[ben-pentax]

See it here.

And if you are wondering - "With our full review only days away...."

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I'm curious as to what they'll end up saying about the camera, particularly when it comes to the autofocus tests.

[Kunzite]

I'm curious as to what they'll end up saying about the camera, particularly when it comes to the autofocus tests.

Mostly praising the mirrorless?

[boriscleto]

I'm curious as to what they'll end up saying about the camera, particularly when it comes to the autofocus tests.

I'm not.

[gatorguy]

I rarely look at any of my OOC JPEG's, preferring to do my own processing of images. In fact closer to NEVER. I mention that because a number of DPR's sample images show JPEGS followed by the RAW image Adobe processed. I'd ask my fellow K3III shooters who do why they would be processing in-camera "natural" considering how much better the Adobe-processed "Bright" samples look. Do any of you use the camera's "Bright" setting for JPEGS, and do they seem about the same as Adobe-processed RAWS done "Bright"?

[SrMi]

DPR sometimes has new insights in a camera they review. However, I have never based a purchase decision on their review.

[Lloyd_Christmas]

The photos are really nice. A testament to the image quality it delivers.

[mtkeller]

I rarely look at any of my OOC JPEG's, preferring to do my own processing of images. In fact closer to NEVER. I mention that because a number of DPR's sample images show JPEGS followed by the RAW image Adobe processed. I'd ask my fellow K3III shooters who do why they would be processing in-camera "natural" considering how much better the Adobe-processed "Bright" samples look. Do any of you use the camera's "Bright" setting for JPEGS, and do they seem about the same as Adobe-processed RAWS done "Bright"?

The last time I had a Pentax camera produce a JPEG for me, it was an accident on my part, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That said, I do use the camera matching raw profiles in Lightroom a lot with the K-3 iii. I would bet I have no more than five images where I picked natural. I tend to pick landscape or vibrant, whereas with the K-70 I was always using Adobe Landscape or Adobe Vivid. I used the portrait ones (both camera matching and Adobe) a lot on the shots I processed from GreekFest this weekend (samples in the K-3 iii photos thread). I should give bright a try, but I am kind of wary that it might hyper-saturate the reds even more than vibrant does.

I am planning to shoot some (American) football this fall and might try JPEG for a game to see how I like it. Definitely not the night game, as I’m going to need all the data from the DNGs for noise reduction, I imagine. (Or at least I will want to inspect them at whatever high ISO values I need.) I feel like my Lightroom workflow is so streamlined and predictable with the K-3 iii now that I am more inclined to just create a preset with what I do every…single…time and then go through and just crop and maybe wiggle a couple of sliders to deal with things that the preset didn’t handle.

[TheLastMan]

I'd ask my fellow K3III shooters who do why they would be processing in-camera "natural" considering how much better the Adobe-processed "Bright" samples look. Do any of you use the camera's "Bright" setting for JPEGS, and do they seem about the same as Adobe-processed RAWS done "Bright"?

Looking at their samples comparing in-camera "natural" JPEGs with ACR processed, they mention that the RAWs are adjusted for "white balance and exposure" and exported as "bright". I tend not to use presets in Lightroom, but I might do the experiment myself to see.

"Bright" in-camera JPEGs adjust colour saturation and contrast but not exposure, so it is difficult to compare their processed "bright" images (where exposure has clearly been adjusted) with OOC JPEGs. I use DNG+JPG and leave the JPG in "bright" mode as the output is usually more appealing. I process my "keepers" in lightroom, but for most photos I use the OOC JPEG files.

In high contrast scenes all my Pentax cameras (K-5, K-70 and K-3 III) have tended to meter to protect highlights. Most often those highlights are in unimportant areas of the sky or background. I therefore use "centre weighted" metering which reduces the impact of highly contrasting skies on the overall exposure. This generally avoids any issues but occasionally I may need to add +0.3 to +0.7 exposure compensation, but rarely more than that.

Otherwise, if I think I might want to keep highlight details, then I will use full scene metering and then in Lightroom shift the exposure or lift the shadows as necessary. Pentax DNG raw files have masses of dynamic range so it is almost never an issue.

High contrast scene exposure is a problem with all digital cameras, not a Pentax problem. There are some minor brand differences with how they meter highlights - but I think Pentax have it right. It is easier to extract information from the shadows than from blown highlights!

Pentax cameras are aimed at photographers who are knowledgeable enthusiasts who understand exposure, and therefore have the external buttons and dials to control it. If you want the camera to do it all for you then you are probably best sticking to your phone!

[jumbleview]

See it here.
"

Nice dog.

[stevebrot]

considering how much better the Adobe-processed "Bright" samples look. Do any of you use the camera's "Bright" setting for JPEGS, and do they seem about the same as Adobe-processed RAWS done "Bright"?

Rumor has it that the Adobe "Bright" profile was developed in cooperation with Ricoh/Pentax and is essentially equivalent to the in-camera "Bright". I don't remember for sure, but I did decompile* that profile for the K-3II and seem to remember copyright notices for both Adobe and Ricoh.


Steve

* The hows and whys for that project are complicated, but let's just say, I enjoy those profiles for the K-3 even though Adobe never provided that support for that camera.

[house]

I'd ask my fellow K3III shooters who do why they would be processing in-camera "natural" considering how much better the Adobe-processed "Bright" samples look.

Tastes differ, I went through the gallery thinking how much better the sooc files were! I think one was better "processed to taste". Everytime I see those processed to taste files I wonder why they turn them all muddy yellow with strange contrast distribution. Almost all cameras seem to do better sooc than dprevew reviewers in my opinion.

I tend to shoot raw+ on my Pentax cameras and use the natural or flat (with slightly increased contrast and saturation) for the jpegs. Rawtherapee takes cue from the sooc files which gives me a good starting point with those settings. Bright is just awful.

[gatorguy]

Tastes differ, I went through the gallery thinking how much better the sooc files were! I think one was better "processed to taste". Everytime I see those processed to taste files I wonder why they turn them all muddy yellow with strange contrast distribution. Almost all cameras seem to do better sooc than dprevew reviewers in my opinion.

I tend to shoot raw+ on my Pentax cameras and use the natural or flat (with slightly increased contrast and saturation) for the jpegs. Rawtherapee takes cue from the sooc files which gives me a good starting point with those settings. Bright is just awful.

I don't necessarily disagree.

Essentially my question boils down to:
Why did they use "natural" on the camera for JPEGS and use "bright" in Adobe? If they prefer the look of the Adobe images, which is the impression I was left with, then why not shoot "Bright" in-camera for the JPEGS?

[snappyhoffy]

I'm curious as to what they'll end up saying about the camera, particularly when it comes to the autofocus tests.

Concern is images appear to show they still had v1.01 firmware installed...

[The Squirrel Mafia]

^ That doesn't sound good. Hahaha!