New PENTAX - K-3

<blockquote>

<p>Are you seriously comparing lens development quantities between a tiny manufacturer of a relatively mature APS-C platform product (Pentax) with what has been happening with multiple large competitors in a newer product market?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice try, but Pentax can no longer use the "tiny manufacturer" excuse now that it belongs to Ricoh. Ricoh has both experience manufacturing cameras and budget to rival pretty much anyone else in the business. And they acquired Pentax about the same time that Fuji entered the ILC market with their XPro1. I get it that they had to reorganize and wonder what they should do, but give them two more years and they'll still not issue as many lenses as Fuji did so far. If they released half, it would still be something.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course a new platform is going to attract new vendors, each of which is trying to claim their grubstake by releasing new lenses and bodies. So what?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is when they abandon your platform to do that. And that only happened to Pentax. No other camera system has been abandoned by third party manufacturers. Pentax can only look good when compared to Samsung or Sigma, which don't get abandoned because they don't generate interest to begin with.</p>

<p>Heck Laurentiu you are putting a lot of effort into your views :)<br>

Can't say they bear much relation to the K-5, K-01 and various fine Pentax lenses I use.<br>

Not actually using Pentax are you...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Heck Laurentiu you are putting a lot of effort into your views :)<br /> (...)<br /> Not actually using Pentax are you...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, after you run out of arguments, you do have to pick up on the person. Nothing much left to do, eh?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can't say they bear much relation to the K-5, K-01 and various fine Pentax lenses I use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am commenting about the market share of Pentax products - whatever qualities those fine Pentax products have, they certainly don't seem to make much impact on the market share. But some people seem to be unable to differentiate between their personal experience and the business aspects of a brand. The K-3 is a fine product, but it is not finer than K-5 was at its time, or than the K-7, or than the K10D. Making fine products is not enough these days - everyone makes fine products.</p>

<p>Pointing out you are talking about a product you aren't using is personal how ?<br>

It does go some way to explain why your random assessments seem in my experience to be wrong.<br>

The K-5 is in my experience, a 'finer product' than the K-7 which I owned.<br>

As it was well 'finer' than the K10D before it that I also owned.<br>

Most of Pentax's market share issues are due to general invisibility and the bizaare brand culture that<br>

surrounds most consumer items including cameras.</p>

<p>I am a long time Pentax user, going back to my Spotmatic from 1968, which was purchased over a Nikon due to size and ergonomics (a term net yet invented). Besides assorted 35mm bodies, I have a DS, K10D and a K-01. I have been quite satisfied with all of them (bought the K-01 when the prices dropped, primarily to try out the sensor and to use as a dedicated landscape and macro camera; haven't used it much so far). To be honest, I don't shoot as much as I would like to, but my results from all of them have quite adequate for my needs. I can usually print up to 10 X 15 from the DS and larger from the K-10D, with very nice results. After almost ten years of shooting digital I find that I usually still work like I am shooting film and work pretty selectively and economically.<br>

I haven't upgraded since the K10D (I don't count the K-01 because I much prefer using a viewfinder) simply because that camera has been performing well for me. I'll probably get a K-3 after the initial bugs have shaken out, simply because I've waited out the upgrades that have followed the K-10D. I'm hoping for better IQ, focusing and low light performance and don't really care how those are achieved. What I also would like is the ability to shoot a B&W JPEG and a RAW file at the same time, so as to be able to review the shot in B&W on LCD, without losing all the data to the in-camera conversion. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Really? I'll need to tell all the companies which have been making those pointless Full Frame bodies that they've been wasting their time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen. <em>Sensor size </em>is the point there, not pixel size, This is absolutely basic, fundamental stuff, and the facts don't back up your smartarse attitude.</p>

<p>A bigger sensor <em>must</em> be hit by more light than a smaller sensor - agreed? Just like a big window lets in more light than a small one. The more light hitting the sensor, the better the signal, the better the sensor performs - other things being equal.</p>

<p><em>That's </em>what makes the difference. Pixel size is utterly irrelevant at the image level. (Of course, anyone clueless enough to believe that "per pixel" noise actually matters is probably a lost cause).</p>

<p>Otherwise - to keep it simple and Nikon-specific - the D200 would have better IQ and high ISO performance than the D7000. <em>Wouldn't it? </em>After all, they're both DX, but the D200's pixels are <em>much </em>bigger than the D7000's.</p>

