I don't comment about the things we know, because they're the very things that are the most predictable, the least surprising. The things we don't know are the things that are the most important to review properly.

24MP, 8 fps, improved ergonomics, better video, mic jack, 2 card slots, a level that is ( )... of course the K-3 was going to be higher specified than the K-5n, and of course it was going to be good. We know Pentax makes great cameras. The question is, was it going to be good enough?

And the answer, from anyone that photographs only stationary objects, will inevitably be a resounding yes - no surprise there. It's like Daily Mail journalism - you already know what they're going to write, just by reading the headline.

As any fule no, Molesworth, the K-3 was always going to be pitched up against the D7100, so a quick look through the D7100 specs was going to reveal most of the cool new stuff the K-3 would do. Equally, it wasn't hard to predict that the new stuff would work pretty well - no one denies how good Pentax is at the things it does.

But none of that is the point.

I'm sure you've read a lot of the chat, but so far there are essentially two big things that people were worried about with the K-3.

1. Was Pentax going to shoot themselves in the foot and in moving to 24MP, lose the high-ISO performance reputation that they achieved with the K-5? There was no way they'd bring out a camera with IQ that was clearly significantly worse, but would it be significantly better? (K-7 vs K20D anyone?)

2. After all these years, would they finally bring out AF that is up there with the big boys?

The answer to 1 is so-far equivocal, at best, and 2 is looking disappointing.

The topic of AF is much more important than the moiré, as DrO has pointed out, and to restrict comment on it to a few token sentences in a major review is simply extraordinary.

Excuses about only being given one lens, and not having the opportunity to do any more because of lack of time and subject matter, just seem weak, and will invite howls of derision in circles less positive about Pentax than here.

No wonder JR thinks the K-3 AF is quick...

Since it's you wot says this, Ken, I'm pricking my ears up a little.

Could you elaborate a bit on how large format film could give such an image "depth and timelessness" that digital couldn't achieve? Even on a gallery wall?

I mean, granted, the bigger the sensor (or neg), the bigger the print you can make, but, erm... you don't pixel peep a big print on a wall from four inches away.

... and what is this depth and timelessness anyway that comes from such things? Would you have known it was taken on film if he hadn't said?

Happy to be de-luddited.

I do.

As Smeggy says, whatever ISO it takes to get the shot.

The only reason anyone has an upper ISO limit is because they don't like the results, or never shoot in low light.

If there was no noise at high ISO, what possible reason would there be not to use it?

Edit:

12800 on the K-5 is perfectly usable where needed:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP0198-ff-br_zps567fbcb3.jpg[/IMG]

Resized to 800px, so of course much of the noise has gone. Even quite a bit bigger and it only takes a little NR to clean it up quite nicely.

Here's a 100% crop of a bit of it. A little chroma noise removed in ACR but no luminance NR at all:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/IMGP0198-100_zps117b1ff1.jpg[/IMG]

However, I'd have liked to go higher still and used a shorter exposure ideally.

It will have to compete with the D610 price-wise, so if they want to keep selling K-3s, they may need to reduce its price.

I think with images like this it's more to do with the viewer than the image itself.

She doesn't look utterly weary to me, and I don't necessarily see great depth of emotion either, but I'm not saying anyone's wrong if they do see that.

What I do think, though, is that

... is totally emperors-new-clothes eyewash.

However, there would have been lots of theatrical mystique going on setting up a shot with a large format film camera, so I expect that contributed to her expression.

I think it's wrong to discount the "how the gear makes you look" effect.

I agree. The wings made them look silly.

The bloke had a big one though...

I know that. I didn't imagine for a moment anyone would take me up on the suggestion. I wonder if the next reviewer will be any more interested in reviewing what is arguably the one feature that was ever in doubt.

I do wonder what planet ePZ are on, if their brief to you was to choose the moiré feature rather than the AF as a topic for spending a lot of time and effort on.

This is the thing: everyone knows that Pentax cameras are excellent. They've been getting excellent reviews for everything except the AF for a looooong time.

So ignoring that in any review is daft at best.

Of course, and I will.

But I'm sure you know as well as I do that if you want to do a test that's useful, it has to be in conditions that are conducive to the test.

Pointing the camera at the cars that come past in the street outside a camera shop for five minutes is hardly good enough. I would need at least a day, probably two, to get familiar enough with the camera to be confident that results could be fairly compared with what I could get from the K-5, and I'd need enough uninterrupted time to document the tests and refine the method as I went along.

Thanks. Superficially, I'd agree that the D7100 would have been a better comparison than the D610. Even so, the comparisons between the K-3 and the K-5ii make it clear that the K-3 is better, but not amazingly better.

All the more reason for ePZ to run a more thorough review.

It wouldn't be hard, for instance, to pick a few lenses (the Bigma comes to mind) that exist in Nikon and Pentax mount, and to compare the K-3 with the D7100.

It also wouldn't be hard for ePZ to lend a K-3 to someone from here that has specific relevant experience, and see how they get on with it.

Mike-P comes to mind as possibly the best person here to do that, since he has both Pentax and Canon airshow photography experience, and his pictures are often very good.

I've also done quite a lot of airshow photography with the K10D and the K-5, and I have air-side access to lots of airfields, so I could easily do a realistic, and reasonably scientific (in approach, if not laboratory-reproducible) assessment of the AF capabilities of the K-3.

Or I could take Mike, and make him do the work

It doesn't have to be aircraft, of course, cars would do just as well. But I don't do cars, just aeroplanes.

Can you provide a link, please?