# 24mp.. DX.. 8fps.. large buffer.. no AA filter.. weather sealed.. metal body..



## TheLost (Oct 8, 2013)

.. all from the wrong company..

Ricoh Unveils the Pentax K-3, a Beast of an APS-C Shooter with a Selectable AA Filter

What intrigues me about the K-3 is this comment from dpreview..


> _A camera the K-3 will almost certainly be compared to is the Nikon D7100, both of which most likely share the same CMOS sensor._



Do we have a D400 in a Pentax body?  It will be interesting to see more reviews against the D7100 (which i own) once its released. I switched from Pentax (K-1000 ftw) to Nikon a few years (HAHAHA... few) ago and don't see myself going back. 

but maybe this will put a little fire under Nikon.


----------



## goodguy (Oct 8, 2013)

I saw this and the K-3 is impressive, it really is but nothing ground breaking just another good camera in the sea of good camera flooding the market.
K-3 or D7100 or even 70D

Makes not a hell of a lot different if you ask me, all good and each might have its own merits.
When no camera has a serious big advantage over its competitors then I believe its a matter of company loyalty.
I love Nikon, I cant stop being amazed how AMAZING my D7100 is and I have no need checking the competition except out of pure general interest but as for seriously considering what to buy I currently don't see myself leaving Nikon.


----------



## KmH (Oct 8, 2013)

TheLost said:


> but maybe this will put a little fire under Nikon.


Don't bet on that.


----------



## yioties (Oct 9, 2013)

Who really cares what Pentax does? Nikon could care less what Pentax and Sony does! If this was a Canon product that might and i write it again MIGHT sway Nikon's thinking!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

I do not see it as a D7100 competitor, except price-wise. The new K-3 seems to me to be a HIGH-end DX body, with 8 fps firing rate, and the big 23-frame RAW image buffer, the mega weather-sealing, and so on. Pentax has had "issues", pretty significant ones too, with how poorly their in-camera JPEG images are processed...Pentax d-slrs have long been among the worst in SOOC JPEG processing, pretty much forcing their owners to always shoot RAW in order to even come close to the capabilities of the sensor. They made a big improvement with the K-5, sensor-wise, and also image wise. The K3 had better darned well shoot SOOC JPEGS that are awesome; they NEED some kind of advantage for the higher-end amateur market customer they currently have. Pentax lacks ANY Full-Frame cameras, so they have already a niche market, with no real "halo" products at the top like Canon and Nikon have.

Hogan did a column recently, calling the K-3 the "Pentax D400". http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/meanwhile-meet-the-pentax.htm

I'm not sure the new Pentax means much to Nikon, since Pentax's user base is very small, and switchers and even first-time d-slr buyers are becoming fewer and fewer these days. A new Pentax with high-end DX stats still uses Pentax lenses. I think Pentax could set itself on fire, and Nikon would not notice. Nikon has long, long "done its own thing", and many times they have frustrated users who expect a lot from a company that is more concerned about the higher-end than the low- and middle-segment users.

For almost two decades, Nippon Kogaku (the "old Nikon" name) would NOT ALLOW the NIKON name on its amateur-level cameras...no, those were always named *Nikkormat*, and in some markets due to trademark claims by another firm, Nikkomat. It was not until the late 1970's that the first small, NON-professional 35mm SLR was labeled as a NIKON. Nikon began as a maker of high-end rangefinders, and the redoubtable Nikon F beginning in 1959. I think there is still a core constituency of old executives in the company that still think they know best, and which are more concerned with the HIGH-end customers and the big, prestiege lenses, and are much more concerned with attracting the "halo" customers who want D800's and D4's and high-priced f/2.8 zooms and expensive, fast, new wide-aperture primes like the 24/1.4,35/1.4,85/1.4,14-24,24-70,70-200,200-400,200/2,300/2.8, and so on. Nikon is, I THINK, trying to move the entire semi-pro, MWAC, high-end amateur, segments of the market from DX to FX.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 9, 2013)

I wouldn't buy it (i don't even know who sells Pentax around me)...  but somebody must buy them or they wouldn't keep making them.

Canon and Nikon HAVE to be keeping an eye on the competitors. They would be stupid not too.  wait....


----------



## yioties (Oct 9, 2013)

You really need to get in your brain that Pentax and Sony are not competitors with Nikon and Canon! I will say this again Nikon could care less what these companies do!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

TheLost said:


> I wouldn't buy it (i don't even know who sells Pentax around me)...  but somebody must buy them or they wouldn't keep making them.
> 
> Canon and Nikon HAVE to be keeping an eye on the competitors. They would be stupid not too.  wait....