<p>But the D7000 <em>kills </em>the D200. <em>Doesn't it?</em></p>

<p>Or let's talk about Canon bodies - FF bodies, although the exact same thing is seen in the crop bodies: The 5D Mk III has far smaller pixels than the original 5D, but the Mk III's IQ is <em>far </em>better, right across the board. Again, how would this be possible if you're right?</p>

<p>My 18 mp Canon 7D's pixel size is much smaller than those in my old 8 mp 30D - yet the 7D is all over the 30D in IQ terms, at every ISO.</p>

<p>Hell, at the image level my 7D is better than some of the older Canon pro FF bodies - and they've got <em>huge</em> pixels in comparison.</p>

<p><em>Seeing a pattern yet?<br /></em><br /> Executive summary - the notion that pixel size is a predictor of image quality is utter drivel: and it's drivel that anyone who has done <em>any </em>research into the subject and actually <em>thought it through</em>, realised years ago was so much internet meme crap.</p>

<p><a href="http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth/">Read this</a> and learn something. Even DxO Labs gets the idea - they used to have an "Insight" article on their site called "More pixels offsets noise" - the article isn't there any more, but<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=dxo+pixel+density+noise&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#channel=suggest&q=dxo+%22More+pixels+offsets+noise%22++&safe=off"> Google the phras</a>e and you'll see soon enough from all the discussion about it, what it was telling us: that your premise is <em>utterly</em> wrong-headed and bereft of the first clue about how this stuff actually works in the Real World.<br /><br /> And more <a href="http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors4.htm">here</a> from someone who<em> took the time to actually find out</em> whether larger pixels made the difference you (and he) expected.<br /> <br /> No, they did not. <br /> <br /> And that article has existed - and held true - for years and years. None of this is a secret. His assumptions were just plain wrong, <em>but at least he tested them.</em><em><br /></em><br /> Jeez, even <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2012-04-05-High-ISO/index.htm#6400">Ken Rockwell gets it</a>: these examples demonstrate unequivocally that when images are equalised, the size of the pixels doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pointing out you are talking about a product you aren't using is personal how ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that would be relevant, except that is not what you did. What you did was to tendentiously drop a phrase like:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not actually using Pentax are you...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that is irrelevant. It's not even a direct accusation, it's a tendentious implication which seems to be typical of the slithery nature of your arguments.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm hoping for better IQ, focusing and low light performance and don't really care how those are achieved.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The K-3 will give you all of those improvements - the K-5 already did. The K10D was a nice camera and can still produce great images, but it is very limiting in low light. The ergonomy of the new bodies is also much improved over the K10D. The only thing I've been missing was the nice metal lock opening the SD card compartment - that is gone since K-7.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even DxO Labs gets the idea - they used to have an "Insight" article on their site called "More pixels offsets noise" - the article isn't there any more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. Looks like they removed that section of their site - it was there just a month or so back.<br>

+1 on what you said on sensor size vs pixel size.</p>

<p>Keith, I've clicked on those links and am currently digesting this information. As far as I can tell, the thinking/reasoning/findings is/are that, while smaller pixels are noisier, the ratio of signal to noise is still such that there is a net benefit from more pixels.</p>

<p>As a wild life camera the K-3 will be absolutely awesome. As a person who's already ordered a K-3, I know exactly why I ordered it and what it will be good for. Not one thing mentioned above in this thread changed my mind. Big things coming are</p>

<p>Dual card slots with tethering and a wifi card in the second slot.<br>

New AF system.<br>

A first ever in any system selectable AA filter.<br>

Best low light focusing in the industry. I have to ask Mr. Christofor why none of the other players in the industry haven't matched the low light focusing capacity of even the K-5 II. It's getting to be kind of old news around Pentax land. I guess it never occurred to you that the fastest AF on the planet doesn't mean squat, if it's so dark your camera won't focus when others will. Pentax tackled low light focus first then started working on their AF speed. A different approach, but Ricoh has stated their goal of making Pentax AF the best in the business. Pentax is a different company than it was under Hoya.<br>

More resolution than any Canon camera, APC-c or FF.<br>

Makes the absolute best use of long lenses in terms of Subject size. Easily outpaces it's only competition, the Nikon D7100 in many features.<br>

