[jbinpg]

Eddie - nice to see you back here. You are going to get much flak for saying that good photos from the past were due to luck. Experience and technique is what makes great photos, not luck. Get your asbestos suit out. - Jack

[biz-engineer]

For Fuji, my camera pretty much lives in AF.C Wide/Tracking mode. What this gives is a smallish square box that you can half press the shutter on and it tracks if that object/subject moves (like a cat) or I move (recompose for the shot), a bit like the Pentax AF Tracking mode in LV but on steroids . I hardly even use the joystick or single AF point on the Fuji. Never use manual focus, and I don't wholly see the point in using AF.S if AF.C works so well.

That I agree, I've used an X-T3, it was setup to continuously focusing , some sort of pre-focus that saves time when the photographer decides to take a picture. I now use AF-C on my K1, for static shots.

With mirrorless I suffer no front or back focusing issues, find myself rarely chimping to confirm focus (I might chimp for the composition, lighting etc, but never focus).

That is surprising to me, because I have only one lens with +2 AF fine tuning, all other lenses are at zero. Also, I seldom shoot with my lenses wide open unless it's in low light, and this for two reasons: lenses aren't at their best sharpness wide open, and I want the subject depth to be in focus. I have a lot of doubts about people claiming front focus or back focus. Firstly, to be able to see front focus or back focus with limited lenses, they are used wide open and wide open they aren't sharp so focus accuracy doesn't play big. Secondly, there is focus accuracy and focus precision, and people confuse the two aspects, they often try to correct focus precision with AF fine tune settings, which is wrong and doing so leads to worse results.

---------- Post added 23-02-22 at 09:08 ----------

But I agree on one thing: cameras are technically too complicated for most customers to truly understand. So, if a camera does the whole picture taking process without requiring users to think, a broader market can be serviced , from complete new users who know nothing to experienced users. Pentax does geek things like pixel shift, but how many people truly understand it..? that is the question, I've often read "pixel shift give better colors", which isn't at all what pixel shift does. The same is for AF fine tuning, most people don't know what they are doing. So, in a way, it's better if a camera does it's thing without requiring users to think like engineers. If Ricoh engineers would read some users comments, I think they'd shake their heads in disbelief or frustration. So perhaps Fuji have more empathy with their broad user base, designing the cameras such that customers don't need to use their brain for taking photos and for the majority of customers it works, especially for X series market segment I would think.

[sad_punk]

I recently read some comments about a video about the Pentax K3 mark III.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYkmUeusVvs


One of the comments , from a Pentax user who also now use Fuji wrote a comment about Pentax (not the exact comment) such as:
"with Fuji you don't have to care about auto-focus, everything works seamlessly"
"with Pentax you have to take care of the auto-focus" (doesn't work on its own?)
"the mirrorless hype is no hype, it IS a huge advantage"


I don't understand that, I've tried Fuji, I use Pentax (K1) and very seldom have an issue with AF-S.

Generally, I press the shutter button (half or full), the camera focuses, lock focus and take the shot, I don't have to care about it, it just works.


So I really don't know what people are talking about.

enerally don’t give so much thought to such comparisons. As long as my camera gets the job done, I’m good. AF is fine most of the times. The only time I see a struggle is with the combo of very low light and highly zoomed. I’m ok with that. It’s really a talk photographers are having again and again, nothing new. You see and evaluate what you pay for. 11 focus points are enough for my photography, for others they must be a joke or something, idk. Trying to prove any point in videos comments is only asking for attention, maybe.

