[Serkevan]

Regarding size, I'd think that the D500 is made explicitly to feel well balanced with long, heavy tele lenses. It shares exactly (within a couple mm) the width and depth of the cameras in the D800 series and it's in fact a bit larger than the D750. The K-3iii, in contrast, is designed to be compact. It's a fair bit smaller than the Canon 90D*.


*Interestingly, the 90D's OVF protrudes about as much from the camera's backside as the one on the K-3iii, though I guess we can chalk *that* one up to the absence of IBIS, which necessarily takes up space around the sensor - the film plane on the Canon is a little bit closer to the backside of the camera despite having a [redacted] type of screen.

[Rondec]

This review and the one form PCMag Australia are fair. Both articles were worth reading. I wish fellow Pentaxians would try to be less thin skinned when others do not agree with our choice of camera. They do not see the continued value of OVF and mirror but they present the strengths add weakness fairly. By the way, I took the time to read these reviews as I contemplated reacquiring a K-3iii. A new one is on the way. I had hoped to be satisfied with just the K-1ii but I want to give the K-3iii another try.

I am not particularly bothered by the reviews. I just wish (1) that reviewers would stop with the "SLRs are dead" theme. We understand what things MILCs bring to the table, but that doesn't make SLRs chopped liver. 12 fps and 4K video are decent features that most MILC users would be satisfied with. Not everyone needs 20 fps. (2) Comparing older camera's street price to a new camera's release price. If I recall, the K5 was 1500 dollars at time of release. It certainly was well over 1000 dollars. The price came down a bunch over time. Most brands release at a high price point and then discount as sales begin to lag. This camera will be the same and I would be surprised if the K3 III isn't selling somewhere in the 1500 to 1600 dollar range in 18 months.

These aren't huge quibbles, but they do get a little irritating. Same as statements like "Limited lens line up" and "Mainly should be considered by those who own Pentax lenses." The second statement is really silly -- I have never read a review of a Nikon product, like the D810, which mentions the fact that people who own F mount lenses should consider it. Of course, that's true, but only with Pentax is it specifically mentioned. The only point of such a statement is to say to new photographers that they shouldn't consider starting with a Pentax camera.

[Kunzite]

I am not particularly bothered by the reviews. I just wish (1) that reviewers would stop with the "SLRs are dead" theme. We understand what things MILCs bring to the table, but that doesn't make SLRs chopped liver. 12 fps and 4K video are decent features that most MILC users would be satisfied with. Not everyone needs 20 fps. (2) Comparing older camera's street price to a new camera's release price. If I recall, the K5 was 1500 dollars at time of release. It certainly was well over 1000 dollars. The price came down a bunch over time. Most brands release at a high price point and then discount as sales begin to lag. This camera will be the same and I would be surprised if the K3 III isn't selling somewhere in the 1500 to 1600 dollar range in 18 months.

These aren't huge quibbles, but they do get a little irritating. Same as statements like "Limited lens line up" and "Mainly should be considered by those who own Pentax lenses." The second statement is really silly -- I have never read a review of a Nikon product, like the D810, which mentions the fact that people who own F mount lenses should consider it. Of course, that's true, but only with Pentax is it specifically mentioned. The only point of such a statement is to say to new photographers that they shouldn't consider starting with a Pentax camera.

This ^^^
It's not about people's choice of cameras. It's about reviews consistently (perhaps not intentionally, I think most are just mindlessly going with the flow) trying to influence people's choice with these "SLRs are dead" and "Pentax only for Pentaxians" themes.
That has nothing to do with the camera, it's plain and simple prejudice.

[EssJayEff]

And with the 645Z - they waited until another camera got better results.

And to this day it is still the Z's rating comes in second place a shade behind the Hasselblad X1D-50c. It looks like they haven't tested a medium format camera since the Hassy, and that was in 2016. (Which may be the last time I even bothered to visit their website until today.)

[ffking]

Truth is, it's not a bad review but as others have mentioned. it lacks any depth or looking past the well worn headline narratives of strengths, weaknesses and who is it for..Judging by PF, I think sales have been pretty good for an 'expensive' APS-C camera from a brand with a small following, which you would hope encouraged more people to ask 'why?'

[Kunzite]

And to this day it is still the Z's rating comes in second place a shade behind the Hasselblad X1D-50c. It looks like they haven't tested a medium format camera since the Hassy, and that was in 2016. (Which may be the last time I even bothered to visit their website until today.)

Have you seen how they've made up higher scores for smartphones?

I've seen Photokina transitioning towards drones and stuff, away from photography. "Let's go there, it's higher volume" isn't necessary how you'd succeed...

[house]

I've not followed reviews much but read some of the recent k33 reviews. Its pretty clear that the "electronics" perspective has taken over. Perhaps not surprisingly.

The camera people are now on the vintage and film sites where reviews and discussions have a different focus. Mirrorless are dominating vintage adoption but it would be interesting to see one of those people reviewing a modern Pentax body.

[saladin]

If they'd put an adjustable screen on this thing, it'd be the perfect all-purpose camera imo. But it's omission makes it an even more specialised camera than Dslr's have tended to become. That's going to show up in reviews, whether we like it or not. Just like many reviews of the Fuji Xpro line mention its inherent compromises.