8 Frames a second in burst mode.<br>

While others complain about Pentax and their lack of whatever imagined ills attract their attention at the moment, Pentax shooters just keep rolling along. Of course Pentax doesn't have to develop a slew of new lenses. There are over 340 lenses currently available of K-mount, over 3 million currently in use. Many of these companies you speak of will vanish before they come close to Pentax's numbers. Of course they have to bring out a lot of new stuff. Their users have very little old stuff that's still functional if any at all.<br>

Pentax is doing just fine. The fact that some people don't see it is neither here nor there. When all these other companies have a single lens like the FA 31 ltd. regarded on some sites as one of the top 3 of all time, then maybe we'll start talking about Pentax needing new stuff. The DA* 60-250 f4 is still a lens that would be worth buying a whole Pentax system for , just so you can use it. For us outdoors, wildlife landscape shooters, their stuff was already top notch. They just increased their lead with the K-3. I'm not going to bore you and say it's the best camera for everything. But if you shoot outdoors and you carry your gear, a K-3 with the limiteds and a 60-250, along with a few third party lenses is the way to go. Bar none.</p>

<p>I've ordered one too.<br>

I've wanted a new body for a while and was considering a K-5IIs but all the bells and whistles drew me to the K-3. I'll give my current backup, a K-x to my son and make my K-5 the backup. Running the same batteries will be nice for taking both bodies out. Hopefully the K-3 AF lives up to the expectations now set, I shoot some sports (skiing, mountain biking) and better AF-C would be nice for those uses. I also shoot some dance in low light so the low light focusing sounds good for that. Same for the burst rate and buffer capacity.<br>

AA-less sharpness will be nice.<br>

I like shooting dark landscapes or starscapes so I'm hoping for a little lower noise at high ISO but find the K-5 acceptable here. Less would always be better. As long as it's not noisier (which would be a surprise).<br>

It still appears to be small and light enough to carry along on my adventures traveling by my own power.<br>

More pixels is nice for more options with cropping and printing. If space is too much of a concern I could always dial it down.<br>

Interestingly enough I also have a 60-250 and a couple of limiteds so I guess I'm the right buyer for what its worth.<br>

I'm definitely excited to get it, I just hope there aren't too many growing pains for us early adopters, but wouldn't be too surprised if there were some; bleeding edge n' all that.</p>

<p>Being an early adopter, if the same thing goes wrong with my camera twice, I get a new camera. I splurged for the extended warranty thing. There have been so many cameras bad at launch lately, including the Nikon D600 and D800 I don't want to take any chances.</p>

<p>I am with ME in that comparing APS-C ILC systems and lens offerings with APS-C DSLR systems is like apples and bananas. It boils down to a very old discussion. Pentax throughout most of its long history has never had anything like a large market share. That requires lots of advertising, like in every monthly issue of major publications. Advertising both creates new markets and perpetuates markets.</p>

<p>I don't expect Pentax to go overboard and be a Fuji me-too with this APS-C ILC thing and a whole slew of dedicated lenses, just as Nikon has not done and Canon has not done. Even though some have wished this to happen. I believe the digital age has been a bonanza for camera makers with the rapid advancement of improved technology that has produced visible results, enough to keep people selling and buying new equipment. But that visible advancement has slowed. Some companies have created "new" interest/ markets through advertising by resurrecting the old discussion of higher-class mirrorless rangefinder cameras with dedicated lenses vs SLR cameras, which goes back well into the film era. For some, such cameras are just the ticket for their photographic needs. Fine. I understand. Go look at a Fuji, or settle for what Pentax does offer, if that suits the need. For others like myself, a small DSLR is nearly as small as APS-C ILCs, but having better on-body control features with better ergonomics for using those controls to make quick adjustments on the fly. And it takes all my existing lenses for superior flexibility going from a compact setup to a big, fast lens setup, even incorporating some faster telephoto needs. Unlike Nikon or Canon, Pentax has chosen to diversify in the MF market.</p>

<p>Like Nikon and Canon, Pentax has put out decent efforts to satisfy some degree of ILC need , though certanly not to the degree of commitment as Fuji or Sony. Instead, they continue to emphasize the uniquely compact DSLR. The K-5 series is STILL unique in being the most compact DSLR of professional build/design, and having unique features that are useful. The K-3 may still fill a similar role in the 24mp category, along with yet more unique features. No doubt it will do virtually everything better than the K10D. But will that be true regarding the K-5? We really don't know yet. Remember, with the K-7 Pentax failed to take a step forward in IQ over the K20D, especially in high ISO performance.</p>