In fact, i have stopped using anything than the central point with my K1, too much missed focus (i am a low light shooters : bars, disco ... and without the focus peaking on a mirror system, it is hard to focus manualy in these situations).
I use Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji GFX systems. First ones are quick and efficient, the GFX, which is not in today standards is probably the slower one, but missing the focus is rare (and essentially a consequence of slowliness when subjet is moving).
That said, all these affirmations are tendancies, the final result always depends on the lens (i prefer the FA limited 31mm to the sigma Art 35mm 1.4 for that reason, most old FA noisy focus lenses are more efficient on K1 than first generations of internal silent focus motors)

[BruceBanner]

Eddie - nice to see you back here. You are going to get much flak for saying that good photos from the past were due to luck. Experience and technique is what makes great photos, not luck. Get your asbestos suit out. - Jack

Heh, I'm not back, I was just going through my emails this morning and came across the PentaxForums Highlight one and saw the thread and realised the quote was mine! So I decided to see who was smack talking me (it's ok, I'm used to it and typically its me smack talking others ).

Within the context of this discussion I am under the guise that experience and technique is a given. 645D does 1fps, K-1 4fps, K3III 12fps and XT4 15-30fps, I'm just talking math here and is separate from the tog skills.

That I agree, I've used an X-T3, it was setup to continuously focusing , some sort of pre-focus that saves time when the photographer decides to take a picture. I now use AF-C on my K1, for static shots.


That is surprising to me, because I have only one lens with +2 AF fine tuning, all other lenses are at zero. Also, I seldom shoot with my lenses wide open unless it's in low light, and this for two reasons: lenses aren't at their best sharpness wide open, and I want the subject depth to be in focus. I have a lot of doubts about people claiming front focus or back focus. Firstly, to be able to see front focus or back focus with limited lenses, they are used wide open and wide open they aren't sharp so focus accuracy doesn't play big. Secondly, there is focus accuracy and focus precision, and people confuse the two aspects, they often try to correct focus precision with AF fine tune settings, which is wrong and doing so leads to worse results.

---------- Post added 23-02-22 at 09:08 ----------

But I agree on one thing: cameras are technically too complicated for most customers to truly understand. So, if a camera does the whole picture taking process without requiring users to think, a broader market can be serviced , from complete new users who know nothing to experienced users. Pentax does geek things like pixel shift, but how many people truly understand it..? that is the question, I've often read "pixel shift give better colors", which isn't at all what pixel shift does. The same is for AF fine tuning, most people don't know what they are doing. So, in a way, it's better if a camera does it's thing without requiring users to think like engineers. If Ricoh engineers would read some users comments, I think they'd shake their heads in disbelief or frustration. So perhaps Fuji have more empathy with their broad user base, designing the cameras such that customers don't need to use their brain for taking photos and for the majority of customers it works, especially for X series market segment I would think.

Controlling the aperture for the shot is part of the art and direction of the image. It can be argued that for any given shot a certain aperture works better for the overall impact of the image. For example many portrait work do well if the subject is isolated and punched out from the scene. Distant dictates a lot of settings, so f1.4 might be required to do that job and when in tighter f5.6 could give the exact same kind of isolation. We may decide that the loss of IQ from shooting wider open is worth the impact overall for the image than shooting it for IQ. The goal of photography is not the pursuit of supreme IQ all the time. If that were the case we'd have f5.6 and f8 options only.

Pixelshift I do believe can help with colour accuracy (or at least collect more information or something). My own testing I have seen when in post and moving sliders about, comparing with a non pixelshifted shot the pixelshifted shots can sometimes render colours better or more intense. Doesn't always seem to happen tho. Case by case scenario.

Either way you look at it, K3III and XT4 are very intricate cameras, a plethora of options for the user to tinker with and try out, see what works best. One criticism I give to both cameras is that they can be too daunting for some, intimidating or taxing on the user to getting something pleasing that just works right out of the box. But then again I think this is not their market. I do believe a market exists for something simpler for a user to get to grasp with, a less is more approach but without the camera being an entry system or lacking in IQ. I'm just not sure any brand is brave enough to make it yet.

