[morenjavi]

What about the a7iii? Was it too old?

I have mixed feelings about Sony cameras. I like the buttons and dials distribution, but I don't like the body shape a lot.
I discarded the a7 III because the EVF, it has less resolution compared to Nikon, Canon or a7 IV. I thought the change from OVF to EVF might be something dramatic for me, so I looked for the best EVFs regarding resolution and refresh rate. About price, in my area, this camera costs near 2k€, so a bit more than the Z6II, and there is one generation difference, so still the Z6 II looks better bang for the buck for me.
Another point about the Sony system is the price of the lenses, that I found are more expensive (in general) than Nikon equivalents.
On the positive side for the Sony, I think it has the most advanced AF system, and I also found that it seems the most compatible with 3rd party software, lenses, adapters, etc. It seems that now is the reference system.

---------- Post added 10-03-22 at 01:30 PM ----------

I don't think there are cameras that are too bad though, just what we weigh as more important for our needs and budget.

Exactly, there are a lot of good cameras today.

[normhead]

I find it interesting that you'd mention no more chimping. I'm suspicious, I usually don't chimp for exposure, I usually chimp to check my framing... so that doesn't make much sense to me. But I'll be sure to watch the mirrorless dudes next time I'm out. I actually don't chimp for exposure. I do bracket in some situations, but, you get a much better evaluation from a computer screen than you do from a little camera back screen.

You've made it sound like with the "instant sharing" thing, you aren't shooting raw.... The experience of a jpeg shooter really isn't of interest. to many people here.

A quick point on battery life too, The Z’s are often rated at 3-400 shots but that is one of the most underrated specs I’ve ever seen. I easily get double that on the Z5,

And I've had more than 1000 images on my K-3. They have ratings to standardize these things. Everyone will have better and worse performances. But in the same circumstances, the ratings hold true.The biggest draw back to the EVF is battery drain when composing in the viewfinder, as opposed to less battery use in an OVF.

Also when I was researching the K-3 iii the shot buffer is tiny, so 11 FPS but only for a couple seconds, vs the 124/139/200 or so in 14/12 bit raw or JPEG on the Z6ii.

I need more buffer than the K-3 provides maybe 3 or 4 times a year. I'm not buying a camera for that. I'd like to have more buffer in the bank if needed, but I can't make a case based on need. Find most of my bursts are in the .5 to 1 second range, 4-8 images. But I've gone as high as 23 shots in a burst, and I don't find it productive. More selective shooting in shorter bursts works better for me.

Everyone growing up is used to EVF as well, it’s the same live view experience as a cell phone.

Holding the camera out from your face and taking an image is not the same as looking through an EVF viewfinder.
But looking through an EVF is the same as looking at television image instead of just looking out your window.

SO bottom line, the difference is the EVF experience, and that will be the reason for some to go mirrorless, and the reason others will avoid it. But, I'm not sure that there's enough in an EVF to convince people who prefer OVFs to switch. And given that most Pentax users have deliberately chosen an OVF these days, I guess few on the forum would be convinced by this type of argument. I'd be more comfortable if the comments appeared to be more objective.

The bigger heavier lenses to get the same results as a K-3 is definitely a drawback with 24 MP FF. Action usually means long lenses. There is nothing like a DA 55-300 PLM for FF. There is no 70-450 ƒ6.3 lens that weighs 1 pound. So there are pluses and minuses. But bottom line for me, much lighter kit for action, birding etc. for essentially the same IQ. Seriously, do people really buy 24 MP systems for their quality work? The resolution and DR of the K-1 are unmatched by any 24 MP cameras.

I remain an advocate of 24 MP for action, 36 MP or higher for landscape, portraits etc. and OVF over EVF. Nothing here changes my mind. And without some kind of time trial... fiddling with exposure before taking the exposure with an EVF or bracketing and selecting on my computer, my guess is bracketing saves me time in the field, where I want to concentrate on composition and lets me worry about exposure etc. at my computer. Just too many things here could go either way. I'm not convinced fiddling around in the field is as good as working a dng on the computer or that working on a tiny little 3 to 4 inch screen is the same as evaluation on 27 inch 8 MP computer monitor. I'm also not convinced that my the exposure selected through an EVF will give as good results as the images I take with an OVF, with a bit of experience. Sometimes the one that looked the best on my back screen is not the image I select for the final image. Depending on the small screen for exposure just means you'll have no opportunity to select a more suitable exposure at your computer, unless you bracket, and if you bracket, there's absolutely no advantage.