<p>It is sobering to examine the review from last summer by dpreview of the K-5II & IIs. Go to the high ISO/noise control section, where a comparison comes up with Nikon's 24mp D7100. Adjust nr to "auto" or "normal" and compare the two at ISO 1600. Which between them delivers less noise, yet preserves the most detail? Pop Photo's recent review of the D7100 indicated a reading of 2820 lines compared to their result of just under 2600 lines for the K-5. Not a whole lot of difference in resolution at ISO 100. In their conclusion and final word paragraphs, dpreview declares the K-5II (a tweek of the K-5) to be still very relevant in today's market place, even with the D7100 compared in their testing!! The K-5 in its day is still to this day! </p>

<p>Pentax has targeted buyers on lower budgets with the K-30 and now K-50. A compact DSLR that is weather sealed and cold resistant at a modest price. Unique in the marketplace, the K50 has been declared amazing in its class and a great value by reviewers such as Pop Photo and dpreview. And it is actually being advertized!! </p>

<p>We can only speculate that in the K-3, Pentax may have pulled out some magic and has outdone the Nikon D7100.</p>

<p> <br>

<br>

</p>

<p>I can’t wait to get my hands on one. Those arguing the merits of Full frame vs. Crop need to relax. The Nikon crop sensor D7100 24mp actually produces sharper images than its 24mp FF D600 cousin because the 7100 lacks an AA filter. This Pentax lacks the AA filter too. I think some people are pissed that they shell out a lot of $$$$ for the full frame body and notice very little improvements. I’ll bet side by side, you couldn’t tell the difference between prints from either of the two Nikons.</p>

<p><a href="

real life comparison between full frame & crop Nikons. Give you an Idea of how the Pentax compares.</p>

<p>That is true because of pixel density being greater, due to the crop factor of the same area of a scene shot at the same FL. But IQ may be greater for the 24mp FF model at higher ISO settings. Lower noise and better preservation of detail at higher ISO is a main sell for FF design, along with wide angle performance with faster lenses having lower distortion being available. The higher ISO performance of the Pentax K-5 series, however, as well as that of the related 16mp Nikons, is so good they have come close enough to that of FF models to pose a serious challenge.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am with ME in that comparing APS-C ILC systems and lens offerings with APS-C DSLR systems is like apples and bananas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think you understand the advantages of MILC systems, but then people didn't see the point of digital vs film for a long time either. It is not just the small size - that is just the most obvious advantage to perceive. It is the new features that you get from a digital solution. To take one example out of many: your viewfinder is no longer limited by the sensor size (*). Such advantages caused rangefinders to be replaced by SLRs and now will cause SLRs to be replaced by MILCs. Canon and Nikon are too big to make a change that their customers don't yet request, but the Pentax brand cannot be managed as if it was Canon/Nikon.</p>

<p>(*) it amuses me that most people that argue the advantage of an OVF in SLRs are happy using the small ones of APS-C DSLRs.</p>

<p>Look at the announcements of the last few days. They were rumored for a while now. Sony has introduced FF cameras that are compact and affordable. You can now use an exceptional lens like the FA 31 on the format it was designed for - Ricoh should be able to either offer that or to offer an APS-C lens to rival the FA31. And unlike with the NEX, Sony now seems intent to release quality lenses for this FF system. In other news, Panasonic has introduced the GM1 - have you seen its size compared to the Q7? It's incredible. I always liked the Q, but I cannot see much point in investing in it when a camera like the GM1 offers an alternative. Ricoh will have trouble keeping the Pentax brand alive if they don't change their strategy, which so far seems to be a very conservative one of refining existing Pentax camera and lens lineups. There just isn't any future in that. And it's not like they lack choices. Yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is sobering to examine the review from last summer by dpreview of the K-5II & IIs. Go to the high ISO/noise control section, where a comparison comes up with Nikon's 24mp D7100. Adjust nr to "auto" or "normal" and compare the two at ISO 1600. Which between them delivers less noise, yet preserves the most detail? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is sobering, but the effect on us seems to be different. To me, the comparisons at dpreview show that the differences between cameras across all three main formats are now minute in terms of noise/detail/color. You can discern some but only through pixel peeping and it can be a misleading difference. The D7100 may look noisier (at ISO 6400 than the K-5II) but it has higher resolution and captures more detail (check the watch face, for example). For me sensor performance of all systems is good enough now. I read about it just for technical curiosity, not because it is meaningful to my photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those arguing the merits of Full frame vs. Crop need to relax.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no merit, but APC-C has never been properly developed. Pentax did not have the resources and their goal was not to rival FF in optical performance, but in size and portability. And Fuji, who started with the stated goal of building an APS-C system to rival FF ones, may have a change of heart now that the A7 is here. If not, then the best APS-C system will be Fuji's. Everyone else will offer APS-C as a stepping stone to FF, like Canon and Nikon did, so they will never build an APS-C system to truly rival their FF ones (just watch Sony now). Ricoh may continue to try to build an APS-C DSLR lens lineup, but they haven't done anything new in that direction yet. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think some people are pissed that they shell out a lot of $$$$ for the full frame body and notice very little improvements. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The A7 body is just $400 more expensive than the K-3 one. Which one do you think will sell more and bring new users into the respective brand? Yes, people that invested a lot more in old FF bodies should be annoyed now, but that is their problem. One no longer needs to invest a whole lot more to get a FF body. The D600 and now the A7 show that.<br>