What is quite interesting with Fuji I think is that you can get the same IQ as their flagship X mount camera on far cheaper entry models. The same sensor and tech exists in the XE4, XT30II and XS10 that does in the Flagship XT4, and these models can often me less than half the price. That's pretty awesome. You pay for features the more you spend it seems rather than IQ improvements.

[cxdoo]

@BruceBanner

FWIW I find your experience with K3III AF very different from mine. I moved from K5II to K3III last year and used mostly 43, 16-85, 15 and 31 (in that order). AF.C actually worked and AF.S was so reliable that I went back from BBAF to shutter and half of time used Auto zone.
I briefly fiddled with AF tuning but found it a waste of time as I could not see any consistent difference and lenses worked fine anyway.
I have no experience with previous K3 models or K1 line but difference in AF between K5II and K3III is immense; to the point I'm not really stressing about focus unless I'm shooting wide open and then again it's more about DOF than AF mechanism.
To say it's a step back, based on my experience, is ludicrous.

[Rondec]

Each photographer needs to pick the tools that work best for them. For some, MILCs will be the way to go, for others a good OVF is worth a little slower frame rate and fewer auto focus points.

With regard to pricing, it is clear that prices are moving up. Just looking at B and H prices, the OM-1 released at 2200 dollars, the XT-4 sells for 1700 dollars -- but its sequel is expected to be north of 2000 dollars as well, even the Nikon Z50, which seems to be one of the cheaper APS-C MILCs out there is selling in the 900 dollar range. It's OK if the K-3 III doesn't work for you, but I don't think the pricing is going to be out of line with where the market is heading (unfortunately).

[BruceBanner]

@BruceBanner

FWIW I find your experience with K3III AF very different from mine. I moved from K5II to K3III last year and used mostly 43, 16-85, 15 and 31 (in that order). AF.C actually worked and AF.S was so reliable that I went back from BBAF to shutter and half of time used Auto zone.
I briefly fiddled with AF tuning but found it a waste of time as I could not see any consistent difference and lenses worked fine anyway.
I have no experience with previous K3 models or K1 line but difference in AF between K5II and K3III is immense; to the point I'm not really stressing about focus unless I'm shooting wide open and then again it's more about DOF than AF mechanism.
To say it's a step back, based on my experience, is ludicrous.

Great, good to hear it's working for you.

Let me just lay down some facts from my own experience (maybe the K3III I have is faulty). When I owned the K-50, I did Fine Adjustments. When I owned the K-1, I did Fine Adjustments. When I owned the KP, I did Fine Adjustments. During my time with using Fine Adjustments I tried many different methods and approaches to calibration. I came across the Dot Tube Method which made a lot of sense to me and spared a lot of unnecessary shutter actuations to finding the correct Fine Adjustment amount. So I tested it against my previous alternative methods for Fine Adjustments and discovered it was giving me exactly the same figure (minus the shutter actuations). So it became my preferred method to use for Fine Adjusting.

The K3III has been the first camera from Pentax that I was unable to use this method, because the green hex (which is what activates the shutter) would toggle on at both ends of the spectrum (-10 and +10). This really took me by surprise.

If you understand how AF works, its a spectrum. No focus>(green hex comes on)Somewhat in focus>Better focus>Perfect focus>Slightly worse>Even worse>Out of focus(green hex off). Typically with previous Pentax cameras I would not be seeing the Green Hex activate and kick in till it was in 'Somewhat in focus...Even worse'. But here... the spectrum was so large it was engaging when things were clearly out of focus.

When using AF.S, 2 sec timer, Focus Priority, some of the shots were absolutely ridiculously soft and out of focus. The problem is made worse when you actually do find the right Fine Adjustment value but repeat the test enough times and you'll still get erratic results because simply put the system is triggering when things are still quite heavily out of focus and far from optimal. My FA77 requires +7 on the K3III for best performance, resulting with the least amount of front and back focusing, but leave it at that value, do enough test shots and some are just complete garbage because the green hex can be triggered at a value of -10, or -7, or whatever.

