K-3 III Lenstip's review

BarneyL · 08-05-2021, 02:16 PM - **8 Likes**

As you may be aware, Lenstip is one of photo gear benchmark websites run by a Poland-based group calling themselves Optyczne.pl (Polish for 'optical'). Lenstip.com is their collection of camera lens reviews translated into English; similarly, allbinos.com are a collection of their binocular reviews.

However, they also test cameras, and their newest is K-3 III review.

The test isn't (and probably won't be) translated by them into English; I'll try to recap the most important points they made, and also leave a link to original, in case someone would like to check it out.
Test Pentax K-3 III - Wst

Without further ado:

1. Build quality/ergonomics/menus/user experience

They recognize K-3 III as a solid camera with lots of customization options. They liked all the dials, the rear touchscreen, as well as the OVF, which they compared to Canon 5D III and Nikon D3X; they said it's basically identical to Nikon's and only a little bit worse (in terms of magnification) than Canon's. They had no problems with batteries, which easily allowed claimed 800 shots. They also liked the wifi and smartphone app pairing functionality.

They didn't like that the grip is a little too short and has no sufficient space for the pinky finger.

2. Features/Autofocus

They tested AA filter simulation and pixel shift resolution, and were satisfied with results delivered by both modes. Motion correction for PS files works really well.

They pointed out lack of built-in GPS, which prevented them from testing Astrotracer.

They tested IBIS (with DFA* 50mm) and found the effectiveness to be on a level of 4 EV, which they said was an excellent result.

While testing burst mode, they found out that the tempo is not exactly equal to 12 FPS (more like 11), but they acknowledged that Ricoh declares the top speed assuming ISO 100, and for higher settings it could be slower. For a 30s long series, they made 58 RAW files. The FPS rate seems to drop considerably after 2 seconds of continuous shooting (while shooting RAW, with JPEG it's 5 seconds).

They weren't particularly impressed with both AF-S and AF-C. During AF-S tests, they found that noticable amount of pictures were missed by more than 20%, in LED 5400K light. Things were much better in tungsten light, and this is one category where K-3 III fared better than D500.

For AF-C, they used DFA* 70-200. For auto point selection from full coverage, they earned a keeper rate of 46%. Things improved to 53% for 5-point mode. Both Fujifilm X-t4 and D500 fared noticably better.

They claim that the main AF doesn't provide any sort of face/eye detection. I believe they are incorrect on the matter, but I guess it's certainly a challenge to find in the manual, how to set it up.

They also made a filmmaking oriented, full separate test few days ago. To put it short, they didn't like the cropped 4k, overheating warnings (the camera didn't overheat though) nor abysmal AF in video.

3. Resolution/noise/DR

For resolution tests, they used DFA* 50 and Sigma Art 35mm. The measured resolution was less than X-T4 and D500, but not by much. Pixel Shift mode bumped up the resolution by 30% in JPEGs, and around 22% in RAW (developed with DCU). They found no signs of sharpening in PS files.

As for noise, they noticed some sort of anomaly at ISO 400. They suspect either denoising or dual-gain (which would result in different behavior of ISOs 100-200 and 400+). They didn't find much evidence supporting the latter; for example, the readout noise measurement didn't show the same level of difference between ISO 100-200 and the rest.

It seems that the noise levels are very similar in all three cameras compared, but the lead belongs to the Fuji.

ISO 1600 seems to be the limit, where setting the ISO in camera yields better results than lifting it in post.

As for dynamic range, they found that at base ISO, Pentax gives 362 tones, resulting in 8.5 bit data. Fujifilm's result was 8.6 bit, and D500 8.9 bit. The DR measurement plot for different ISO shows again an anomaly when going from ISO 200 to 400; they don't know what could be the cause, they don't seem convinced that it results from dual gain architecture, due to readout noise measurements.

Measured dynamic latitude at ISO 100 is equal to 9 EV. X-T4 got 0,1 more, D500 0,7 more.

When lifting exposure in post by 4 EVs, they liked Pentax results more than Fujifilm's.

4. Summary

They feel the camera has indeed an appeal for those prefering DSLRs. However, they feel that its main competitor in this regard, Nikon D500, is way better value for the money. You can also grab Nikon Z6 II for the price of this Pentax.

**c.a.m** · 08-05-2021, 03:13 PM

@BarneyL, thank you very much for providing this report.

