K3 better than I imagined

[johnw436]

<p>I finally pulled the trigger on a K3 since the price dropped. I'm not a pro, so I can't justify being an early adopter. I'd had my heart set on a K5IIs but I waited too long and they have all but disappeared.</p>

<p>I was, and still am, very happy with my K20d and that's why I hadn't yet picked up a K5 variant. All I wanted was better low-light sensitivity and video. There are so many good Pentax bodies out now (thank you, Michael Kuhne for your informative posts). Just about anything made after the K20d / K7 series was going to be a vast improvement for low light sensitivity and the price point of the K50 is incredible. Then there is the KS2, but the price range was right there with the K3 now that the price has dropped dramatically. Adorama was offering the K3 with a FLU card and battery grip for 800 bucks, which to me was simply too good to turn down. I personally didn't want a K3II because I wanted pop up flash. I use that a lot for spur of the moment shots.</p>

<p><br />Playing around with the K3 and K20d side by side really shocked me. Can I say it? The K20d is, in my opinion, the single best ergonomic design ever. The shape of the K3 is great, but it's too angular and frankly feels too small. I don't understand the push for small DSLRs. By the time you put a big honking lens on it what is the point? The size difference isn't enough to notice unless you are trying to measure it, but you sure can feel the difference in your hand. Even with the battery grip, the K3 isn't nearly as comfortable in the hand. It's not bad- don't get me wrong. Pentax is the Cadillac of Comfort when it comes to ergo. The K3 is the CTS coupe and the K20d is the Sedan Deville. Yes, there's a difference. Both are great. One feels solid yet sporty and the other feels, well, perfect.</p>

<p>Shooting in a dark room lit only by my computer monitor seemed like a good test for the K3 low light sensitivity. Using the same lens (Tamron 28-75 f/2.8) I took shots of myself in the mirror. This is where I was shocked. I expected the K3 to be better. I did not expect it to be worlds apart. I used the same settings: (75mm @ f/2.8, 1/20, iso 3200, handheld with no flash) because this was the best shot I could get under these conditions with the K20d. At these settings, the K20d could register an image that I could barely make out. I had to manual focus because the K20d couldn't autofocus at all. The K3 with these settings turned out an image that looked *printable*. Autofocus was a snap. I was blown away. I kept dialing up the iso until the K3 was turning out images that looked like the lights were on. On my K20d, I rarely ever used iso 800 unless I had to in order to get the shot. 1600 was fun to play with but not useful in my opinion. 1600 on the K3 may as well be the native ISO. Unbelievable.</p>

<p>I was expecting better low light performance, but I was not expecting a quantum leap in all-around camera performance, and that's what I got.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I picked up a K-5ii a little while back when they were on clearance. I have *ist DS2, K10D, K20D, K-7, and K-5ii. I have really liked all these cameras but probably none more than the K10D when it first appeared, especially after the firmware update that allowed ISO control from the 'OK' button. I like the grip and build quality on the K-7 and K-5ii a bit better but tend to agree that the size difference isn't completely for the better--I *thought* I wanted a body a bit smaller (but not quite as small as the DS2) but in practice it's nearly as big but the controls on the camera are just that little bit more cramped. Perhaps the slightly larger K3 is slightly better in this regard?<br>

The K10D was leaps and bounds better than the DS2 in terms of controls, features, ergonomics and speed. I still think it has the best MF/AF switch of all these models. The K20D was a bit of a disappointment as it made few real improvements other than mild high ISO improvement (K10D was still pretty decent at 1600 but 3200 was poor; on the K20D and K-7, 3200 became something you might use if necessary).<br>

Along with a more satisfying build quality, K-7 brought an actually usable live view with a higher res LCD and a slick quiet shutter, along with an improved grip, a couple of extra buttons and the 100% view pentaprism. It also improved the metering and white balance. Its slightly smaller size seemed a better match for small limited primes.<br>

