[rawr]

what does engadget mean with the D7200 being "lightweight"?

I think they are suggesting that it is not built like a 'pro' grade APS-C.

[starbase218]

I was looking at this camera side by side with the 7100: new sensor, iso 25600, better video, 12 raw buffer, wifi, nfc, zebra stripes + "Just as in the earlier D7100, the dust-and-weather sealed body has magnesium-alloy panels top and rear"... I've seen a d600 that was splashed with some water and it stopped working.

Now I am only thinking about getting a K3...Am i wrong?

If you want the best tracking autofocus: yes you are wrong.

[semaca]

If you want the best tracking autofocus: yes you are wrong.

Autofocus is the most important for many photographers, but I'm still attracted to k3

[Rondec]

Autofocus is the most important for many photographers, but I'm still attracted to k3

The K3 is a very nice camera. I would guess that it will be a little better with regard to build than the D7200. Tracking auto focus won't be as good (it isn't bad, but Nikon's cameras are excellent in this area). D7200 will probably have significantly better video as well.

My guess is that the image quality on photos will be really similar. I like "Pentax colors" a little better, but obviously you can process photos however you want them.

In the end, they are probably both decent choices, although the K3 is considerably cheaper at this point, than the release price of the D7200.

[geomez]

Autofocus is the most important for many photographers, but I'm still attracted to k3

I'm definitely making the leap to Nikon. Can you imagine how awesome my legacy glass will be when coupled with Nikon AF?

[starbase218]

I think autofocus is perhaps the one area where Nikon and maybe also Canon have an edge over Pentax. Unfortunately, it's also a pretty important area. At least it is to me.

The K-3 may be better than the K-5, but it's still not as good as even a D5500. I was at an electronics store a few weeks ago, and took a few shots with a D5500 they had on display. The lens didn't focus faster per se (it was not an expensive lens), but it seemed to track a lot better than what I'm used to with the K-3.

O yeah, flash system seems to be another area where Pentax is behind the big two, but it's good enough for what I want to do.

[rawr]

AF tracking performance on both Pentax (K-3 in particular) and Nikon depends a lot of the settings used. Not to mention the light and the lens. Successful AF tracking is rarely just a 'point-and-shoot' affair, particularly out in the field. In practice, I've seen Nikon AF tracking perform quite poorly sometimes, even on FF using the fastest AF lenses.

[audiobomber]

AF tracking performance on both Pentax (K-3 in particular) and Nikon depends a lot of the settings used.

So true! The K-3 tracking tests were messed up here and at DPR. I get way better results than either. Several times I've seen people post concerns about poor K-3 tracking, and when questioned about settings, they did something that sabotaged the camera.

Canon fans are screaming blue murder because of the terrible tracking DPR reported with the 7D II, some saying the wrong settings were used. I tried Gary Fong's settings for tracking with my a6000. My subject was flashing all over with green focus indicators, and most of my photos were blurry. Then I found a video by a sports photographer, who recommended significantly different settings. I haven't had a chance to evaluate them.

[normhead]

So true! The K-3 tracking tests were messed up here and at DPR. I get way better results than either. Several times I've seen people post concerns about poor K-3 tracking, and when questioned about settings, they did something that sabotaged the camera.

Canon fans are screaming blue murder because of the terrible tracking DPR reported with the 7D II, some saying the wrong settings were used. I tried Gary Fong's settings for tracking with my a6000. My subject was flashing all over with green focus indicators, and most of my photos were blurry. Then I found a video by a sports photographer, who recommended significantly different settings. I haven't had a chance to evaluate them.

Pop Photo got it right, K-3 AF is faster focusing, the D7100 is better tracking AF, but they are so close you can't tell the difference without a timer, so be wary of anyone who claims one has an advantage over the other.

This dude saying Nikon has better AF and it's important, well, it's true and it is, but it's not like you can't do AF with your K-3. Again people who've tested it say you might get one or two out of 10 more images with your D7100, but with it's bigger buffer, you also might get 11 or 12 more good images with your K-3. So your choice is a chance for 1 or two more images, or a chance for 11 or 12 more images. And with the faster frame rate, you're still going to get more keepers with the K-3 even if the keeper percentage isn't as high. Nikon apologists always make it sound like the K-3 tracking AF doesn't work at all.

I seriously don't know why people feel confident to make those kinds of statements. Usually it's people who don't know how to set up the camera for tracking or how to do an AF speed test or frame rate test. And in this case it is rocket science. I still can't remember the settings to get maximum frame rate, or tracking AF.

I guess it would be just to complicated for camera makers to have settings like "AF tracking" or "Highest frame rate" or "AF speed". Well no, not going to happen, you have to go to the forum where someone has actually experimented with the various settings and find out what works. God knows Pentax isn't going to tell you. In that sense the cameras really aren't finished. You get a sense Pentax just makes something and then hands you the camera saying "here play with his until you figure it out, we can't figure it out." The engineer who wrote the software should be responsible for explaining how to get the most out of the various setting and how they affect each other. Not the users.

[Rupert]

You get a sense Pentax just makes something and then hands you the camera saying "here play with his until you figure it out, we can't figure it out." The engineer who wrote the software should be responsible for explaining how to get the most out of the various setting and how they affect each other. Not the users.

That is a problem Norm.....when selecting a new camera, either by a fresh shooter or one that is experienced, the initial experience is most important. In my experience from using various friends Nikons, the sense that they focus much faster and more accurately than my Pentax cameras has always amazed me. If "secrets" need to be revealed about Pentax focusing abilities, does anyone think that the guy at the camera store is going to school a new buyer...or just recommend the Nikon?

