K-3 review, finally...

[wolf_weber]

<p>Took'em quite long over at dp review... As to the results, what to say..?<br>

RAW image quality amongst <strong>the BEST</strong>, up 1 notch from the K-5. But metering & focus accuracy <strong>down</strong> <br />2 notches, ouch. Main complaint which has been mine as well, limited lens range. I for one don't see <br />a reason to upgrade.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Seems damned with faint praise to me. Especially as pertaining to the choosable/removable Anti-Aliasing filter simulation which we were originally told was the best idea since sliced bread. </p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Took'em quite long over at dp review...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K5___914_676">dxomark had reviewed the K-3</a> for some time now. They found an advantage in DR for the K-5 up to ISO 1600. Otherwise, pretty much identical sensor performance. Interesting that the K-5 sensor had a base ISO 80.</p>

<p>I only trust dpreview for describing the features and operation of the camera. I could not reconcile some of their comments with their image samples. As for the metering and autofocusing score I expect it's meant to be consistent with the current competition and not with the older Pentax models. I've seen this issue in reviews of other type of products - older ones get glowing results but newer iterations that just provide incremental improvements get scored lower despite offering a net benefit compared to the previous version. It's hard to keep such scores consistent across many years and many reviewers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Especially as pertaining to the choosable/removable Anti-Aliasing filter simulation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This AA filter removal trend seems to me like a gimmick. I don't really see a meaningful difference between the resolution of cameras with an AA filter and those without. The trick that they did in the K-3 was clever though.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Low light/high ISO performance dropped as well. This being important to me, and expecting this to be the case, I passed on the K-3 and jumped on a new K-5 IIs for $700 instead. I already have the original K-5. The AF is upgraded in the IIs, in addition to even better resolution without the AA filter. I am happy with my decision. </p>

<p>I can understand the reasoning of others who went for the K-3, as it has new worthwhile features important to some, and many people rarely shoot above ISO 400 anyway. Even AF may not be an issue for some interests, such as landscape photography. </p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Low light/high ISO performance dropped as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That seems to be solely due to that DR drop. For many cameras, the high ISO score is determined by the ISO at which DR drops under 9Ev.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Does the K3 drop down to -3 EV like the K5 II series ?</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I think that was a good call, Michael. Now that I'm getting the hang of it, the K-3 does do better with sports and I'm looking to use the extra megapixies to extend my reach for wildlife photography but it does require good light--things start to get dicey above ISO 400. With the K-5IIs, I'm fine as long as ISO stays on the three-figure side of things. </p>

[sfcole]

<p>I'm not sure why people are griping about high-iso performance. The photo below is 4000. Personally, I haven't noticed any moiré in any photos with filter off. And the AF is fine, even in the lowest light. Sounds like the usual nitpicking to me.</p><div></div>

[shutterbud]

<p>I've been looking closely at Pentax for a while. It is the only DSLR I would consider, being very happy with mirrorless. I have read several comments on dpreview's forum from Pentaxian faithfuls who have bought the K3 and went back to the K5IIs.<br>

My priorities are AF speed and High ISO performance and I was really hopeful for the K3. I was planning on buying one if the reviews were good, even to the extent of enquiring in a Pentax-only stockist in the Shanghai Photographic Mall. I'm a bit disappointed to be honest. </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>

<p>Sounds like the usual nitpicking to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a rule, I'm more of a fan boy than a nitpicker and the K-3 is the first model I haven't been wild about. I'm liking it more as I get used to it but there are some situations where a prefer the K-5IIs.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The tests and image comparisons I have seen, as well as comments, indicate a very aggressive noise suppression being used in the K-3 and likewise in its Nikon counterpart. This means the added resolution from the 24 MP sensor will decline below that of the K-5 at a certain point above ISO 400. The K-3's noise suppression itself is apparently successful in dealing with noise, so the effect will smooth out the grain, although at the expense of resolution loss. But the above photo example would not be the best for illustrating its effectiveness, because it appears to be a fairly well-lit scene with not many shadowy areas in evidence. The K-5's inherently low-noise sensor requires a relatively modest degree of noise control, so that a higher degree of its resolution is then preserved even at higher ISO settings. The K-r, and the K-x as well, are also excellent in this regard.</p>

<p>The camera's NR settings of "auto", low, middle, etc. between the K-3 and K-5 do not represent the same amount of actual noise suppression used. There is also still some suppression employed even if switched to "off". This was found to be definitely more true in the K-3 compared to the K-5. Images where noise control is applied in post process nevertheless require far more of it with the K-3 than with the K-5.</p>

<p>I am not putting down the K-3, but recognizing it to be a truly outstanding model when used knowledgeably with that design limitation in mind. Since my own needs are often at more extremes where the K-3 would be at a disadvantage, I went with the K-5 IIs bargain.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Quite thoughtful comment, Michael... Couldn't have put any better. In fact, I owned and returned a K-3 briefly, for the very reasons. The K-5 is still my DSLR <strong><em>of choice</em></strong> though lack of lenses for the system force me to continue to work with the <em>"other"</em>...</p>