The K-5ii finally delivered a better sensor and noticeably improved AF for both live view and low light phase-detect. I can imagine that your experience with the even better K3 was similar. The taller lockable mode dial was also an improvement over the K-7 but this was a non-problem on the K10D/K20D -- the more cramped controls on the K-7 and K-5ii have made the mode dial as well as the AF point mode metering mode more difficult to use than on the K10D/K20D. It also still accepted the same D-BG4 grip as the K-7, which factored in my decision to upgrade.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>I can't speak to the K3 being better in any regard to the K5ii. I doubt it's very much different at all in actual use. The K5ii was a real game changer when it came out, and the K10d/K20d was perfectly fine for large prints so any improvement over that is lost on me. Okay, perhaps now I can crop some and still get large prints, but that was not a problem before as far as I'm concerned. For my needs it really was all about the low light limitation on the K10/K20 series. If the K5ii was still available I'd have bought one without a second thought. There are plenty of reviews which seem to hint that the K3's low light sensitivity may in practice be a tiny step back from the K5ii. Again, I can't answer that, but there's no resounding praise for the K3 over the K5ii. </p>

<p>For someone like me who is moving up from a K20d, the K3 is in a whole different league as far as low light is concerned, and video can't be compared because the K10/K20 didn't have it at all. But if I had a K5 series I can't see any reason I'd consider a K3, speaking personally.</p>

<p>If this was "Build-A-Body Workshop" I'd take the guts of the K3 and stuff them into the K10d/K20d body. Although, I'd keep the K3's ability to run AA batteries in the grip. That was a feature I seriously took adavantage of in my *istDs days. </p>

<p> </p>

[johnw436]

<p>And you make an excellent point about the white balance. That's something I was never thrilled about on the K20d. The auto white balance on the K3 performs better than I could do manually tweaking the WB to death on the K20. </p>

 

[AJG]

<p>Having owned Pentax DSLRs since the original istD, I would agree that the K3 is a great advance over the K20. For me, the slightly smaller size of the the k5/k3 is more comfortable in my hands, but obviously everybody is different and bigger vs. smaller is a personal decision. I still remember going from the istD to the K10--it was an enormous improvement in every respect. Portraits with the istD were a big challenge--you could take 5 raw files and you then waited 45 seconds before you could take another picture since the buffer was small and wrote slowly to the card. Part of this too is getting used to new control positions and settings--it will get easier with more use. Enjoy the K3--show us some pictures!</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I'm very happy to see this. I just bought a K3, but haven't downloaded any of the images, yet (I'm mostly a film shooter and it takes me awhile to "develop" what I shoot no matter the format). I have a K-7 and bought the K-3 mostly because I wanted better high ISO shooting. The other main reason was that the next one in the series ditches the on-camera flash in favor of GPS - I just don't need the GPS and I do use the on camera flash (I know it's not great, but for snapshots it's better than nothing). <br>

So I'm glad to hear someone else thinks it's a great improvement. Now I need to go download what I've shot...</p>

[johnw436]

<p>Great minds think alike, Bethe! I also passed on the K3ii because I wanted onboard flash and I have zero need for GPS and don't shoot star trails. The onboard flash may not be perfect, but it's always better than the flash you don't have with you...</p>

<p>Today was the first day I really got to work the K3 hard. I set up studio lighting to photograph a knife I just completed. (I make custom knives, of all things.) Let me tell you something that made me jump for pure joy- Live View with Focus Peaking! Where have you been all of my life? Due to the nature of shooting reflective surfaces I was shooting from a fairly high angle and getting my eye into the viewfinder to tweak focus wasn't fun. On the K20d, Live View is more of a novelty than anything else. On the K3's larger display it takes on a new life. On top of that- focus peaking! As you turn the focus ring of the lens, sparkles appear on the part of the image that is in focus. All I had to do was watch the display while I tweaked the focus ring to get the sparkles on exactly the part of the image I wanted as the focal point. Also, with the modeling light shining on the knife, I was able to move my fill reflector around and see exactly where I was getting my bounce fill on the subject. I experimented for a long time, comparing what I saw on Live View to what I could achieve using the viewfinder. No difference.</p>

<p>And finally- a 100% viewfinder. No more guesstimating borders around the subject or trying to frame the image so that I could crop out things that I'd only discover on the edges later.</p>

