What will the new Pentax really offer us?

well wifi, astrotracing and GPS are all snooze features for me. never used them, never will either. I'd rather they be out of body to help keep costs down for tech I'm never gonna use. I can understand people wanting them though.

more battery, better battery are always things I like in a camera. I love the second SD slot. I'm less enamoured with the 24mp. I'd rather up the IQ and keep the MP sensible. I never understood the pissing match when it comes to cramming huge megapixels onto the sensor.

I could see myself getting a K3 but running it at 16mp instead to make image size efficient

Can you select 16MP RAW from it?

Anybody remember the Dynax 7000i 'expansion' cards? They allowed you to customise the operation of the camera by buying & inserting the relevant card into the camera.

"You'd like auto-bracketing sir? That's £20 please, oh and to set the program line to favour higher shutter speeds is the Sports Action Card, another £20 please."!

All of these "new" features whether wanted or not are worth having on a camera as it gets the competition to step up to the next level. The end result is that we as photographers get the benefit as there will always be a new model or two every year to choose from.

Obviously if you’re a dyed in the wool brand addict you may have to wait a while for that brand to catch up.

The K3 will kick-start much development and I see that as a good thing. It looks great on paper, no doubt about it. Do I need one? Not really as my other APS-C bodies give great results that so far have never received anything but praise for the images I've sent to clients.

The only negative for me is that the flash system has not been improved. So they have a way to go on that front. I am confident that Ricoh will get it sorted though.

If the AF is up to the mark then they just need a 100-400mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 and they will attract much more custom.

Let's see how the first full reviews go.

Best regards

Thinking fundamentals here, would that still be raw sensor data if it's then scaled down? RAW being straight off the sensor I'm assuming there's only ever one native resolution available.

I've read/heard that this is actually a bit of a hindrance for video, in that full HD is still only 2MP in size. So you're getting all this information flooding in off the sensor and having to do a lot of work to reduce it all down to 2MP. Hence why we're seeing more 120 fps offerings on some smaller sensor cameras than on high MP DSLR's.

I think there is a case for a genuine crop, (perhaps to 16 MP), rather than a down-size. In other words just throw the edge pixels away. This is, in effect, why some people use K-mount lenses on the Q - for "reach", typically for birding.

Why crop rather than just capture the whole 24 MP and let the photographer crop later? To reduce the size in kilobytes. This might increase the number of images in the buffer, the speed at which the buffer can be cleared to the card at high fps, and would obviously increase the images per card, reduce import time into Lightroom, etc.

But there isn't the slightest hint in the specifications that the K-3 has such a feature!

I think there is a case for a genuine crop, (perhaps to 16 MP), rather than a down-size. In other words just throw the edge pixels away. This is, in effect, why some people use K-mount lenses on the Q - for "reach", typically for birding.

Why crop rather than just capture the whole 24 MP and let the photographer crop later? To reduce the size in kilobytes. This might increase the number of images in the buffer, the speed at which the buffer can be cleared to the card at high fps, and would obviously increase the images per card, reduce import time into Lightroom, etc.

But there isn't the slightest hint in the specifications that the K-3 has such a feature![/quote]I think there is a case for a genuine crop, (perhaps to 16 MP), rather than a down-size. In other words just throw the edge pixels away. This is, in effect, why some people use K-mount lenses on the Q - for "reach", typically for birding.

Why crop rather than just capture the whole 24 MP and let the photographer crop later? To reduce the size in kilobytes. This might increase the number of images in the buffer, the speed at which the buffer can be cleared to the card at high fps, and would obviously increase the images per card, reduce import time into Lightroom, etc.

But there isn't the slightest hint in the specifications that the K-3 has such a feature![/quote]i believe that is exactly what is implemented on the d7100, which allows you to select a smaller crop size and increase shots per second + number of shots k continuous shooting. But it might be that this is not seen as a key feature for Pentax users and anyway continuos shooting speed on the k-3 in impressive...

Calibrate brain instead?

Put it on a known horizontal surface,look at what the level indicates, then if you want to use it tilt camera until the level is at that previously indicated value?

That sort of defeats the idea of having the camera do it for you by rotating the sensor if auto-level is on.

Personally, I loathe and despise the workaround mentality. For so many reasons that I'd get myself all into a lather if I tried to articulate them all.

I'll note just two:

- I've paid money, why should I have to compensate for a failing that isn't mine?

- Customers who are content to work around issues, rather than complain vociferously about them, lull manufacturers into thinking that it's not important to sort them out.

If they implement a feature, it should work.

Has this new feature been mentioned yet - I think it is called Peripheral Illumination? It is selected in the Lens Correction menu, so I'm not sure but can I assume that it enables the firmware to compensate for the known amount of vignetting effects of lenses? Anyone know anything about this one?

Philip

Mine works on the K-30. I know that doesn't help anyone whose doesn't work, sorry about that. But it's a really cool feature that was new coming from an original K100D. I've used it many many times when mounting on a tripod etc. Very handy. Sorry, just felt motivated to convey that.

Chris A, in principle you're absolutely correct, why pay for something that doesn't work? The only caveat I would like to put in is that every man-made item has a margin of error, and if that error is plus or minus 1 degree then no amount of adjusting and replacing will change that. It's a guide.

Is it useful? I've never found it so on any camera. So for me, I've not even switched it on as it's irrelevant. So I wouldn't send a camera back because it was out.

If it was vital to my work then I'd have a proper scientific level of some sort.

Somewhere in between I'm just suggesting there's a bit of leeway that's inevitable.

I know you're a lot more tolerant of Pentax imperfections than I am, John, and to each his own. I'd just point out that:

a) The alleged precision is 0.5 degree. On the LCD it's 0.5 degrees per bar; in the VF it's 1 degree per bar. The error on mine is about 1.5 degrees which with a clear horizon, is very obvious indeed.

b) The auto-horizon correction feature is tied to the electronic level - if one's out, so is the other. Pentax must have invested considerable resources in building, and supposedly testing, the link between the electronic level readout and moving the sensor to achieve the automatic horizon control. It would be a cracking feature if it was reliable (I'd just leave it on most of the time to save a bit of faffing in post) - IMO it's a case of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar.

c) Mobile phones have had the calibration option built in for ages.

As I say, to each his own priorities and workarounds. I just hope Pentax read the myriad complaints on the US forum at the time, and sorted it for the K-3. Apols for going off topic.

I follow like a Sheep, no will of my own Mike!
Ordered...