[rawr]

( such trend coming straight from China)

It's an interesting trend, in a market that is going to shape a lot of future domestic business activity (if it isn't already). Probably Nikon and Canon will be getting into MF dig

[Rondec]

I think it needs to be stated clearly that if you need on board flash, the K3 II isn't the camera for you. Whether you are using it for macro shots or, as a controller of an off camera flash isn't important. I believe that there are uses of on board flash. I believe that there are people who can't live without it. I just think Pentax wasn't thinking about you when they designed this camera. And that's OK.

As to the uselessness of the GPS unit because you always have your phone with you, I am not clear how the phone has all the feature the GPS/astro tracer device offers. It doesn't do automatic tagging and it doesn't allow you to take long exposures of a night sky without star trails. And Pentax has thrown this feature in without increasing the cost of the camera.

Pentax obviously released a camera full of specific features that Nikon/Canon can't match. But Pentaxians on the forum tend to be a conservative bunch, who want their screw driven lenses, no video (can't they knock ten dollars off the price of the camera if they don't include video?), no GPS, no colors other than black and are displeased with any changes to the way things have always been. But what is wrong with Pentax making a camera which shows off its strengths and has a bunch of neat features that will be mentioned a lot in reviews? That is the sort of good press that is worth making the effort to get and could sell a lot more Pentax cameras than just the K3 II.

Pentax will always have cameras available with a pop up flash, but a lot of folks can live with out it as well, if push comes to shove.

[bernhardn]

+1 with astron.




Until we get something like that :





it still will be photography ^^

Only if it's a MKii !!!

[Dave L]

Pentax obviously released a camera full of specific features that Nikon/Canon can't match. But Pentaxians on the forum tend to be a conservative bunch, who want their screw driven lenses, no video (can't they knock ten dollars off the price of the camera if they don't include video?), no GPS, no colors other than black and are displeased with any changes to the way things have always been. But what is wrong with Pentax making a camera which shows off its strengths and has a bunch of neat features that will be mentioned a lot in reviews? That is the sort of good press that is worth making the effort to get and could sell a lot more Pentax cameras than just the K3 II.

Pentax will always have cameras available with a pop up flash, but a lot of folks can live with out it as well, if push comes to shove.

Good points, especially the highlighted bit. It's worth the conservative Pentaxions among us recalling that before the digital era, when Pentax was King, their best cameras did not include OBF. Looking at my old MX and ME Super, I can confirm that. We seem to have managed alright though... by using external flashes!

[IchabodCrane]

Good points, especially the highlighted bit. It's worth the conservative Pentaxions among us recalling that before the digital era, when Pentax was King, their best cameras did not include OBF. Looking at my old MX and ME Super, I can confirm that. We seem to have managed alright though... by using external flashes!

My ME Super didn't have a GPS or even AF, either. edit: Not sure about the Astrotracer.

I think the broader concern is what is Pentax thinking for the future of its higher end cameras. Is no OBF on the K-3 II the blueprint or just a one-off situation because of the synergy between pixel-shift and GPS? None of us know at this point but I hope this is not the end of OBF outside of plastic multi-colored bodies. Nikon has not gone that route and Nikon is Pentax's primary competitor (IMHO).

[Not a Number]

I think the broader concern is what is Pentax thinking for the future of its higher end cameras

Could be they are just testing the waters to see what the reaction would be before releasing the production specs for the full frame model.

[Mistral75]

Could be they are just testing the waters to see what the reaction would be before releasing the production specs for the full frame model.

Exactly! Just as they were testing the waters by putting the name Ricoh on the back of K-3 before releasing 645Z .

[thibs]

Nikon has not gone that route and Nikon is Pentax's primary competitor (IMHO).

Which is exactly why they might do it. Offering the same thing isn't gonna make people chose the alternative.

[IchabodCrane]

Which is exactly why they might do it. Offering the same thing isn't gonna make people chose the alternative.