The thing with taking one image after a bit of fiddling, if you didn't miss the shot while fiddling, is you miss out on the other possibly useful exposures.

I wonder about a post with so many things that should be challenged from the perspective of an OVF shooter. Emphasis was made out of so many things I'm unconcerned about. The positive things about EVFs in no way diminish the utility of OVFs. So far, it looks to me like a "you win some you lose some " type situation. With whether you prefer EVF or OVF being the deciding factor. As such, posts like the above will not be of interest to much of the forum. Most of us already made that decision. And there is nothing in EVF that would overcome my preference for OVF. However that being said, for those who are enthusiastic about EVFs there's probably nothing in OVFs that will appeal to them. It's simply different, not better in my mind.

There are going to be EVF and OVF shooters out there for a long time. Some will prefer EVFs, some will prefer the OVF experience, but trying to paint one as superior, I'm not buying it. Especially after hearing a R5 shooter, who'd sold his 1Dx to help fund his 2 R5s, say he wished he'd kept his 1Dx as well. That doesn't support the theory that if you use an EVF you won't want an OVF as well. It makes it sound like those going completely EVF are going to have times where an OVF would have been better. I suspect I have more of those times than EVF shooters, and that we both selected what works best for us, even if it's different systems.

And I'm definitely not accepting criticism of a cameras system from a person who hasn't used the camera. The weaknesses on the spec sheet may be made up for by other factors of which the commenter will be completely unaware, because he's projecting based on the use of much older cameras.

[luftfluss]

More selective shooting in shorter bursts works better for me.

This.

[gatorguy]

This.

I don't shoot bursts very often anyway, and even then more often than not at medium speed, for example at a rescue horse shoot last Sunday. They don't move THAT frikkin' fast.

In practice, the K3III buffer has been a total non-issue, zero impediment to burst shots. I've yet to find a reason to shoot at the fastest possible speed for as long as the camera will allow.

Oh, which reminds me I was meaning to do a speed and burst length test with the Sony Tough UHSII compared to the Lexar 1667's. No idea if the Tough has any advantage in camera use, though the photos should transfer to LR faster.

[pinholecam]

I find it interesting that you'd mention no more chimping. I'm suspicious, I usually don't chimp for exposure, I usually chimp to check my framing... so that doesn't make much sense to me. But I'll be sure to watch the mirrorless dudes next time I'm out. I actually don't chimp for exposure. I do bracket in some situations, but, you get a much better evaluation from a computer screen than you do from a little camera back screen.

You've made it sound like with the "instant sharing" thing, you aren't shooting raw.... The experience of a jpeg shooter really isn't of interest. to many people here.

What can help here is the LV histogram, (and some people turn on the Zebra).

[reh321]

I find it interesting that you'd mention no more chimping. I'm suspicious, I usually don't chimp for exposure, I usually chimp to check my framing... so that doesn't make much sense to me. But I'll be sure to watch the mirrorless dudes next time I'm out. I actually don't chimp for exposure. I do bracket in some situations, but, you get a much better evaluation from a computer screen than you do from a little camera back screen.

I agree, except I “chimp” for both framing and exposure. I use my own eyes - not the viewfinder - to see the details that should be there if the image is captured correctly.

I need more buffer than the K-3 provides maybe 3 or 4 times a year. I'm not buying a camera for that. I'd like to have more buffer in the bank if needed, but I can't make a case based on need. Find most of my bursts are in the .5 to 1 second range, 4-8 images. But I've gone as high as 23 shots in a burst, and I don't find it productive. More selective shooting in shorter bursts works better for me.

Years of shooting without a motor drive {not until the Canon I got in 1995 could deliver more more than one shot per shutter press} has left me pressing the shutter the instant I want a photo, so even today I make little use of bursts. I don’t claim that is “good” or bad”, it just is an “is”.

[luftfluss]

I don't shoot bursts very often anyway, and even then more often than not at medium speed, for example at a rescue horse shoot last Sunday. They don't move THAT frikkin' fast.

In practice, the K3III buffer has been a total non-issue, zero impediment to burst shots. I've yet to find a reason to shoot at the fastest possible speed for as long as the camera will allow.

Oh, which reminds me I was meaning to do a speed and burst length test with the Sony Tough UHSII compared to the Lexar 1667's. No idea if the Tough has any advantage in camera use, though the photos should transfer to LR faster.

