[sebberry]

I'm really not sure what is meant by the assertion that the camera is a 'pro grade' unit in the context of defending the absence of a movable screen. Professional what? There are many professional landscape and wildlife photographers who could benefit from it.
This is a small example, but here's a clip of a professional portrait/wedding photographer "making use of the flippy screen" https://youtu.be/jnOfRmPZubc?t=573

I don't know why this is so divisive, or why those situations that call for the use of the flippy screen are met with comments that people should be using a phone camera. I get that there's a sense of connection, being one with the camera, purity? I don't know, but there's something special about a good optical viewfinder. But to suggest people should futz around with a smartphone connected via WiFi to compose photos when criticizing the use of a flippy screen as being too much like using a phone camera - makes no sense to me.

And while well intentioned, comments like 'carry a second body with a flip screen' are also confusing - one doesn't buy the K3-3 for the (questionably) better auto-focus and then pulls out an older body to compose the photo.

---------- Post added 04-16-22 at 12:26 PM ----------

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.

I was crouching down at the water line holding the camera as close to the water as possible. The sun was behind and to my right, so I was mostly blocking it but I was looking at the screen at least at a 45 degree angle, maybe more. The screen isn't anti-reflective so it was basically a mirror for all the lighter coloured pebbles and other bits of nature around.

I did try using SEL but I was having a hard enough of a time simply locating the Heron in the screen, let alone tapping to focus on its head.

---------- Post added 04-16-22 at 12:36 PM ----------

(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.)

The K3-3 is the same price as a Sony A7-3. The only reason I didn't go that route was I didn't want to buy new lenses again, but it's starting to seem that in some ways my lenses, including my DA*, are part of the problem.

---

Last edited by sebberry; 04-16-2022 at 12:27 PM.

[c.a.m]

I was crouching down at the water line holding the camera as close to the water as possible. The sun was behind and to my right, so I was mostly blocking it but I was looking at the screen at least at a 45 degree angle, maybe more. The screen isn't anti-reflective so it was basically a mirror for all the lighter coloured pebbles and other bits of nature around. I did try using SEL but I was having a hard enough of a time simply locating the Heron in the screen, let alone tapping to focus on its head.

Thanks for the details. Yeah, you were in a 'challenging' environment on several fronts -- low-contrast subject; subject occupying a small portion of the scene; difficult and awkward shooting position and geometry; hand-held Live View; screen reflections; and Auto Area AF.

I would think the question is how to overcome those challenges and work around the disadvantages of the fixed rear screen so that the chances of a successful shoot could be improved next time. Not easy, but not impossible, I'd think.

- Craig

[jersey]

Change the system. If you feel that Pentax gear is a problem then simply get rid of the problem. For the price of K-3 Mk III and all lenses you could probably get a decent starter pack from Nikon, Sony or Canon. Or OM-DS if you want it small.


And I am not being sarcastic or anything. It is just gear. I find lack of tilt screen irritating, but I bought K-3/3 mostly for action and spotting so AF and OVF are more important to me then tilt screen. If I decided that tilt screen is important to me then I would ditch Pentax without second thought as K-1 is too big for me and outside of K-3 Mk III Pentax has nothing I would be interested in. I rather have fewer lenses but use them often and with joy then have Pentax with lots of lenses and struggle with taking photos I like because of gear.


I find lack of modern DA* long telezooms far worse so you may be right that Pentax lenses are some sort of a problem with K-3 Mk III.


Pentax feel kinda incomplete at this point with K-3 Mk III. Body lacks pretty important feature, there are no accessories sold by Pentax that will remedy problem (like chimney VF attachment for example) and there are almost no lenses that can use best features of new AF system. This camera is so new and modern, compared to everything else that it almost feel like Pentax is starting from zero with it.

[sebberry]

The K3-3 and the Sony A73 is the same price up here. I was really on the fence and if I didn't already have some Pentax glass, I'd have made the jump. I have some regrets about not doing so, but the cost of decent glass for the Sony in order to get the AF performance I'd be after was simply too high.

I quite like the K3-3 coming from a K5. I just feel for what is being billed as a 'flagship' camera, the flip screen is a sore point.

Anyway, I went back to see the heron today. Was in a different position so slightly less glare on the screen and managed to get a few keepers. I was more preoccupied with getting the focus square on the bird's head though to see that I missed the head's reflection in the water, so I just cropped off most of the reflection.