<br>

Ricoh and Pentax combined have all the experience and the financial power that they would need to build an appealing system. I bought the excuse of Pentax going through a hard time when they went under and out of Hoya, but it looks like their challenge is a lack of vision and a difficulty of letting go of their past - it's what allowed Nikon and Canon to overtake them and what also allowed relative newcomers like Olympus to capture a larger share of the market repeatedly over history.</p>

<p>I must say, I am interested in the new MILF's mentioned by Michael Kuhne. MILF's can be lots of fun, though they tend to distract me from photography.</p>

<p>I'm pretty happy with the MILF I already have!</p>

<p>The K3 specs look great. Compared to Canon & Nikon, I’m of the opinion that you get more quality for your money with Pentax. Some of the Pentax primes also have really good ratings. I have an FA 43 limited that takes great pictures when paired with my Pentax 12mp KX. The disadvantage with Pentax is lens choices. Canon & Nikon have so many more choices which is sad. I’m certain that Pentax has studied the competition and made the K3 better. I just can’t wait to see the reviews when it comes out.<br>

FF would be nice, but is it really worth the $$$$ for a little less noise at higher ISO? All things being equal a 24mp FF should have the same resolution as a 24mp crop given that both have quality lenses of equivalent focal lengths. I know that physics is on the side of the FF in terms of quality, but can you really tell without pixel peeping? Unfortunately, I don’t have both to compare. If anyone has done this comparison, I’d love to hear from you.<br>

I do have a Mamiya 645 FILM camera and a Nikon 9000 film scanner, and from pixel peeping comparisons, the 12MP Pentax has just about the same resolution as 120 speed Medium format Velvia film (just from my eyes, not scientifically done). The K3 should be a welcome step up in resolution. </p>

<p>What I am clearly seeing in the dpreview test is an obvious loss of detail at ISO 1600 with the D7100 compared to the K-5, because of its aggressive noise suppression which still does not result in the lower noise of the K-5 that HAS preserved detail. The new Pentax K-3, however, may turn in a better performance. We shall see.</p>

<p>For myself, the ILCs present no advantage. I know what they are, have handled some, and find they do not suit my photography style or needs. I sensed all this verbiage has been about the same old BS- that Pentax should abandon the antiquated APS-C DSLR concept and join Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, et al in developing similar APS-C ILC systems, because APS-C DSLRs will 'go away" and most serious photographers will be running around shooting with expensive quasi- P/S cameras having dedicated interchangeable lenses. Nonsense. Nikon and Canon continue to offer newer ENTRY level APS-C DSLRs for NEW customers. With good reason. The Pentax K-50 is the most advanced entry level DSLR available in terms of its build quality and WR design, as well as having advanced control features. It is currently being advertised.</p>

<p>The issue for preference between the rangefinder and SLR had less to do with VF size and more to do with viewing through the lens to really see what you are shooting through the VF, rather than a secondary representation of it. That is what an SLR with mirror, etc is all about. Some nevertheless still preferred the mirrorless rangefinder, due to smaller size and for shooting at slower shutter speeds on a tripod without the vibration effects of a mirror, or its temporary blackout effect. The SLR never actually replaced the rangefinder. Pentax introduced the more compact SLR with the ME series, which was closer in size to a rangefinder, yet satisfied those preferring the SLR style camera for TTL viewing. I am not one of those who've had a problem focussing through a DSLR VF due to its being of less size than a FF VF, and I still have film bodies I use on occasion.</p>

