[biz-engineer]

My lord, another dude comparing a camera released in 2015 with a 2020 camera.

To compare apple to apple, we should compare 5 years old competitor cameras to the best performing latest Pentax model. Pentax almost never , or only for a short while, has specifications above competition as a small brand reuse electronics left over by other brands. The Pentax focus is on ergonomics, user friendly interfaces, overall best camera designs.

[morenjavi]

Thanks for your comments.

The biggest difference between the K-3 and the Z-5 for me (I can get the same basic results from either after dealing with the DR/ISO difference, would be the same with the K-3iii) is the EVF experience.

I find you just get it right up front and no more chimping, way less post processing. It’s just a more efficient shooting process as you described.

Exactly. When I was investigation about the EVF, the 'WYSIWYG feature' attracted a lot of my attention. Now that I have the EVF, I think I took the right decision. To take a well exposed pic is faster and safer.
For some kind of pics on the outside, where I want to mix flash and ambient, to get the ambient exposure will be quicker now with a EVF, but I still need to get a V1-N flash and make a lot of tests. I know that working with flash is going to very different now.
Another positive point for the EVF, in my opinion, could be looking through it in bright sunny days, for me it's more comfortable (regardless of whether outside there is more or less light, you have a constant illumination in a EVF). But I need to spend more time with the camera to get a final opinion about this.

It’s the EVF experience, it’s just more efficiency in the end. Way less time in front of a computer later and much faster sharing, instant if you want as mentioned with the app.

Agree

That to me would be the biggest difference for anyone looking at the K-3iii and a Z6ii. The megapixels difference is nearly nothing. Both have modern sensors that are going to produce basically the same result with a small difference in DR/ISO, to the point of who cares. AF is great on both. A 1 fps difference or whatever, who cares.

Modern APS-C sensors are great today. In general, every today's modern camera is very capable. I think that modern FF sensors are still better than modern APSC. I know that there is an intense debate on forums on this subject. I my case, I only need a more or less really clean 2000 ISO for pics inside churchs, good shadow and highlight recovering, and I got it.

The biggest weakness for EVF (other than the super high end ones like the Z9 etc currently) is the EVF frame rate gets problematic at the highest frame rates of 12/14 on the Z6ii line, I’d love to hear your impression of that at max frames. Is it a slideshow at all? That’s probably my largest gripe on the Z5, but that’s not an action camera by any means.

I really don't use a lot of fps, usually I work in single drive mode and sometimes I set the camera to shoot at no more that 3 fps .
I made some test with different release modes on the Z6II.

• In continuous H mode, you get about 5.5 fps. The experiencie here is similar to using a DSLR (or my Pentax cameras), you get a blackout between frames, not better or worse than my K3-II.
• In Continuous H* mode you can get up to 14 fps. I noticed that this mode is way faster. What do you see on the viewfinder ? To summarize it: you see the world at 14 fps, more or less .
• Using mechanical shutter, first curtain electronic shutter or fully electronic shutter doesn't seem to change the experience.

[LeeRunge]

To compare apple to apple, we should compare 5 years old competitor cameras to the best performing latest Pentax model. Pentax almost never , or only for a short while, has specifications above competition as a small brand reuse electronics left over by other brands. The Pentax focus is on ergonomics, user friendly interfaces, overall best camera designs.

Exactly. The K-3iii basically just almost caught up to a 7 year old D-500 in performance, except they forgot the buffer and to light up the focus points in the dark.

[c.a.m]

The K-3iii basically just almost caught up to a 7 year old D-500 in performance...

In the absence of credible comparison tests or data, it's hard to agree with this impression.

- Craig

[LeeRunge]

Thanks for your comments.

Exactly. When I was investigation about the EVF, the 'WYSIWYG feature' attracted a lot of my attention. Now that I have the EVF, I think I took the right decision. To take a well exposed pic is faster and safer.
For some kind of pics on the outside, where I want to mix flash and ambient, to get the ambient exposure will be quicker now with a EVF, but I still need to get a V1-N flash and make a lot of tests. I know that working with flash is going to very different now.
Another positive point for the EVF, in my opinion, could be looking through it in bright sunny days, for me it's more comfortable (regardless of whether outside there is more or less light, you have a constant illumination in a EVF). But I need to spend more time with the camera to get a final opinion about this.


Agree


Modern APS-C sensors are great today. In general, every today's modern camera is very capable. I think that modern FF sensors are still better than modern APSC. I know that there is an intense debate on forums on this subject. I my case, I only need a more or less really clean 2000 ISO for pics inside churchs, good shadow and highlight recovering, and I got it.