Canon and Nikon DO keep an eye on their competitors; quite simply, Canon keeps an eye on Nikon, and conversely, Nikon keeps an eye on Canon. Those are the only real competitors they have....one another. The other makers are irrelevant to Canon and Nikon.

Pentax and Olympus fight for the tiniest of the scraps that are left over after Sony takes the slop out to the hogs.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

Are metal bodies actually better, or do people just feel better about them?

Modern plastics are kind of awesome, after all.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Are metal bodies actually better, or do people just feel better about them?
> 
> Modern plastics are kind of awesome, after all.



Are you KIDDING?????? You dare to ASK???






HERE is Ricoh's "official" page for their new camera. Lots of nice advertising info here! http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/dslr/K-3_


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

I didn't realize they were using Rich Corinthian Metal!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

There must be at least "some" research that has shown that a cutaway view of a camera's inner chassis and body frame has some positive advertising value...I think it might appeal to some select gene particles, ones buried deep within the DNA, of photo enthusiasts.

I dunno...I've heard talk that "metal body" construction supposedly allows for better screw anchoring of the lens mount to the body, thus making the use of massive, heavy, big-lens set-ups (there's that phallic thinking popping up again!) with less chance of the screws being torn out...all, I suspect being utter BS, since the screws used are so,so small, and have so little gripping area that I cannot imagine this is much of a real advantage.

One thing is for certain: advertising and hype thrive on PERCEPTIONS. We now know that in many cases, modern engineering-grade polymer-based materials, ie high-tech plastic, is actually BETTER than metal, and yet, perception is that metal=good, plastic=junk.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Are metal bodies actually better, or do people just feel better about them?
> 
> Modern plastics are kind of awesome, after all.


No they aren't really better. At least not theoretically / if you actually used high end plastics (which they may or may not do on any given camera body)

The one possible exception I can think of would be if there was a  lot of electrical interference in the area, in which case magnesium would act as a medicore faraday cage and reduce noise maybe in your body.  Although it's a poor conductor compared to like, copper, it's still much better conducting than polycarbonate obviously.

Also, if they use CHEAP plastic, then plastic will probably indeed be worse. I have no idea how high quality plastic is on typical major manufacturer bodies.  But I do know that it is POSSIBLE to get polycarbonate that has better shock properties than magnesium, is easier to work with in a factory, and is cheaper to buy.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

I was mostly asking if there's any information (data, or anecdote) which suggests that plastic bodies actually shatter or something under heavy usage. Has anyone actually broken a plastic body in circumstances where a metal one might have survived? I just dunno. There pretty much have to be cases where at least the frame survives if it's metal and not if it's plastic, since metal is in fact just stronger under certain types of loading. But does the camera survive in working condition?

Plastic, despite the name, tends to have the property that it fractures rather than deforms, which strikes me as a pretty good property in, say, a lens mount..


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

Also, @OP:

Canon 7D:
* 4 years older
* equally large buffer
* also 8FPS
* also weather resistant
* also has a metal body
* costs several hundred dollars less

So the K-3 offers slightly more megapixels (18 vs. 24 is a difference of only 15% linear resolution) and the fairly worthless ability to remove the AA filter, at the cost of $300 ish.

In other words, almost completely identical.  If you shoot Pentax, it's awesome.  If you shoot another brand, there's probably already a camera that accomplishes what the K-3 does, without having to switch your lenses, etc. 



In other words, I think you have it backward. _Nikon/Canon put the fire under Pentax_, which is now catching up in high end crop frames with its K-3.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 9, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Also, @OP:
> 
> Canon 7D:
> * 4 years older
> ...



Comparing canon to pentax in the nikon forum. Are we lost??


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

By "almost completely identical" I think Gavjenks means that the Canon 7D has a sensor that was designed sometime in the 2007-2008 era, and was introduced in the Canon 7D in 2009, so basically a sensor that's six to seven years out of date. And by almost completely identical I think Gavjenks meant a Canon 7D sensor that tests out at 11.7 stops of dynamic range, as opposed to the Nikon D7100's sensor which tests out at at 13.7 stops of dynamic range (assuming that the PetaPixel article is correct that both the D7100 and the upcoming Pentax K3 do, in fact, share the same sensor). And by almost completely identical, I think Gavjenks meant the Pentax K3 would have 24.2 bit color depth,while the Canon 7D has 22.0 bit depth, and the Pentax would likely earn a DxO Mark sensor performance score of 83 (or better), while the Canon 7D would limp along with its 2009-era sensor score of 66.




