[brettday]

Hey everyone

I hope you are all doing well. Mods, please delete this if this is not allowed here. I recently had the chance to review the Pentax K-3 III after Ricoh sent me a review copy. It certainly makes me miss my Pentax gear. I have a feeling I'll be back soon . Also, I will soon have the new 16-50mm f/2.8 in for review. I'm looking forward to testing, reviewing, and sharing my thoughts on it. I hope you all have a great day.

All the best,
Brett

[Pentax Syntax]

Thanks for sharing the link. Seems like a well balanced review. I certainly have enjoyed using the K-3 iii and you hit the high points.

[c.a.m]

Hi @brettday,

TL;DR: Thanks for your review and enjoyable, readable presentation style. While the review highlights a number of the K-3 Mark III's strengths, I think that the concluding cost comparison to other cameras omits essential details of their overall value propositions. It would be great to hear your perspectives on why the other cameras might offer better value for money to someone who is not a Nikon or Fuji shooter already.

- - -

Thanks for bringing attention to your review. I like the presentation and layout, and the sample images illustrate your points very well. It's a lot of work to spend time with a new camera to tease out its salient points, good or bad, and to write up a concise piece for publication.

Obviously, you are generally impressed by the K-3 Mark III, and the review makes numerous positive remarks! I have one, and find it to be a high-performing, enjoyable camera.

Price is one factor among several
Like we have seen in other reviews, the price of the K-3 Mark III is held up as a potential deterrent to prospective buyers, especially those who might be entering the Pentax system. USD $2,000 seems like a lot on first glance, and I imagine that it's not affordable for many photographers or not attractive enough to sway others. The review mentions several alternative cameras, such as the Nikon D500 and the Fujifilm X-T4, at $500 and $300 less expensive, respectively.

If I were considering moving to the Pentax system, I would do my homework and I'd certainly compare overall system costs, not just the bare cameras. I would also evaluate a number of other factors, such as weight and portability; the lens systems, including their sizes and weights; image quality; operability and handling; overall pros/cons, etc. Price certainly is a factor, but not the only important one. In other words, a thorough assessment should examine the overall value propositions of the systems, not just the base prices. I think that the same could be said for any camera brand or model -- if it doesn't offer a sufficiently strong value proposition to new buyers/users, it won't attract them (however, some people are attracted by hype). This is especially the case if someone wants to 'jump ship' to another brand and replicate their lens collection.


The Review's Proposed Alternatives -- Fujifilm X-T4
The X-T4 is applauded frequently in reviews and forums for its lower price and lighter weight compared to the K-3 Mark III, or its mirrorless design.

It's a commendable camera, for sure, but even a quick online search would reveal numerous issues. Here are several that I found earlier when I was interested casually in the X-T4. These are not pervasive problems, but also not just one-off comments from users. They're not necessarily show-stoppers for potential buyers, but things to be aware of.

• Too-small hand grip that can cause discomfort, especially with larger lenses
• Disappointment with the build quality
• Mushy shutter button
• Problems with the battery grip connection
• Autofocus issues
• AF issues with certain wide-angle lenses
• Mechanical build quality of some lenses
• Problems induced by at least one firmware update (lost images on SD card; camera freezing).

Looking at the relative costs of the cameras and comparable lens kits would reveal interesting findings -- an X-T4 kit is not necessarily cheaper than a K-3 Mark III kit and could be $1,000-2,000 more. Despite the seemingly relative high price of the K-3 Mark III camera, an overall kit could be quite a bit less expensive than a similar one based on the X-T4.

The Fuji is heavier with certain lens or focal-length combinations (e.g., DA* 50-135, XF 50-140mm). Fujifilm offers numerous excellent, lightweight prime lenses, but longer focal lengths are compromised in weight or maximum aperture.


Nikon D500
The review identifies the five-year old Nikon D500 as a camera that is "as good as, or better than the K-3 III." However, would you agree that the relative merit depends on the specific comparison criteria?

There's a niggle on the D500 price that's mentioned in the review. Equipping the Nikon with high-end memory cards to exploit its fast buffering and write speed (1x XQD; 1x SDXC UHS-II) would cost about USD $100 more than fast cards for the K-3 Mark III. So, I think the relative cost difference is around USD $400.