I really don't use a lot of fps, usually I work in single drive mode and sometimes I set the camera to shoot at no more that 3 fps .
I made some test with different release modes on the Z6II.

• In continuous H mode, you get about 5.5 fps. The experiencie here is similar to using a DSLR (or my Pentax cameras), you get a blackout between frames, not better or worse than my K3-II.
• In Continuous H* mode you can get up to 14 fps. I noticed that this mode is way faster. What do you see on the viewfinder ? To summarize it: you see the world at 14 fps, more or less .
• Using mechanical shutter, first curtain electronic shutter or fully electronic shutter doesn't seem to change the experience.

Thanks for checking the continuous modes.

It’s all about that EVF experience. I have barely used my D750 or K-3 since getting the Z5. I’ll for sure pick up the 6iii which the trickle down happens from the Z9 which will probably be in the next year or two.

One cool feature with the Z cameras is you can configure movie mode to shoot AF-C Stills. Set it to AF-C and set continious frames (lower right hand side on the back) and you’ll get 60FPS at 8megapixel that can be had very quickly if you leave it set that way. Basically your movie mode selector is now a 60FPS AF-C stills lever. It’s pretty handy if you don’t need a full res shot for action of a bird/dogs whatever and want that super fast frame rate. I use this on my Z5 sometimes (it’s 30fps on the Z5). Set it to DX mode with a long lens and it’s a useful tool for wildlife at 8 megapixel. Makes sense for anything viewed on 4k displays or regular sized prints.

You’ll want to tweak a few of the movie settings for this, basically the setting that controls how fast the AF reacquires, you’ll want those to fastest.

I do use the Z5 for video quite often as I make short 2-5 min video’s for family whenever I do something worth sharing with them. I use the Z5 for the telephoto clips. Iphone/Insta360 one x 2 for everything else and edit them on my phone, I’m pretty fast at it now to make a basic short video that doesn’t bore them all to death.

---------- Post added 03-06-2022 at 11:06 AM ----------

In the absence of credible comparison tests or data, it's hard to agree with this impression.

- Craig

Please do show me the credible review that states it outperforms the D-500 in autofocus or buffer and I’ll be happy to change my mind. I’ve not yet seen one.

[c.a.m]

Please do show me the credible review that states it outperforms the D-500 in autofocus or buffer and I’ll be happy to change my mind. I’ve not yet seen one.

I know what you mean -- comparison data or tests are scarce.

I don't know precisely how the performance of the K-3 Mark III and the Nikon D500 compare, so I can't say which one is superior or inferior.

There is some data on the D500's throughput, for example, as posted in this thread: Pentax to hold "SLR Meeting" on March 13 - Page 18 - PentaxForums.com

As for autofocus, the only direct comparison I've seen is the one shown in the early DPReview video (the one with 'running, weaving Jordan') , but I wouldn't say that was a thorough test.

- Craig

[surfar]

Please do show me the credible review that states it outperforms the D-500 in autofocus or buffer and I’ll be happy to change my mind. I’ve not yet seen one.

As for autofocus, the only comparison I've seen is the one shown in the early DPReview video (the one with 'running, weaving Jordan') , but I wouldn't say that was a thorough test.

Since its release the D500 has set the standard.Huge buffer due to faster cards.

Its old tech and consequently discontinued.

Id expect Nikon will release a Z version reasonably soon, seeing they've got the basic Z50 and the "cute" Zfc.A flow on from the Z9 AF ability,I think a "baby" Z9 will be the label.

[LeeRunge]

I know what you mean -- comparison data or tests are scarce.

I don't know precisely how the performance of the K-3 Mark III and the Nikon D500 compare, so I can't say which one is superior or inferior.

There is some data on the D500's throughput, for example, as posted in this thread: Pentax to hold "SLR Meeting" on March 13 - Page 18 - PentaxForums.com

As for autofocus, the only comparison I've seen is the one shown in the early DPReview video (the one with 'running, weaving Jordan') , but I wouldn't say that was a thorough test.

- Craig

I wouldn’t take my comment of it being 7 year old tech to harshly. That D-500 still has a top of the line AF system that from all that I’ve seen on the K-3 iii, it nearly match’s it, which is great. That AF system is still keeping up pretty well with the latest high end mirrorless stuff, minus the fancy eye af and bird/car whatever tracking. Meaning it still works great. Which means the K-3iii AF is working great, even if it’s now catching up.

The biggest oops for Pentax is that buffer size, they dropped the ball there. And the non lit lcd af points would be really annoying in low light.