There is no good reason that Pentax can't be the focus performance leader, after all, there is no technological secret to fast and accurate focusing....Nikon has been doing it for years. It is the one area where I think it has held back Pentax sales...everything else about Pentax is outstanding. Could it be a cost factor? If so, I know I would paymore for faster more accurate focusing, and I am betting others would too?
It is sad to me that my Toy Camera X20 focuses faster, more accurate, and in lower light than my K5....surely Pentax can outperform a damn Toy Camera?

Regards!

[audiobomber]

It is sad to me that my Toy Camera X20 focuses faster, more accurate, and in lower light than my K5....surely Pentax can outperform a damn Toy Camera?

Regards!

There's another problem. People judge Pentax AF performance based on the two-generations old K-5, which had wonky AF-S and primitive AF-C, with no controls to manage tracking.

The K-5 was a very popular camera for Pentax, due to the great Sony sensor and fantastic Pentax ergonomics. But I wish it had never been released and they had waited for the K-5 II. Then there's the K-3, which is simply in a different class. The K-5 has done Pentax more harm than good in my opinion. Thanks again, Hoya.

[normhead]

It is sad to me that my Toy Camera X20 focuses faster, more accurate, and in lower light than my K5.

You would think that would be true... but you'd be forgetting the mechanics of focusing cameras.
Smaller camera use smaller sensors, meaning they can use shorter focal lengths to achieve the same effects as longer lenses with larger sensor cameras.
So in effect, the reason your 110 camera was always in focus was they used a hyperfocal setting on an optical plastic parabolic lens.. the camera didn't have to be focussed, at all. It beat every DSLR, even most toy cameras. It was just always in focus from 6 feet to infinity.

TO focus a shorter focal length lens, you don't have to move the lens as far. In fact many toy camera really only have two or three settings and the distance between them is very close. They have their "close up setting that has maybe 3 feet to 8 feet in focus, and their hyperlocal distance setting , which has 5 feet to infinity in focus. So AF is practically instant. You are never going to match that convenience with a camera that has an infinite number of settings and can actually be focussed to an infinite number of points.

Which is going to focus faster, a camera with maybe 300 or 400 possible choices, or a camera with 2 or 3 choices?

A camera with a short lens and say 3mm between focusing at 3 feet or focusing on infinity and a very small lens, or a camera with a long lens that has to move 40mm to cover the same range, and some really heavy glass to move?

Sometimes it's just not Pentax's fault.

Pentax does make some fine small sensor cameras, that's what you should be comparing too, apples to apples.

And if you ever get to focus a 4x5 film camera, it is one slow tedious process. It might cause you to go blind, before that other thing does. But you'll be blown away by the images.

[Rupert]

Thanks Norm, that is an excellent explanation and makes perfect sense. What it doesn't address is why I always find an equivalent Nikon to be faster and more accurate than a Pentax?
Granted, I have not used a K3 or even a K5ll, but I sure haven't heard anyone anywhere praising Pentax for better focus abilities than Nikon.....have you?

Focus abilities are always a leading topic in any camera discussion, and Nikon always seems to be in the leaders seat. I guess my question is.....Why?

Regards!

[Rondec]

That is a problem Norm.....when selecting a new camera, either by a fresh shooter or one that is experienced, the initial experience is most important. In my experience from using various friends Nikons, the sense that they focus much faster and more accurately than my Pentax cameras has always amazed me. If "secrets" need to be revealed about Pentax focusing abilities, does anyone think that the guy at the camera store is going to school a new buyer...or just recommend the Nikon?

There is no good reason that Pentax can't be the focus performance leader, after all, there is no technological secret to fast and accurate focusing....Nikon has been doing it for years. It is the one area where I think it has held back Pentax sales...everything else about Pentax is outstanding. Could it be a cost factor? If so, I know I would paymore for faster more accurate focusing, and I am betting others would too?
It is sad to me that my Toy Camera X20 focuses faster, more accurate, and in lower light than my K5....surely Pentax can outperform a damn Toy Camera?

Regards!

The issue with "toy cameras" is that they all do great because they have lots of depth of field. If you set your K5 to f11, it should focus awesomely.

[normhead]

Granted, I have not used a K3 or even a K5ll, but I sure haven't heard anyone anywhere praising Pentax for better focus abilities than Nikon.....have you?

Not better but equal, when the first Pop Photo review of the K-3 said the K-3 had slightly faster AF than a D7100, and slightly slower auto-tracking, but pretty much equals. And they actually ran some tests to determine that. I've heard lots of people anecdotally say different, but I have no idea how much their "Nikon is better" bias had to do with their evaluation. "Seems faster", or "I think it's faster" is different than " I've run some tests and these are my results". Or bottom line, I've seen enough really bad information passed off as fact in my life, I tend to be pretty skeptical over anecdotal claims, or even test results that haven't been independently verified. I could also point you to critical research published in scientific journals that turned out to be fabricated, just in case you hadn't noticed.

Now if you're talking about Nikon and Canon pro grade systems, with FF sensors and huge expensive AF systems that probably cost more than a K-3, no as of this date Pentax hasn't matched those, and isn't likely to given how much smaller they are and the not having much chance to recover their investment. My buddy's D4s is an amazing camera all around, but I can buy a 645z for what he paid for it. Personally I'd rather have a 645z. Nikon doesn't even make anything like that.