I'd be curious to know how long the buffer takes to clear. For my wildlife photos, I typically shoot 5 or 6 shots then pause while while waiting for a new pose or action by my subject. On the rare occasions I have a critter coming toward me, I'll machine-gun it.

[LeeRunge]

I'd be curious to know how long the buffer takes to clear. For my wildlife photos, I typically shoot 5 or 6 shots then pause while while waiting for a new pose or action by my subject. On the rare occasions I have a critter coming toward me, I'll machine-gun it.

That would be nice information to know. Just incase it freezes the camera for 10 seconds or something of that nature. Hopefully its a few seconds.

* Happened to see the buffer in the cameraville review of the D500/D90/K33 and it’s the worst buffer of the three. Takes a lot longer to clear.

I would say it’s disappointing for Pentax to offer a smaller buffer, longer clearing times and a UHS i second slot when $1200 D90 and $1500 dollar D500 offer better performance, and D500 much better cards. Even the Z5 has UHS II dual and 3 times the buffer, plus instant clearing of that 100 frames.

The Z6ii for the same price has CF and UHS II slots , a buffer thats about 4 times larger than the K-33 and clears that buffer very quickly.

[LeeRunge]

And I'm definitely not accepting criticism of a cameras system from a person who hasn't used the camera.

Yet you don’t have a Z system or any experience with one and are here criticizing a system you have no experience with. Are we supposed to take you seriously with statements like this?

You’re in the non-pentax section of the forum. This is where people will be discussing the pros and cons of OVF and EVF or what system to get for the money. The Z6ii happens to be the exact same price as a K33 so it’s clearly direct completion on the market for someone looking for a camera who isn’t dedicated to OVF or EVF and deciding what to get.

In that circumstance this thread is beneficial for them to generate an opinion between them from those who do have both and are discussing what they like or don’t like about either.

If you don’t like to hear any critical comments about a Pentax camera than this probably isn’t the optimal thread to be in. Insisting users, like myself, whom your directing this comment at shouldn’t have an opinion is the position of a bully who doesn’t like opinions that may challenge a brand they’re invested in.

It does a dis-service to anyone browsing here to only show pro-pentax comments and never be critical of the brand.

I value your opinions on Pentax and you make genuinely good points but going after me personally doesn’t add to the conversation of this thread nor will it intimidate me to leave.

[ThorSanchez]

That would be nice information to know. Just incase it freezes the camera for 10 seconds or something of that nature. Hopefully its a few seconds.

* Happened to see the buffer in the cameraville review of the D500/D90/K33 and it’s the worst buffer of the three. Takes a lot longer to clear.

I would say it’s disappointing for Pentax to offer a smaller buffer, longer clearing times and a UHS i second slot when $1200 D90 and $1500 dollar D500 offer better performance, and D500 much better cards. Even the Z5 has UHS II dual and 3 times the buffer, plus instant clearing of that 100 frames.

The Z6ii for the same price has CF and UHS II slots , a buffer thats about 4 times larger than the K-33 and clears that buffer very quickly.

As I've mentioned before, I don't think this has much of any practical impact to camera performance. With the caveat that I am not someone who shoots 20, 30, 40 or more shots continuously, much less doing that again and again without stopping. I've shot about 7500 frames with my Mark III, well over half doing sports/action, and I have never had to pause while the camera was locked up clearing a buffer. Never.

When I get home tonight I'll have to do a test and just hold down the shutter for a long time then immediately repeat and see what the camera does.

Maybe I just don't get it, that there are styles and use cases where you really need to do back-to-back series of 30 or 50 frames on high-speed continuous drive. Because it's not just one series of a lot of photos, we're talking the need to do two or more such sequences consecutively and not being able to because the first is clearing. I don't ever do this, and this wasn't even a capability of almost any camera 10 years ago, and certainly no other camera Pentax has ever produced could do this.

I don't want to dismiss a weakness of the camera compared to others, but it seems like a thing that publications test because they can but most people would never by impacted by at all. It's like a car review dinging a model for not being able to do five straight 70-to-0 panic braking tests in a row without the brakes overheating. The vast majority of cars will go their entire lives never doing that at all, and if they do it'll be once before the driver has to change his pants.

[normhead]

In that circumstance this thread is beneficial for them to generate an opinion between them from those who do have both and are discussing what they like or don’t like about either.

How can anyone discuss what they do and don't like about either, if they don't own the camera? My objection was to a one sided comparison. Just because you are in the non-Pentax section of the forum doesn't give anyone the free right to ignorantly trash the K-3iii.