Um,sorry Gavjenks, but the Canon 7D is pretty long in the tooth in terms of imaging performance. Nikon and Pentax are now BOTH using Sony-made sensors (and Toshiba-made sensors in some models) that are all made with newer sensor fabrication technology and machinery, and which have vastly better performance than what Canon has been re-issuing in model after model since 2009.


Nikon's D300s is also out of date in the high-end APS-C body category, being only a tiny bit better than Canon's 7D, OVERALL.

In terms of dynamic range, the sensor used in the Nikon D7100 is VASTLY better than that used in the Nikon D300s, and significantly better than that in the Canon 7D.



Trying to argue that a camera with a sensor designed in the 2007-2008 era and introduced five years ago is "almost completely identical" seems to be the height of delusion. The small-sensor camera segment has moved on, has made progress. Well, at least Sony and Nikon and Pentax have made progress in APS-C sensors. Canon is stuck in APS-C, in a rut.


----------



## yioties (Oct 9, 2013)

We really are lost when Nikon shooters are even talking about Pentax or Sony being competitors!


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

Derrel, I was comparing the *7D* to the *K-3. *Neither of which is manufactured by Nikon.*

*This is like the 4th time in a month that you have swooped in and responded to one of my posts with random Nikon vs. Canon DxO Mark graphs for cameras that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and that I never mentioned at all. For no apparent reason other than just making up an excuse to post some Nikon graphs.

...And you call _me _the fanboy?  
*
*


----------



## yioties (Oct 9, 2013)

Why would you compare a Canon camera to a Pentax in a Nikon forum?


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

I compared the 7D to the K-3, because those were the two most precisely comparable bodies I could think of.  Nikon bodies are also quite competitive in the same niche and also serve as examples of something like the K-3 introduced long before the K-3.  But they don't line up spec-for-spec quite as neatly for purposes of making my point.

Which is that this is a great camera for Pentax, but it's not lighting a fire under ANYBODY, because K-3 is not groundbreaking on any dimension.  In fact it is the other way around: it is late to the party. Almost this exact camera has been on the market for years in the form of the 7D, as just one particularly strikingly similar example.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Derrel, I was comparing the *7D* to the *K-3. *Neither of which is manufactured by Nikon.*
> 
> *This is like the 4th time in a month that you have swooped in and responded to one of my posts with random Nikon vs. Canon DxO Mark graphs for cameras that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and that I never mentioned at all. For no apparent reason other than just making up an excuse to post some Nikon graphs.
> 
> ...



dPreview reports that the Pentax K3 is expected to use the SAME sensor as is used in the D7100. It's well-known that the D7100 and the Pentax K 5 use the SAME sensor; the OP himself wrote, "Do we have a D400 in a Pentax body? *It will be interesting to see more reviews against the D7100 (which i own) once its released. I switched from Pentax (K-1000 ftw) to Nikon a few years (HAHAHA... few) ago and don't see myself going back.*"

So, yes, I felt free to follow the OP's lead, and bring in some comparison data from the D7100...since he said he was interested in comparisons... YOU, dear Gavjenks, brought up your  Canon 7D "almost completely identical" line of rationalizing, so I followed your lead Gavjenks...I'm sorry if cold, hard test data offended your delicate sensibilities, dear fellow.

You made a comment that the Canon 7D is "almost completely identical" to a new Pentax offering. The OP mentioned being interested in review comparisons between the Pentax K 3 and the Nikon D7100 he owns, so yes...MY comparison is actually using the closest known camera to the K3, sensor-wise. I'm not sure why YOU brought up the now-aged Canon 7D...

Only a Canon fanboy would assert that the Canon 7D is "almost completely identical" to Pentax's new offering. Your lack of logic is astounding at times. Shocking. Asserting that an old camera is "almost completely identical" to  a brand-new camera...


----------



## KmH (Oct 9, 2013)

All metal chassis camera bodies provide 2 main benefits over plastic camera bodies:
1. Better radio frequency interference rejection.
2. Better heat dissipation

Unfortunately, Nikon has deleted the pages where they discuss the benefits of their metal camera bodies.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

Oh excuse me for participating in a thread without having first spent 2 hours reading every possible unconfirmed rumor on the topic that anybody has mentioned on (still as of now) un-linked to websites. (The petapixel article doesn't even have the words Nikon, Sony, or 7100 anywhere in it, and you didn't provide any dpreview link).



> Shocking. Asserting that an old camera is "almost completely identical" to a brand-new camera...


Yes, I agree, it is shocking.  Shocking that a brand new camera would have so few advances in features and specs compared to something much older, and yet also somehow be significantly more expensive.

