[sebberry]

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.

Ah, the old 'nobody else is doing it, therefore we shouldn't either' comparison. Trouble is, the world is moving away from DSLR to mirrorless.

Tony Northrup in this video (just watch the first couple of minutes) https://youtu.be/QIVfRji8JMM?t=20 comparing the original K1 to other flagship DLSRs at the time opened by lamenting the missing tilty screen in the other pro bodies.

He made a good point, the summary of which is that we can pixel-peep all we want to compare a 1% difference in high ISO noise, but if composing a photo nicely in the first place is a pain, then does the small difference in noise matter?

---------- Post added 05-03-22 at 08:17 AM ----------

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.

I'm not sure I understand your frequent comparison of a camera with a tilty screen to a smartphone. Heck, for many of the shots that are made easier to compose with a tilty screen (such as those close to the ground), a smartphone would be no easier than a fixed screen DSLR.

Yes, the K3-3 has a great viewfinder and I appreciate it for what it is. What it isn't though is something you'd spend several minutes looking through as you move the camera around to compose the photo/scene the way you want it. It's not about having a preference for an electronic screen over the OVF, the tilty screen is simply a convenience feature and one that aids in photographic creativity - it certainly doesn't detract from it. Or are you suggesting the beautiful OVF wouldn't be possible with the tilty screen?


Given that the K3-3 is the same price as a Sony A7-3 and other capable bodies, I'm willing to bet there were a lot more Pentaxians who considered jumping ship but decided they didn't want to re-buy lenses than we realize and I'm one of them. I think this is why the tilty screen is such a sore point.

---

Last edited by sebberry; 05-03-2022 at 08:21 AM.

[gatorguy]

Ah, the old 'nobody else is doing it, therefore we shouldn't either' comparison. Trouble is, the world is moving away from DSLR to mirrorless.

Tony Northrup in this video (just watch the first couple of minutes) https://youtu.be/QIVfRji8JMM?t=20 comparing the original K1 to other flagship DLSRs at the time opened by lamenting the missing tilty screen in the other pro bodies.

He made a good point, the summary of which is that we can pixel-peep all we want to compare a 1% difference in high ISO noise, but if composing a photo nicely in the first place is a pain, then does the small difference in noise matter?

---------- Post added 05-03-22 at 08:17 AM ----------



I'm not sure I understand your frequent comparison of a camera with a tilty screen to a smartphone. Heck, for many of the shots that are made easier to compose with a tilty screen (such as those close to the ground), a smartphone would be no easier than a fixed screen DSLR.

Yes, the K3-3 has a great viewfinder and I appreciate it for what it is. What it isn't though is something you'd spend several minutes looking through as you move the camera around to compose the photo/scene the way you want it. It's not about having a preference for an electronic screen over the OVF, the tilty screen is simply a convenience feature and one that aids in photographic creativity - it certainly doesn't detract from it. Or are you suggesting the beautiful OVF wouldn't be possible with the tilty screen?


Given that the K3-3 is the same price as a Sony A7-3 and other capable bodies, I'm willing to bet there were a lot more Pentaxians who considered jumping ship but decided they didn't want to re-buy lenses than we realize and I'm one of them. I think this is why the tilty screen is such a sore point.

I 100% respect your opinion. We have different expectations and uses for our K3III's. It's not my only Pentax camera, and I ALWAYS carry two for reasons that have nothing to do with the rear screen.

For portrait work I typically go with my K1, and either the K3III or K-70 as backup. For wildlife the obvious choice is my K3III, with the K1 in the bag for landscapes while I'm walking. For my gig (stage/concerts) stuff it's the K3III, with K-70 or K1 depending on venue. For macro and landscape walks it's a K70/K1 package. I suppose if for some reason I had to go out the door with just one camera it would be a tossup based on what I think I'll be needing, knowing my smartphone is with me if all else fails.

