[Matthew Saville]

That seems reason enough to upgrade to this body. Will have to think about this some..

In effect, they've given us the extra stop or so of ISO (using generic FF sensor) by switching it up on us on the shutter speed.. but same outcome... in an APS-C body.

that's neat!!!

It can only mean the FF body will do splendidly well with low light situations.

This is one thing I have realized is going to be a game-changer. I currently shoot weddings with a Nikon D750, and some of my lenses are stabilized, while others aren't. I could get away with using a crop-sensor body much more often, if I had stabilization on some good f/1.4 primes like the Sigmas we have been seeing lately. Between the 24, 35, 50, and 85mm, (all 1.4 and professionally usable wide-open) ...I'd actually come out AHEAD of a traditional DSLR shooter who is stuck using un-stabilized f/2.8 zooms.

(And if a full-frame K-3 II comes out in 6-12 months, that would be the real game-changer, I meant to say...)

[mee]

Further, it appears they are taking a Tock Tick approach to flagship bodies.. whereas Intel does Tick Tock (tick = shrinking microarchitecture, tock = brand new microarchitecture), Pentax appears to do Tock (new designed flagship) Tick (refine the old design).

[sb in ak]

This is one thing I have realized is going to be a game-changer. I currently shoot weddings with a Nikon D750, and some of my lenses are stabilized, while others aren't. I could get away with using a crop-sensor body much more often, if I had stabilization on some good f/1.4 primes like the Sigmas we have been seeing lately. Between the 24, 35, 50, and 85mm, (all 1.4 and professionally usable wide-open) ...I'd actually come out AHEAD of a traditional DSLR shooter who is stuck using un-stabilized f/2.8 zooms.

(And if a full-frame K-3 II comes out in 6-12 months, that would be the real game-changer, I meant to say...)

I'd say things are looking pretty good for Pentax FF, provided they incorporate IBIS into the body. They better; it's a significant plus to the brand. While I'm not necessarily a huge fan of the Sigma Arts (they are a little too clinical for my liking) they do help fill some of the fast, full frame capable, holes in Pentax's lens lineup, which is currently the big stumbling block. Shooting a Sigma 35 1.4 with 4+ stop IBIS on a Pentax FF body would be pretty damn sweet.

That being said, I'm currently looking to possibly return to the Pentax brand, partially to reduce the size of my kit (currently shoot with a 5D3). I tried a X-T1 and it didn't really do it for me. Build and usability paled in comparison to my experience with Pentax's flagship APS-C cameras. Pentax/Ricoh are finally upping their game with the K3/K3 II. I like cameras I feel like I can hammer nails with. I'm thinking of bouncing down to APS-C with some nice FA limiteds and then jumping back up to FF Pentax. But I dunno, the K3 II is looking good, I might not even feel the need to go back to a larger format. I do wish they would have used the sensor in the D7200, though. But I'm rambling...

[GeneV]

It isn't a simple as
Ricoh making an ill-advised decision. It was likely a very well-informed decision.

I wrote elsewhere: The uses for which Pixel Shifting technology is most effective (Macro, Product, Architecture, Landscape, some Nature, Birding, ) also lend themselves in many cases to on-board GPS and/or don't lend themselves to on-board flash - or only ambient light. In most cases external flash, studio constant lighting or ring flash is used for the favored styles.

I suspect this particular camera is purpose-designed with a different set of internal features than those in the more generalist K-3. I suspect this will not be the only Pentax body released minus OBF - but I also suspect there will be other flagship bodies released WITH OBF instead of something else.

It might just be this is a specialist camera but many users expected a generalist camera. It's a market tactic, not a strategic decision.

My point was it is not as simple as assuming it is a well-advised decision by the marketing people to leave out the flash. It may or may not.

The rest of that conjecture seems like a very questionable marketing decision. This camera is just for landscapes? That seems more appropriate to the FF for a number of reasons. The number one feature I would like to see for tripod work is an articulated screen.

