[NZ_Ross]

If it was only the occasional low shot I'd be fine, but I use it reasonably often to shoot over tall fences.

My Panasonic G9 I use for 4K video has an articulating screen, and it is wonderful - it also means you can vlog on your own, by swivelling the screen right around. So, yes it would have been nice to have on the K-3 III, but obviously not a deal breaker for me.

My K-3 (original version) doesn't have an articulating screen, and I have learnt to live with it. Over tall fence stuff (like at airports) I just turn live view on and use that to frame and focus. Interestingly I notice the lack more when I want to get right close down to the ground, as then I have to be down on my knees, or lying on the ground.

I haven't brought the K-3 III on a whim, and have carefully considered a Panasonic S5, Nikon Z6II, Sony and Canon - Full Frame and using adaptors with my Pentax lenses. Many of my lenses are manual focus, so there would have just been the phaff of using adaptors. However, for the cost of a FF mirrorless body and a couple of systems lenses, I can get the K-3 III for travel, birds, cityscapes and some landscapes, plus a K-1 (second hand) more for landscapes. Which also gives me choices and a back-up digital body.

In the end it just made much more sense to me to purchase the K-3 III, but it has been a decision 6 months in consideration. Every camera has compromises, and I can live with the ones in the K-3 III. I haven't brought a K-1 yet, but might give my bank account just a little while to recover before I do. Having said that, and having made the decision regarding the K-3 III, if a K-1 came up for sale here in NZ at a fair price, I would probably jump on it. There were some for sale a while back, but I hadn't made the decision about future direction of travel at that point.

I have got 7 years use out of my K-3 and will still be able to sell it ok. I expect to get the same out of the K-3 III, which I am not so sure would be the same from one of the current FF mirrorless camera bodies. We tend to forget that Pentax flagship cameras are built extremely ruggedly, whereas other brands - not so much.

The 250-600 repair will be completed within the next month, and I am really looking forward to using that lens with the K-3 III given the better tracking and higher frame rates available.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 01:15 PM ----------

Grats Ross sounds like a great camera @

Thanks Pete, just at the beginning of the learning curve, especially for birds in flight - but very happy with it so far. It is a big improvement over the original K-3.

Congrats on the K3III Ross! Lovely images. Bring it along when you're next up this way.

Thanks Mark, I will definitely do that

[Kiwizinho]

I had spotted the signature change. Aside from the fact it is completely outside of my budget at this stage, I'm sorely tempted by the K-3 III. My KP is absolutely wonderful but another 4 years of progress is an interesting proposition. The only thing that worries me slightly is the lack of an articulating screen. I never had it on *istDS, K10D, or K-5, but I do find it useful on the KP. If it was only the occasional low shot I'd be fine, but I use it reasonably often to shoot over tall fences.

I understand leaving out the articulating screen will result in a more rugged camera which you'd want at the price, but I have found the flippy screen on the K-70 quite useful at times.
Maybe being an APS-C body it's too small to do some kind of compromise like the K-1 with limited, but robust articulation?

I see support for it is coming to PhotoLab in October, which likely means PhotoLab 5.

PhotoLab 5? I wonder what new goodies will be in that? Hopefully the improved U Point features added to the Nik Collection.

[zkarj]

Maybe being an APS-C body it's too small to do some kind of compromise like the K-1 with limited, but robust articulation?

The KP's flippy screen feels pretty solid to me.

PhotoLab 5? I wonder what new goodies will be in that? Hopefully the improved U Point features added to the Nik Collection.

Surely they must!

[NZ_Ross]

The KP's flippy screen feels pretty solid to me.

Same with the G9, and it is a smaller body than the K-3 III. It was a design decision at the end of the day, and it is what it is.

I read a lot of the info, and I think the idea was to keep the camera as thin and as robust as possible, plus to encourage as much optical viewfinder use as possible - which is the K-3 IIIs real strength. If you want/need a true hybrid camera, I guess you are going to be looking elsewhere.

[Kiwizinho]

My Panasonic G9 I use for 4K video has an articulating screen, and it is wonderful - it also means you can vlog on your own, by swivelling the screen right around. So, yes it would have been nice to have on the K-3 III, but obviously not a deal breaker for me.

My K-3 (original version) doesn't have an articulating screen, and I have learnt to live with it. Over tall fence stuff (like at airports) I just turn live view on and use that to frame and focus. Interestingly I notice the lack more when I want to get right close down to the ground, as then I have to be down on my knees, or lying on the ground.