So for me this is actually a step back in AF performance when I consider the predecessor cameras and how they were able to be Fine Adjusted using the Dot Tune Method. I could see that the green Hex would not toggle on till I got to something like -4 and toggled off at +6, (thus +1-2 would be the adjustment required). Here I could do no such thing, the scope was too wide. So older cameras seem to have a finer spectrum for what it considers to being in focus. I actually find the 645D to being very small scope, it might be the most accurate AF of the bunch!

So K3III is fast AF but is it accurate? Not from my own findings. Did I get a higher keeper rate with it for stuff like BiF compared to K-1 and KP? Absolutely! But it was much more to do with a semi so so AF performance coupled with a boost to fps and buffer that really assisted with the keepers. I don't consider fps and buffer to being part of the AF system, but it is super important to keeper rates and increasing the odds of getting good captures.
And DPReview echoed these findings as well, AF accuracy of K3III was not up to 2015 D500 level yet. I'm sorry man... I don't know what else to say, I just don't think K3III AF is anything to right home about (especially for a camera released in 2020/21).

So when I get a XT4 in 2021, the difference in AF feels night and day. Is the XT4 the best camera? No. There's no such thing as a perfect camera. I still think Pentax files, IQ, rendering and features like pixelshift hugely impressive and still relevant in 2022. Heck the 2010 645D files still kick ass! But I am calling a spade a spade here and just sharing my experiences.

---------- Post added 02-23-22 at 10:08 PM ----------

Each photographer needs to pick the tools that work best for them. For some, MILCs will be the way to go, for others a good OVF is worth a little slower frame rate and fewer auto focus points.

With regard to pricing, it is clear that prices are moving up. Just looking at B and H prices, the OM-1 released at 2200 dollars, the XT-4 sells for 1700 dollars -- but its sequel is expected to be north of 2000 dollars as well, even the Nikon Z50, which seems to be one of the cheaper APS-C MILCs out there is selling in the 900 dollar range. It's OK if the K-3 III doesn't work for you, but I don't think the pricing is going to be out of line with where the market is heading (unfortunately).

Agreed that the prices are going up across the board. The golden days are behind us now. But the K3III is still very overpriced when comparing it against what else is out there. If you stack the spec list of the XT4 vs the K3III (which was my main decision to be made at the time), XT4 blows it away on every front, especially on video. And the price? $900AUD cheaper than a K3III.

That's the issue, value. Price vs performance vs features vs competitors. If the K3III is not going to offer this spec, or match that spec.... then doesn't that mean it kinda should be cheaper? Um... that's kinda how the rest of the world works. You don't sell an iphone with 64gb memory at the same price as the one that has 512gb. It's specs and performance is reflected in price, except if somehow yer Pentax... you get to right your own rules

Good luck to them man, I really mean it. But I think this move to artisan/workshop is just another symptom of the brand/underdog struggling for the last decade or more. They might sit here comfortably for another 50yrs, but I'm not a Phase One customer either, nor a Ferrari so this is pretty much the end of the line for me (and many others). For what you pay for Pentax now it's kinda getting maddening..

[cxdoo]

@BruceBanner


Personally, I thing something is wrong with K3III you had access to, either firmware, or settings, or hardware itself.

The reason I'm reiterating my experience is that you are generalizing based on, well, sample size of 1. K3III AF sucks, ergo, it's worse not only than Fuji but previous Pentaxes, ergo, it's overpriced, ergo you and many others are leaving. I disagree based on my sample size of 1.
I'm sure the one you had sucked for whatever reason, and it's fair enough you have the opinion you have. I also have opinions about Fuji, but I don't think they are relevant to other people.

[biz-engineer]

If you stack the spec list of the XT4 vs the K3III (which was my main decision to be made at the time), XT4 blows it away on every front, especially on video. And the price? $900AUD cheaper than a K3III.

