be confined to a separate section of the article, not placed through it with an intended or otherwise effect of belittling the main subject.

The comment on price, of course, also omitted that the initial sales price (and still the case here in the main retailers) of the K-3iii is not far distant from that of the X-T4 when new.

I used to regularly read Amateur Photographer from the 1960s on, but they’ve fallen a long way since then.

[Mikesul]

Sadly, print journalism is close to dead in all areas. Digital replacements are generally just lightweight marketing tools.