I haven't brought the K-3 III on a whim, and have carefully considered a Panasonic S5, Nikon Z6II, Sony and Canon - Full Frame and using adaptors with my Pentax lenses. Many of my lenses are manual focus, so there would have just been the phaff of using adaptors. However, for the cost of a FF mirrorless body and a couple of systems lenses, I can get the K-3 III for travel, birds, cityscapes and some landscapes, plus a K-1 (second hand) more for landscapes. Which also gives me choices and a back-up digital body.

In the end it just made much more sense to me to purchase the K-3 III, but it has been a decision 6 months in consideration. Every camera has compromises, and I can live with the ones in the K-3 III. I haven't brought a K-1 yet, but might give my bank account just a little while to recover before I do. Having said that, and having made the decision regarding the K-3 III, if a K-1 came up for sale here in NZ at a fair price, I would probably jump on it. There were some for sale a while back, but I hadn't made the decision about future direction of travel at that point.

I have got 7 years use out of my K-3 and will still be able to sell it ok. I expect to get the same out of the K-3 III, which I am not so sure would be the same from one of the current FF mirrorless camera bodies. We tend to forget that Pentax flagship cameras are built extremely ruggedly, whereas other brands - not so much.

.

Congrats on the new camera. Spread over a 7 year lifespan the price doesn't actually seem so bad.

My original K-x Pentax DSLR is still going strong after nearly 9 years, although my daughter uses it now. My K-50 suffered the dreaded aperture block failure shortly after I acquired my K-70, but everything else on it still functions fine, and I may get it fixed to keep as a backup camera.

Thinking about it, 3 DSLRs over 9 years while it cumulatively cost less than one K-3 III, the cost difference isn't so huge. Of course it did mean I got progressively improved features over that time, so I think there are merits in both the 'buy low-end, upgrade frequently', and 'buy it once and make it last' approach as long as you do your research, and know what you want from a camera.
When I bought my K-x, I had no experience of DSLR photography, whereas now I'm in a totally different position, so when I next upgrade, which won't be for a while, something like the K-3 III might make sense as I'm a lot more demanding in terms of what I want from a camera.

[NZ_Ross]

Ok, that was a complete revelation - I got home from town this afternoon and there were a couple of fantails playing around the backyard. Grabbed the K-3 III, threw the DA HD 55-300 on and went back outside quickly. First problem - how to change from AFS to AFC really quickly, and from single focus point to multiple focus points - super easy and quick, just using the third control wheel.

Next question, how well does the K-3 III focus the 55-300, which if you have one you will know can often be slow to focus and hunt. Well it turns out fast enough and very accurate. The fantails had gone, but sparrows and wax-eyes were still about. This image was in my neighbours big cherry tree, at 300mm and is cropped abut 50%

I would never even got close to getting this image on my original K-3, it simply wouldn't have focussed the 55-300 quick enough, and would have missed focus by focussing on the branches. K-3 III focussed very fast, and on the right spot. I squeezed the trigger, got 4 quick images - this was the best of them.

So, now I will try fantails when I next see them, and hopefully with a better lens than the DA HD 55-300. I know the 55-300 PLM is much faster focussing, and it becomes very tempting now.

---------- Post added 04-07-21 at 07:42 PM ----------

Thinking about it, 3 DSLRs over 9 years while it cumulatively cost less than one K-3 III, the cost difference isn't so huge. Of course it did mean I got progressively improved features over that time, so I think there are merits in both the 'buy low-end, upgrade frequently', and 'buy it once and make it last' approach as long as you do your research, and know what you want from a camera.
When I bought my K-x, I had no experience of DSLR photography, whereas now I'm in a totally different position, so when I next upgrade, which won't be for a while, something like the K-3 III might make sense as I'm a lot more demanding in terms of what I want from a camera.

That is the analysis and math we all have to work out Chris. The K-3 III is a very nice camera, but as you observe, is expensive.

Expensive is going to be all higher end digital cameras from now on out - volumes are way down, so less lifetime units to recover set up/R&D, basically means unit cost is going to be higher than it was a decade ago.

I think 7 years is a realistic use life for the K-3 III, it is very well built.

[Transit]

I thought I'd try a Taranaki at sunset from a few Ks further back and 100mm shorter than Gub
further maths missing
I'm calling it Taranaki with celltower
Really must clean the sensor

[Kiwizinho]

Speaking of gear upgrades...
I think a few of you have the DA 55-300 either in original or WR, or the later, PLM version with slower aperture.
I see that one's come up used on TM, and I'm almost tempted, but I've been seriously considering for a while whether to get a DA* 60-250, even though they're pricey.
TM is straightforward as far as purchasing, but to get a DA* 60-250, I'd need to look to Ebay, and pay GST. With GST and freight I'd be looking at around $1,200 I guess for an 'experienced' edition, similar to the price of a K-3 III for a new one in NZ.
The DA* is about the same weight as the Tamron 70-200 2.8 which I have and produces outstanding image quality, but the Tamron lacks quick shift and weather sealing, and has a smaller zoom range, although it is faster.