The X-T4 lacks the high-end optical viewfinder of the K33, like apples and oranges. I think Pentax will charge whatever they need to charge on DSLR because there will be not direct competition, same as Fuji charging a ton of money for their MF cameras, they don't have much competition, so they charge whatever price they like.

[eddie1960]

The X-T4 lacks the high-end optical viewfinder of the K33, like apples and oranges. I think Pentax will charge whatever they need to charge on DSLR because there will be not direct competition, same as Fuji charging a ton of money for their MF cameras, they don't have much competition, so they charge whatever price they like.

Fuji's Medium format cameras are ridiculously inexpensive in that market category, have a look at Hasselblad and phase one prices. 645Z marked down is still more expensive than the 50Sii which is a more advanced camera on many levels but uses the same basic sensor. or the 100@ with the 100mp sensor and better AF etc.
the 3.69M dot VF on the XT4 (and the GFX50sii and 100S) is an excellent VF, yes it is apples and oranges, but the market shift is massively towards mirrorless. I do miss Optical in low light scenarios - though I can use the Xpro it. That said if Pentax would get some new models out with the latest sensors they will have a solid grasp on what is increasingly a niche area. not a bad thing. and a new 645 with the 100mp sensor would be a very solid competitor for fuji thanks to the ability to build a very full AF kit that hits
the idea of a bespoke ordering process I have seen come up is in fact a really good movie though it will be expensive.

[Rondec]

Great, good to hear it's working for you.

Let me just lay down some facts from my own experience (maybe the K3III I have is faulty). When I owned the K-50, I did Fine Adjustments. When I owned the K-1, I did Fine Adjustments. When I owned the KP, I did Fine Adjustments. During my time with using Fine Adjustments I tried many different methods and approaches to calibration. I came across the Dot Tube Method which made a lot of sense to me and spared a lot of unnecessary shutter actuations to finding the correct Fine Adjustment amount. So I tested it against my previous alternative methods for Fine Adjustments and discovered it was giving me exactly the same figure (minus the shutter actuations). So it became my preferred method to use for Fine Adjusting.

The K3III has been the first camera from Pentax that I was unable to use this method, because the green hex (which is what activates the shutter) would toggle on at both ends of the spectrum (-10 and +10). This really took me by surprise.

If you understand how AF works, its a spectrum. No focus>(green hex comes on)Somewhat in focus>Better focus>Perfect focus>Slightly worse>Even worse>Out of focus(green hex off). Typically with previous Pentax cameras I would not be seeing the Green Hex activate and kick in till it was in 'Somewhat in focus...Even worse'. But here... the spectrum was so large it was engaging when things were clearly out of focus.

When using AF.S, 2 sec timer, Focus Priority, some of the shots were absolutely ridiculously soft and out of focus. The problem is made worse when you actually do find the right Fine Adjustment value but repeat the test enough times and you'll still get erratic results because simply put the system is triggering when things are still quite heavily out of focus and far from optimal. My FA77 requires +7 on the K3III for best performance, resulting with the least amount of front and back focusing, but leave it at that value, do enough test shots and some are just complete garbage because the green hex can be triggered at a value of -10, or -7, or whatever.

So for me this is actually a step back in AF performance when I consider the predecessor cameras and how they were able to be Fine Adjusted using the Dot Tune Method. I could see that the green Hex would not toggle on till I got to something like -4 and toggled off at +6, (thus +1-2 would be the adjustment required). Here I could do no such thing, the scope was too wide. So older cameras seem to have a finer spectrum for what it considers to being in focus. I actually find the 645D to being very small scope, it might be the most accurate AF of the bunch!

So K3III is fast AF but is it accurate? Not from my own findings. Did I get a higher keeper rate with it for stuff like BiF compared to K-1 and KP? Absolutely! But it was much more to do with a semi so so AF performance coupled with a boost to fps and buffer that really assisted with the keepers. I don't consider fps and buffer to being part of the AF system, but it is super important to keeper rates and increasing the odds of getting good captures.
And DPReview echoed these findings as well, AF accuracy of K3III was not up to 2015 D500 level yet. I'm sorry man... I don't know what else to say, I just don't think K3III AF is anything to right home about (especially for a camera released in 2020/21).

