[sebberry]

The difficulty is that the modern platforms from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, etc... generally do everything quite well. Honestly I'm not a big fan of EVF, but it'd be nice for the camera to pick out an eye and actually focus on it. Or let me get down to eye level with a duck.

In a world where Pentax has lost virtually all 3rd party support for lenses and other peripherals, IMO they should be appealing to a broader audience with their new bodies, not chasing specialties.

[Larrymc]

Ok, building my kit here. We're up to a K1-II for landscapes, animals and water birds, providing they don't move too much due to the lackluster AF and slow FPS. The K3-3 for 'action' providing you're using a new PLM lens that can keep up with the focus drive speed. I suppose that leaves the Sony A7-III/IV for portraits as that's the only hope you have of keeping the subject's closest eye in focus while paying attention to composition.

So that's three bodies to carry around now. What am I missing?

Sounds like you pretty much have it dialed in, now go find another job or two!

[c.a.m]

In a world where Pentax has lost virtually all 3rd party support for lenses and other peripherals, IMO they should be appealing to a broader audience with their new bodies, not chasing specialties.

That's Ricoh Imaging's challenge, isn't it? To specialize with unique features or to generalize? Seems to me that all of the manufacturers make excellent cameras, but at first look, it's hard to distinguish from amongst the latest offerings from Nikon, Canon and Sony. On the other hand, there's a camera to satisfy a photographer's need for certain features, or at least a couple of the key features.

- Craig

[yucatanPentax]

That's Ricoh Imaging's challenge, isn't it? To specialize with unique features or to generalize? Seems to me that all of the manufacturers make excellent cameras, but at first look, it's hard to distinguish from amongst the latest offerings from Nikon, Canon and Sony. On the other hand, there's a camera to satisfy a photographer's need for certain features, or at least a couple of the key features.

- Craig

I think my interpretation of what Pentax was aiming at with the K3iii is to have a camera that people pick up and say, "Hey, that's niiiiice to use."

They invested a lot into the viewfinder. At the same time, they made a big step forward in autofocus and some other improvements. But being a niche seller from all we can figure out, they don't have the huge budget to release blockbuster camera after blockbuster camera.

So the viewfinder was a stepping stone on the way to the next version which has great viewfinder, plus one or two more big advancements. Bit by bit, they become the best (and maybe the only) DSLR seller, which can be a good place to be. I don't want to start any kind of mirror vs non-mirror debate, but there are always going to be people who appreciate each for certain advantages or ways of doing things. Just as many people are snapping up past film cameras for hobby or trend reasons, DSLRs are going to have a place with a part of the market.

Having a really good DSLR is to Pentax' advantage. They've moved forward another step. They'll undoubtedly add to that and add to that. The angels will always be dancing on the head of a pin, but actual photography is out there, out in the world.

The esoteric discussions of needs, bests, wants, dislikes, etc ... would be great for an on-going pub discussion.

[Rondec]

It was a deliberate design choice not to include a flippy screen. I don't think we know the exact reasons, but it could have been one of these:

1. To keep the camera smaller. The K-3 III is already big enough, while a flippy screen doesn't add a lot of bulk, Pentax engineers could have reasoned that it was more important to keep the size down than to have a flippy screen. Remember, this is a company that has a history of small cameras and lenses.

2. To keep component cost down. The K-3 III was the most expensive APS-C camera that Pentax released by a considerable margin. I don't know what the additional cost would have been to add such a screen and keep the touch screen aspect, but they may have done some calculations and felt that that would put the K-3 III in to the "too expensive" category for most Pentaxians. Truthfully, it already is too expensive for most photographers and I've read a lot of distressed people complaining about the release price. Certainly they didn't want to go higher.

3. Most of the benefits of the K-3 III go away in live view. Pentax engineers worked really hard to improve the viewfinder. They improved PDAF auto focus as well, adding eye focus through the viewfinder. There is better tracking auto focus. Unfortunately, pop the camera into live view mode and it becomes an average focusing camera at best. Yes, it will work OK for still objects and landscapes, but it is certainly understandable that the designers thought that most photographers would choose to use the OVF most of the time.

The fact that this is a design choice doesn't mean that it was wise to leave it off. Considering the number of people complaining about its lack, I think it would probably have been better to include it, but I can understand why they thought that leaving it off wouldn't be that big a deal -- particularly when the people coming to the K-3 III were probably coming from a K-5 II or K-3 camera that also didn't have a tilt screen.

[Gray]

I have no doubt that Ricoh know exactly why they made the design choices they did. As far as I remember, a flippy screen was omitted to leave more horizontal distance between the screen surface and the outer edge of the eyecup. The goal was to make the experience of using the new larger optical viewfinder as pleasant as possible. A flippy screen would have been too thick for the comfort that the designers were looking for in using the viewfinder.

