[Vantage-Point]

Or in a model sitting aside from K-1, with a smaller number of pixels, but much faster burst speed. A camera for sport photographer, astrophotographer and videographer.

I would definitely buy that camera if the price were right!

[redrockcoulee]

We'll find out by the end of April.
Correction: kenspo will find out, but he won't say anything, he will simply tease us

Which for those of use not in the market for a new camera is the best way to find out, or at least the most enjoyable.

I agree with many others that it is the entry level camera to come out next and it would piggyback more on the K-1 than a K-3 replacment would. Most potential purchasers of the K-3 III would already know about Pentax if they were not already upgrading from an older model whereas entry level models by their very nature tend to attract new buyers and with fanfare about the FF thye entry Pentax may have more appeal based on peoploe having heard about Pentax.

[monochrome]

This is not the same market. People that want an FF, will not go back and people that want to keep APSC will not buy an FF if the next flagship is a bit late.

Introductory APSc price just went down 30% and capability went up 20% from current K-3ll. In that way APSc buyers lost to FF are replaced by new APSc buyers at the bottom.

[luftfluss]

Two new APS-C bodies! One DSLR, one MILC - let's go, Ricoh!!!

[patarok]

Introductory APSc price just went down 30% and capability went up 20% from current K-3ll. In that way APSc buyers lost to FF are replaced by new APSc buyers at the bottom.

What you guys are thinking about...
Honestly I would get a headache from that.

To stay true to the threads purpose, I will stop speculating about a K-SF...

But:
I really hope the K-*0 series dies and we see more K-S* cameras...

Because: The K-S2 is a really fit camera that just could use a better display... AND: Think about the K-S2 as the beginning of a new era... I really like the funny design, though in black or pale white it looks just like a serious Ti competitor(what it actually is, IMHO the PENTAX is a bit better) next time we maybe get a better customizable info-display. Or maybe the first really with sanity developed useful touch display on a camera...
In 4-8 years we may see a mirrorless with a new mount based on those babies...

That are things to think or dream about IMHO...

[thibs]

Frankly, having no money for a K-1, if I had to buy now, it would be a KS-2.
Dual wheels, WR and 100% VF + WiFi and moving screen at stupid price.
That's just it IMO.

[Nicolas06]

Introductory APSc price just went down 30% and capability went up 20% from current K-3ll. In that way APSc buyers lost to FF are replaced by new APSc buyers at the bottom.

FF make thing bigger/heavier and more expensive, including lenses. Like 70-200 vs 50-135. Not everybody willing to pay for it. Plus Canikon has no issue asking the same price for their highend APSC as en entry level FF.

An APSC body with 5 stops SR, articulated screen, astrotracer, 8.5 FPS and additionnal wheels can be sold as a high price for me. If it is a new BSI sensor I think you ask the same as K3 introducory price without issue. AS I remember was 1300$ with the grip included. Like K3, it would soon cost no more than 1100$ in practice. It would sell at that price I think.

I don't know how you measure 20% capacity, but to me the difference is big enough to justify the buy vs K3-II. I don't think the new introdusory price has to be 900$ (1300 - 30%) instead of 1300.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-23-2016 at 11:49 PM.

[Nicolas06]

Because: The K-S2 is a really fit camera that just could use a better display... AND: Think about the K-S2 as the beginning of a new era... I really like the funny design, though in black or pale white it looks just like a serious Ti competitor(what it actually is, IMHO the PENTAX is a bit better) next time we maybe get a better customizable info-display. Or maybe the first really with sanity developed useful touch display on a camera...
In 4-8 years we may see a mirrorless with a new mount based on those babies...

That are things to think or dream about IMHO...

Well K-S2 with 24MP sensor from K3 and AF sensor from k3. is enough to be a big improvement to me

[Nicolas06]

I'm not so sure. For many people, a camera is just a camera. And separation like FF users, and APS-C users is very fragile IMO. Last days I have read a lot of messages of people which says that they was not thinking about buying an FF, but when they saw the specs and price of K-1, they changed their mind. A very capable APS-C, with new features can be very attractive and move the balance for some, if it came to soon. But that's only my opinion.

So you think that theses people if they decide for the FF would buy the next APSC after to replace their FF ? I think not. FF and APSC are not intercheangable.

There are people that are tempted by FF or want FF, and theses would not go back, whatever the price.

But there many that don't want one. It would require them the same change in their echosystem as switching mount: have to sell APSC lenses and buy new FF lenses wit the addition the lenses become bigger/heavier...

