[Robot camera]

I've just found a test by the UK's Amateur Photographer magazine. Here's a link:

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/pentax-k-3-mark-iii-review

What do you think of this review?

[Ishpuini]

Fair review, but nothing new. Funny to see that one of the points mentioned is that the camera is very similar to previous K-3 implying that Pentax users would hardly notice a transition, whereas we realise it's very much the opposite, i.e. never a Pentax DSLR was so different from its predecessor...

[BigMackCam]

I've just found a test by the UK's Amateur Photographer magazine. Here's a link:

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/pentax-k-3-mark-iii-review

What do you think of this review?

It's an OK review, I suppose, but doesn't offer much depth of information. It's very high-level and "broad brush" stuff.

The issue I have with Amateur Photographer - and the reason I stopped buying it even occasionally - is comments like those in the review's verdict:

It’s all too easy to see Pentax as a brand that’s on its last legs; this is, after all, its first new camera for three years, while releases of genuinely new lenses have slowed to a trickle. The fact that it’s now apparently banking on surviving off sales to die-hard DSLR users, with no intention of making a new mirrorless system to succeed the ill-fated Q, doesn’t bode well for its long-term future, either.

This is by no means the first time that AP has published unconstructive negative opinions about Pentax within equipment reviews and editorials, and it put me off reading the publication some time ago. I note that the magazine has changed to a smaller format on thinner paper in the last year or so, and is no longer stocked in any of my local shops. I'd say that doesn't bode well for its long term future...

[Unregistered User 8]

I'd say that doesn't bode well for its long term future.

Amateur Photographer is doomed.....................

[c.a.m]

I usually read this type of review with a hope to gain insight into a piece of gear. This review is generally positive and covers several important aspects of the K-3 Mark III, but I didn't really learn anything new.

Most of the features and the camera's performance are commended. The sample full-resolution images at various ISO settings are useful, and the comments on the noise effects are reasonable, I think.

However, several parts of the article raise questions. For example, when discussing exposure metering, the review states "Metering is generally reliable, but by no means fool-proof. ... So if in doubt, it’s normally best to reduce the exposure, or perhaps engage the highlight metering mode." I would suggest that no camera has "fool-proof" metering, and that the user needs to be aware of the lighting conditions and appropriate exposure settings. I'm surprised that the reviewer had any substantive problems -- it's easy to adjust an exposure setting or meter off a particular part of a scene to accommodate all sorts of situations. It seems that the reviewer didn't even try the highlight metering mode. The rating of 3.5/5 for Metering is odd.

Another question relates to the discussion of in-body image stabilization. The reviewer states that "I was able to get usable images hand-held at shutter speeds as slow as 0.4sec," yet the sample image -- 26mm, hand-held at 0.4 s -- clearly suffers from camera shake at full-scale, to an extent that I would not be happy with.

Regrettably, the Verdict introduces several aspects that are not supported by any analysis or evidence: a dying brand that is suitable only for die-hard users; the "sky-high" price; "other cameras" that are better all-rounders; and an incidental, irrelevant jab at the Pentax Q. It seems that the author expects the readers to nod in agreement, as if the conclusions are well-known, established facts. The message seems to be: This is a really good camera, but it's not mirrorless and it's way overpriced.

The glib reference to "other cameras" is particularly indicative of the lack of effort to present a reasoned case. Comparing cameras by themselves is not useful; rather, camera systems should be compared, including comparable lenses. Why not include a table of selected cameras and several lenses, their total prices, weight/mass, etc? Further, if a review deems it necessary to make such comparisons, it should go into details on respective features, performance, image quality, etc. Sadly, this review misses the mark in that respect.

- Craig

[Wasp]

Good review, from where I am sitting.

[Kozlok]

with no intention of making a new mirrorless system..

In other news, Ferrari is doomed because it won't release a 9 passenger 3 row crossover with a V-6 and decent fuel economy, and we all know that's where all car sales are headed.

[kypfer]

Surprisingly, no mention at all of the built-in "astro" capabilities … maybe he couldn't get hold of an O-GPS1.
Also, I don't think he fully grasped the extra capabilities of the K-3iii when using pre KA mount (ie. no electrical contacts) lenses. Having been a long-time user of the "Green Button" and it's pre-cursers for manual metering, I find it extremely "liberating" to be able to fit an old "contactless" lens and use it in Av and TAv modes with no "fiddling about" (other than entering the focal length for SR purposes).
Nevertheless, a reasonably comprehensive review of "a specialist camera for those who like to shoot still images using an optical viewfinder" … that's me

[tonyzoc]

I thought it was mediocre and the last dig in the conclusion tells me they apparently didn't notice recent sales numbers on DSLRs.

[Cerebum]

I thought aspects of it were fair, it is a lot of money, but it was a bit too evident that he is a big fan of mirrorless! One or two points were vague and wooly but that is what I come to expect. I guess the reviewer can't truly know the camera in the short time that he has it. All in all, bar the dig at Pentax, I thought it was OK.

[stevebrot]

Amateur Photographer is doomed.....................

Too late, they moved to paperless...


Steve

[c.a.m]

I guess the reviewer can't truly know the camera in the short time that he has it.

Agreed. A camera's full functionality takes time to learn, which is often not possible in a short-term use, especially if the reviewer is not a regular Pentax user. In my opinion, the K-3 Mark III is 'too much camera' for such a brief familiarization and short review.

For example, the customization of controls is mentioned only in passing, and it's not obvious that the Smart Function and User Modes were exercised extensively during the review program. The reviewer used the SFn to control the ISO setting. The review misses the mark on this special feature of the camera.

- Craig

[lesmore49]

It's an OK review, I suppose, but doesn't offer much depth of information. It's very high-level and "broad brush" stuff.

The issue I have with Amateur Photographer - and the reason I stopped buying it even occasionally - is comments like those in the review's verdict:



This is by no means the first time that AP has published unconstructive negative opinions about Pentax within equipment reviews and editorials, and it put me off reading the publication some time ago. I note that the magazine has changed to a smaller format on thinner paper in the last year or so, and is no longer stocked in any of my local shops. I'd say that doesn't bode well for its long term future...

I only used to buy it occasionally also and stopped buying it for similar reasons.

I have a collection of the American Popular Photography magazine, which along with Modern Photography I subscribed to for many a year. A number of years ago Modern merged with Popular and the mag became known as Popular. The formats were similar, the testing of both bodies and lenses was to me, excellent. Popular photography closed down their magazine in 2017, even though I understand they had around 322,000 subscribers. But with any publications albeit subscribers are important, mostly to provide advert sales personnel with the demographic information they need, in order to convince companies why they need to advertise....if not enough advertising...the main income in a publication cannot be generated, then publications are at risk.

But anyways...my long winded story has a point. I greatly preferred the old popular Photography manner of testing compared to that of Amateur Photography. I particular found their editor Herbert Keppler's columns and articles of particular value.

[lesmore49]

with no intention of making a new mirrorless system..

In other news, Ferrari is doomed because it won't release a 9 passenger 3 row crossover with a V-6 and decent fuel economy, and we all know that's where all car sales are headed.

Yep, good point.

When it came to deciding whether or not if it was going to be supercar like a Ferrari or our large Chevy SUV with 4WD, lots of cargo area, ground clearance...the SUV won out, as we do lots of traveling year round, including our 5.5 months of cold, extreme, snow and ice winters across western Canada. I don't know how well a supercar would do down an isolated country road in the Canadian prairies just after a blizzard.

Does anyone know if any supercars come with 4 Low 4WD, skidplates and 8.5 inches of ground clearance or more ?

[ChristianRock]

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.