[c.a.m]

The K-3 Mark III is featured in Outdoor Photographer magazine, print edition September 2021. I don't see the article in OP's online site.

Pentax K-3 Mark III Field Test by Jeremy Gray

This three-page article is a condensed version of the author's Field Test published by Imaging Resource on June 22, 2021. Notably, the shorter version omits the harping about mirrorless systems and the industry's direction, although 'mirrorless' is mentioned briefly. There is no discussion of the video capability (probably in keeping with the magazine's focus on still photography). Like the first article, this one suggests that the camera is probably best suited for current Pentax users (an exciting upgrade), although the author notes that changing systems can be expensive.

I think that the article is generally positive and objective. Similar to the Imaging Resource article, there are several criticisms, such as the perceived shallow buffer and some AF accuracy issues that the author experienced (depending on the lens that was used).

The author still hasn't figured out Ricoh Imaging's rationale for the fixed rear screen: "I'm sure there's a good reason for the fixed display -- perhaps it has to do with weather sealing -- but it's nonetheless a negative aspect of the camera's otherwise precisely considered design."


The magazine also runs a prominent two-page ad from Ricoh Imaging Americas Corp for the K-3 Mark III, on the inside front cover and first page. It's the first print ad I've seen for a Pentax product in quite a while.

The ad begins with "PENTAX believes in the future of SLR photography." It lists these key features:

• 5.5 stops SR
• Responsive shutter and mirror mechanism
• Intuitive user interface
• 12 FPS
• Dual card slots
• High-performance pentaprism, 100% view, 1.05x mag
• 101-point AF system
• Touch screen LCD monitor
• Rugged, compact, lightweight magnesium alloy and weather-sealed body

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 08-26-2021 at 06:44 PM.

[bobbotron]

I really like the fixed screen... these things are all design decisions. Fixed screen == simpler body.

That's cool, I'll keep an eye out for the magazine!

[Lord Lucan]

The author still hasn't figured out Ricoh Imaging's rationale for the fixed rear screen

They are not alone.

[c.a.m]

They are not alone.

I know what you mean. The rationale for a fixed screen might not be obvious in light of the many cameras that have one. One of the K-3 Mark III Product Stories explained their decision to go with a fixed rear screen. Interestingly, in the Imaging Resource review, the author mentioned the "amazing deep-dive articles about its development" but somehow missed the one on the rear screen. C'est la vie.


Product Stories of New APS-C"K-3 Mark III" Vol.3?Wakashiro? | PENTAX official

"Today, a large number of both mirrorless and SLR cameras feature an angle-adjustable LCD monitor with a vari-angle or tilt-type screen. For our new APS-C-format flagship model, currently in development, however, we decided to instead use a fixed-type LCD panel. Let me explain why we decided to do this."

- Craig

[bobbotron]

I know what you mean. The rationale for a fixed screen might not be obvious in light of the many cameras that have one. One of the K-3 Mark III Product Stories explained their decision to go with a fixed rear screen. Interestingly, in the Imaging Resource review, the author mentioned the "amazing deep-dive articles about its development" but somehow missed the one on the rear screen. C'est la vie.


Product Stories of New APS-C"K-3 Mark III" Vol.3?Wakashiro? | PENTAX official

"Today, a large number of both mirrorless and SLR cameras feature an angle-adjustable LCD monitor with a vari-angle or tilt-type screen. For our new APS-C-format flagship model, currently in development, however, we decided to instead use a fixed-type LCD panel. Let me explain why we decided to do this."

- Craig

I feel like this topic has been discussed at length, died, was reanimated, and discussed to death already on other forum posts. Do we really need to reanimate the flippy screen wars again?

[c.a.m]

Do we really need to reanimate the flippy screen wars again?

Good point. I hope not!

In this instance, I think the question is what effort the reviewer made to discover or understand the design rationale for the rear screen, or why he missed Ricoh Imaging's explanation even when he referred to the Product Stories. He guessed that the fixed screen might relate to weather sealing, but that's not the reason apparently. And the comment appears both in Imaging Resource's online review as well as the printed version of Outdoor Photographer.

Not a big issue, perhaps, but I think it speaks to the reviewer's weakness in understanding the design ethos for the K-3 Mark III. I also think it detracts a notch from the credibility of the review.

- Craig

[bobbotron]

Good point. I hope not!