I don't recall seeing that survey about how many prefer GPS vs. Flash which a lot of people think was done. Perhaps they only asked future customers.

Look, there is a lot to like about this body. I'm just not sure the GPS is high on the list.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 04-24-2015 at 04:58 PM.

[monochrome]

Only landscapes? I gave six examples of uses, five of which benefit from Pixel Shifting. The sixth benefits from GPS - once in, why not promote? We know they couldn't add the hinged screen to the existing body at this price point, if at all - they'll have to start with an entirely new body design due to re-engineering the chassis and metal shell.

I've never even heard of any marketing study abut GPS vs. OBF - if someone here wrote that they're just blowing smoke in your face. I believe if they really did a double-blind market study of potential purchaseers OBF would have won hands down. That's why I believe this is not a marketing decision per se, rather it is an intentional substitution designed and optimized to demonstrate pixel shifting before the FF is released.

My point was it is not as simple as assuming it is a well-advised decision by the marketing people to leave out the flash. It may or may not.

The rest of that conjecture seems like a very questionable marketing decision. This camera is just for landscapes? That seems more appropriate to the FF for a number of reasons. The number one feature I would like to see for tripod work is an articulated screen.

I don't recall seeing that survey about how many prefer GPS vs. Flash which a lot of people think was done. Perhaps they only asked future customers.

Look, there is a lot to like about this body. I'm just not sure the GPS is high on the list.

[noelpolar]

I'm of the opinion that Ricoh's maket research informed them that, Pentaxians as a group, are aging and subsequently becoming more forgetful, so they have included the GPS on board as part of their "Corporate Responsabilty" program (I suspect it will have a "Find your way home" function).

In addition, this research identified that sudden bursts of bright light can be quite disorientating for elderly persons, so it was obvious to them the flash had to go for our own protection.

And, of course, the extra stop of anti shake effectiveness, is also there to just compensate for us aging.

[Dave L]

Sample shots with the K3ii......

D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro, @ f11, 1/4s
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/k-3-2/ex/img/bod_mainImg_02.JPG

Oh my giddy Aunt!

I don't think I have ever seen a sharper more detailed photo from an APS-C than the above. I tend to check detail by viewing at 50% and then 10% step ups to 100% and few if any have ever shown more detail at 100% than 90%. But this one does! I think I like it.

As for flash versus GPS I think this is more of an old school versus modernist debate... or old versus young, the latter are more into GPS-ing themselves than us oldies ever were I think. And for those who like me were thinking of getting an O-GPS-1, it pushes the effective K-3 II price down even lower. The better shake reduction will help too, with handheld shots with the DA*300mm for example.

The launch price is good, but if I go for it, I will still keep my K-5 or K-3 for the flash - even though I only use it rarely.

---

Last edited by Dave L; 04-24-2015 at 06:01 PM.

[mee]

Oh my giddy Aunt!

I don't think I have ever seen a sharper more detailed photo than the above. I tend to check detail by viewing at 50% and then 10% step ups to 100% and few if any have ever shown more detail at 100% than 90%.

But this one does!

Yep it looks like a 1:4 shot at 1:1 (very very sharp) .. it is what I've wanted for a long time. I can only imagine the FF exceeds this body in resolution.. Surely Ricoh has to hamstring it in someway not to match performance of the Z. Probably just in the fact that the technology only fully works with static scenes.

That said, static Macros should be tremendous (this on some macro rails for stacking)!!! Time to buy those extra large hard drives and upgrade the system memory of your PC hehehe

[sb in ak]

On board flash is a trademark of consumer DSLRs. I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't exist on pro level cameras, but that's the way it is. By omitting OBF and articulating screen, Pentax is sort of saying, hey, this is a pro machine, buy your own flash, and durability is more important than a moving screen. It's definitely a calculated move; I'm guessing a brand image thing. To be honest, though, if I had to chose, I'd probably take OBF over GPS, but really I could care less about both. Wifi, though, is useful to me. But not a dealbreaker.