I understand the purists who like the OVF. I'm one of them. But I see the camera as a creative capture tool. Getting back into the hobby I didn't realize what was going to be more enjoyable for me so the flip screen wasn't much of a consideration when choosing the camera.

That said, the lack of the flip screen does have me second guessing buying any more lenses and considering instead saving up for a different system.

I do find these water level shots more interesting than standing and pointing down...

[Michael Piziak]

I am learning how to use the K-3 III and unfortunately come across many reviews and tutorials on the internet which I feel get mired on the fixed screen versus articulating screen as a sticking point. Even here, on the forums, this view persists.

My perspective is that the K-3 III fixed screen actually has a very wide angle of view and I use it as such. I appreciate not having to pull out an articulating screen just to see a live view. The K-3 III back screen angle of view is pretty good!

For perspective, I also use a K-70 with articulating screen, for certain purposes like macro.

My point is, the K-3 III is a great all-around camera with lower weight and size (for all the capability) and I am glad they made it that way.

The lack of an articulating screen is a deal breaker for me.... It's just that important of a feature to me. I have my reasons - 2 very important ones to be exact (it affects both my macro-photography and my new hobby of street photography)...

[jersey]

That said, the lack of the flip screen does have me second guessing buying any more lenses and considering instead saving up for a different system.

Just do it. You will be happier if gear fits your needs. Camera is for you, not you for camera.

Pentax, despite what you may read here, is not holy grail of cameras. It is just a system, with lots of cons and pros.

[MrB1]

My point is, the K-3 III is a great all-around camera with lower weight and size (for all the capability) and I am glad they made it that way.

No apology for more repetition:- Many photographers here, and on other forums and web sites, have described how they value and use a moveable rear screen in their photography, for various different purposes and reasons. How can the K-3III be described as "a great all-round camera" when this feature is missing, and hence reducing the available photo capture opportunities for all those photographers? Pentax made an error of judgement in this regard and they have probably lost a significant number of K-3III sales as a result.

Philip

[gatorguy]

No apology for more repetition:- Many photographers here, and on other forums and web sites, have described how they value and use a moveable rear screen in their photography, for various different purposes and reasons... Pentax made an error of judgement in this regard and they have probably lost a significant number of K-3III sales as a result.

Philip

Considering the number of photographers who believe it's important to have (whether they ever actually use it) Pentax engineers in hindsight may regret not including a movable screen. Or maybe not.

Yes, IMHO the K3III is an amazingly capable camera that will only get better, but I'm one of those who never missed having it. I have a K1, whose moonlander might have gotten use 3 times in the years I've owned it, preceded by K-S2's, K-70's, and KP, none of which need a flippy screen either to meet my needs.

I've seen some photographers comment that "how can a Nikon/Canon with just one card slot be considered a great camera" even if they never needed two cards. Heck, I've often used my K3III or K1 with just one card instead of two, and done just fine. But there are those who would never consider a camera without two, or at least claim they wouldn't. Same with flippy screens. I understand the thinking.

[sebberry]

My perspective is that the K-3 III fixed screen actually has a very wide angle of view and I use it as such. I appreciate not having to pull out an articulating screen just to see a live view. The K-3 III back screen angle of view is pretty good!

I don't understand why one feels they'd have to pull out an articulating screen just to see the live-view. It's there if you want it, it's flat if you don't. Nothing says you have to pull it out. I agree that the angle of view of the K3-3 screen is good, and it's a bright screen. But if you're trying to take ground level shots of shorebirds, forget it. All I can see in the screen in these instances is reflections and glare, forget being able to put careful thought into composition, background and focus when all you see is reflections of sand and pebbles.

Anyway - folks can criticize me all they want for buying a system that's not working for me. Truth is, it wasn't until I renewed my interest in the hobby by upgrading my K5 to the K3-3 that I started paying more attention to other people's work to see what was appealing to me. I didn't know that the lack of an articulating screen in this day in age where every other camera has one was going to be the hassle it is.

---------- Post added 05-01-22 at 12:11 PM ----------

I've seen some photographers comment that "how can a Nikon/Canon with just one card slot be considered a great camera" even if they never needed two cards. Heck, I've often used my K3III or K1 with just one card instead of two, and done just fine. But there are those who would never consider a camera without two, or at least claim they wouldn't. Same with flippy screens. I understand the thinking.