I have always appreciated the reviews and technical information from Lenstip. Their view on the K-3 Mark III is interesting and quite thorough

Edit: I read most of the review through Google Translate, which did a good job, I think. I am surprised by the results of their Autofocus tests. I did not see that they calibrated the lens through an AF Fine Adjustment, and such a calibration procedure does not seem to be described in another page on their testing methodology. I would be surprised if they missed such a procedure, but it's not clear.

- Craig

mtkeller · 08-05-2021, 06:35 PM

I had a similar thought, Craig, about them not doing the AF fine adjustment. It seems that all of us with the K-3 iii have found it to be really critical in a way that might not have been the case with earlier bodies.

biz-engineer · 08-05-2021, 09:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BarneyL

They feel the camera has indeed an appeal for those prefering DSLRs. However, they feel that its main competitor in this regard, Nikon D500, is way better value for the money. You can also grab Nikon Z6 II for the price of this Pentax.

It's interesting how many of the Pentax specific features that other brands don't have, are not considered in reviews. They look at basic digital camera parameters such as number of megapixels, frame rate, number of AF points, if it does 4K video or not, and compare the price.

BarneyL · 08-05-2021, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

It's interesting how many of the Pentax specific features that other brands don't have, are not considered in reviews. They look at basic digital camera parameters such as number of megapixels, frame rate, number of AF points, if it does 4K video or not, and compare the price.

They did mention (and test some) of Pentax specific features (pixel shift, aa filter simulator, composition adjust), they apparently just didn't feel any of those matter for average user as much as things like video, af and buffer.

cxdoo · 08-06-2021, 12:38 AM

I can't comment on resolution and dynamic range as I only have K5ii to compare to, but AF performance seems rather different from my experience.
With Tamron 17-50 I had good results in AF.S both in Auto and Sel modes.
With Tamron 70-200 I was tracking my kids on bikes and playing with dogs and rarely had a miss - actually 90% of 'bad' ones were motion blur. Auto didn't work for me here and I used mostly SEL5.

**BarryE** · 08-06-2021, 02:14 AM

Good data. The detail that interests me is the DR/tonal comparisons between the original K-3 and the K-1. It shows the K-3iii to have DR characteristics to be very similar to the original K-3 and someway behind the K-1. This doesn't really surprise me. It is, though, somewhat at odds to what initial hands on reports claimed, namely that it is close to the K-1. From this data it isn't. Rather it's much the same as the K-3. This is not to say that the iii variant will not be an excellent camera for others, just it's not the step up I was hoping for in DR and tonal control.

cxdoo · 08-06-2021, 03:20 AM

Yeah looks like a comprehensive review, I'd also like to hear from another source on DR/resolution just for the sake of it.

mtkeller · 08-06-2021, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by BarryE

Good data. The detail that interests me is the DR/tonal comparisons between the original K-3 and the K-1. It shows the K-3iii to have DR characteristics to be very similar to the original K-3 and someway behind the K-1.

Very similar to the original K-3? Surely you jest.

**jersey** · 08-06-2021, 07:27 AM

Comments are typical mishmash of "too expensive", "who wants dslr", "nail in Pentax coffin".

Still the review itself is pretty comprehensive, probably more then every other I saw.

**BarryE** · 08-06-2021, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by mtkeller

Very similar to the original K-3? Surely you jest.

No. At 100 ISO 8.9 EV for K3. 9.0 for K3iii and 9.7 for K1. Seems clear enough, unless I've misread things.

BarneyL · 08-06-2021, 08:04 AM

There is noticeable improvement in the number of tones (DR) at higher ISO settings; not much at base ISO.

mtkeller · 08-06-2021, 08:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BarryE

No. At 100 ISO 8.9 EV for K3. 9.0 for K3iii and 9.7 for K1. Seems clear enough, unless I've misread things.

There is so much suspect about the testing reported here, that I wouldn’t give it much credibility.

Kunzite · 08-06-2021, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by mtkeller

There is so much suspect about the testing reported here, that I wouldn’t give it much credibility.

This^^^^
Wasn't the K-3 a slight step behind in DR, due to it's noisier sensor?

BarneyL · 08-06-2021, 08:22 AM

These guys aren't infallible, certainly, but their sensor-analysis methods are consistent, and to my (admittedly untrained) eye, seem sound.

I don't know why people expected huge leap in base ISO DR.

