[Mikesul]

It is always good to repeat good sense, Norm.

[Pål Jensen]

I probably shouldn't say anything. Anything I can say can be found in other threads. I get tried of repeating myself.

I'll just say, I'll never buy another camera without a tilting back screen. I wonder about people arguing for less functionality, or the argument that "because I don't need it nobody does". The thing with the tilting back screen is, if you don't want it, you don't have to use it. Glue it shut for all I care. But I use it, and when I want it, it's a definite advantage. Why people would want to convince me different, I have no clue. It's one of those mysteries of the universe.

The same can be said for built-in-flash. Or any other feature not included for that matter. However, it is not trivial to add a flexible screen to a K-3III. You have to add half a cm to its rear and extent the viewfinder ocular accordingly. Then build the stuff to the standards of the rest of the camera. It would be a thick, unwieldy beast unless it is totally redesigned ending up with something close to the K-1 in size and bulk. It would also cost more. There is no free lunch...

[ThorSanchez]

It would be a thick, unwieldy beast unless it is totally redesigned ending up with something close to the K-1 in size and bulk. It would also cost more. There is no free lunch...

The KP's body is thinner than the K-3 Mark III and it has a moveable screen. Both are smaller than the K-1.

[normhead]

It would be a thick, unwieldy beast unless it is totally redesigned ending up with something close to the K-1 in size and bulk.

The K-1 is what I use now, without the extra magnification for macros.... how is that better? How big is the D500?

D500 860 g, 147 x 115 x 81mm
Katie 820 g. 135 x 104 x 74
K-1. 1010g. 137 x 110 x 86

I'm not seeing it.

[Pål Jensen]

The KP's body is thinner than the K-3 Mark III and it has a moveable screen. Both are smaller than the K-1.

The K-3III is not the KP. It is a far more advanced camera and a marvel of miniaturization. Compare it to the D500 and see what Pentax have done. The D500 has no SR mechanism.

---------- Post added 03-13-22 at 05:50 PM ----------

The K-1 is what I use now, without the extra magnification for macros.... how is that better?

Pentax probably had a size and weight target when making their top APS body. Making a camera close to the size of the K-1 was probably not an option. It is after all a K-3 series camera and probably wanted to keep its size at that level....

[sebberry]

On the fixed screen: I was trying to take some photos today of a heron from low to the water surface. Screen on maximum brightness and all I could see was a reflection of me and the pebbles around me on the beach. Had no clue where it was trying to focus and in typical Pentax AF fashion, it was more often selecting something other than the bird to focus on.

[gatorguy]

On the fixed screen: I was trying to take some photos today of a heron from low to the water surface. Screen on maximum brightness and all I could see was a reflection of me and the pebbles around me on the beach. Had no clue where it was trying to focus and in typical Pentax AF fashion, it was more often selecting something other than the bird to focus on.

Yes, definitely an edge case where a flippy screen would be helpful. I carry a hotshoe mount phone holder just for that reason, to use with the Android app (or Apple app) for preview and focus. Fortunately I've not ever needed to use it yet in the field as I'm sure it's not as fast to go thru all the connect stuff. At the same time I always have my K1 with me too, and have yet to need the moon-lander for any wildlife stuff.

I know it's a nice feature to have available, but at least in my own uses I've rarely, almost never, needed it on my K-S2's, K-70's, or K1.

There's definite advantages to carrying two bodies which I always do, and a relatively cheap flippy-screen K-70 would make a great partner camera to the K3III, mitigating the problem. Something to consider.

[sebberry]

I disagree it's an edge case and respectfully think terms like that are thrown around as an excuse for a significant oversight in the design of the camera. I know, because I made up similar excuses for why I never wanted to give up my BlackBerry when everyone got iPhones.

Nobody wants to be faffing about with pairing the phone to the camera every time they want to take a shot at a different angle and fiddling with mounts, etc...

If a tilt/articulating LCD helps with composition, why not have one? I doubt the K1 guys are complaining about having that option

I came across an Instagram page (this one: Login ? Instagram) of some beautifully photographed water birds. Most of those recent shots are nearly at water level and present a very different and (IMO) beautiful perspective to the viewer. They're also at the very same location I attempted to take these photos of a heron: Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. Clearly a disaster.


I don't think that a particular style of photography is an edge case. It may not be 'your' use case, but certainly not an edge case. I've been watching quite a bit of photography content on YouTube and I'm seeing the movable screens get some pretty heavy use.