The buffer you can mitigate with good discipline in timing for most shots, but it would still be a problem when you really need to catch a longer than 3 second sequence or you get stuck waiting on a buffer clear and miss moments.

As for the DPreview thing, I’ve seen it. I actually don’t think they were harsh at all to the Pentax. I know this forum hates them and thinks they intentionally are trying to slander Pentax. I’ve actually seen way harsher reviews elsewhere.

My take on the K-3iii is finally Pentax has good AF-C, which is all that really matters. If you have Pentax gear you have a good action camera option that will do well.

I bought a bunch of Nikon gear to have good AF-C that I wouldn’t have had the K-3iii existed in 2017. But now that I’ve done that and addressed my AF-C and telephoto needs I may never buy the K-3iii even though I have a K-3 and a bunch of Pentax glass. They basically waited too long and I bought elsewhere. I’m also glad I did because that gear captured a lot of action moments for me that would have resulted in less keepers with the K-3.

I’ll never say never because I collect camera’s at this point. I’ve got Nikon/Olympus and a Pentax system and tons of glass. It’s just hard having both to pick a D-500 or a K33, or wait for trickle down of the Z9 into a Z6iii. That’s not an easy choice!

If 150-600’s existed for the K33 That would probably seal the deal, but they’re hamstrung by telephoto options especially compared to Nikon F glass. And for an action centric camera that’s not great.

Normhead does bring a great point with shorter range telephoto and a tele converter. And that’s probably a really good solution pared to a K33 that really makes the other options no factor. I can’t remember off the top of my head the lens/tele converter combo or if it’s still available. Norm? I don’t know if some combo of that exists for Nikon but anything with a small aperture and telephoto with them typically costs as much as a car and probably needs a trunk of a car to carry it around.




---------- Post added 03-06-2022 at 12:50 PM ----------

Since its release the D500 has set the standard.Huge buffer due to faster cards.

Its old tech and consequently discontinued.

Id expect Nikon will release a Z version reasonably soon, seeing they've got the basic Z50 and the "cute" Zfc.A flow on from the Z9 AF ability,I think a "baby" Z9 will be the label.

I’m betting we see “baby Z9” performance very soon in a Z6iii or Z500. Nikon tends not to wait long for the trickle into other body’s. Like the D5 to D500/850 or the D4 to the D750 etc.

The Z50/ZFC actually match the K33 for 11fps but for less than half the price. They also still have good AF-C which is also similar in performance. We’ve been talking all FF camera’s but those small Z’s do offer a lot for the price. They also work with that huge array of F glass or with a megadap across every brand of lens should someone want AF on older manual glass or any brand.

Is the D500 discontinued? I still see if for sale, just out of stock like most things these days sporadically.

Pentax missed on that buffer and using faster cards.

[surfar]

Is the D500 discontinued? I still see if for sale, just out of stock like most things these days sporadically.

Yes,OLD product.
Nikon Discontinues the D500, a Triumph of the DSLR Era | PetaPixel

[LeeRunge]

Yes,OLD product.
Nikon Discontinues the D500, a Triumph of the DSLR Era | PetaPixel

Onward with the mirrorless. I wonder when we see the Z500 based on the Z9 that shoots 20-30 FPS.

It looks like the D750 and 610 won’t be long in following leaving only the D6/850/780 remaining for DSLR options until they phase those out as well.

[UncleVanya]

I got into full frame somewhat by accident. My dad thought I wanted a Sony due to the announcement of the Monster LA-KE1 adapter. He found a deal on an A7R2 and the FE 24-105/4. I find some parallels with comments in the thread about the experience of using the Sony. Since the original A7R2 I have upgraded my camera to the A7R3 and the A7R2 has gone to my dad.

I don’t have a K-1 for direct full frame comparison. I have a KP. I won’t pollute this thread with details but I will echo earlier comments that the body is of similar size with the KP being slightly larger and heavier. The differences are insignificant in that respect.

I used a K-1 for a month with the D FA 24-70/2.8… it was a behemoth. Not that large but like a brick of depleted uranium compared to the K-3+ 16-50 I was used to. In retrospect a 28-105 might have changed my impression.

My Sony lenses tend - like the thread has mentioned for Nikon - towards slower lenses that are lighter and easier to carry/handle. The main lens is the FE 24-105/4, I have the reasonably priced 85/1.8, and a newly acquired Tamron 70-300/4.5-5.6 RXD. The K-1 kit to cover this would probably be the D FA 28-105, FA 77/1.8, DA* 60-250/4 (with diy modifications) or D FA 70-210 + some full frame 1.4x af teleconveter (I own the hd da apsc converter but that does not cover full frame). The Pentax kit would be heavier and bulkier - and slower to focus, but those aren’t major factors, though they do have some impact.