08-05-2021, 02:16 PM - 8 Likes	#1
BarneyL Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 899	K-3 III Lenstip's review As you may be aware, Lenstip is one of photo gear benchmark websites run by a Poland-based group calling themselves Optyczne.pl (Polish for 'optical'). Lenstip.com is their collection of camera lens reviews translated into English; similarly, allbinos.com are a collection of their binocular reviews. However, they also test cameras, and their newest is K-3 III review. The test isn't (and probably won't be) translated by them into English; I'll try to recap the most important points they made, and also leave a link to original, in case someone would like to check it out. Test Pentax K-3 III - Wst Without further ado: 1. Build quality/ergonomics/menus/user experience They recognize K-3 III as a solid camera with lots of customization options. They liked all the dials, the rear touchscreen, as well as the OVF, which they compared to Canon 5D III and Nikon D3X; they said it's basically identical to Nikon's and only a little bit worse (in terms of magnification) than Canon's. They had no problems with batteries, which easily allowed claimed 800 shots. They also liked the wifi and smartphone app pairing functionality. They didn't like that the grip is a little too short and has no sufficient space for the pinky finger. 2. Features/Autofocus They tested AA filter simulation and pixel shift resolution, and were satisfied with results delivered by both modes. Motion correction for PS files works really well. They pointed out lack of built-in GPS, which prevented them from testing Astrotracer. They tested IBIS (with DFA* 50mm) and found the effectiveness to be on a level of 4 EV, which they said was an excellent result. While testing burst mode, they found out that the tempo is not exactly equal to 12 FPS (more like 11), but they acknowledged that Ricoh declares the top speed assuming ISO 100, and for higher settings it could be slower. For a 30s long series, they made 58 RAW files. The FPS rate seems to drop considerably after 2 seconds of continuous shooting (while shooting RAW, with JPEG it's 5 seconds). They weren't particularly impressed with both AF-S and AF-C. During AF-S tests, they found that noticable amount of pictures were missed by more than 20%, in LED 5400K light. Things were much better in tungsten light, and this is one category where K-3 III fared better than D500. For AF-C, they used DFA* 70-200. For auto point selection from full coverage, they earned a keeper rate of 46%. Things improved to 53% for 5-point mode. Both Fujifilm X-t4 and D500 fared noticably better. They claim that the main AF doesn't provide any sort of face/eye detection. I believe they are incorrect on the matter, but I guess it's certainly a challenge to find in the manual, how to set it up. They also made a filmmaking oriented, full separate test few days ago. To put it short, they didn't like the cropped 4k, overheating warnings (the camera didn't overheat though) nor abysmal AF in video. 3. Resolution/noise/DR For resolution tests, they used DFA* 50 and Sigma Art 35mm. The measured resolution was less than X-T4 and D500, but not by much. Pixel Shift mode bumped up the resolution by 30% in JPEGs, and around 22% in RAW (developed with DCU). They found no signs of sharpening in PS files. As for noise, they noticed some sort of anomaly at ISO 400. They suspect either denoising or dual-gain (which would result in different behavior of ISOs 100-200 and 400+). They didn't find much evidence supporting the latter; for example, the readout noise measurement didn't show the same level of difference between ISO 100-200 and the rest. It seems that the noise levels are very similar in all three cameras compared, but the lead belongs to the Fuji. ISO 1600 seems to be the limit, where setting the ISO in camera yields better results than lifting it in post. As for dynamic range, they found that at base ISO, Pentax gives 362 tones, resulting in 8.5 bit data. Fujifilm's result was 8.6 bit, and D500 8.9 bit. The DR measurement plot for different ISO shows again an anomaly when going from ISO 200 to 400; they don't know what could be the cause, they don't seem convinced that it results from dual gain architecture, due to readout noise measurements. Measured dynamic latitude at ISO 100 is equal to 9 EV. X-T4 got 0,1 more, D500 0,7 more. When lifting exposure in post by 4 EVs, they liked Pentax results more than Fujifilm's. 4. Summary They feel the camera has indeed an appeal for those prefering DSLRs. However, they feel that its main competitor in this regard, Nikon D500, is way better value for the money. You can also grab Nikon Z6 II for the price of this Pentax.

08-05-2021, 03:13 PM	#2
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,191	@BarneyL, thank you very much for providing this report. I have always appreciated the reviews and technical information from Lenstip. Their view on the K-3 Mark III is interesting and quite thorough Edit: I read most of the review through Google Translate, which did a good job, I think. I am surprised by the results of their Autofocus tests. I did not see that they calibrated the lens through an AF Fine Adjustment, and such a calibration procedure does not seem to be described in another page on their testing methodology. I would be surprised if they missed such a procedure, but it's not clear. - Craig Last edited by c.a.m; 08-05-2021 at 04:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ricoh GR III - Editor's choice by LensTip/Optyczne.pl	BarneyL	Pentax Compact Cameras	9	11-18-2019 09:48 AM
Lenstip Review of 50mm f/1.8	Sol Invictus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-24-2012 10:53 AM
Pentax 31mm Lenstip Review	taurus9	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	10-30-2011 06:09 AM
DA 15/4 review on Optyczne/Lenstip	stanic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-30-2011 10:43 AM
Review of the FA 43mm on Lenstip	nater	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	05-29-2011 07:32 AM

08-05-2021, 06:35 PM	#3
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	I had a similar thought, Craig, about them not doing the AF fine adjustment. It seems that all of us with the K-3 iii have found it to be really critical in a way that might not have been the case with earlier bodies.