I have today DA15, DA21, DA35, FA77, F135 and soon a 55-300. So in FF I would need DFA24 (doesn't exist, likely at least 600$ when available), FA31, F135, DA*200 and sigma 50-500 to match. That 3000$+ in lenses + 1800$ for the body = 4800$ and total gear size 4.5kg. Even selling DA15 + DA21 + DA35 make it a 3500$ investment at least.

My current APSC line up is 2.4kg (half the weight), take half the place too... Not to be discounted when you travel... I don't want to have to get a 50-500 when I go to Kenya this year. This is too big.

And my FA77 that is the most expensive lense I own and that I love, give me lot of reach and nice picture on APSC would become a 50mm, a focal length that I'am not interrested in at all.

FF is not interresting for me, and I am not alone, I am sure. Many people are still willing to pay for APSC. The day there an FF body the same price as APSC; no bigger/heavier and with an EVF that adapt fully to APSC/FF lenses field of view, that might be different... In the meantime...

Let's be blunt, if I was really after FF, I would have built my line up with Canikon, not Pentax.

Was I would buy in a heartbeat is a K-02 with K3 features but half the weight and a bit smaller.

[JimmyDranox]

No. I didn't say that someone who have already bought an FF would turn back to APS-C. I said that someone who is tempted to buy a FF, could change his mind, and stay to APS-C, if a very new and capable camera will come to soon. Keep in mind that not everyone will buy a K-1 in the first second. There will be a lot of people who will wait, for different reasons, many month before making a decision. And that's how a flagship APS-C, coming to soon, can hurts FF sales.

In fact, I rather expect another FF, with a smaller pixels count, good for video and sport (maybe with the Sony sensor from A7s) to be launched first, before another highend APS-C. At least that's what I would do. And I would say that the new flagship APS-C is the an FF, like they did with the 645Z, when they said that this is the Pentax FF.

[calsan]

Getting late on the original post, I'd prefer a different standard zoom to the 16-50 2.8 than a new body. Been waiting for a long time in this category, instead keep getting close, but no cigar.

Dad recently bought an olympus 12-40 2.8 for m4/3 and it's a ripper. It made me reconsider m4/3 as an option as there's nothing to match the 12-40's size, speed and build quality in APS format.

Maybe with all the Tamron re-badges happening, a WR HD 17-50 2.8 would fit the bill. Maintaining the tamron's small size and decent optics, but adding Pentax's coatings, WR, quick shift and polarizer window in the hood.

[Nicolas06]

Getting late on the original post, I'd prefer a different standard zoom to the 16-50 2.8 than a new body. Been waiting for a long time in this category, instead keep getting close, but no cigar.

Dad recently bought an olympus 12-40 2.8 for m4/3 and it's a ripper. It made me reconsider m4/3 as an option as there's nothing to match the 12-40's size, speed and build quality in APS format.

Maybe with all the Tamron re-badges happening, a WR HD 17-50 2.8 would fit the bill. Maintaining the tamron's small size and decent optics, but adding Pentax's coatings, WR, quick shift and polarizer window in the hood.

A 12-40 f/2.8 on m4/3 is approximately a 16-53 f/3.7 on APSC... There 8.5% of distorsion at 12mm on that lens uncorrected meaning the 12mm is more like 13-14mm in reality once the correction has been applied. Thinking of it, a 16-45 f/4, 17-70 f/4 provide as much and 17-70 f/2.8-4 and 17-50 f/2.8 provide more.

A 18-135 had great build quality, is WR, small and the max apperture up to 50mm mean it basically match the possibility of low light gathering and subject separation of the 12-40 f/2.8...

What I want to say is not the 12-40 bad, it just that you don't need an f/2.8 lens on APSC to match.

[mecrox]

A 12-40 f/2.8 on m4/3 is approximately a 16-53 f/3.7 on APSC... There 8.5% of distorsion at 12mm on that lens uncorrected meaning the 12mm is more like 13-14mm in reality once the correction has been applied. Thinking of it, a 16-45 f/4, 17-70 f/4 provide as much and 17-70 f/2.8-4 and 17-50 f/2.8 provide more.

A 18-135 had great build quality, is WR, small and the max apperture up to 50mm mean it basically match the possibility of low light gathering and subject separation of the 12-40 f/2.8...

What I want to say is not the 12-40 bad, it just that you don't need an f/2.8 lens on APSC to match.

The Olympus Pro series are very good lenses and built to very high standards. They are also - shock horror - designed for a different format and a different system. Nerdulent number-crunching doesn't give the picture - the images do. It's called photography. The results I get from my Oly 12-40mm are superior to those I got from my DA* 16-50mm, in my view, not least because the Oly lens is designed to perform extremely well wide-open or one stop down, unlike so many APS-C lenses which need stopping down quite a lot before they perform optimally.

