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