08-05-2021, 09:44 PM - 1 Like	#4
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,237	Originally posted by BarneyL They feel the camera has indeed an appeal for those prefering DSLRs. However, they feel that its main competitor in this regard, Nikon D500, is way better value for the money. You can also grab Nikon Z6 II for the price of this Pentax. It's interesting how many of the Pentax specific features that other brands don't have, are not considered in reviews. They look at basic digital camera parameters such as number of megapixels, frame rate, number of AF points, if it does 4K video or not, and compare the price.

08-05-2021, 11:53 PM	#5
BarneyL Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 899 Original Poster	Originally posted by biz-engineer It's interesting how many of the Pentax specific features that other brands don't have, are not considered in reviews. They look at basic digital camera parameters such as number of megapixels, frame rate, number of AF points, if it does 4K video or not, and compare the price. They did mention (and test some) of Pentax specific features (pixel shift, aa filter simulator, composition adjust), they apparently just didn't feel any of those matter for average user as much as things like video, af and buffer.

08-06-2021, 12:38 AM	#6
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	I can't comment on resolution and dynamic range as I only have K5ii to compare to, but AF performance seems rather different from my experience. With Tamron 17-50 I had good results in AF.S both in Auto and Sel modes. With Tamron 70-200 I was tracking my kids on bikes and playing with dogs and rarely had a miss - actually 90% of 'bad' ones were motion blur. Auto didn't work for me here and I used mostly SEL5.

08-06-2021, 02:14 AM	#7
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	Good data. The detail that interests me is the DR/tonal comparisons between the original K-3 and the K-1. It shows the K-3iii to have DR characteristics to be very similar to the original K-3 and someway behind the K-1. This doesn't really surprise me. It is, though, somewhat at odds to what initial hands on reports claimed, namely that it is close to the K-1. From this data it isn't. Rather it's much the same as the K-3. This is not to say that the iii variant will not be an excellent camera for others, just it's not the step up I was hoping for in DR and tonal control.

08-06-2021, 03:20 AM	#8
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Yeah looks like a comprehensive review, I'd also like to hear from another source on DR/resolution just for the sake of it.

08-06-2021, 06:02 AM	#9
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	Originally posted by BarryE Good data. The detail that interests me is the DR/tonal comparisons between the original K-3 and the K-1. It shows the K-3iii to have DR characteristics to be very similar to the original K-3 and someway behind the K-1. Very similar to the original K-3? Surely you jest.

08-06-2021, 07:27 AM	#10
jersey Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: 3City agglomeration Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,057	Comments are typical mishmash of "too expensive", "who wants dslr", "nail in Pentax coffin". Still the review itself is pretty comprehensive, probably more then every other I saw.

08-06-2021, 07:49 AM	#11
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	Originally posted by mtkeller Very similar to the original K-3? Surely you jest. No. At 100 ISO 8.9 EV for K3. 9.0 for K3iii and 9.7 for K1. Seems clear enough, unless I've misread things.

08-06-2021, 08:04 AM	#12
BarneyL Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 899 Original Poster	There is noticeable improvement in the number of tones (DR) at higher ISO settings; not much at base ISO.

08-06-2021, 08:12 AM - 1 Like	#13
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	Originally posted by BarryE No. At 100 ISO 8.9 EV for K3. 9.0 for K3iii and 9.7 for K1. Seems clear enough, unless I've misread things. There is so much suspect about the testing reported here, that I wouldn’t give it much credibility.

08-06-2021, 08:18 AM	#14
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by mtkeller There is so much suspect about the testing reported here, that I wouldn’t give it much credibility. This^^^^ Wasn't the K-3 a slight step behind in DR, due to it's noisier sensor?

08-06-2021, 08:22 AM	#15
BarneyL Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 899 Original Poster	These guys aren't infallible, certainly, but their sensor-analysis methods are consistent, and to my (admittedly untrained) eye, seem sound. I don't know why people expected huge leap in base ISO DR.