<p>There have been some photographers who left Pentax because for them even the K-5 is too small. They prefer a larger body for their hand fit. I certainly cannot imagine them selling their DSLRs for an ILC. The APS-C ILC is not that much smaller than a compact DSLR, but just enough to necessitate inadequate (for me) on body controls. Even my K-r or a K-x are better for controls and ergonomics for their use. The new K-50 is better yet, though a little bit larger, because it has the thumb and finger dial system. If somene likes the ILC concept as the hand fit is right for them, and the control setup it does have is all they require to meet their needs, fine. But others require something more extensive in those departments.</p>

<p>FF sensors are better for very wide angle photography, and for more reduction in depth of field. An APS-C DSLR will be advantageous for middle to tele FL use and can deliver more pixel density in the same area in those FL ranges without having to go to a much bigger lens to get the same thing in the frame.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I am clearly seeing in the dpreview test is an obvious loss of detail at ISO 1600 with the D7100 compared to the K-5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you moved across the picture? The images are not focused identically across cameras so depending on the area you check one may look better than the other because of this difference. I couldn't find any meaningful advantage in the K-5/K-5II over the D7100. The K-5IIs captures impressive detail for its resolution, but I would still not pick a camera over the other for any differences exposed in those tests.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon and Canon continue to offer newer ENTRY level APS-C DSLRs for NEW customers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because they still can. Nikon and Canon have a much larger share of market than Pentax. Why would they shake that out by pushing a new technology? Ricoh/Pentax doesn't have this challenge, but they behave as if they do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The issue for preference between the rangefinder and SLR had less to do with VF size</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say it has. SLRs replaced rangefinders because they offered TTL. mirrorless will replace SLRs because they offer a bunch of other things *besides TTL* - one of those things is the ability to have a FF-sized VF on an APS-C camera - something that today's APS-C DSLRs are incapable of offering. Just because you don't need advantages doesn't negate their existence. There is absolutely nothing of importance that a DSLR enables that cannot be achieved in a MILC. There are tons of features that you can enable in a camera as long as they are not a DSLR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The SLR never actually replaced the rangefinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For all practical market purposes, it did. It barely made it into the digital era. Leica is the only extant manufacturer and at some point they'll probably just make MILCs - look at them advertising LiveView and movie mode in the last M.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There have been some photographers who left Pentax because for them even the K-5 is too small.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no point to be made on that. There is nothing preventing a manufacturer from making a MILC with the ergonomics of the Pentax K-5 - except lack of market demand. If the number of people leaving Pentax because of body size would have been that significant, Pentax would have taken note of it, or at least, they could have made Pentax take notice. But a couple dozen guys complaining online about a camera body is irrelevant for the market and for such arguments.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>FF sensors are better for very wide angle photography, and for more reduction in depth of field. An APS-C DSLR will be advantageous for middle to tele FL use and can deliver more pixel density in the same area in those FL ranges without having to go to a much bigger lens to get the same thing in the frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has nothing to do with DSLR vs MILC.<br /> <br /> As for APS-C vs FF, a FF camera can always use APS-C lenses in crop mode (the A7 shows that such a FF body can still be tiny - smaller than any APS-C DSLR in fact). The "reach" advantage of APS-C is bogus - whatever strength that argument had is only going to erode further as larger resolution FF sensors will be released. There was a time when technological challenges prevented FF sensors from having similar pixel pitch as APS-C, but now we're going to move back to a time when formats only matter for resolution offered, as it was the case during the film era. When I pointed this out a year ago, someone protested that only the D800 offers 36MP and that is an expensive camera - now we have the A7R at a more affordable price point - even if this is still too high for some, the point is to observe the trend. FF sensors are becoming more affordable. With the initial price of the K-5 you can now get the A7 and that gives you the resolution of a K10D in crop mode. Spend more on the A7R and then you'll get the resolution of the K-5 in crop mode - not at all a bad way to spend money on equipment. The K-3 now offers more resolution, but at this point, what is better to invest your money in? A FF camera that gives you the crop mode resolution that everyone has lived happily with until now PLUS the FF mode with all its benefits or an APS-C camera that gives more resolution than the crop mode but less than the FF?</p>

