Shei  P wrote:
I had a K10 and it the DR & noise really sucked. K3 should be a major improvement. And, both the K10 & K3 are crop sensor cameras.

I generally shoot with my K10D at 100 ISO, sometimes, maybe, 200 ISO, but never higher than 200. The K-3 noise suppression is supposed to be much better even as high as 800 ISO.

Crop sensor is not an issue for me.

Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
I'll be keeping my K10D when I finally get the K3. I just read a review of the K3II. Too much money. The deal that B&H has on the K3 seems pretty good with the extra battery grip that fits the bottom of the camera. One of my younger brothers is looking at the 645Z as a possible upgrade from his current Canon but we're talking big-time dough for the medium format.

Shadow Dancer, where is this Goodwill where you find Pentax glass? Never heard of such a thing...

Right up here in Bellingham. They have a small section with cameras, one fine day I bought the 24, 40 pancake, 50 macro, 100 and 200 all together for a total including tax of about $65. The two 28s and the 50 1.4 were just random discoveries.

If you are persistent in your searching, thrift stores, antique shops, craigslist, yard sales, estate sales etc. will yield up the goods. I also shop for musical instruments, have done very well. It is a side job for extra spending money and some stuff gets kept.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
So, how is it?

Fast, quiet, very accurate color. With AA simulator turned off, jpegs are tack sharp. Shot some cars last night and I'm going to shoot some cars again this evening. I'll be posting some unedited jpegs in my Flickr page tomorrow.

EDIT: Maybe not. Raining right now. No one will bring out their cool cars on a rainy afternoon...

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Plenty of rumors of a Pentax full frame camera in the fall.

Who knows? I don't.

Shooting Canon when I shoot but not much investment at this point.

Over time, I accumulated a full set of vintage Pentax K mount lenses at Goodwill, total cost about $100. So I have interest in what is going on since they have the MOST compatible lens line ever produced with the possible exception of Leica (sorry Nikon, not even close!).

Currently holding a 24, two 28s, a 40 pancake, a 50 macro, a 50 1.4, a 100 and a 200, all primes in great condition. Highly under-rated in my opinion. Great bang for the buck beyond any doubt.

The Pentax Full Frame will be release with the Sony's 42 mp in October.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
The Pentax Full Frame will be release with the Sony's 42 mp in October.

How confident are you about the 42 mp?  I've been shooting a Nikon D600 with a 24-120vr, 50g and 85g for the last couple years.  I have a full complement of Pentax FF ready lenses that I've been reluctant to sell off, so I'm looking forward to a Pentax FF.  OTOH, 24mp seems to be plenty for most of what I shoot and 42 mp seems to be a bit of overkill.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
The Pentax Full Frame will be release with the Sony's 42 mp in October.

It would be good if it were equipped with the new 42mp sensor instead of the older 36mp sensor but I'm not so sure about that.

Jim Shibley wrote:
What lenses does everyone like on the K-3?

The ones I currently use most are the Pentax-DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 & the Pentax-FA 43mm 1.9.

I don't have a K-3, but I love the DA* 50-135/2.8.

alessandro2009 wrote:
It would be good if it were equipped with the new 42mp sensor instead of the older 36mp sensor but I'm not so sure about that.

I think you're right. Sony's MO seems to be that new sensors go into a Sony or Nikon first, then the other one for the next generation, and then the open market on the third generation.

Certainly there is a lot of money to be had by simply selling their sensor to the highest bidder, but I think the relationship they have with Nikon is probably too lucrative to threaten.

That said, a FF Pentax with D800 sensor tech would still be an awesome camera. What Pentax has going for it that nobody else can match is a decades-long history of being the most common inexpensive, high-quality camera. The reason you can find so many random Takumars is because from the 60s to the 80s if you wanted a high-end camera but didn't have terribly deep pockets, you bought a Pentax. The K1000 was the best-selling all-manual SLR of all time - even at the end, when they were made of plastic in Hong Kong.

Pentax's lens flange also happens to allow mounting the widest variety of non-Pentax lenses of any mainstream SLR. Not by much over Canon, but still a valid marketing point, now that Olympus has all but given up on SLRs.

They could very easily transition to a Fuji-type dial-based model, and play up the versatility and value. 'Want to use random old lenses, but don't want a mirrorless? Buy a Pentax!' I don't know how long that marketing push would last, but it would at least buy them enough business to make them a relevant player again. And from there, who knows?

Because trying to compete on tech and features, while consistently being 1-2 generations behind, is really not working out for them. After almost a decade of making cameras that way, I'm honestly surprised they're still in business. Even after the Ricoh acquisition, I would have thought they'd have been bought out by LG or Toshiba, or another tech firm looking to get into the market by now, much like Sony did with Minolta.