I do know this: the fixed screen is the sole hesitation i have buying a K3iii . When I bought my k10 / K5 back in the day, i didn't give it a thought. But times move and now the k70 / KP probably suit my daily uses better, but the k3iii would be awesome for sports. I'm sorely tempted, but can't pull the trigger.

[TER-OR]

This ^^^
It's not about people's choice of cameras. It's about reviews consistently (perhaps not intentionally, I think most are just mindlessly going with the flow) trying to influence people's choice with these "SLRs are dead" and "Pentax only for Pentaxians" themes.
That has nothing to do with the camera, it's plain and simple prejudice.

It is ludicrous. Stating limited third-party lenses is valid. Plus, beyond the $5000 lens lineup what's really missing? Practically-speaking, anyway.

OVF is an advantage, not disadvantage. Go out mid-day in July and try to use a mirrorless to do field photography without a big shade around the screen. Give me a real view with a bright prism any day.

[Pål Jensen]

If they'd put an adjustable screen on this thing, it'd be the perfect all-purpose camera imo. But it's omission makes it an even more specialised camera than Dslr's have tended to become. That's going to show up in reviews, whether we like it or not. Just like many reviews of the Fuji Xpro line mention its inherent compromises.

I do know this: the fixed screen is the sole hesitation i have buying a K3iii . When I bought my k10 / K5 back in the day, i didn't give it a thought. But times move and now the k70 / KP probably suit my daily uses better, but the k3iii would be awesome for sports. I'm sorely tempted, but can't pull the trigger.

I just don't get it. True, a flip screen is useful for shooting in weird angles but most people do this very rarely. The reason why many use the rear screen for regular photography is because the viewfinder is bad and very unhelpful for focusing critically. This is not the case with the K-3III. The finder is excellent. The AF as well. I used the rear screen a lot for critical focusing on landscapes with my K-3. I haven't used it once on the K-3III.

[Serkevan]

I just don't get it. True, a flip screen is useful for shooting in weird angles but most people do this very rarely. The reason why many use the rear screen for regular photography is because the viewfinder is bad and very unhelpful for focusing critically. This is not the case with the K-3III. The finder is excellent. The AF as well. I used the rear screen a lot for critical focusing on landscapes with my K-3. I haven't used it once on the K-3III.

Literally every person I know who is into photography uses the screen for shooting at weird angles, and does so pretty often*. When you realize that you can shoot at unconventional angles because you have an omni-directional screen like the K-1's, you start seeing options you didn't see before, I guess... I certainly drop to the floor less often than I did with the K-7, at least .

It's not only a Pentax thing, even... my ex has, in fact, complained a good bunch of times that Canon *only* has one FF DSLR with moveable screen (and she doesn't own that model - it was too expensive ).

*But we are all mostly into landscape and city photography, so it's very practical there. I basically don't use the screen for portraits and I can't see myself using it for wildlife, either... although those are because the K-1's Live View autofocus works best when turned off

[Rondec]

I just don't get it. True, a flip screen is useful for shooting in weird angles but most people do this very rarely. The reason why many use the rear screen for regular photography is because the viewfinder is bad and very unhelpful for focusing critically. This is not the case with the K-3III. The finder is excellent. The AF as well. I used the rear screen a lot for critical focusing on landscapes with my K-3. I haven't used it once on the K-3III.

If you use your camera on a tripod in anything but a normal viewpoint height, the flippy screen is handy. I can usually still see the screen without turning it, but sometimes I have to squat down if I am shooting low to the ground.

I don't think it is the end of the world and if the K-1 sequel has all of the K-3 III features and lacks a flippy screen, I'll buy it and just deal with it, but it is a useful thing to have.

[mtkeller]

I don't think it is the end of the world and if the K-1 sequel has all of the K-3 III features and lacks a flippy screen, I'll buy it and just deal with it, but it is a useful thing to have.

They’re targeting different shooting styles with the K-3 line and the K-1 line. I fully expect the K-1 iii to have a flippy screen of some sort. Only time will tell if it’s a tilter like the KP and 645Z, fully articulated like the K-70, or the distinctive moon lander screen in the K-1 (ii).

[house]

They’re targeting different shooting styles with the K-3 line and the K-1 line. I fully expect the K-1 iii to have a flippy screen of some sort. Only time will tell if it’s a tilter like the KP and 645Z, fully articulated like the K-70, or the distinctive moon lander screen in the K-1 (ii).

Its It's a bit unfortunate though if FF Pentax cameras are all mega feature monsters like the k-1. But I agree it makes sense for any k-1 followup to be in line with the original. We just need a KF ff alongside the k-1.

[SrMi]

Photonstophotons has the K-3iii sensor in it’s database. Same base ISO DR as the D-500 with the accelerator then kicking in and it doing better at high ISO then a bunch of sensors. At this point in time just about everything has a good sensor in it. I’ve never used one of the Pentax’s with the accelerator for high ISO so not sure what that thing translates to in real life use.
<snip>
.

Note the triangle-down points at the PhotonsToPhotos measurement for ISO 200 and higher. That means that K3 III adds in-camera noise reduction, which causes a better PDR. Canon's latest cameras also do something similar for lower ISOs. However, the effect on image quality is not clear to me.