Originally posted by ThorSanchez Who has hijacked your account today? You're the same person who put together a comparative thread that concluded in the large majority of real-world cases the K-3 has image quality on par with the excellent FF K-1. Now you're saying you were burned by the K-3?
With regards to low light performance yes, I actually expected them to be able to keep K-5 low light performance on the K-3. The K-3 was also worse for dynamic range. I eventually covered those two scenarios with the K-1. There is absolutely no advantage to 24 mp if when you crop to 16 MP it's worse than a 16 MP camera, and the K-3 cropped to 16 MP is not as much DR and is more noisy than a K-5.
But I love the 8 FPS and 23 shot buffer on the K-3.
So with the K-3 it was a win some lose some. With the K-1 and the K-3 everything is covered except faster buffer clearing and he ability to change settings and open menus while the buffer is clearing.
With the K-new, I'd like a camera like the D850, that does it all and gets me back to one camera for every occasion.
If memory serves me well, the D850 is great resolution, 10 FPS, awesome autofocus, etc.
I've proved to myself over and over I don't need K-1 resolution. But I'd like the rest.
Of course with no tilting back screen, I already know I'm going to have to give up something I want to get the new feature and I don't care at all about it being 3mm thinner. I mean really, what the heck? So waiting for the specs, we are already down 1 zip on the score sheet. Pentax has to move that to a positive. I don't plan to continue with two bodies past my K-1.
On my current Flickr page 45 of the 100 image used the tilting back screen. No tilting back screen by itself almost kill the camera for me. Now if it has decent tracking, and even 8 FPS
while tracking or other things that are not available on a K-P, I could bite the bullet, but it's already not everything I want. I don't think I can take another hit. Everything else has to be excellent.