[sebberry]

Not sure I understand the last part about the "purists." Certainly, I'd use Image Sync again for low-angle shots.


- Craig

I was referring to earlier comments in this thread that suggested that because the OVF was so good, anyone thinking about using a flippy screen might as well just be using a smartphone to take photos.

[sebberry]

But as always, there will never, not during the forseeable future anyway, be a "one camera does it all" solution

Meanwhile the mirrorless guys are not only having an easier time framing up more creative compositions, but they're getting a stack of video features unheard of in the Pentax world

[gatorguy]

Meanwhile the mirrorless guys are not only having an easier time framing up more creative compositions, but they're getting a stack of video features unheard of in the Pentax world

If you're a casual movie maker, the K3III can be made to work with a bit of foresight and creativity, but Pentax is and will always be known as an excellent stills camera with great OOC results. There are few if any crop MILC's with the low-light capabilities and dynamic range of the K3III which rivals the best FF cameras. Different tools for different purposes. For the little bit of video I do my smartphone is perfect. Good 4K quality, stable, in-camera processing better than any of the mid-range dual-use cameras...

If serious about it then look outside of Pentax or a smartphone.

[Pål Jensen]

I was referring to earlier comments in this thread that suggested that because the OVF was so good, anyone thinking about using a flippy screen might as well just be using a smartphone to take photos.

There's nothing wrong with prefering to use a rear screen while shooting (the cell phone reference is due to the fact that most people who use cameras like that came from phone photography). The problem arises when these people buy a camera without a feature they absolutely want, and is in addition a camera actually targeted precisely at those who prefer the SLR experience with an excellent optical finder, start whining about it. It is like buying a sedan car when wanting a cabriolet and then complain about it. The K-70 and K-1 both have flipscreens and also the KP that was available until the K-3III Arrived.
The k-3 series of cameras never had a flip screen (nor their predecessors). Neither did we in the film days but that didn't prevent anyone from take pictures from all kinds of angles....

[sebberry]

I played around with ImageSync a little bit earlier. First impressions: Why does it disable all of the on-camera controls? Second - no burst mode - single shooting only. Possibly related to why Pentax hasn't given the K3-3 AF-C in LV?

I don't know, seems much more fiddly, especially for waterbirds or anything else that moves or at any longer focal length where you'd end up needing three hands

---------- Post added 06-01-22 at 09:27 PM ----------

There's nothing wrong with prefering to use a rear screen while shooting (the cell phone reference is due to the fact that most people who use cameras like that came from phone photography). The problem arises when these people buy a camera without a feature they absolutely want, and is in addition a camera actually targeted precisely at those who prefer the SLR experience with an excellent optical finder, start whining about it. It is like buying a sedan car when wanting a cabriolet and then complain about it. The K-70 and K-1 both have flipscreens and also the KP that was available until the K-3III Arrived.
The k-3 series of cameras never had a flip screen (nor their predecessors). Neither did we in the film days but that didn't prevent anyone from take pictures from all kinds of angles....

I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't think folks using a flippy screen on a DSLR/mirrorless came from shooting on smartphones. And I'd argue that smartphones, with the LCD in the same plane as the sensor suffer from the same problem as I'm complaining about with the K3-3. I've seen several nature/wildlife photographers commenting that their move from DSLR to mirrorless that the flippy screen has been immensely helpful.

The argument that the viewfinder is great is another odd one - yes, it's great, but its impact on my photography over that of my K5 is marginal. And the other bodies you mentioned - none have the AF improvements the K3-3 has.

I also find the logic that because previous K3 bodies didn't have a flippy screen, the mark-3 shouldn't either. Well - why not apply that to any new feature of the K3-3?

[Michael Piziak]

My first 2 Pentax dslr's didn't have an articulating screen. But once I bought a Pentax dslr that had one, then I realized what an important feature it was (to me).

My first love in photography is macro photography and the articulating screen proved invaluable. I'm getting more and more into street photography, and I really like being able to take a photo with the camera at waist height - the articulating screen again invaluable.


Personally, I will never get a k3iii because of this. It's just *that* of an important feature to me.

[MrB1]

In Pentax Principle #5 we read - "We respect and value the photographic experiences of our users and view this as an invaluable asset. We want to share all the inspiring experiences of our users, from the hardware to the shooting processes, creating and viewing the images."

Pentax gave their users the opportunity to experience a movable rear screen, and not only in their lower level models, long before the production of the K-3iii. It is clear that a significant number of Pentaxians understand and appreciate the extra photographic opportunities, and convenience in ease of use, for several quite different genres of photography, which are offered by the inclusion of a movable rear screen.

It makes one wonder, did Pentax take notice of their own Principle #5 - did they actually find out about, respect and value the experiences of their users "from the hardware to the shooting processes" when designing their only flagship APS-C DSLR?

Philip

---

Last edited by MrB1; 06-02-2022 at 02:14 AM.

[Lord Lucan]

There's nothing wrong with prefering to use a rear screen while shooting (the cell phone reference is due to the fact that most people who use cameras like that came from phone photography).

The part in brackets is absurd. You don't seem to understand that most of us here are only using LV in some circumstances, not all the time like a phone camera. I vastly prefer to use the camera OVF over LV : for one thing I am long sighted and need to put on reading glasses to see the LV, which I have no wish and no need to do when out doing general outdoor photography (I don't do wildlife). However I do use LV in special circumstances, mainly doing macro indoors with a tripod, when I am more likely to tilt the screen than not.