Over the past several years, I've learned that the D500 is a great camera -- legendary, as the review says -- but has a number of deficiencies compared to the K-3 Mark III (gleaned from specifications and various reviews). Its 20% lower price brings:

• no in-body image stabilization
• inferior viewfinder
• 20% lower sensor resolution
• heavier and bulkier
• less control customization
• no anti-alias simulator
• no super-resolution / pixel shift
• auto AF fine tune function is not infallible
• arguably, a more limited APS-C/DX lens lineup
• no obvious path for future Nikon DSLR APS-C developments.

I appreciate that this type of analysis might have been beyond the intended scope of your review.

- Craig

[house]

Hey everyone

I hope you are all doing well. Mods, please delete this if this is not allowed here. I recently had the chance to review the Pentax K-3 III after Ricoh sent me a review copy. It certainly makes me miss my Pentax gear. I have a feeling I'll be back soon . Also, I will soon have the new 16-50mm f/2.8 in for review. I'm looking forward to testing, reviewing, and sharing my thoughts on it. I hope you all have a great day.

All the best,
Brett

Looking forward to that 16-50 review! It's out but under examined, we need lots and lots of images

[Pål Jensen]

The K-3III is pro grade camera with superb built quality and rated for 300 000 exposures, which is three times the number for yesterdays pro bodies. It is cheap for what it is....

[normhead]

The K-3III is pro grade camera with superb built quality and rated for 300 000 exposures, which is three times the number for yesterdays pro bodies. It is cheap for what it is....

Like we have seen in other reviews, the price of the K-3 Mark III is held up as a potential deterrent to prospective buyers, especially those who might be entering the Pentax system. USD $2,000 seems like a lot on first glance, and I imagine that it's not affordable for many photographers. The review mentions several alternative cameras, such as the Nikon D500 and the Fujifilm X-T4, at $500 and $300 less expensive, respectively.

IBIS, pixel shift, astro-tracer and the accelerator chip, especially the accelerator chip which should put the K-3 ahead of those cameras for action shots... with better performance at high ISO for higher shutter speeds.

And as has been stated many time, comparing the older gear at reduced price to newer gear at launch price is hardly a useful comparison. One year from now they will be moot.

But, that being said, it looks likes good info. For my own work, if I can get an extra stop of clean high ISO for birds and action over my K-1 and K-3, neither of which have the accelerator chip, the price difference is moot. The we would be talking a comparison of short term pain for long term gain. I'm kind of waiting for the Imagine Resources test charts for that one.

If it's good as Pentax said, the camera would be just better for what I do, and talking inferior cameras would be moot.

So for me, I'm expecting this camera to be better for my purposes than the D500. But I'm not finding what I need to know yet. the guy at Imagine resources shot wildlife up to 6400 ISO, which is impressive, but until the images can be compared to the images of other cameras you don't know what you're looking at. The 6400 ISO images weren't good enough to sell me, I would have preferred a look at 3200 ISO, which would still give me a two stop improvement over my K-3.

It's disappointing how small the buffer is and the buffer clearing speed. I really hope for improvement there.

But or guys like me, I want the best image quality, at the highest possible ISO. Having to deal with smaller buyers slightly slower AF etc. is secondary to being able together the best possible image. The report that the K-3iii gets it's best DR at 400 ISO is absolutely wonderful. We're talking two more stop of shutter speed for hand held sunsets.

[JPT]

It's good to see another review. As for the price, it's true that it's expensive and that's relevant to the review. But I don't think too much should be made of it. If you want a high performing camera, that is what you have to pay these days.

The way I see it, Pentax users may have some more money in their wallets because the company has not forced them into a mount change and having to rebuy all their lenses.

I think the D500 is a good choice if you are in the "My last DSLR" mentality, but it seems odd to buy into Nikon F when the lenses are gradually becoming unavailable. Also you can argue that Nikon never bothered with a decent "DX" line-up in the first place, so they don't have much to discontinue in the first place. It seems strange to recommend the D500 to anyone new at this stage. Why would you buy into to F-mount now when it is being phased out? And if you were a long-time F-mount user in the market for a camera like this, you would probably have bought it already.

