AP publishes a full review of the K-3iii

Balanced and to the point: recognises the K-3iii's strengths and innovations whilst noting that these, along with the high cost of ownership, are unlikely to be sufficient to attract new users to the Pentax stable.
link

Rather more detailed but much the same conclusions in Outdoor Photography this month, but given it’s suitability for outdoor work I am surprised it wasn’t rated higher. I cannot get over the obsession in these reviews over price, always comparing it to other cheaper models when it should be valued as part of your overall photography kit and not just a single item. After all a body without a lens isn’t much use and the lens ranges of mirrorless offerings are still pretty meagre - tilt-shift anyone? High quality small lightweight primes (other than Leica M series)?

And now it is the turn of PetaPixel link.

Lots of positives, but with the usual caveats (fixed screen; expensive) leading to the same bottom line: a worthwhile and justifiable purchase for dedicated Pentaxians, but unlikely to appeal to first-time buyers or tempt established photographers to switch systems.

Should we loyal few care what the pundits think? Sadly, in my view, yes. For if Pentax is to have a viable future, which I for one should like for at least as long as I remain capable of taking photographs, it needs to expand and cultivate its user base.

Hey-ho!

Jon

I rewrote this 4 times and each time I reworded it the post still sounded like I thought Pentax had reached the end of the road.


I think it's too late.

Off to try for a fifth time.

Honestly, I take no joy from that ... but go to a all brand forum like Talk photography and there are maybe 3 or 4 Pentax owners out of thousands of members. Some of the older members on those forums know how good Pentax "used to be" but haven't a clue about them now and the upcoming photographers have never even heard of the brand. Besides which the majority of both camps want mirrorless now and those that want a DSLR would be mad to pick a K-3 III over a Nikon D500 even if it is 5 years + old.

I will go on enjoying my K-1 and what Pentax lenses I have left after my latest clearout but £1800 for a crop sensor DSLR with not even a flippy screen, £1400 for a 16-55mm f/2.8 just sounds like a last stab at the cash cow to me. (sorry).

But ever since digital cameras arrived, hasn't the undercurrent always been the same "Pentax is doomed" message? And yet, here we still are and Pentax are continuing to produce excellent new product, as well as revamping the old as well.

Not everybody wants a mirrorless camera, and Pentax may yet be right in becoming the niche player that still produces DSLRs and lenses of a high quality, for those who prefer them. There might even be a swing back to DSLR as the desires of photographers wax and wane.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all designs of camera.

And up until recently I would have written the exact same thing


Clutching at straws comes to mind here, Pentax will be around for as long as Ricoh deem it viable which will become less and less as current users shuffle off (I include myself there, I imagine the vast majority of us are approaching 60 years plus) and my grandkids will be asking me what that big lump is on the top of my old camera and why when they take a picture it looks really dark and nothing like it did through the viewfinder.

Now on the upside ... wonder when Pentax are going to release this 21mm, been at least 12 months since they announced it.

The difficulty for Pentax is it has nowhere else to go except refining DSLRs. Others have recognised that a new mount is needed for mirrorless and are happy to ditch old lenses, not for the first time, but the Pentax mantra is keeping backwards compatibility.

There are diehards who will stick with DSLRs whilst they can but I doubt whether they would switch brands just to do this, probably just accept the inevitable. I can see with this new body and lens that Pentax is trying to push upmarket but there is massive resistance as we have seen in the reviews. Leica has managed to because that has always been where the brand has sat but Pentax was always in the good-value-for-money field (as per the K1) so that would require a massive marketing campaign, something Pentax gave up on years ago, leaving public perception entirely in the hands of reviewers.

Well, they're expanding all the time. For high quality yet small and light you need look no further than the Fujifilm X system while both Sony and Sigma have recently brought out some slower (around f/2. primes which are small and light and I've read perform extremely well, branching away from their previous stance of all primes being massive, heavy and expensive.

The *istD was £1,400 when reviewed by ePhotozine in Sept 2003. That's £2,330 in today's money (assuming RPI inflation). With a price like that, and being late to the DSLR market, Pentax was clearly doomed...

Steve

Nigel Atherton isn't a big Pentax fan, unlike his predecessor, he is very much a micro 4/3rds.

Will Cheung (Photography News) is another that has said to me Pentax doesn't interest him...

And given the main criticisms of the K3iii are price (will come down as I paid £580 for my *istD in 2005) and lack of flappy screen this Nikon D500 user rarely uses the articulate screen.

Seriously ?

This is the worst robotic review I have ever seen of a camera.

John Riley, why are you not doing it ?

Do ephotozine even know they have a Pentax forum ?.......with this pathetic review I think not.

Seemed a big strange not to have the usual suspects doing the review. I left a comment / gentle rebuttal for some of their points on the front page.