The K-3 has more noise at very high ISO levels, but not by much and there is actually slightly more detail.

At lower ISO values, up to 6400 or so the amount of extra detail is very significant. I've already posted images that show how dramatic this difference is.

Here's a shot of The Lanternist presenting his show to ADAPS. There was virtually no light at all.


In these sort of circumstances, we expect a little noise.

Ha! It'll be Hugo Balder and the Ballet Cin Cin next....and why not

To take a couple of your points Chris, the lens provided for review was the 18-135mm, so that's what was reviewed. Added in were shots from the 43mm and 100mm macro lenses, which are there for you to play with.

The K-5 IIs was not available at the same time, so that couldn't be compared. However, the K-5 IIs review also contains images at the same location and it's pretty clear from the crops given above in this thread what the answer to your quality question is.

I understand that we can always demand more and more, but it's not possible without costs that I'm sure cannot be borne. Tests, not reviews, used to even dismantle cameras at one time, but very few new cameras came out. Now it's a deluge, so it's not practical really.

Timeless in this context means something that lasts, something that could belong to any time period, something that transcends mere fashion.

It's a very timeless sort of portrait and I like the direct, confident but utterly weary look that has been captured.

It's unfettered by any other intrusions and it is a powerful portrait. Try looking at it for a while and see the deep sadness of exhaustion in those eyes.

You make the point for me Chris.

With no suitable subject matter and no time it isn't possible to test everything. What is possible is to do the things that are available to do.

So far you haven't made a single comment about anything that we do know, just about things we don't know. There's no point, it wasn't possible, for exactly the same reasons you have outlined for yourself.

As for brief, the brief is just the shell, how many words, how many pictures, what headings, what things need to be covered. It's the same brief for all DSLR reviews. On top of that I like to find a few little extras to throw in, but certainly not things I can't check out for myself in a reliable way.

That's great. Hopefully you'll let us know how you get on Mike.

These cameras and lenses don't materialise out of thin air on demand Chris. They are sent out for review for a limited period and then passed on to the next reviewer. The K-3 I have here will be gone by tomorrow, winging its way to somebody else.

If you want to try out the AF for yourself, why not take your lens to a local shop and do some shots from their premises? Most shops will be happy to let you do this. Some will even let you go off site if accompanied and the circumstances are right.

This is all supposition though. If you believe what they tell you, then they tell you exactly what I have also said. Don't hesitate to buy a K-3.

Then there's all the other positive reviews that say the same thing. Sooner or later we'll just have to settle down and accept it.