In this instance, I think the question is what effort the reviewer made to discover or understand the design rationale for the rear screen, or why he missed Ricoh Imaging's explanation even when he referred to the Product Stories. He guessed that the fixed screen might relate to weather sealing, but that's not the reason apparently. And the comment appears both in Imaging Resource's online review as well as the printed version of Outdoor Photographer.

Not a big issue, perhaps, but I think it speaks to the reviewer's weakness in understanding the design ethos for the K-3 Mark III. I also think it detracts a notch from the credibility of the review.

- Craig

Ah right, agreed!

[Pål Jensen]

The reason for the lack of a flippy screen is obvious: there's no room for it while maintaining the goal of a compact body. The K-3iii is a professional grade camera body. It is the smallest of its kind ever with such a comprehensive feature set. Look at the size of the Nikon D500 and the top models from Olympus for comparison. Pentax have done a great miniaturization job.
If you look at the internals of the camera, not a mm is wasted at rear screen end. A flippy screen built to the built standards of the rest of the camera would be bulky. The camera would have ended up being unacceptably thick or they have to redesign the whole body into something larger

[SrMi]

I vaguely remember Pentax saying that the new improved viewfinder precluded adding a tiltable screen. Can anyone confirm that? If I have to choose between the two, I’ll take the improved viewfinder.

Edit: Here is the reasoning for fixed rear LCD:
https://pentaxofficial.com/en/6628/

[Rondec]

It was a nice story. I read it on Scribd, which has a number of magazines available as part of the monthly subscription fee. He really seemed to like the ergonomics, thought the auto focus was decent (but not quite at D500 levels), and liked most other things other than the lack of a flippy screen.

[SrMi]

Unfortunately, the article does not mention the improved OVF, especially since Pentax put a lot of effort into it. IMO, it is one of the reasons one buys the K-3 III.

[normhead]

The reason for the lack of a flippy screen is obvious: there's no room for it while maintaining the goal of a compact body.

If you'd said "arbitrarily compact body," I would have agreed with you. Functionally, there is no reason to not make the body a bit bigger. To me it's cost issue. The camera is already too expensive for many current Pentax users. Of course they'll say different, but bottom line, in this area it's non-competitive. My guess is, it was cut to keep costs down, the rest is corporate after the fact excuses. Who cares about an extra 1/8 inch in body depth? Seriously? If I did I would never use my K-1. Yet I use them interchangeably without concern for body size. More to the point, in many situations, I don't use my K-3, because of this limitation.

But hey, that's just me. Hopefully everyone else is happy as pigs in poop.
For once I can hope everyone else sees it differently than me.
Pentax producing a money losing product on this scale would not be good for me and my lens collection.

Hopefully in a few years, the new tech migrates to the K-P mk II.

[bobbotron]

If you'd said "arbitrarily compact body," I would have agreed with you. Functionally, there is no reason to not make the body a bit bigger. To me it's cost issue. The camera is already too expensive for many current Pentax users. Of course they'll say different, but bottom line, in this area it's non-competitive. My guess is, it was cut to keep costs down, the rest is corporate after the fact excuses. Who cares about an extra 1.8 inch in body depth? Seriously? If I did I would never use my K-1. Yet I use them interchangeably without concern for body size. More to the point, in many situations, I don't use my K-3, because of this limitation.

But hey, that's just me. Hopefully everyone else is happy as pigs in poop.
For once I can hope everyone else sees it differently than me.
Pentax producing a money losing product on this scale would not be good for me and my lens collection.

Hopefully in a few years, the new tech migrates to the K-P mk II.

Truly, this is just your opinion. I don't share it, I'm looking forward to my new camera. Might agree in time but I think it's easy to get too hung up on the price of things. My current K3 has done a great service since I bought it in 2016 (or 2015?), given the long life of the camera it's pretty reasonably priced.

[normhead]

Truly, this is just your opinion

I did a poll of everyone in the whole world and it's everyone's opinion.

Seriously, what else would it be. It's so weird when someone offers their opinion saying "this is just your opinion." When what they posted is "just their opinion."

Everything posted here is "just their opinion" unless it's a poll or the product of some one's research.

SO, ya, it's just my opinion, and your comment is just your opinion. There are many forum members who share both our opinions....
Some have reasons they won't buy the camera, some have reasons they will... it's all just opinions.

[bobbotron]

I did a poll of everyone in the whole world and it's everyone's opinion.