Overall I like both brands and I continue to use my KP. I’ve recently bought a 55-300 PLM lens for it. Paired with the 10-17 and 20-40 this is a nicely compact kit that is quite capable.

I really think this thread is a useful discussion not just of the z6ii but also the driving forces that went into the decision and the adjustment as well as pro/con list vs the established known camera the op owned. Having a K-3 (original model) myself, I understand how it frames the comparison. My upgrade to the KP has given me a taste of the upgraded Pentax vs the old and I can see both the futility of comparing an older camera AND the value of doing it. Deep knowledge of how the k3ii works and experience gives insight into the differences - some of which are still part of the Pentax ecosystem. Additional comparison of those deltas with newer Pentax bodies can help others understand how the shooting experience may differ because this isn’t a superficial comparison.

I really appreciate the tone this thread has taken its a fine example of the forum at its best. I don’t have Nikon on my radar, but this lets me see a little into the world of my former brand (my last Nikon was the F2a).

[ThorSanchez]

The biggest oops for Pentax is that buffer size, they dropped the ball there. And the non lit lcd af points would be really annoying in low light.

The buffer you can mitigate with good discipline in timing for most shots, but it would still be a problem when you really need to catch a longer than 3 second sequence or you get stuck waiting on a buffer clear and miss moments.

I shoot a lot of sports with the K-3 III and I guess my shooting style is different (?) than others, in that I've never really run into a problem with the Mark III's buffer. It's dramatcially better than the K-3 II's. I never have a situation where I hold down the shutter in high speed drive mode for 3+ seconds. That seems like forever for me. In soccer/football the interesting parts of a corner kick or a free kick might last a second or two, I suppose a longer sequence of play would be nice to capture but then you're usually zooming and refocusing and trying to keep up with the ball. I already throw away 50, 60, 70%+ of any 10-frame burst because the content wasn't good; the ball disappears behind a player, nothing terribly interesting was happening, the players are looking away, frames 6-9 are almost identical to 5, etc, etc.

Again, maybe I'm not exploiting the capabilities of the camera enough, and I could be getting more keepers if I was firing off very long bursts at high fps. I don't know, just not how I shoot, maybe others do. I'm probably influenced by my years with a K-30 or K-3 II which just wouldn't do that rate, and couldn't even remotely keep up with tracking focus if you tried.

But for how I shoot now, and I'm pretty happy with the results, not being able to fire off continuous bursts of 40, 50, 60 shots is almost no impact.

[normhead]

It's so nice when people talk about their experience, rather than an imprecise opinion based on interpretation of facts that can have more than one meaning.

[normhead]

To compare apple to apple, we should compare 5 years old competitor cameras to the best performing latest Pentax model.

The only thing I'd be interested in would be a comparison of what's on the shelf right now. I'm not really interested in anyone's 5 year old model.... but the Nikon D500 may be five years old, but it's still on the shelf, so ya. Looking at is fair. It could be part of someone's new camera body search.

But for how I shoot now, and I'm pretty happy with the results, not being able to fire off continuous bursts of 40, 50, 60 shots is almost no impact.

I'm not sure but I don't believe I've ever read a post from someone who claimed they had to have a 200 shot buffer at 15 FPS. The 23 shots of the K-3 is rarely exceeded for the reasons you mention. The K-1 is dismal when employed on a whim... but the K-3 is quite functional. SO for me, buffer over 50 is unlikely to have an effect. I'd be interested in hearing about the circumstances where these high FPS large buffer cameras are used. If it's just professional sports photographers, that would be a segment of the market most of us would be wise to ignore. The cost of a large buffer fast FPS camera make it an item that falls into the "you have to spend money to make money" scenario. The corollary should be,"if you're not making money, don't spend the money you'd need to make it."

[UncleVanya]

I'd be interested in hearing about the circumstances where these high FPS large buffer cameras are used. If it's just professional sports photographers, that would be a segment of the market most of us would be wise to ignore. The cost of a large buffer fast FPS camera make it an item that falls into the "you have to spend money to make money" scenario. The corollary should be,"if you're not making money, don't spend the money you'd need to make it."

In the Sony world A1 and A9 amateur shooters routinely use deeper buffers for birding and sports. Personally I can’t wrap my head around sitting through that many shots! I can’t get excited about parsing through that kind of volume to find a few keepers. Taking it back a bit I’ve run the buffer dry on all my bodies at one point or another. Typically because I anticipated the action wrong. None of my most used cameras have exceptionally deep buffers (k-3, KP, Sony a7r3).