[Rondec]

Only landscapes? I gave six examples of uses, five of which benefit from Pixel Shifting. The sixth benefits from GPS - once in, why not promote? We know they couldn't add the hinged screen to the existing body at this price point, if at all - they'll have to start with an entirely new body design due to re-engineering the chassis and metal shell.

I've never even heard of any marketing study abut GPS vs. OBF - if someone here wrote that they're just blowing smoke in your face. I believe if they really did a double-blind market study of potential purchaseers OBF would have won hands down. That's why I believe this is not a marketing decision per se, rather it is an intentional substitution designed and optimized to demonstrate pixel shifting before the FF is released.

I think the whole point of the K3 II is stand out. Put features in it that Nikon not only doesn't but can't offer in their SLRs. I suppose they could have tried how to figure out some way to make the pop up flash extra snazzy, but somehow, I think that wouldn't have made waves. On the other hand, the pixel shift feature and better in body SR are both the sorts of things that (hopefully) will be mentioned numerous times in reviews as differences between Pentax cameras and the competition.

Ricoh doesn't really want to make a D7200 clone for a hundred dollars cheaper or, a 7D MK II clone for 600 dollars cheaper. They want to make their camera, the way they want to and watch their competitors scramble to match it.

[lytrytyr]

If they don't allow tripods you'll have other problems These places aren't well lit, and you'll end up with hand held pictures that are either a bit blurry or have high ISO - which robs a lot of the detail.
EXCEPT! With the K-3II's 4.5 stops of SR, you might be able to get a slower shutter speed and lower ISO - and actually end up with better pictures than you would with any other Pentax camera

We'll see.

For now, my K-01 paired with a fast lens like the A50/1.2 does a good job.

[reh321]

If they don't allow tripods you'll have other problems These places aren't well lit, and you'll end up with hand held pictures that are either a bit blurry or have high ISO - which robs a lot of the detail.
EXCEPT! With the K-3II's 4.5 stops of SR, you might be able to get a slower shutter speed and lower ISO - and actually end up with better pictures than you would with any other Pentax camera

We'll see.
For now, my K-01 paired with a fast lens like the A50/1.2 does a good job.

You are right, experience with Pentax SR is very encouraging with respect to this discussion. Someone complained when I commented based on my experience with a Q7, but Pentax is Pentax.Last month,while visiting our daughter in San Diego, we toured several old, very dark, churches. I didn't trust my older Canon Rebel in that setting, so I took pictures using my Pentax Q7; the standard prime lens enabled me to shoot at f/1.9, but even then I was down to a hand-held 1/6 second several times. Ignoring the color depth issues that go with a smaller sensor, I did some pixel-peeping, and every piece of writing visible was as sharp as possible at the 12MP provided by that sensor. The Pentax SR certainly did its job, and I am confident that the K-3ii will provide an even better stability.

But, of course, if the SR mechanism is doing its job of providing stability in a dark place, it won't be able to enhance the image thru pixel shifting.

[GeneV]

I think the whole point of the K3 II is stand out. Put features in it that Nikon not only doesn't but can't offer in their SLRs. I suppose they could have tried how to figure out some way to make the pop up flash extra snazzy, but somehow, I think that wouldn't have made waves. On the other hand, the pixel shift feature and better in body SR are both the sorts of things that (hopefully) will be mentioned numerous times in reviews as differences between Pentax cameras and the competition.

Was the trade off between a flash and pixel shift? If so, I'd say it was a good trade. If it was the GPS,... not so much. I really liked the idea of a radio control for the flash.

,

[totsmuyco]

I wouldn't doubt the improved SR. However, I'm interested with the image quality that the camera produces at low light using high ISO. I Hope 6400,would be usable.

[Jetsam1]

Bee waiting for something I can save up for, the K5 is great but more accurate and decisive AF would be very nice. Don't care about OB flash as I'd get the AF201G anyway with it.