Zack Zoll wrote:
'Want to use random old lenses, but don't want a mirrorless? Buy a Pentax!' I don't know how long that marketing push would last, but it would at least buy them enough business to make them a relevant player again.

I have many doubts about that:
1) a similar strategies  while cost money from the marketing department would attempt to promote sales of camera bodies on an attempt to cover the costs of research and development and making profits
2) regardless of general interest for full frame DSLR camera, they rappresent a tiny segment of the market (very small) so focus mainly on the sale of camera bodies may not be enough
3) it is unlikely that the older cheapset lenses, with some exceptions, are able to resolve all the details of the new sensors. While the best older lens, with few exceptions, are often a lot expensive and difficult to obtain.
Also, DSLR camera continue to be disadvantaged compared to mirrorless solutions if some wish to use even some cheaper totally manually older lens.
And, on that case, as happen from different manufacter, often totally manuals lens have better build quality respect the equivalent older AF solutions.

Note:
Also regardless of what everyone think on that issue, in the past, various optics, takumar included, to improve their performance, used radioactive elements.

alessandro2009 wrote:

I have many doubts about that:
1) a similar strategies  while cost money from the marketing department would attempt to promote sales of camera bodies on an attempt to cover the costs of research and development and making profits
2) regardless of general interest for full frame DSLR camera, they rappresent a tiny segment of the market (very small) so focus mainly on the sale of camera bodies may not be enough
3) it is unlikely that the older cheapset lenses, with some exceptions, are able to resolve all the details of the new sensors. While the best older lens, with few exceptions, are often a lot expensive and difficult to obtain.
Also, DSLR camera continue to be disadvantaged compared to mirrorless solutions if some wish to use even some cheaper totally manually older lens.
And, on that case, as happen from different manufacter, often totally manuals lens have better build quality respect the equivalent older AF solutions.

Note:
Also regardless of what everyone think on that issue, in the past, various optics, takumar included, to improve their performance, used radioactive elements.

almost any lens made for pentax cameras since 1975 will work just fine with a pentax dslr. certainly better than with a mirrorless camera. not to mention older m42, t-mount and adaptall lenses. i own several manual and af lenses that are easy to find and quite affordable that out-resolve my k-3. you'd have to grind up and snort a takumar lens to get enough radiation to harm you.

Zack Zoll wrote:
It won't harm you, no. But it does turn the lens yellow over time. That can be bleached out with UV light, but it's still something you have to do.

I've never tried K-mount lenses on a mirrorless. My go-to lenses are M42 Schneiders, and I can tell you that those resolve like crazy on an A7r. Well, two of the three I have do. The 135 f/3.5 is actually the sharpest lens I've owned, and that counts Leica glass, Nikon's 70-209 VRI, and the Sony/Zeiss 55. At a 16x20 print size, the images are actually sharper than my 4x5 with colour film. Not better, but sharper.

But you know, none of that matters. Look at Fuji:  from a spec standpoint, they've been in last place in their price range for a couple generations. But they're still great cameras,and people still buy them.

Worrying about maximum resolution is exactly what Pentax shouldn't be doing. Not that they should make crap - they should focus on making unique product with solid performance, like Fuji. The cameras don't need to be redesigned from scratch to accomade this - just the chassis and menu.

The Pentax Q,and whatever mirrorless it was that had a native K mount, are examples of doing it wrong. The Q was a good quality compact camera, designed as a toy. The mirrorless was an attempt to sell the old school Pentax brand with a new camera, but it was designed like an anime product. It actually had an official Battletech colour option.

If they took that mirrorless, and designed it with a dial-based control system like Fuji's, they could sell that as a new-school old-school camera. They can still sell new lenses - there's built in compatibility. But they have the old school Pentax hook, and that hook is what Pentax lacks.

Pentax doesn't have a 'thing,' unless you count their history. Panasonic's thing is video. Olympus' thing is size. Sony's is the latest tech. Nikon and Canon's thing is making giant, high-performance beasts. Fuji's thing is making vintage-style cameras, with vintage-style controls.

Those companies are all still succeeding because each one of them has focused on that thing, and they are totally dominant in that segment of the market. If Pentax wants to be a major player again, they need to find a different market segment to dominate. Right now they're doing a little of everything, and that makes them forgettable.

Pentax's thing is amazing ergonomics.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Look at Fuji:  from a spec standpoint, they've been in last place in their price range for a couple generations. But they're still great cameras,and people still buy them.
...
If they took that mirrorless, and designed it with a dial-based control system like Fuji's, they could sell that as a new-school old-school camera.

Put aside Sony that in pratice have "abandoned" their more "traditional" DSLR line-up, all other traditional DSLR manufacter for conflict of interest - for fear of cannibalizing sales of their own lines - haven't develop a serious mirrorless system.

Also Fuji detain only a niche of the market, and their camera is an aps-c, if had been a full-frame camera, I doubt that could have a sufficient number of sales to stay in business.