If the rumor you mention happens to be true, then it would be less shocking.  It would then simply be $300 more for about $300 nicer of a sensor.  More advances, but more money ends up still being pretty similar to the 7D in cost effectiveness.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

The ONLY time I recall a metal body actually being used as *a direct advertising advantage* was the old, mid-1970's print ads for the Nikon FM 35mm SLR. A working press photographer shooting a professional hockey game had a puck smash into the pentaprism of his FM...the camera was dented, terribly, but kept working, and he finished the assignment. The puck had sailed over the glass, and struck the camera's prism while he was holding the camera at his eye, in shooting position.

And that was basically just a solid hit to the pentaprism cover, which is brass on the old FM. We're not talking about the chassis, or the body being metal...metal has long,long,long been the normal substance used to make camera bodies and chassis...

It's a lot like advertising "solid *wooden* dining tables!" Uhhhh...yeah....so what???


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 9, 2013)

KmH said:


> All metal chassis camera bodies provide 2 main benefits over plastic camera bodies:
> 1. Better radio frequency interference rejection.
> 2. *Better heat dissipation*
> 
> Unfortunately, Nikon has deleted the pages where they discuss the benefits of their metal camera bodies.



But if you wrap the metal in more plastic, which they usually do (including seemingly the K-3 from images available), then how does heat dissipation work any better?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

HERE is a smallish version of the August, 2013 Pentax Roadmap released by the Ricoh corporation, showing the lenses they have, and also lenses they plan to offer, shown in a nifty graphical manner....  http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Pentax-K-mount-lens-roadmap.png

And the same graphic, but full-sized in .PDF format, courtesy of the fine folks at the Pentaxforums.com web site


http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p1061/K_Mount_Lens[1].pdf

Pentax DOES have some lenses that NO OTHER camera maker offers, like their 60-250mm f/4 ED Internal Focus SDM DA-Star lens; the 77mm f/1.8 Limited; their 31mm and 43mm Limiteds; the 17-70mm constant f/4 Internal Focus SMD Da-Star; and a nifty manufacturer's branded 50-135mm f/2.8 ED AL Internal Focus SDM Da-Star model.


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 9, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Are metal bodies actually better, or do people just feel better about them?
> ...



Here's another reason.  This happened to my friends 5DM3 last year after he had it about 2 months.. Took a light tumble (with his 500 F4 attached) and ended up with a 1k repair bill...  I have fallen harder with my d300 and and nothing happened, except it bounced...  It is enough reason for me to only buy a body that is full metal including the lens mount...  but again this is hardcore wildlife specific...  for your average shooter that babies their gear and has small lenses, I can't imagine it would matter much


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 10, 2013)

yioties said:


> Who really cares what Pentax does? Nikon could care less what Pentax and Sony does! If this was a Canon product that might and i write it again MIGHT sway Nikon's thinking!



I imagine Nikon should care considering that Sony makes many of their sensors.


----------



## rexbobcat (Oct 10, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Also, @OP:
> 
> Canon 7D:
> * 4 years older
> ...



I'm not sure catching up is the right word lol. It ha more features than the 7D had at launch, and, if the paper specs are correct, will have more features than any APS-C DSLR on he market.

And it's still being sold cheaper than the 7D was at launch.

It seems like people are trying to downplay a camera that basically gives us everything that we've been complaining about Canikon not giving us. 

Like Canon's 70D. It's basically a 60D with a better, but 4 year old autofocus and a marginally improved sensor that still fails to catch Nikon's tech. 

At least Pentax seems to be making an effort.


----------



## matthewo (Oct 10, 2013)

I have been pretty happy with the build quality and strength of the metal nikon bodies.  My d800 and 500 f4.  I try to be as careful as i can with mine. But let's be real. Its 10+lbs and 2' long its not easy to jump out of your car or go anywhere with out banging it around.  Lens coats are nice.


----------



## TheLost (Oct 10, 2013)

I think everybody needs a hug!!  :hug:: These forums have taken on a angry tone over the past few days...  

Why did i create this thread?  The answer is in every D400 thread on EVERY camera forum throughout the interwebs.

A typical D400 owner wants:  
A largish full metal body
A High FPS
A Large Buffer
A Good AF system
Full weather sealing

The Pentax.. ON PAPER.. has all of that.

I was a typical D400 evangelist..  then i was in the 'use what we have, want what we don't' crowed..  Now im in 'wait for D810' mode.

There are very few D400 users left.  This thread is related to Nikon (and Canon) because the Pentax K-3 has what we (used to) want.  It fires up the OMG THERE MIGHT BE A D400 AFTER ALL feelings inside a few of us.


----------



## DNel928 (Oct 10, 2013)

On a positive note I am impressed with this camera. Being an employee certainly has its benefits! Definitely like the 8fps and the feel of the body, but I'll stick to my D7100


----------