<p>Bethe, I think you will be in love with the K3, as I am.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>This weekend I'll see what the FLU card can do for me. I didn't use it today because I wanted to get a feel for the camera itself. The FLU card was what drove me from the KSii to the K3. I really, REALLY, wanted that articulating screen on the KSii. The combo deal I got on this camera included a battery grip and FLU card. Let's see if composing images on my phone works as well as I'm hoping. Boy, I really wanted that articulating screen.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Lest we forget the ergonomics of the great K200D, now receding into memory and the dust bin of history (a nod to Churchill). It fit my hands perfectly .Granted, the k5iis and the K3 are smaller. Grrrr. I hate that! I would imagine the demographics for these cameras are adult males and wouldn't they like a bigger grip? Or does Ricoh make too much money selling the BG-5 add-on battery grip as an accessory?</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I love the K-3 but the FluCard has been underwhelming. I also have a K-S2 and the wireless in that hasn't impressed me much either. Slow and awkward and it drops connections. Meh, it wasn't that important to me anyway but it would be nice if it worked better. </p>

[johnw436]

<p>Your take on the FLU cards seems to be in line with just about every review I've seen. I'm also not jazzed that it's useless for video mode. I understand that there's too much data transfer to have it transmit the video in real time to the remote device. (why not live view to ensure focus, and then black out when you hit the START button to record?)<br>

Perhaps the one saving grace is that it's just a card. As technology improves hopefully a great one will come along and all we have to do is pop it into the SD card slot, versus having it as an integral part of the camera that can't be upgraded.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>Wayne, it's lot like compact pistols, isn't it? They market them based on size but you need a magazine with a finger extension to shoot the darn thing- negating the small size of the frame.</p>

<p>I can't ever remember shooting the K20d without the battery grip, and I'm positive I'll never shoot the K3 without one if it's an option to have it on. It really doesn't make sense to shave millimeters on a camera the size of a DSLR anyway. Make a Pentax version of the Fuji X series and go tout that for size. If Pentax is going to build the Little Tank That Could with magnesium alloy frames, then the smaller the body the heavier it will feel in the hand, anyway. </p>

<p>Once upon a time, many moons ago, I had a Nikon N65. It felt like a plastic toy- in fact I think it was so light I knew when it had a roll of film in it by the way it felt. (I'm kidding... a little). That's how you make a travel camera, imo. Either you want a weathertight camera that can drive nails or else you want a featherweight. Two different uses entirely. Mixing the two ideas only makes a camera that is less than perfect for either use.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The K3 has several advantages over the K-5IIs, the main ones being the ability to shoot with or without the AA filter, more pixels/ better resolution, faster AF and better Video. The K5IIs on the other hand has <strong>much</strong> better battery life, ISO 80, is smaller.</p>

<p>Other than the AA filter simulation, so far I am reluctant to upgrade, but for the price the K3 is for going these days you really can't go wrong. It would be nice to have both cameras, but then I'm thinking that things might get a little redundant. </p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>"It would be nice to have both cameras, but then I'm thinking that things might get a little redundant."<br /> This raises the question: How many K3s, K5IIs, K-S2, K-50s will fit on one garage. Or, at what point does your wife notice the profusion of cameras tucked away in every closet and dresser drawer?</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>My husband buys and restores cars. And now military vehicles (we have a half track in the front yard). So my little camera collection isn't noticed (as much). <br>

As for size, I have fairly small hands and the K-3 is almost pushing towards being too small for me. I also use a P645N and prefer its heft. I use the battery grip on the K-7 and likely will for the K-3, too. I have the grip, but need another battery (one I got with the K-3 was DOA). <br>

I've downloaded what I shot, but haven't had a chance to really look at the shots. I think I manage to develop my film faster than I do my digital stuff sometimes. </p>

[johnw436]

<p>I look forward to seeing your shots, Bethe, and getting your feedback on how you like shooting the K3. I find that my quibbles are going away as I get used to the feel of the camera. No, it's still too angular and not nearly as comfortable to hold as my K20 but as I shoot it more I'm sure I'll adjust and come to like it.</p>

<p>I ran into a rather unexpected problem. I bought a 64gig SD card and did a product shoot on my knives. Then I went to transfer the photos and the computer doesn't recognize the card, telling me the card needs to be formatted. My first instinct was that the card is bad, but the camera recognizes it with no problem. Digging around on the net leads me to believe that my OS can't handle cards this size (I guess the formatting uses a different FAT format). This seems to be a known problem, just one that I hadn't heard about before. So I have a 32gig card on the way. The downside is I reformatted the SD card and lost the entire shoot.</p>

<p>I did re-shoot my knives, but it's been so long since I posted to PN I can't for the life of me remember how to do it. I'm hosting my photos on Picasa and when I try to insert the link PN doesn't recognize it. I spent time searching the PN archives for help and couldn't find anything. If anyone would be so kind as to tell me how to post images I would greatly appreciate it.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

Halftrack in the yard: Awesome!