I have taken the Tamron tramping although it's heavy, so the weight of the DA* isn't too much of an issue and would be preferable in most respects and is even a bit smaller than the Tamron.

All that said, the DA 55-300 is a fraction the price and weight, but is slower, and apparently is outresolved by the sensor on the K-3 and later 24Mpixel bodies without an AA filter.

For those who have the 55-300, if money were no object, would you upgrade to another lens in a similar focal length range for better performance, or is it good enough for the majority of situations that the additional expense would be a case of diminishing returns on investment?

[Transit]

Can't leave Ruapehu out...
the sky was that colour

[Kiwizinho]

Ok, that was a complete revelation - I got home from town this afternoon and there were a couple of fantails playing around the backyard. Grabbed the K-3 III, threw the DA HD 55-300 on and went back outside quickly. First problem - how to change from AFS to AFC really quickly, and from single focus point to multiple focus points - super easy and quick, just using the third control wheel.

Next question, how well does the K-3 III focus the 55-300, which if you have one you will know can often be slow to focus and hunt. Well it turns out fast enough and very accurate. The fantails had gone, but sparrows and wax-eyes were still about. This image was in my neighbours big cherry tree, at 300mm and is cropped abut 50%

I would never even got close to getting this image on my original K-3, it simply wouldn't have focussed the 55-300 quick enough, and would have missed focus by focussing on the branches. K-3 III focussed very fast, and on the right spot. I squeezed the trigger, got 4 quick images - this was the best of them.

So, now I will try fantails when I next see them, and hopefully with a better lens than the DA HD 55-300. I know the 55-300 PLM is much faster focussing, and it becomes very tempting now.

I think you might just have answered my last question before I got around to posting it!

Expensive is going to be all higher end digital cameras from now on out - volumes are way down, so less lifetime units to recover set up/R&D, basically means unit cost is going to be higher than it was a decade ago.

Not just high end. I paid almost double the price for the K-70 I did for my K-50, although I suspect my K-50 was a parallel import. I'm not disappointed though. Even though it's now the 'entry level' Pentax DSLR, it's incredible value for money compared to models from competitors for the features that matter to me.

[NZ_Ross]

I think you might just have answered my last question before I got around to posting it!

I think if I was buying a 'good' lens in that focal length now it would be the Pentax HD D FA 70-210/4 WR.

Clarkey used to have the DA*60-250 which he kindly let me use when we met up in Toronto. It is a very nice lens, and gives great images - the old style SDM can play up.

Today is the first time I have used my 55-300 in about 3 years, I generally carry the 55-200 WR with me when travelling, just because it is quite a bit lighter.

PM me about this - happy to lend you the 55-300 for a while to try it out and see what you think.

Cheers

Ross

[Transit]

I think if I was buying a 'good' lens in that focal length now it would be the Pentax HD D FA 70-210/4 WR.

Same :-)

[microlight]

Nice pics of Taranaki and Ruapehu. I often think that Taranaki would have made a better Mount Doom than Ngaurohoe did. Although the latter does look impressive from the Tongariro Crossing. Ah, memories.

[Kiwizinho]

Nice pics of Taranaki and Ruapehu. I often think that Taranaki would have made a better Mount Doom than Ngaurohoe did. Although the latter does look impressive from the Tongariro Crossing. Ah, memories.

Taranaki would certainly make a great Lonely Mountain because it is.

[zkarj]

For those who have the 55-300, if money were no object, would you upgrade to another lens in a similar focal length range for better performance, or is it good enough for the majority of situations that the additional expense would be a case of diminishing returns on investment?

For what I use it for, I love the WR example I have, which replaced the HD one. If I had a pile of cash I would probably grab the PLM one as a replacement. I do keep it locked to f/11 for my work, but the KP sensor doesn't have a problem with that as I let the ISO float up to 3200. Set at f/11 (a value chosen by multiple owners in this thread a while back as the sharpest) it provides me with super sharp results, assuming I nail the focus where I wanted it etc. As Ross mentioned, it does tend to hunt a wee bit, but not excessively so in my experience. Having come from 70-210 then 100-300 lenses (of dubious quality) I also love the 55mm short end as it often means I don't need to change lenses.

I have stated a desire for the 150-450 Pentax in this thread, but that's for specific situations (generally birding) and I would not want to be without the versatility offered by the 55-300 range.