[rogerstg]

I disagree it's an edge case and respectfully think terms like that are thrown around as an excuse for a significant oversight in the design of the camera

It wasn't an oversight. They didn't accidental create a camera without tilt screen. They made a business decision and followed through. However, I cannot fathom why someone would buy something and then constantly complain because it is exactly what they bought. It's like someone buying a sedan, then complaining that it is poorly designed because it's not a convertible.

[gatorguy]

It wasn't an oversight. They didn't accidental create a camera without tilt screen. They made a business decision and followed through. However, I cannot fathom why someone would buy something and then constantly complain because it is exactly what they bought. It's like someone buying a sedan, then complaining that it is poorly designed because it's not a convertible.

Entirely possible he didn't anticipate needing a flip screen. That's why I had mentioned a $500 K-70 as a good accompaniment for the action-ready K3III. I'll usually hang a macro or wide-angle on the second body with a *300 or 150-450 on the K3III. Shooting action on a flippy screen wouldn't be as productive, at least for me, as through a viewfinder, but a relatively static crane on a K-70 or K1 is a good use case for one if there's a special angle you're trying.

[house]

If a tilt/articulating LCD helps with composition, why not have one? I doubt the K1 guys are complaining about having that option

I'm a K-1 guy that complains about the articulating screen. It's not that it isn't a nice feature but it comes at the cost of turning the K-1 into basically a ball. It adds way to much to the thickness of the camera. It also prevents viewfinder comfort by sticking out.

I shoot a lot of tripod but would happily trade the articulating screen for a 5mm thinner body . It would really make the K-1 a near perfect camera body.

[Rondec]

There are some people who don't like an articulating screen, but I think they would buy the camera regardless and probably not complain about having it. They just wouldn't use. I do feel like this has been a bit more angsty than is warranted. Most situations do have work arounds -- I typically forget about the K-1's articulating screen and end up bending over to adjust it, even though I technically wouldn't need to.

I think Pentax has learned their lesson, they aren't going to release another camera without an articulating screen, but at this point the K-3 III is what it is. It has significant improvements in many different directions.

I tell my kids all the time that complaining doesn't really help their life situation. In point of fact, it typically makes them significantly less happy and tends to spread their feelings to the others in their group. All is not perfect in Pentaxland, but I remain convinced that the positives outweigh the negatives -- that's why I'm still here.

(Honestly, the biggest reason that people buy or don't buy a camera is price. If the K-3 III was about 500 dollars cheaper, it would probably sell a lot more copies, even with its tragedy of a rear screen.)

[Pål Jensen]

I think Pentax has learned their lesson, they aren't going to release another camera without an articulating screen, but at this point the K-3 III is what it is. It has significant improvements in many different directions.

Some have not learned their lesson. The lesson is that the K-3 series is not for people who want an articulated screen. It is a pro grade, compact high end APS camera aimed at those who prefer using the excellent and costly optical viewfinder instead of using thei DSLR as a phone camera.
It is about knowing what you want and buying what you need.

[c.a.m]

On the fixed screen: I was trying to take some photos today of a heron from low to the water surface. Screen on maximum brightness and all I could see was a reflection of me and the pebbles around me on the beach. Had no clue where it was trying to focus and in typical Pentax AF fashion, it was more often selecting something other than the bird to focus on.

Low-level shots can certainly add interest to a subject, especially on the water surface.

I don't have much experience with my K-3 Mark III in this type of setting. However, there might be a couple of approaches you could try next time.

I think Live View is better when the camera is mounted on a tripod -- there's more control of its orientation, less movement of a large lens, and easier selection of focus points. I also think a static camera allows the user to concentrate better on the scene and subject -- all the advantages of using a tripod in general. Perhaps use a tripod in its lowest position. I have a regular tripod that can get the camera as low as about 10 inches; my small mini-tripod can drop the camera to half that. Of course, it's still necessary to crouch down or kneel to operate the camera. This assumes a fairly stationary subject such as your heron.

Not sure why the subject wasn't apparent with the rear screen at max brightness. Maybe the scene was relatively dark compared to your brighter clothing or the rocks. Increasing the exposure might help to brighten the subject in the display.

Sounds like the camera was set to Auto Area AF or another auto AF mode. It's possible that the AF would be more assured if Sel (S) is used and the desired focus point is tapped on the screen.

Finally, contrast detection AF is not perfect -- it may struggle in scenes with relatively low contrast.

- Craig

[c.a.m]

The lesson is that the K-3 series is not for people who want an articulated screen.

How true. Obviously, there are alternative cameras for those who demand an articulated screen -- the K-1 II or K-70, or numerous models in other brands. IMO, there is nothing wrong with a person wanting or needing a non-fixed screen; however, after a year on the market, the rear screen of the K-3 Mark III is still fixed in place.

- Craig