[Serkevan]

The back of the camera has a ton to do with how much room your nose has to get up to the viewfinder. If you haven't actually used a K-3 iii, then it's not really possible for you to appreciate how this design decision

I certainly cannot see it. If the magnifier, which adds about ~1 cm extra distance from the eyepiece to the back of the camera, has *no* impact whatsoever on whether your nose smushes the screen or not... The 2-3 mm saved by a fixed screen certainly cannot have a big impact.

[mtkeller]

I certainly cannot see it. If the magnifier, which adds about ~1 cm extra distance from the eyepiece to the back of the camera, has *no* impact whatsoever on whether your nose smushes the screen or not... The 2-3 mm saved by a fixed screen certainly cannot have a big impact.

Well, plenty of us who own the camera have noted how good of an experience that additional clearance is compared to our earlier cameras. (In my case, a K-70.) Seriously, the K-70, which I loved everything about since I got it, feels clunky in the hand and especially against the eye compared to the K-3 iii.

[Kevin B123]

Again, Pentax has explained that they had lots of issues with the new pentaprism. So many that they actually had to start an R&D fabrication line for them in Japan during development rather than having the test prisms fabricated wherever the main production plant is (I want to say Vietnam…would make sense if they do all the glass stuff there and then ship to the Philippines to assemble the cameras). It's a different type of glass to what is used in existing pentaprisms because they wanted to both increase magnification and increase brightness.

Development and R&D has no implication for the robustness of the final design, I don't buy that at all. The R&D effort would be concerned with production yield given the tolerances they want to adhere to, but once made it's a piece of conforming glass just like any other.

[Serkevan]

Well, plenty of us who own the camera have noted how good of an experience that additional clearance is compared to our earlier cameras. (In my case, a K-70.) Seriously, the K-70, which I loved everything about since I got it, feels clunky in the hand and especially against the eye compared to the K-3 iii.

I don't know, I also noticed a massive improvement on the OVF experience going from the K-7 to the K-1. I'm not sure that I would say it has to do with eye relief as much as it has to do with viewfinder size/brightness.

[normhead]

+ USB-C simply is great because you can attach strong powerbanks directly to the camera if doing long timelapses or filming.

Not to mention I have a solar panel for charging on long trips, and to date have had no way to charge my Pentax batteries.

[mtkeller]

I don't know, I also noticed a massive improvement on the OVF experience going from the K-7 to the K-1. I'm not sure that I would say it has to do with eye relief as much as it has to do with viewfinder size/brightness.

I was referring purely to ergonomics in the post you quoted. How the camera feels in hand and up to the eye. The viewfinder size and brightness are also a total transformation, but that wasn’t my focus. Pentax has made clear that the ergonomics of this camera for OVF shooting were paramount. They have succeed in amazing ways. Someone who desperately wants a flippy screen can buy the three other Pentax DSLRs in production. I fully expect that their successors (if any…hopefully there’s a 645Z ii to come) because the target photographer and shooting experience to be optimized by those cameras are different to the K-3 iii.

[DonV]

For most of us who have actually owned the K-3 iii, we have found that these additional mm are a huge benefit to the user experience.

Well, I do "own" a K3iii and don't see it a benefit at all; so again it comes down to opinion;
I only find the K3iii less flexible and thus less convenient to use than the other models I mentioned(which I also own or use) that do have a moveable screen.

A few mm thicker body - it that is what it would take- would not be noticeable at all. JMHO.

[mtkeller]

A few mm thicker body - it that is what it would take- would not be noticeable at all. JMHO.

So we have your opinion up against the extensive ergonomic testing that the engineers at Pentax did. If you read the product stories and watched the videos, you see them discuss how they were getting down to well under a millimeter of adjustment when fine-tuning the body and the grip. I'm going to go with the testing as more likely to have determined whether or not 3mm difference had a noticeable impact on the ergonomics. I get that you love a flippy screen. The fact that you bought the camera despite it not having one shows that the absence of a screen is not going to be a market killer. As I've said, the other bodies will almost certainly retain their flippy screens going forward, but this camera's targeted use case and ergonomic optimization did not allow for one. I'm quite happy not to have it.

[DonV]

mt, you got it; I like a flexible screen, can live without it, but not happily.

As I said, it is my opinion, and we have yours - and I am really pleased that you are happy without it.

I am not putting my opinion up against that of anyone at Pentax, they get to decide, thus will "win" no matter what.
Given the multitude of physical characteristics(size-wise) of Pentax users/owners and prospective customers, worrying about or changing "under a millimeter" is just close to being silly!
I suppose for the few percent of the population that the camera is actually physically optimised for, it is great.

That said, the ergonomics are a compromise for everyone else, as is each of the other attributes and features of the camera. Some like them - some don't.
I believe that may in fact be why Pentax offer several models at any given time, and change them periodically.

[Kunzite]

Well, I do "own" a K3iii and don't see it a benefit at all; so again it comes down to opinion;
I only find the K3iii less flexible and thus less convenient to use than the other models I mentioned(which I also own or use) that do have a moveable screen.

A few mm thicker body - it that is what it would take- would not be noticeable at all. JMHO.

There is a benefit, but we'd balance it with our desire (or indifference) of having an articulated screen

Compared to the K-1, said difference is quite big.

[Mikesul]

I was just playing with my K-1ii and I remembered thinking when I first had the K-1: "Ok, now they have it. For a long time all they will have to do is tweak some of the software and internal components because this is near perfect." the K-3iii is a fine camera but my expectations have been disappointed by the entry of alternative visions. Hopefully, any new FF will keep what is so outstanding about the K-1 line while upgrading processors, etc.

[acoufap]

Not to mention I have a solar panel for charging on long trips, and to date have had no way to charge my Pentax batteries.

I own an omnicharge omni 20+ powerbank that can be loaded by a solar panel and you can plug the pentax battery chargers. Usable but not cheap and a bit heavy.

[dwv13]

Hello everybody.
With the release of the new K3III SLR, there were many innovations in terms of features:
- Autofocus 101 points
- 4K video
- Sensitivity 100 / 1,640,000
- Countinuous 12 fps
- Touch screen
- Charging via USB.
Taking these innovations positively, I see that the K1 II is greatly downsized, and the price proves it too.
Can we believe that pentax is thinking of implementing these new features on a possible K1III and if indeed this possibility has already been considered?

@Nunzio, that would be too good to be true...

Implementing the new features available on K3 mk3 on a K1 Mk 3 would be most welcome,
even Pentax would upgrade the price accordingly...


Cheers

[lensnut]

Interesting debate about flippy screens. Fixed screens won't allow you to shoot anything at ground level. You can't screw your neck up that far. Image Synch can't focus on macro objects - in fact, it can't focus on many objects. It insists on the point a millimetre or so away from it! I find it next to useless. The end of a bug's antenna is no good when you want it's eye.
Change topic ....
Nobody has mentioned video. Many have cited things that increase costs but no one has asked why the video is there? It's a camera not a camcorder! If you want video then buy a video camera!

[mtkeller]

Nobody has mentioned video. Many have cited things that increase costs but no one has asked why the video is there? It's a camera not a camcorder! If you want video then buy a video camera!

Oh, it’s been mentioned in plenty of other threads. Once you add live view, the cost of video is negligible. Omitting video would cause lots of issues with sales and reviews. That would be way more of a problem than the tiny cost difference.