 

John, It has been a while for me too but I think there might be a link to attach a photo while posting (on the 'success' page *after* 'confirming' your post) if you want the image hosted by photo.net. If you want to link your photo

posted elsewhere (I've usually used Flickr) you can edit the post HTML and paste the anchor tag to embed the image.

[johnw436]

<p>Thank you, Andrew. I was pulling my hair out!</p>

<p>So the most common negative I read about the K3 is the poor jpeg quality out of the camera. I'm not seeing it. Perhaps my standards are too low? I don't know, but these images are straight from the camera. The only post processing I did was a little dust spotting and resizing to 600 pixels on the long side in SilkyPix. These were shot as jpegs. The only issue I see is that I need to do more dust spotting.</p>

<p> </p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/_Ir-6URurvR_SzXFouTiYdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VIZeHm-oCOw/VhL6qiFYMLI/AAAAAAAAGNM/mhTmPXiyOL4/s640-Ic42/spine%252520view%252520makers%252520mark.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/Knives?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Knives</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/6sb6qblo3cHnb0pgr7B2C9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0g6_3XXovlA/VhL6YKZlgCI/AAAAAAAAGNE/b57ntTU01cY/s640-Ic42/right%252520side%252520view.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/Knives?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Knives</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/pZYLAaufDvuU1dZCnn4e_9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AG6JlcjL3nI/VhL6Lrc_JeI/AAAAAAAAGM0/dNzbqEb6qXk/s640-Ic42/left%252520side%252520with%252520sheath.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/Knives?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Knives</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>So the most common negative I read about the K3 is the poor jpeg quality out of the camera. I'm not seeing it</em>"</p>

<p>Maybe you haven't tried the camera in extreme lighting conditions. Not sure about the K3 but I now my K-5 II sometimes freaks out under certain lighting conditions almost as if it can handle the colors. Not sure if it's the sensor my settings or what. This does not happen often and when it does I switch to RAW.</p>

[AJG]

<p>My experience with my K3 has been excellent so far with in camera JPEG files, although I mostly shoot RAW for other reasons.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>Harry, you may be correct that I just haven't seen the issue. On that note, I ran across a YouTube video saying that the default setting for auto iso noise reduction were causing the person a lot of unpredictable results. By setting noise reduction to OFF (100-1600 iso), LOW (3200 - 12,800) and MEDIUM above that, the issue went away for the person who shot the video I watched. I did apply those settings. According to him, before he made that change the camera would at times freak out for whatever reason and apply a bunch of noise reduction, ruining the shot. I certainly can't speak to it, I only know that I've played with this camera in near pitch-black and it performed wonderfully. Only time will tell. I can only say that this camera has worked amazingly in conditions where my k20 wouldn't even try to consider firing the shutter.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>So far, shooting with the K-3 is a lot like shooting with the K-7 (they're very similar in size and shape). My problem (just discovered) is after dumping them all to the computer. I still use CS5 and have no desire to use CC. But my version of CS5 and Bridge can't read the RAW files from the K-3. After rooting around on Adobe's help stuff, I have no clue if or how I can update it. I can see all the shots in Apple's "Photos" and they look pretty good, but I'd just like to play with them myself in CS5. I almost always shoot just RAW.</p>

[AJG]

<p>Bethe--which raw format do you use? I switched to using DNG as soon as Pentax made that choice available, and have been very happy with it. I compared it with the proprietary Pentax PEF and couldn't see any difference, but I did foresee that I might wind up with orphan raw files and trusted an open source Adobe format more than something that could disappear if Pentax decided not to continue supporting it. I am pretty sure that DNG files will open in CS5, even if they are coming from a newer camera. By the way, I initially resisted the CC idea also, but have come to see that the $10/month actually works out fairly well for me, since I was doing every other Photoshop update any way.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I just don't do PS updates unless my version got orphaned (my reason for not doing CC). But I may look at using DNG 'cause that makes sense. Yup, I'm using PEF. I can always experiment. And I haven't checked Lightroom5 - that might take them. I also have On1, but haven't used it at all. I couldn't at first because I didn't have Yosemite (can you tell I'm not an early adopter?) and I haven't since upgrading to that. <br>

Thanks!!</p>