<p>These are the current facts. Using 36 Mp camera the crop mode is about 15 Mp, not even as much as K-5. A D7100 or K-3 will give you 24 Mp in the same crop area. You can try and spin that any way you want.. but that doesn't change it. If you're using an FF sensor in crop mode, you're better off with a D3200, a D5200, or a D 7100 (or a K-3). You will get more resolution and IQ in the area of the crop sensor with APS-c. There quite simply are no 50 MP FF cameras. ANd no one knows what will come first. A 36 Mp APS-c camera or a 50 Mp FF camera. It could be that the D800 was the one and only time FF had an advantage with crop lenses, or cropped images.</p>

<p>The fact that you can write a paragraph implying that's not true doesn't ad anything to the conversation.</p>

<p>Agreed, Norman! Thanks for those facts. And, you can indeed get the same telephoto shot as a FF body would while using a smaller, lighter lens as well.</p>

<p>So now, Laurentiu, the dpreview test is flawed due to their misfocus of the D7100 images offered for comparison. And that accounts for the lack of detail, not the aggressive noise suppression necessitated by the 24mp sensor. Strange that practically every test by every lab I have seen, of every APS-C model with a 24mp sensor, a higher degree of noise accompanied by a greater loss of detail by comparison to the K-5 or K-r has been the case. And this with a very modest increase of lines of resolution over the K-5. I am hopeful, however, that the K-3 will prove to be the equal of the K-5 in these areas of question, while affording a meaningful increase in resolution, but then there's that dratted file size increase. The switchable AA filter is of great interest, however.</p>

<p>An EVF can be made to any size, since it is essentially a digital electronic screen. It is of course still a secondary representation, not a direct view of the actual subject through the lens as is the case with an OVF, as found on a DSLR.</p>

<p>There are lots of people with larger hands who prefer larger camera models. There are lots of photographers who use larger lenses and prefer larger bodies for that also.</p>

<p>Much has been made of the APS-C MILC or ILC having a more compact design over a DSLR, although in reality not that much smaller than a compact DSLR model. That said, they certainly do have some appeal for lighter packing, if one does not mind going without the control advantages of a fully developed DSLR. That reduction in size necessitates loss of a full set of control features. Trying to squeeze that many controls on such a body would be an ergonomic joke. Even the K-5 had to eliminate some of the on-body control set of the K20D. Advanced photography is rightfully associated with control by the photographer, which modern technology has made far more efficient by offering the numerous on-body fingertip controls found on a better grade of DSLR. Such a camera is simply a far more effective machine for making fast adjustments and readings than one with few on-body controls. Sorry.</p>

<p>Nikon and Canon are doing as they are doing because they recognize the fact of there being a significant market out there of new customers who are interested in the APS-C DSLR for the above reasons.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>I can see both sides on this one. The K-3 would seem to offer about the best combination of features available in an APS-C camera at its particular price point. I ditched all my Nikon gear nearly a year ago to go down the Olympus OM-D E-M5 route and haven't looked back. The on-body controls are as good as a comparable DSLR. The light weight means I can (and do) carry the camera everywhere. Image quality is superior to my old Nikon D300. In body image stabilisation is outstanding and my experience is such that I would ot consider aother system which doesn not have it. The new Sony twins do not have IBIS and neither is the lens situation particularly appealing yet. Battery life on the Sonys looks poor looks even worse than my Olympus (and that's its weakest area IMO).</p>

<p>So in summary, the E-3 looks like the pick of the APS-C bodies right now, subject to the usual image quality resuts from testing. However, it's not enough to tempt me away from Olympus due to the weight of the system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In body image stabilisation is outstanding and my experience is such that I would ot consider aother system which doesn not have it.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do know the K-3 has in body stabilization, plus a selectable AA filter that uses a slight shift in the sensor during exposure to emulate an AA filter where moire is likely to be present. <br>

<br>

Looking at the OM-D-E-M5 on DxO I don't see it measuring up to my K-5 in any category, performance wise. It would seem to be at the level just above my old K20D. I simply could never go back to a camera that has a dynamic range with a number in the 12s. I assume there are other qualities, that don't have to do with the actual image produced that have you considering this camera the top of the APS-c world. Like the combination of weight and performance or something like that. But that would be more interesting if you'd actually used a K-5 or D7000, D7100 or in a few days a K-3, or another one of the APS-c cameras that I've heard others rave about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>