The OP wanted a new 16-50mm f2.8 zoom. If neither of the three current options from Pentax, Tamron and Sigma suffice, then there are two choices: change brands or look at a different lens. I'd suggest taking a close look at the excellent DA 16-85mm and supplementing it with a prime lens for lowlight performance. I suspect that APS-C DSLRs are slowly but surely being relegated to variable-aperture consumerville and are not the right platform if top performance is required with the exception of sports/wildlife in the case of Canon and Nikon. An alternative is looking at the fast Sigmas like the 18-35mm but these seem to bring problems of their own (focusing, compatibility).

[Simen1]

FF make thing bigger/heavier and more expensive, including lenses. Like 70-200 vs 50-135. Not everybody willing to pay for it. Plus Canikon has no issue asking the same price for their highend APSC as en entry level FF.

I don't agree completely. If you compare to comparable lenses, both focal length and aperture equivalent lenses, the weight and size is in the same ball park. Sometimes a more heavy, other times lighter. Pricing can vary a lot but even there its a slight correleation in equivalencys. Making a larger aperture lens for a smaller format tends to be more expensive. If large sensors where free and camera size didn’t matter the marked would shift significantly towards small aperture large format lenses.

Here is a comparison between 50-135/2,8 lenses for APS-C and 70-200/4 lenses for FF.
Here is a comparison between a 18-55/2,8-4 lens for APS-C and 28-80/3,5-5,6 lenses for FF.
Here are 16-50ish f/2,8 APS-C lenses compared to 24-70 f/4 lenses for FF.

This equivalency comparisons gives you the same field of view and same total light gathering power with the same shutter speeds. But it doesn’t give you the same resolution. Normally the FF option gives you more detail (lppmm or P-Mpix) at comparable settings.

[Nicolas06]

The Olympus Pro series are very good lenses and built to very high standards. They are also - shock horror - designed for a different format and a different system. Nerdulent number-crunching doesn't give the picture - the images do. It's called photography. The results I get from my Oly 12-40mm are superior to those I got from my DA* 16-50mm, in my view, not least because the Oly lens is designed to perform extremely well wide-open or one stop down, unlike so many APS-C lenses which need stopping down quite a lot before they perform optimally.

The OP wanted a new 16-50mm f2.8 zoom. If neither of the three current options from Pentax, Tamron and Sigma suffice, then there are two choices: change brands or look at a different lens. I'd suggest taking a close look at the excellent DA 16-85mm and supplementing it with a prime lens for lowlight performance. I suspect that APS-C DSLRs are slowly but surely being relegated to variable-aperture consumerville and are not the right platform if top performance is required with the exception of sports/wildlife in the case of Canon and Nikon. An alternative is looking at the fast Sigmas like the 18-35mm but these seem to bring problems of their own (focusing, compatibility).

I agree there more to a lens than its max apperture and to me that the annoying part of m4/3 it look like either you have many basic kit lenses or you have the very expensive and bulky 12-40. There nothing in between and the lens isn't going to match the capacity of an f/2.8 for FF anyway. There no reasonnable sigma contemporary 13-50 f/2.8-4 for example but on APSC a 17-70 f/2.8-4 is a great lens quite innexpensive. You only get it in 3.5-5.6 version on m4/3 but that deliver more the quality of a DA18-55 f/3.5-5.6. There neither a 15-30 f/2.8-4 equivalent of the DA20-40 f/2.8-4... And each time I don't even apply equivalent of apperture, so I'am not that demanding.

If you want a cheap f/2.8 lens, APSC and FF are the best platform for it. Here in france a 17-50 is 200-300€ and a 70-200 600€ from tamron. a 24-70 from sigma barely more expensive. 350€ I think. I don't think the tamron has any quality issue at f/4 the matching equivalent and having f/2.8 in addition doesn't hurt. In term of size/weight, 17-50 f/2.8 and 12-40 f/2.8 are very similar.

You'll asso notice that both the 17-50 f/2.8 from tamron and the 12-40 f/2.8 have the same note on photozone, so it is not like one is wonderful and the other is terrible.

m4/3 has smaller echosystem and concentrate on smaller bodies and lenses and you pay the 2 aspects. This is not necessarily bad but to be known and so when one compared f/2.8 on APSC and m4/3 I just said it is not the same. Contrary to the other discussion I have with FF vs APSC, I didn't manage to find interesting light lenses. The max apperture of prime isn't that impressive, they are more expensive than APSC/FF and there nothing between the bulky pro lens and entry level kit lens for zooms.