I don't think the number of card slots has much impact on the photographer's ability to comfortable compose a unique photo though

[Michael Piziak]

No apology for more repetition:- Many photographers here, and on other forums and web sites, have described how they value and use a moveable rear screen in their photography, for various different purposes and reasons. How can the K-3III be described as "a great all-round camera" when this feature is missing, and hence reducing the available photo capture opportunities for all those photographers? Pentax made an error of judgement in this regard and they have probably lost a significant number of K-3III sales as a result.

Philip

+1 for your post

I think the number of users that put an articulating screen high on their list is, umh, high enough for Ricoh/Pentax to have included one. This would make for a good polling question.
Perhaps it was a cost cutting decision, but I'd argue the opposite - that perhaps Pentax could not have afforded to leave it out.


I know I would certainly pay a couple hundred dollars more to get an articulating screen. And since I love macro photography, and am starting to get into street photography (preferring to take less conspicuous photos from the waist level), I must admit that I would rather have my k-s2 than a k3iii. It's that important of enough a feature for me.


Regards,

Michael

[gatorguy]

No apology for more repetition:- Many photographers here, and on other forums and web sites, have described how they value and use a moveable rear screen in their photography, for various different purposes and reasons. How can the K-3III be described as "a great all-round camera" when this feature is missing, and hence reducing the available photo capture opportunities for all those photographers? Pentax made an error of judgement in this regard and they have probably lost a significant number of K-3III sales as a result.

Philip

Just to note, the flagship Canon and Nikon DSLR's, (Canon 1Dx Mark III @$3500, the Nikon D6@$6500, along with the Canon 5D series and the current 5D MkIV@$2700) don't have flip screens either. They're fixed. Yet the cameras are considered highly capable, full-featured, and intended for working professionals. I suppose it's who does the reviews and what bias they come with on how cameras are presented. On these the lack of a flip screen was not deemed a negative for the most part. Some users even called it a positive thing for build quality and weatherproofing.

Many potential buyers already considered the K3III too rich, and adding another $100+ for a flippy screen may have turned off even more of them. I'd have bought it either way, and having it would have been fine, as is not having it.

[jersey]

No one says, that K-3/3 is not capable. But we (advanced amateurs, sounds nice), who are main target audience for this camera want tilt screen. Majority wants it, some did not bought K-3 Mk III cause it lacked it.


I doubt anyone cares what pro-level DSLR have, or have not. It is like trying to sell a car with manual gearbox to average US customer saying: "hey, but look at those pro level raiding cars, they all have manuals, you don't need automatic".

[Kobie]

No one says, that K-3/3 is not capable. But we (advanced amateurs, sounds nice), who are main target audience for this camera want tilt screen. Majority wants it, some did not bought K-3 Mk III cause it lacked it.


I doubt anyone cares what pro-level DSLR have, or have not. It is like trying to sell a car with manual gearbox to average US customer saying: "hey, but look at those pro level raiding cars, they all have manuals, you don't need automatic".

Wouldn't that be more like saying "You don't need any auto shooting modes (like TAv) since pros only shoot manual everything. Heck! What you need Autofocus for?"

[Pål Jensen]

No one says, that K-3/3 is not capable. But we (advanced amateurs, sounds nice), who are main target audience for this camera want tilt screen. Majority wants it, some did not bought K-3 Mk III cause it lacked it.
.

Speak for yourself, not an invented majority.
This is a case of barking up the wrong tree. The K-3III is what it is and what it is is pretty obvious. To think that an expensive DSLR with the best optical finder in the known universe should be somehow targeted at people prefering an electronic screen is misguided. For those it is simply the wrong tool for the job. If one prefers electronic screens there are perfect solutions for that like a phone or a mirrorless camera.

[gatorguy]

No one says, that K-3/3 is not capable. But we (advanced amateurs, sounds nice), who are main target audience for this camera want tilt screen. Majority wants it, some did not bought K-3 Mk III cause it lacked it.

We agree. For some that's a want the K3III doesn't offer.

Price is another obstacle, and a higher one would have been perceived even more negatively by some. It's a balancing act, and like Nikon and Canon's more consumer-oriented DSLR's a non-flagship Pentax will almost certainly have a flip screen of some sort. If they could have included one on the K3III for roughly the same price even I would have appreciated it, and I don't use 'em now. In fact I'd rather do without video if it would have allowed for a flip screen for no more cash. I do video on a camera as often as I use a flippy screen, so I'd much prefer using my already expensive smartphone with great stabilization for that.

Give me a great stills camera, and don't make me pay extra for video I don't want. But Pentax users were clamoring for "usable" video, which he K3III has. Yippee. Either twin USBII slots, or a flip screen would have potentially had more value for me.