If you only want a single Pentax camera for all-around duty, people/pets/landscape/architecture, I'd personally suggest the K1. The K3III is amazingly good for what I use it for, but if you think you'll even infrequently need to have the camera down in the mud I get that a flippy screen would be better than fixed so you're not there too. For me a smartphone mounted on top with Image Sync would be sufficient for any rare time I might decide I need it. If it's more than two or three times a year then having that flip screen is probably the way to go.

Now that A7III? Absolutely not a camera I'm a fan of, menu, ergonomics and shooting under low light being the biggies, so it would never be a consideration for me and that's ignoring the EVF which I'm told I'd learn to tolerate.

[sebberry]

Totally appreciate your different use cases

My K3-3 was an upgrade from the K5 as I rekindled my interest in photography so I didn't really have a well defined use case. I wanted a good all-around camera. I think the K1-2 was actually a little cheaper than the K3-3, but I wanted the AF improvements, which so far have been a little disappointing.

I'm hoping the K1-3 if there ever is one takes what makes the K3-3 great and fuses it with the extra flexibility of the K1-2.

[Pål Jensen]

I'm not sure I understand your frequent comparison of a camera with a tilty screen to a smartphone. Heck, for many of the shots that are made easier to compose with a tilty screen (such as those close to the ground), a smartphone would be no easier than a fixed screen DSLR..

That is because using s screen at a distance while photographing is what you do with a phone. Nobody denies that it is more convenient with a tilt screen with the camera on the ground. However, I rarely see such images; even going through 50 years of National Geographic Magazine I don't see such images. Nor do I see them in newspapers. It is a niche within a niche whose general usefulness is blown out of all proportions. Important for those who need it, whether for still or video, but the K-3III isn't targeted at them.

[jersey]

Why it is not? I don't need it, but would enjoy it more often then not. VF is great for dynamic shooting, but for slow and deliberate composing rear screen is almost always better. You can do it without tilt screen, but it is far more enjoyable with it. K-3/3 would be more attractive, complete and all around camera with it.

[sebberry]

That is because using s screen at a distance while photographing is what you do with a phone. Nobody denies that it is more convenient with a tilt screen with the camera on the ground. However, I rarely see such images; even going through 50 years of National Geographic Magazine I don't see such images. Nor do I see them in newspapers. It is a niche within a niche whose general usefulness is blown out of all proportions. Important for those who need it, whether for still or video, but the K-3III isn't targeted at them.

I respect that that's not your photographic style. I disagree that looking at a screen is what you do with a phone - that's simply the function of the form factor of a phone, not that the phone is the better tool for that job. Taking ground level photos with a phone would be just as difficult as with a DSLR with a fixed screen, so again I'm unclear about the comparison.

[ThorSanchez]

I'm not sure I understand your frequent comparison of a camera with a tilty screen to a smartphone.

I think it's obvious: There's a point of view that photographs taken with a smartphone aren't real photography and people who use smartphones aren't real photographers, so if you use an ILC like a smartphone your want/need/desire for a moveable screen is illegitimate. I think that's nonsense, but framing features Pentax doesn't provide as crutches for unskilled amateurs is a common theme.

[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.


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".

You Tube

You Tube

Definitely worth a watch.

[jersey]

I saw it, have subscription on Kobie chanel. And I think it supports what I said. You do not need tilt screen. But it makes working with the camera lots easier in many cases. Most of photos I post here or I put on flickr are made with use of OFV. But some are with backscreen and tilt one would make the experience either more pleasurable or pleasurable at all. And there are cases when I go "meh" and decide to miss shot cause I do now that with weird view angle I would not get what I want and recomposing in post is not worth my time.


I frankly do not get why people are so protective towards K-3/3 when it comes to tilt screen.

[RobA_Oz]

I saw it, have subscription on Kobie chanel. And I think it supports what I said. You do not need tilt screen. But it makes working with the camera lots easier in many cases. Most of photos I post here or I put on flickr are made with use of OFV. But some are with backscreen and tilt one would make the experience either more pleasurable or pleasurable at all. And there are cases when I go "meh" and decide to miss shot cause I do now that with weird view angle I would not get what I want and recomposing in post is not worth my time.