[Rondec]

Unfortunately, we are dealing with some inflation right now and the price of most things (including electronics) is climbing. Most of the camera brands out there are trying to move up scale with their newer releases. Older cameras will be priced lower, as well and so it is important to look at release prices in such a comparison rather than "street prices." The K-3 III will come down in price and when the XT-5 is released it may well be higher -- that's just the way the market works and many people save money by buying older cameras and used cameras. I don't really think this makes new cameras a bad value though.

[house]

I don't really think this makes new cameras a bad value though.

I really think they are. Camera design peaked a couple of years ago. Unless you're shooting video older cameras are excellent. Improvements have been incremental and irrelevant for most photographers. Pentax has been a bit behind so is now with the K-3 III approaching that peak.

[biz-engineer]

The K1 is good and 30% cheaper than closest competitor, but the frame rate is too low.
The K3 was good, but autofocus was lacking.
The K3 III is excellent, but the price is too high.

To me it looks like marketing does a good job: they never give value away for free, always set the price-feature set at the limit of what customers are willing to pay. As a marketer, you never give anything for free unless you have no choice.

[Rondec]

I really think they are. Camera design peaked a couple of years ago. Unless you're shooting video older cameras are excellent. Improvements have been incremental and irrelevant for most photographers. Pentax has been a bit behind so is now with the K-3 III approaching that peak.

The thing is that those older cameras will be discontinued. The D500, in particular, seems likely to be the last high end APS-C SLR from Nikon. If you are going to mention this camera, it seems reasonable to bring up the questions as to Nikon's interest in continuing this line in the future.

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Brett,
Thanks very much for posting the review. I enjoyed it.

On the GPS issue: I think you should have mentioned that GPS coordinates can be gotten off of a smart phone tethered to the camera. Pentax is taking advantage of something we all pretty much carry in our pockets anyway.

I admit the reason I got into Pentax all those years ago was price. So the price tag now is a bit of a disappointment. I snagged one eagerly probably because of a mid-life crisis so I got the Katie instead of a convertible!

The price will drop once the Pentax hardheads are done buying. I just hope it happens soon so more users buy it instead of leaving the system altogether. If some to bypass mk III to go full frame to K-1 that is not so bad for the brand.

[normhead]

Brett,
Thanks very much for posting the review. I enjoyed it.

On the GPS issue: I think you should have mentioned that GPS coordinates can be gotten off of a smart phone tethered to the camera. Pentax is taking advantage of something we all pretty much carry in our pockets anyway.

I admit the reason I got into Pentax all those years ago was price. So the price tag now is a bit of a disappointment. I snagged one eagerly probably because of a mid-life crisis so I got the Katie instead of a convertible!

The price will drop once the Pentax hardheads are done buying. I just hope it happens soon so more users buy it instead of leaving the system altogether. If some to bypass mk III to go full frame to K-1 that is not so bad for the brand.

If it doesn't drop significantly by Christmas, I'll be putting away as much as I can every year for a few years. At some point the price will drop, and my savings will have gone up so much I can afford it. Although a second 55-300 PLM and 1.4 TC may be in the works first. With two shooters in the family, that may be more important than a new camera, and certainly a lot cheaper.

[ThorSanchez]

On the GPS issue: I think you should have mentioned that GPS coordinates can be gotten off of a smart phone tethered to the camera. Pentax is taking advantage of something we all pretty much carry in our pockets anyway.

If it works that's a very good thing. I've attempted to get my Google Pixel I to supply GPS coordinates to my K-3 III on numerous occasions with varying techniques and help from discussions here, and it always stops after a few minutes.

[mtkeller]

If it works that's a very good thing. I've attempted to get my Google Pixel I to supply GPS coordinates to my K-3 III on numerous occasions with varying techniques and help from discussions here, and it always stops after a few minutes.

Have you tried since FW 1.10 and the latest version of ImageSync came out? I don’t understand why problems keep cropping up for some (I don’t doubt that you’re having problems!), but it does seem like people have reported issues going away every time there’s a new firmware. It would be nice if people who reported issues to Ricoh through the support form could be sent some sort of debugging firmware that would give a data dump file that Ricoh could analyze. It’s not like sending the camera in is likely to reveal the issue, since it’s likely more about the phone than the camera.