[Pål Jensen]

Yes, that's also what came to my mind. But so far, no rumors, or leaks , that there will be a K1 successor.

Well, they have said that they will continue the K-1 line.....
Also the K-3 line with a mark IV and Mark V.....

[Serkevan]

This will give only advantage to be with FF to have more controll with your DoF. That can also in some circumstanses be disadvantage for either. So.

INCREDIBLE!


and if it will be that AF is also in kind of same ballpark(true pentaxians with good AF skills will make it even more good) this is definetly a very good thing. It does eat the 'advantage' of low pixel FF camera and give room for bigger pixel count FF.
Not only it is similar ISO performance, but also colour is more precise too.

Well, that's gonna last until the K-1iii once again makes a leap in IQ . That said, this comparison looks very favorable to the K-3iii... it's about the same as the Sony IMO.

[Pål Jensen]

I don't really get the logic behind comparing k3iii to a FF launched several years ago - is it because they're similarly priced atm?

I think it is because common wisdom says that you need FF to get great high ISO performance. The K-3III show that this isn't the case anymore. While it is true that FF will always be better at higher ISO than smaller sensors all things equal. All things are not necessarily equal though, and that at a certain performance level improvement is only visible at the extremes. That will make it less important for most.....
The concept of good enough is underrated.....

[repaap]

Well, that's gonna last until the K-1iii once again makes a leap in IQ . That said, this comparison looks very favorable to the K-3iii... it's about the same as the Sony IMO.

I’ll propably have both. K-3III and K-1III. It would not matter if next K-1 woukd come with big MP sensor. I could use that when that resolution would be needed and DR. What I was a bit worried was that DR and ISO of this new K-3III would be less that that. But no need to worry. This will be my travel companion and also for birding/ action body. No question about it now.

---------- Post added 04-25-21 at 13:43 ----------

I don't really get the logic behind comparing k3iii to a FF launched several years ago - is it because they're similarly priced atm?

It is because people are interested of A7III and are saying that yes, if you want the performance it would make more sense to get that instead and such sentenses. This does some what get that sorted.

---------- Post added 04-25-21 at 13:45 ----------

One note about that part where there was video shot with K-3III. It did seem to me that video was quite well focused and seemed to track that baby face? Also ISO 12800 for video is plenty.

[Albert Siegel]

I think it is because common wisdom says that you need FF to get great high ISO performance. The K-3III show that this isn't the case anymore. While it is true that FF will always be better at higher ISO than smaller sensors all things equal. All things are not necessarily equal though, and that at a certain performance level improvement is only visible at the extremes. That will make it less important for most.....
The concept of good enough is underrated.....

Yes, this is pretty much it. I wanted to show that those with a sensor smaller than 135 full-frame no longer need to have high ISO envy.

[Serkevan]

Yes, this is pretty much it. I wanted to show that those with a sensor smaller than 135 full-frame no longer need to have high ISO envy.

Albert, thanks a lot for the continued coverage of the K-3iii (and other Pentax stuff! ). It's greatly appreciated

[Belnan]

Yes, this is pretty much it. I wanted to show that those with a sensor smaller than 135 full-frame no longer need to have high ISO envy.

I think that's how most people interpreted that. Do you have any more thoughts on how the autofocus of the two cameras compare?

[repaap]

Yes, this is pretty much it. I wanted to show that those with a sensor smaller than 135 full-frame no longer need to have high ISO envy.

Thanks for video! If you don’t mind me asking. Did you use AF for video, how do you find it working and is it now continious also?

Thanks!

[vijaykishan]

Wow, I may need to rethink my FF strategy, K3-III seems to be one heck of a camera. Esp with PS and a short set of DA* primes this would be good candidate for a trek or travel cam. Thank you!

[UncleVanya]

I don't really get the logic behind comparing k3iii to a FF launched several years ago - is it because they're similarly priced atm?

Well, there are only seven camera/sensor combos ranked higher by DXOMARK than the Sony A7iii and it is also still sold new by Sony. It has virtually the same number of megapixels and offers a very clear comparison. Additionally, it is a very well known standard in photography for low light performance.

Honestly at the levels of performance these cameras are at, the differences in absolute performance are getting harder to see.

See also the photons to photos site where you can examine dynamic range, high iso, etc. the Sony a73 is very respectable no matter who tests it. Meeting or beating it with an APSC is quite impressive.

[caliscouser]

I don't really get the logic behind comparing k3iii to a FF launched several years ago - is it because they're similarly priced atm?

Correct me if I'm wrong

A7iii dates back to 2018.

The 26MP sensor in the K3iii, XT-3, XT-4 dates back to ......... 2018

I think it's a reasonable comparison

[Rondec]

I don't really get the logic behind comparing k3iii to a FF launched several years ago - is it because they're similarly priced atm?

Others have replied, but I think the full frame used here has similar performance to others on the market. It isn't as though there has been some major breakthrough in sensor performance recently. Most of the improvements we have seen have been improved read out speed and better video, but actual still performance has remained static.

[Kunzite]

Others have replied, but I think the full frame used here has similar performance to others on the market. It isn't as though there has been some major breakthrough in sensor performance recently. Most of the improvements we have seen have been improved read out speed and better video, but actual still performance has remained static.

Some people say that to diminish Pentax' achievement.
Indeed, the Sony is quite current in terms of performance - and it actually has a BSI sensor.

Looking at DPR's studio scene widget, it's more or less equal to e.g. the A7c and Z5, and slightly better than the RP.

[Class A]

Using the same f-stop for both sensor formats means that the full-frame sensor receives about 1 stop more light.

Such a comparison is flawed since the images won't have the same DOF. Assuming the shutter speed was the same, the full-frame sensor receives a significant, undue advantage. The fact that the APS-C sensor can still compete just means that "no noise reduction" simply does not apply to the K-3 III; it simply has been done in-camera already.

The A7 III also uses a BSI sensor pluse has the 1+ stop advantage so these results just mean that the in-camera image processing (-> "accelerator unit II") announced by Ricoh does its job. RAW purists won't like it (unless the processing can be turned off), but the majority of users will.

[Class A]

I wanted to show that those with a sensor smaller than 135 full-frame no longer need to have high ISO envy.

If the images from the full-frame sensor received the same processing -- could be achieved in post-processing -- the "ISO envy" would be back, at least when using the same f-stops for both cameras (which is not an adequate way to compare sensor noise).

Ricoh cannot cheat physics. They cannot "squeeze out more of a sensor" than other companies. They can run a very nice denoising algorithm on RAW data in-camera, but that's it.

Still a great result for those who are not concerned with "RAW purity". No doubt about it.

However, one must recognise the apples to oranges comparison or one will arrive at the wrong conclusions.