That would be a good question if the only thing that differentiates Pentax from Nikon is OBF vs GPS.

[LFLee]

Pentax obviously released a camera full of specific features that Nikon/Canon can't match. But Pentaxians on the forum tend to be a conservative bunch, who want their screw driven lenses, no video (can't they knock ten dollars off the price of the camera if they don't include video?), no GPS, no colors other than black and are displeased with any changes to the way things have always been. But what is wrong with Pentax making a camera which shows off its strengths and has a bunch of neat features that will be mentioned a lot in reviews? That is the sort of good press that is worth making the effort to get and could sell a lot more Pentax cameras than just the K3 II.

Pentax will always have cameras available with a pop up flash, but a lot of folks can live with out it as well, if push comes to shove.

true that!

removing the on board flash is a brave move - I think the flippy screen on the 645z will get implemented in the FF and next iteration of flagship APSC as well.
The K3II looks attractive feature wise, and make me eager to see what they will bring with the FF.
(highly customizable menu and buttons like GR will be real cool)

[jatrax]

That would be a good question if the only thing that differentiates Pentax from Nikon is OBF vs GPS.

Does not have to be the only thing, just SOMETHING.

If you are looking at two cameras (k-3II and D7200 I guess) and most of the specs look the same and you do not really know anything about cameras my guess is if the only differentiation is the brand name then you go Nikon because, hey they had a commercial on TV a while back.

But if there is a difference in specs then you at least have a choice and something to base a decision on. In this case the Pentax has built in GPS. If you think you would like that you go Pentax, if not and you notice there is no OBF, (and you care) then you go Nikon. Not everyone will want a GPS, not everyone will be happy there is no OBF. But there is a DIFFERENCE. Only time will tell if that difference results in good or bad sales. But I would rather Ricoh try and see what works rather than blindly make another "me too" camera.

[rangercarp]

As to the uselessness of the GPS unit because you always have your phone with you,

Does the GPS feature in a smart phone work with out cell signal? I am keeping it old school with my flip phone, so I honestly don't know, but I do like to take pictures in remote places with zero cellular coverage. Also, I have found in running with friends who use their smart phones to record distance, my Garmin Forerunner is far more accurate. Offten times the discrepancy is 5 to 10%. I realize that this is anecdotal, but I have seen it enough to make me wonder.

[D1N0]

Does the GPS feature in a smart phone work with out cell signal? I am keeping it old school with my flip phone, so I honestly don't know, but I do like to take pictures in remote places with zero cellular coverage. Also, I have found in running with friends who use their smart phones to record distance, my Garmin Forerunner is far more accurate. Offten times the discrepancy is 5 to 10%. I realize that this is anecdotal, but I have seen it enough to make me wonder.

Yes it does. GPS is independent of cellular reach. Of course a cellphone is not a dedicated GPS device and will be less accurate. Most phones have a-gps (assisted) for the assisted part a connection is needed, but that will only get you a fast aproximation of your location on the basis of mac addresses of nearby wifi (so that has to be on to) and location in the network.

[kh1234567890]

Yes it does. GPS is independent of cellular reach. Of course a cellphone is not a dedicated GPS device and will be less accurate. Most phones have a-gps (assisted) for the assisted part a connection is needed, but that will only get you a fast aproximation of your location on the basis of mac addresses of nearby wifi (so that has to be on to) and location in the network.

That is not how A-GPS works. You download the satellite emphemeris off the Internet instead of having to get it from the satellites themselves, resulting in a much better TTFF. Nothing to do with wifi. The accuracy is the same, about 10 meters rms.

[D1N0]

That is not how A-GPS works. You download the satellite emphemeris off the Internet instead of having to get it from the satellites themselves, resulting in a much better TTFF. Nothing to do with wifi. The accuracy is the same, about 10 meters rms.

your cellphone needs to scan wifi for access points as the mac adress is used for location data. It is additional data.