[c.a.m]

However.I do understand that many just don't see the ovf as an advantage *at all*. That they see a camera completely lacking in all the features discussed over the last five years sold at a very high price. For them there is simply no value in the things offered by Pentax. Cameras like the X-T4 are cheaper and offer way better specs in af tracking and video. The two main features discussed in todays camera reviews. For them, nudging their readers towards paying 2k for the K-3III is kind of irresponsible. They feel a duty to inform about the lacking features and high price. The fact that the ovf might be super expensive to make doesn't matter to them as there's no focus peaking. Pentax is seen as pending money on a non feature.

Thanks for your comments. I think you are correct -- many reviewers don't see the benefits of the various unique features of the K-3 III. So, they focus on the common things that can be compared to other cameras. Good point about the OVF and the prism -- the VF could be as huge as a Medium Format camera's, but, sorry, no VF focus peaking (or exposure preview) so into the bin it goes.

I don't know whether many folks here have priced out a Fujifilm X-T4 kit. I've had a casual interest in it (my son has an X-T3). Using my decent core lenses as a comparison point, an X-T4 kit with similar lenses would cost about 15-20% more than a K-3 III kit. Of course, one could argue that some of the Fuji lenses are better than their Pentax counterparts.

Anyways, we'll probably see more reviews in the near future. Let me guess what they'll say...

- Craig

[house]

Of course, one could argue that some of the Fuji lenses are better than their Pentax counterparts.

I'm not sure about better but if you're looking at primes they are bound to be faster, which always costs more.

[Rondec]

In the real world you say, that is not post processed. Post processing is not an image of the real world, but just a figment of your imagination. And we all know what DPreview is like, don't we? So neither the one or the other gives us an honest review when looking at the samples they use to convince us.

Do you understand that when you are shooting jpgs from your camera they are post processed? It is just "dumb post processing" where you choose a mode for the camera to shoot in (Natural, Vivid, Bright, etc) and that gets applied. You can actually approximate many looks in camera if you so choose.

Typically I set my jpeg to Natural as it does seem to have pumped up saturation and sharpening that you can see with other jpg settings, but I guess everything is a figment in a sense. In the end the important thing is that a photographer is able to use his gear to get the images he desires, whether in camera or out. Only photojournalists are truly against much editing and even they will adjust levels/contrast and stuff like that.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Yes I understand, actually the first digital camera I owned (it was a Fuji) did a lot of post-processing in camera, it had a 2MP sensor that turned the JPG into a 6mp one by interpolating the pixels, now that is what I call post-processing.... So yes I understand, but what I do not understand that everyone here gets upset if I state that you should not do that as your are reviewing a camera or lens. I can not see that as objective as you illustrate your writing in that way. Perhaps they should not make galleries with results of this or that camera or lens. It feels like the discussion has changed from making a remark on the pictures used in a review to explaining to me that each picture I take with a digital camera is in fact post processed. Someone even used the word "Period.".

[RobA_Oz]

It's a bad review, it doesn't mention the price even once, less alone the required dozen times!

It’s even worse: there was no mention of the Fuji X-T4.

Seriously refreshing.

Startling, even.