So when I get a XT4 in 2021, the difference in AF feels night and day. Is the XT4 the best camera? No. There's no such thing as a perfect camera. I still think Pentax files, IQ, rendering and features like pixelshift hugely impressive and still relevant in 2022. Heck the 2010 645D files still kick ass! But I am calling a spade a spade here and just sharing my experiences.

---------- Post added 02-23-22 at 10:08 PM ----------



Agreed that the prices are going up across the board. The golden days are behind us now. But the K3III is still very overpriced when comparing it against what else is out there. If you stack the spec list of the XT4 vs the K3III (which was my main decision to be made at the time), XT4 blows it away on every front, especially on video. And the price? $900AUD cheaper than a K3III.

That's the issue, value. Price vs performance vs features vs competitors. If the K3III is not going to offer this spec, or match that spec.... then doesn't that mean it kinda should be cheaper? Um... that's kinda how the rest of the world works. You don't sell an iphone with 64gb memory at the same price as the one that has 512gb. It's specs and performance is reflected in price, except if somehow yer Pentax... you get to right your own rules

Good luck to them man, I really mean it. But I think this move to artisan/workshop is just another symptom of the brand/underdog struggling for the last decade or more. They might sit here comfortably for another 50yrs, but I'm not a Phase One customer either, nor a Ferrari so this is pretty much the end of the line for me (and many others). For what you pay for Pentax now it's kinda getting maddening..

I think the value of a good optical viewfinder is worth a fair amount to some folks (that includes me). I tend to get eye strain pretty quickly with EVFs, so it makes photography less enjoyable.

I do have a feeling that your K-3 III was a lemon and so you are judging things pretty harshly based on that. I've seen several sequences posted by other K-3 III owners that show a pretty decent hit rate -- 75 to 80 percent -- with AF-C. This isn't to say that Fuji and Sony have cameras that are better. The fact that you think the K-3 III has worse hit rate than previous Pentax cameras contradicts most of the folks on the Forum.

[eddie1960]

I think the value of a good optical viewfinder is worth a fair amount to some folks (that includes me). I tend to get eye strain pretty quickly with EVFs, so it makes photography less enjoyable.

I do have a feeling that your K-3 III was a lemon and so you are judging things pretty harshly based on that. I've seen several sequences posted by other K-3 III owners that show a pretty decent hit rate -- 75 to 80 percent -- with AF-C. This isn't to say that Fuji and Sony have cameras that are better. The fact that you think the K-3 III has worse hit rate than previous Pentax cameras contradicts most of the folks on the Forum.

I understand the eye fatigue , though I suffer it all the time since i spend 8+ hours daily at a couple of computer screens so I really do not notice the issue with the cameras - they in fact are better than the screens i use at work

[c.a.m]

The K3III has been the first camera from Pentax that I was unable to use this method, because the green hex (which is what activates the shutter) would toggle on at both ends of the spectrum (-10 and +10).

My experience with AF calibration on my K-3 Mark III has been quite the opposite to yours. You've given us a lot of detail (thanks) on your experience with Dot Tune and your AF fine tune challenges, but it's difficult to say what the problem is with your camera or your methodology. Were you able to reconcile the Dot Tune results with any of your other AF calibration methods?

I believe that my K-3 III (FW v. 1.31) provides better AF calibration results than my K-3 II in terms of consistency, accuracy and precision, but Dot Tune is not my preferred method. I certainly didn't experience any of the funny business that you had with your calibrations. In fact, my zoom lenses generally calibrated more consistently across their focal lengths, target distances, and AF directions than my K-3 II.