[c.a.m]

I believe that the design of the optical viewfinder and the fixed screen provides an exceptional 'viewfinding' experience. I really enjoy using my K-3 Mark III -- the viewfinder is large and bright for an APS-C camera, noticeably better than the K-3 II. As a left-eye shooter who wears eye glasses, I appreciate the eye relief and the extra little bit of space between the eyecup and the rear screen. I rarely smudge my glasses with my right thumb, which was a recurring annoyance with my previous cameras. A few millimetres makes a difference.

The design also allows for a 3.2-inch rear screen, which has approximately 14% greater area than a 3-inch version. It's not a big difference, but it's noticeable. Other APS-C cameras with moveable screens generally carry 3-inch screens, e.g., Fujifilm X-T4 and X-H2S, Canon R7, and the Nikon Zfc.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 06-08-2022 at 10:06 AM. Reason: typo

[ThorSanchez]

It was a deliberate design choice not to include a flippy screen. I don't think we know the exact reasons, but it could have been one of these:

1. To keep the camera smaller. The K-3 III is already big enough, while a flippy screen doesn't add a lot of bulk, Pentax engineers could have reasoned that it was more important to keep the size down than to have a flippy screen. Remember, this is a company that has a history of small cameras and lenses.

2. To keep component cost down. The K-3 III was the most expensive APS-C camera that Pentax released by a considerable margin. I don't know what the additional cost would have been to add such a screen and keep the touch screen aspect, but they may have done some calculations and felt that that would put the K-3 III in to the "too expensive" category for most Pentaxians. Truthfully, it already is too expensive for most photographers and I've read a lot of distressed people complaining about the release price. Certainly they didn't want to go higher.

3. Most of the benefits of the K-3 III go away in live view. Pentax engineers worked really hard to improve the viewfinder. They improved PDAF auto focus as well, adding eye focus through the viewfinder. There is better tracking auto focus. Unfortunately, pop the camera into live view mode and it becomes an average focusing camera at best. Yes, it will work OK for still objects and landscapes, but it is certainly understandable that the designers thought that most photographers would choose to use the OVF most of the time.

The fact that this is a design choice doesn't mean that it was wise to leave it off. Considering the number of people complaining about its lack, I think it would probably have been better to include it, but I can understand why they thought that leaving it off wouldn't be that big a deal -- particularly when the people coming to the K-3 III were probably coming from a K-5 II or K-3 camera that also didn't have a tilt screen.

I strongly suspect #2. The K-3 Mark III was already one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, APS-C cameras ever (at least a year ago) and any further additions would have driven the price to a point where an unacceptable number of people, even Pentaxians, wouldn't even consider it. To me the other technical reasons seem like plausible rationalizations so they didn't have to say cost out loud.

[Larrymc]

I strongly suspect #2. The K-3 Mark III was already one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, APS-C cameras ever (at least a year ago) and any further additions would have driven the price to a point where an unacceptable number of people, even Pentaxians, wouldn't even consider it. To me the other technical reasons seem like plausible rationalizations so they didn't have to say cost out loud.

Actually, I would say the K-5 launched in 2010 at a price of $1600 was the most expensive Pentax APS-C camera. $1600 translates to $2112 when the Mk III was launched in late 2021. The improvements are well worth the perceived price increase.

Correction $1600 in 2010 dollars translates to $1984 in 2021 dollars, so guess they are about equally priced.

[Rondec]

Actually, I would say the K-5 launched in 2010 at a price of $1600 was the most expensive Pentax APS-C camera. $1600 translates to $2112 when the Mk III was launched in late 2021. The improvements are well worth the perceived price increase.

Correction $1600 in 2010 dollars translates to $1984 in 2021 dollars, so guess they are about equally priced.

The K-5 may have been the most over priced camera. I seem to recall it selling for 750-ish dollars at the end of life, which would be a 50 percent discount. I don't foresee the K-3 III having anything like that sort of discount.

[ThorSanchez]

The K-5 may have been the most over priced camera. I seem to recall it selling for 750-ish dollars at the end of life, which would be a 50 percent discount. I don't foresee the K-3 III having anything like that sort of discount.

Yea, that seems like a fairly crazy price, given that in 2012 I bought a very capable K-30 new for less than $800 with kit lens and some other stuff, and a few years later a K-3 II which had been released maybe six months prior for $800.

[Jeff]

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

Indeed Larry, but for some people the horse ain't dead enough!

I've just taken delivery of my K3III and it is just the best thing - I felt as excited as I did when I bought my K-5IIs quite a few years ago...but this is streets ahead. It really is everything people say it is...flippy screen or no flippy screen..!

[Larrymc]

Indeed Larry, but for some people the horse ain't dead enough!

I've just taken delivery of my K3III and it is just the best thing - I felt as excited as I did when I bought my K-5IIs quite a few years ago...but this is streets ahead. It really is everything people say it is...flippy screen or no flippy screen..!

Well, Jeff, congratulations!! Enjoy that superb camera!!