I read the non-Pentax section for useful information about other cameras. Useful, as in actual experience of the cameras involved. I can compare spec. sheets on my own without anyone's help.

Yet you don’t have a Z system or any experience with one and are here criticizing a system you have no experience with. Are we supposed to take you seriously with statements like this?

Because I'm using the same kind of spec sheet speculation you are. I generally respond in kind. Just saying, the spec. sheet isn't totally in favour of either, and from the spec, sheet, someone could be happy with either. People trying to say this is a slam dunk for one or the other are mis-informed.

Not that we know anyone like that.

The first thing I look for in any review is "This is what I shoot andI like using the camera." Or "This is what I shoot and I don't like using the camera, it's not good for what I do" I'm finding this thread to be pretty much devoid of useful information from a K-3iii vs Z6 perspective. But I'll hang in hoping someone has actual experience with both.

Let me give you an example, One of the pros on the forum mentioned that he only got about 45% keepers with his K-1 for weddings, but close to 95% with an A7. I was asked to do a wedding of a relative as a favour. I shot the wedding and surprise, surprise, I got about 45% keepers, more than made up for because I shoot 3 shot bursts and I got a good image of every part of the wedding.

Because of the comments of the A7 guy, I was able to test his statement, found it accurate and think if I ever shoot a lot of weddings, I'm buying an A7. But of course, I don't shoot weddings, (this last one almost killed me, I'm too old for that nonsense) so I didn't.

So, I know what he was shooting, I was able to personally verify his information with my K-1, and assume, since our K-1 keepers we're about the same, I'd be better off renting an A7 if asked to do another wedding. That doesn't say anything about wild life, macro or many other types of photography that I shoot where the K-1 was clearly superior.. That to me is good information. What's it good for? How could I make use of it's positive features. First hand experience of that is crucial.

Spec. sheet enthusiasts gushing isn't.

That's why when people write reviews, they talk about their experience of the camera. One reviewer of the K-3iii a D500 shooter, said, the use was pretty much the same, but there wasn't enough difference to be worth switching. In his mind it was for Pentax shooters who might switch giving people an option to stay with Pentax. An honest opinion from an honest guy who had the camera for a couple of weeks. That kind of comparison is infinitely more useful than spec sheet speculation.

Especially since what we shoot is pretty comparable in terms of subject matter. I look at his images, and think, if he's happy with the K-3iii, I would be as well. I come to these kinds of threads looking for information like that. Not for a chance to bash one camera or another.

[gatorguy]

That would be nice information to know. Just incase it freezes the camera for 10 seconds or something of that nature. Hopefully its a few seconds.

* Happened to see the buffer in the cameraville review of the D500/D90/K33 and it’s the worst buffer of the three. Takes a lot longer to clear.

I would say it’s disappointing for Pentax to offer a smaller buffer, longer clearing times and a UHS i second slot when $1200 D90 and $1500 dollar D500 offer better performance, and D500 much better cards. Even the Z5 has UHS II dual and 3 times the buffer, plus instant clearing of that 100 frames.

The Z6ii for the same price has CF and UHS II slots , a buffer thats about 4 times larger than the K-33 and clears that buffer very quickly.

So testing just now, outdoor*, High-speed burst, writing to one card:

36 images (give or take one) roughly 12 frames/second before hitting the buffer limit, at which point camera will continue to shoot but slower.
Sony tough UHS-II - 12.4 seconds to clear.
Lexar 1667x UHS-II - 15.8 seconds
Lexar 633x UHS-I - 38.8 seconds to clear the buffer



Medium Speed Bursts were av. 44 images before buffer filled and low-speed 57 images.

[c.a.m]

So testing just now, outdoor*, High-speed burst, writing to one card:

Thanks for this.

Your results are similar to the test done by member @kwb, see Anyone really measured the UHS-II write speed in the camera? - Page 4 - PentaxForums.com

They used a Lexar Professional 2000x 300MB/s (reading) 64GB card.
Burst: Continuous high; ISO 640, 1/200 s; RAW only (DNG)

Frames to fill the buffer: 41 (at approx. 10 fps; average file size 32.5 MB)
Additional frames recorded at a slower frame rate after the high-speed burst: 4

Time to clear buffer: 10.6 s

- Craig

[LeeRunge]

As I've mentioned before, I don't think this has much of any practical impact to camera performance. With the caveat that I am not someone who shoots 20, 30, 40 or more shots continuously, much less doing that again and again without stopping. I've shot about 7500 frames with my Mark III, well over half doing sports/action, and I have never had to pause while the camera was locked up clearing a buffer. Never.