I also tried the Dot Tune method on five lenses, which correlated very well with my detailed quantitative method. However, I identified a number of challenges with Dot Tune, as listed at the following post:

Dot Focus microfocus adjustment - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

Here's a quote from that link:

Optimal AFFA Settings: Baseline, Dot-Tune

• FA 43mm Limited: 0, -2
• DA 20-40mm Limited at 40mm: -3, -2
• DA* 50-135mm at 50mm: +2, +1
• DA 18-135mm at 50 and 90mm: +2, +2
• Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7: -1, -1

Although a couple of the lenses produced a surprisingly wide AFFA range under Dot-Tune [as indicated by the Green Hexagon] (e.g., DA 20-40mm -8 to +5), the median values were pretty much where they need to be. Interestingly, for four of the five lenses, the Green Hex was illuminated over a much greater range than what I would deem as giving 'acceptable' focus (i.e., 'sharp enough') when viewing an image at 100% on my 24-inch HD monitor. I presume that the camera's focus detection algorithm assumes a deeper field of view.

When using AF.S, 2 sec timer, Focus Priority, some of the shots were absolutely ridiculously soft and out of focus. The problem is made worse when you actually do find the right Fine Adjustment value but repeat the test enough times and you'll still get erratic results because simply put the system is triggering when things are still quite heavily out of focus and far from optimal. My FA77 requires +7 on the K3III for best performance, resulting with the least amount of front and back focusing, but leave it at that value, do enough test shots and some are just complete garbage because the green hex can be triggered at a value of -10, or -7, or whatever.

I've found just the opposite. With a well-calibrated lens, I find the K-3 Mark III AF to be both sharp and repeatable, in other words accurate and precise. Certainly, it's possible -- and expected -- that in a series of, say, 10 shots on the same target (AF.S, SEL S or Spot, single shot each time), one or two could be slightly misfocused -- that's the nature of autofocus systems. However, I've found that my lenses focus consistently and I haven't seen any 'erratic' behavior in my tests and field use.

In any case, the AF calibration problem is moot in this context -- the X-T4 doesn't need it and you're a happy camper with that camera.

Agreed that the prices are going up across the board. The golden days are behind us now. But the K3III is still very overpriced when comparing it against what else is out there.

I'd love to see your price comparisons of comparable systems of camera + lenses + grip, not just the bare cameras.

Looking at the relative costs of the cameras and comparable lenses would reveal interesting findings -- an X-T4 system is not necessarily cheaper than a K-3 Mark III system and could be $1,000-2,000 more. Despite the seemingly relative high price of the K-3 Mark III camera, an overall kit with, say, 4-5 lenses, could be quite a bit less expensive than a similar one based on the X-T4.

I'd say that comparing prices of only the bare cameras is insufficient and misleading -- it's necessary to compare overall prices with comparable lenses. The features, performance, etc could be compared against price; then the overall 'value' could be assessed for each system.

Edit: To finesse the point about price, here's the current pricing at a leading Canadian retailer for systems that I think are roughly comparable. Most of the Pentax items are on sale at about CAD $500 in total off regular retail, which is typical here. YMMV on system components and pricing.

K-3 Mark III w/ bonus grip; DA 15/4; DA 20-40/2.8-4 Ltd; DA 35/2.8 Ltd; DA* 55/1.4; DA* 50-135/2.8; DA* 300/4 = CAD $7,450
X-T4 w/ XF 18-55/2.8-4; Grip; XF 16/2.8; XF 35/2; XF 56/1.2; XF 50-140/2.8; XF 70-300/4-5.6 = CAD $8,910

So, assuming a well-rounded lens kit, the X-T4 prices out at about 20% more than the K-3 Mark III. Accounting for the Pentax sale prices, the Fuji system is still more expensive by about $1,000.