The principle of the argument you are making is not against the tilt screen, it is against the presence of a LV screen at all. The tilting is a detail. I was not around on this forum back whenever LV screens were introduced and I guess a similar argument raged back then. Can anyone recall it?

As for phone cameras, I think I have only ever used mine once - a trial shot out of curiosity just to check that it worked.

[Rondec]

I don't know that this discussion has much future.

Pro-K-3 III user: "There are plenty of work arounds for the lack of tilt screen. You can use image sync, or just use live view. Most of the time you can see the back of the camera just fine, even without the tilt."

Discouraged K-3 III user: "You don't understand how terrible life is without a tilt screen and furthermore, none of these work arounds really work for me."

Pro-K-3 III user. "We own other Pentax cameras and use them if there is a time when the only solution is a tilt screen."

Discouraged user: "That doesn't work for me either. Canon and Nikon take so much better care of their users."

Pro-K-3 III user. "I guess you just have to suck it up..."

I guess at the end of the day, I feel like life is too short to focus on the limitations of our gear. Either you figure out how to make it work for your situation or you move on. I think a lot of Pentaxians need therapy to help them deal with the perceived insufficient aspects of their gear. Personally, I just shoot with it and if the photos don't turn out, I figure out what I need to do to improve them.

[Larrymc]

I don't know that this discussion has much future.

Pro-K-3 III user: "There are plenty of work arounds for the lack of tilt screen. You can use image sync, or just use live view. Most of the time you can see the back of the camera just fine, even without the tilt."

Discouraged K-3 III user: "You don't understand how terrible life is without a tilt screen and furthermore, none of these work arounds really work for me."

Pro-K-3 III user. "We own other Pentax cameras and use them if there is a time when the only solution is a tilt screen."

Discouraged user: "That doesn't work for me either. Canon and Nikon take so much better care of their users."

Pro-K-3 III user. "I guess you just have to suck it up..."

I guess at the end of the day, I feel like life is too short to focus on the limitations of our gear. Either you figure out how to make it work for your situation or you move on. I think a lot of Pentaxians need therapy to help them deal with the perceived insufficient aspects of their gear. Personally, I just shoot with it and if the photos don't turn out, I figure out what I need to do to improve them.

Absolute SPOT ON COMMENT, Vince you nailed it!!!! People have beating this dead horse for almost two years now.

[c.a.m]

I guess at the end of the day, I feel like life is too short to focus on the limitations of our gear. Either you figure out how to make it work for your situation or you move on.

People have beating this dead horse for almost two years now.

The absence of a flip screen certainly has sparked a lot of comments.

For those folks who need a movable screen, fortunately there are options, e.g. K-1 II, K-70, or the new Fujifilm X-H2S (USD $2,500). The Fuji supposedly comes with an excellent video capability, so it covers that essential feature as well. An optional bolt-on cooling fan ( ) is available for USD $200, and a battery grip runs $400. And, it's mirrorless. The new Canon R7 also has a flip screen, but it's only 3-inch and there's no provision for a battery grip. The world is full of trade-offs.

- Craig

[Kobie]

The absence of a flip screen certainly has sparked a lot of comments.

For those folks who need a movable screen, fortunately there are options, e.g. K-1 II, K-70, or the new Fujifilm X-H2S (USD $2,500). The Fuji supposedly comes with an excellent video capability, so it covers that essential feature as well. An optional bolt-on cooling fan ( ) is available for USD $200, and a battery grip runs $400. And, it's mirrorless. The new Canon R7 also has a flip screen, but it's only 3-inch and there's no provision for a battery grip. The world is full of trade-offs.

- Craig

The part that I really don't get about the complaints is this... "I don't need to bend down to get low shots with a tilt screen". Ummmm, I don't know if it's just me but, if you're getting low angle shots, the camera still needs to physically be near/at ground level no? A tilt screen won't all of a sudden make the camera levitate without you touching it. You'll still have to physically place the camera down by the ground. The only difference is with a tilt screen, you'll be looking straight down instead of having the camera slightly in front of you. Either way, you'll still have to bend down to get the camera lower to the ground. Or am I missing something?

[sebberry]

I don't care about bending down. Perhaps I'll sit or kneel. The issue is that holding the camera at ground (or water) level means I simply cannot see the screen, even on the bright setting. This means I cannot thoughtfully compose a scene, consider framing, consider the background, ensure I'm focusing on a bird/duck/otter/etc...

Being able to tilt the screen up 45 degrees would make a world of a difference.

[Gray]

I think we have to agree to disagree and move forward. I think Ricoh dropped the ball in omitting a moveable screen. Others think differently. The K-3III is off my radar, probably forever, but not the K-1II, which my full frame lenses still call to, even though I pretend to be deaf and super rational.

[BryantCP]

After reading thru this entire thread, its apparent that the "tilt screen" issue isn't going to go away anytime soon. One of the reasons I wanted a K-3 III was because it does not have a tilt or articulated screen. I'm fine with the fact that Ricoh does have models that have articulated or tilt screens for those that want that. But I appreciate that they also have high end models that have a fixed screen instead. Where is it written that all DSLRs have to have an articulated or tilt screen ? That said, I also have a KP and a Nikon D750 which do have tilt screens which I do use occasionally - mainly for micro work, but I don't need or want one on all of my cameras. I'm very happy with the K-3 III as it is, though I do wish it had gps.