When I get home tonight I'll have to do a test and just hold down the shutter for a long time then immediately repeat and see what the camera does.

Maybe I just don't get it, that there are styles and use cases where you really need to do back-to-back series of 30 or 50 frames on high-speed continuous drive. Because it's not just one series of a lot of photos, we're talking the need to do two or more such sequences consecutively and not being able to because the first is clearing. I don't ever do this, and this wasn't even a capability of almost any camera 10 years ago, and certainly no other camera Pentax has ever produced could do this.

I don't want to dismiss a weakness of the camera compared to others, but it seems like a thing that publications test because they can but most people would never by impacted by at all. It's like a car review dinging a model for not being able to do five straight 70-to-0 panic braking tests in a row without the brakes overheating. The vast majority of cars will go their entire lives never doing that at all, and if they do it'll be once before the driver has to change his pants.

For my needs personally I could see some situations where I would want more than 3-4 seconds of buffer. Mostly it would meet my needs. Specifically for military aircraft I would shoot long sequences then pick the best. As they do fly by’s or when they’re shooting and you don’t know exactly when they’ll pull the trigger. Thats when a buffer would be ace. I know most people probably aren’t shooting stuff like that. I work with the military professionally and have access to events where I can occasionally get permission to grab some shots. I have a pretty extensive collection of military photo’s over the years, I’ve posted some here a decade ago from Afghanistan (I’ve been there 3 times) and maybe some from Iraq as well (also there 3 times). Most of them I did get with a Pentax actually and with a small buffer (A K7 and 5). So while it’s better, it’s not stopping you from getting shots. Maybe just less to pick from and harder to time right with a few “shoot missed it” moments.

Long buffers do really help if you’re trying to get explosions or things like lightning (without a trigger or Olympus live composite mode).

Anything you can anticipate well you can just time it right in the buffer window.

My post above is a disappointment in the Pentax K33 costing much more than the competition and giving us lesser hardware in that area at a higher price.

For Pentax only users you don’t have a choice, the K33 is it for a rapid firing camera with good AF. If anyone is somehow reading this deciding between a D90/D500 or K33, or going for a Z6ii or Sony A73/4 or Canon R6, This would be a harder choice, really the Pentax looks overpriced for what it is in comparison.

I’m not saying it’s a bad camera, it’s just offering less in that regard for the money.

I’m renting a K33 in a few weeks once I’m finished with the 2 month trip I’m on so I can see how I like it.

It’s hard to not look at the Z6iii likelihood of incorporating Z9 AF features and not wait for that though as my Z5 is great for me personally for everything but shooting fast FPS bursts. Although it does have an unlimited buffer essentially you just have to quickly let off and back on every 100 shots. With similar file sizes to the K33, and UHSii slots, why could Pentax not do the same in a camera for 700 dollars more? That was my critique.

---------- Post added 03-14-2022 at 10:00 PM ----------

So testing just now, outdoor*, High-speed burst, writing to one card:

36 images (give or take one) roughly 12 frames/second before hitting the buffer limit, at which point camera will continue to shoot but slower.
Sony tough UHS-II - 12.4 seconds to clear.
Lexar 1667x UHS-II - 15.8 seconds
Lexar 633x UHS-I - 38.8 seconds to clear the buffer



Medium Speed Bursts were av. 44 images before buffer filled and low-speed 57 images.

Thanks for that gatorguy.

I’m assuming double or triple if needed in JPEG and in an emergency reducing the JPEG quality a little. (Not the clear times, the shot count.)

Is the buffer essentially unlimited if you reduce the shooting speed to @ 5fps, like the Z5?

I think the Z6ii clears significantly faster with the CF card, not sure if in dual the UHS-II slows that down. The original Z6 was about 35-40 RAW and cleared in about 4.5 seconds if I remember right, but it’s not using SD cards, so similar to the K33 but faster clear rate.

[morenjavi]

I think the Z6ii clears significantly faster with the CF card, not sure if in dual the UHS-II slows that down. The original Z6 was about 35-40 RAW and cleared in about 4.5 seconds if I remember right, but it’s not using SD cards, so similar to the K33 but faster clear rate.

I'm afraid I still have my old SD cards, so I can't make any significative tests related to the buffer. I'm deciding what card to add now: XQD/CF are still very expensive, but UHS-II cards are more affordable. Once I get a new card, I can make a test for reference.