- Craig

[StiffLegged]

I'd love to see your price comparisons of comparable systems of camera + lenses + grip, …

This is an often overlooked point: a similarly specced system from various manufacturers can vary quite a lot in price, regardless of the price of the bare camera body. I priced out a lightweight body + three lenses (wideangle, mid-range and tele zooms) and got a big surprise at the price differences for similar capabilities and performance from the big three.

[gatorguy]

Thank you for the kind words. In truth I don't consider my work very good at all, average at best, but I also don't really consider myself past the first 5yr mark of 'serious shooting'. I have still much to learn. What people saw however was what I wanted them to see. I wasn't in the habit of sharing duds.

This is the thing that seems to fall deaf on most Pentaxians ears. It's all about keeper rates (when you start doing photography for work). No one is saying you can't do sports with Pentax, wildlife with Pentax (tho lens choice can be limiting..), it's about the ease and if you walk away from the session with a high keeper rate from which to choose the very best moment.

Before digital photography, there were still fantastic sport and wildlife moments captured and printed. But what no one is talking about is the high failure rate and duds along the way. A great deal of luck was in those shots.

Eddie, from both a capability and economic angle a DSLR likely remains the better choice for both of those things.

Just what Fuji mirrorless combo would you recommend for wildlife shooters? How about sports? Your Fuji in particular, and most any mirrorless in general, won't outperform a great but older recommended DSLR/lens combo from recent years will it? Tony Northrup raised that same point recently. Give someone a budget of $2500 and he can put together a GREAT full-frame hi-res DSLR wildlife package and double-bonus: Cost less! Match that with a mirrorless body and lens please, even in APSC.

Beyond even that the black out alone will make me bat-crazy, and I'll guarantee that split-second loss of vision on an unpredictable fast-moving subject at distance has caused you to miss shots too, assuming you've tried it. Burst away and hope your camera captured what you couldn't see?

Yup there's still common photography interests where DSLR's and not mirrorless are the practical and logical choice, yet camera company marketing keeps pushing the idea that DSLR's are old-school and ya just gotta go MILC despite being a worse choice depending on your photography interests and budget. To be fair no one was demanding mirrorless. In earlier years, before Google made smartphone photos an impressive "thing" and Apple followed up in the same vein shortly thereafter, mirrorless was not very good and that's being generous. The computational photo revolution that started with the Pixel 2's camera threw everything into disarray.

So now the camera manufacturers had to devise a way to raise prices and increase lens buys to make up for the millions in revenue lost to smartphones and computational photography. They couldn't do that very effectively by staying with DSLR design that still used already paid for glass and acessories. What else were the camera companies going to do? Sales were tanking. Hey, what about mirrorless needing all new stuff? Hmmm...

Today camera sales are still tanked but now the prices are up and to get great results you have to replace your already great glass bought and paid for with new great glass that only fits the new mirrorless mounts, and charged to a credit card.

Sooner rather than later even the batteries will be chipped, preventing you from using far less expensive but just as good third party ones. Even printing your photos will go up since not just the inks are chipped but even the paper permitted is being "chipped" to prevent any but manufacturer sanctioned paper being used. It's only going to get more and more expensive.

So now today fewer camera sales, but revenues are up! Great scheme.

IMO too many photographers simply buy into mirrorless marketing which makes the "DSLR is dead" mantra self-fullfilling. It's not that mirrorless is simply "better" because it isn't the best choice depending on what your interests are. But buyers are pummeled with so many industry-paid reviews and "influencers" that buyers are convinced it is and that's all that matters.

When the great medicine-salesman Northrup begins promoting the DSLR message, completely counter to pushing new camera and lens sales for Canon and Nikon (there's no obvious paid-compensation angle in it for him), I think it's worth listening. IMHO Pentax is smart to commit to DSLR's, last man standing perhaps, and will be wiser still to start working on computational features for it. I hope they do. Prove innovation exists outside of mirrorless because it can and does.

I expect a bit of mirrorless blowback at some point and want Pentax there to fill the desire. Stay the course Pentax.