I frankly do not get why people are so protective towards K-3/3 when it comes to tilt screen.

Probably because they either see no need for one, don’t want to talk the K-3iii down, or just want people to stop talking about the lack of a movable rear screen.

I’m with you, in the sense that I would like its successor to have one. I also think that, if Ricoh takes note of what we say on this forum, then they’ve probably got the message by now.

[house]

I'd like Pentax to produce more fixed screen cameras because I'd like my next camera to have fixed screen. One downside with them having a fixed screen on the K-3 III is that it perhaps makes it less likely that the next camera has fixed screen as it commercial sense to alternate between feature sets. The K-3 III also attracts a lot of "flagship" shoppers that want maximum features. By making a huge monster K-1 style blob of a camera and selling it to flagship hunters they could have silenced them and moved on to make interesting cameras with more focused feature sets and handling.

Hopefully though Pentax becomes even more hardheaded and continues to design cameras that they believe in, ignoring the web chatter, because I think they've showed that they make very good decisions.

[ThorSanchez]

I frankly do not get why people are so protective towards K-3/3 when it comes to tilt screen.

We're on team Pentax, and even when your team misses out on a big free agent and makes a dumb trade you still root for the ol' home team and talk about how the free agent is going to be a bust and the trade will work out in the long run.

[sebberry]

I grabbed my phone to take a picture of the big problem with the fixed screen.

This is with the screen on full brightness. There's a heron on the point at the top center of the photo. I was trying to get a different perspective.

Think I can properly compose the photo or place/confirm the focus point like this? Not a chance.

It's a bigger problem when one wants to take photos at anything other than eye level. When you have photos taken from a different perspective than how people usually see the world, it can create very captivating photos. I've seen some beautifully photographed water birds taken from water level. Even just street photography taken from waist level for example has a much more interesting feel to it. You just can't get that sort of photo with the fixed screen.




On a previous day I was able to capture this one, but honestly it's so much more of a pain than it should be as you really can't compose the frame properly or think about the background at all.



Fixed screens are great if you want all of your shots looking down at your subject.

[Larrymc]

I grabbed my phone to take a picture of the big problem with the fixed screen.

This is with the screen on full brightness. There's a heron on the point at the top center of the photo. I was trying to get a different perspective.

Think I can properly compose the photo or place/confirm the focus point like this? Not a chance.

It's a bigger problem when one wants to take photos at anything other than eye level. When you have photos taken from a different perspective than how people usually see the world, it can create very captivating photos. I've seen some beautifully photographed water birds taken from water level. Even just street photography taken from waist level for example has a much more interesting feel to it. You just can't get that sort of photo with the fixed screen.




On a previous day I was able to capture this one, but honestly it's so much more of a pain than it should be as you really can't compose the frame properly or think about the background at all.



Fixed screens are great if you want all of your shots looking down at your subject.

Why are you holding the camera the way you are holding it, surely you weren't trying to get a shot of the heron holding the camera like that in live view? You do know you could have used the touch screen set to touch and focus in live view? The focus and shutter release are almost instantaneous.

[sebberry]

Why are you holding the camera the way you are holding it, surely you weren't trying to get a shot of the heron holding the camera like that in live view? You do know you could have used the touch screen set to touch and focus in live view? The focus and shutter release are almost instantaneous.

Well I was using my other hand to get a photo of the difficulty seeing the screen, mostly as a rebuttal to the suggestion that the screen is plenty bright and has a good viewing angle and therefore doesn't need to be tilt/articulating.

When I attempted to take a photo of the heron, I used both hands on the camera.

I understand your point about touch to focus and touch to shutter release, but the fact is I couldn't see the screen, let alone see it well enough to compose the photo or know where to touch it.

This example is more of an illustration of the problem - taking more creatively shot photographs from awkward angles isn't an easy feat with the fixed screen.