[RonHendriks1966]

The K-S1 was way overpriced at arrival in 2014. It didn't had inside futures to justify that price. It was a nice camera, without new advanced af-module, no wr, basic settings, loud shutter, 77-metering. So entry level in fancy color.

At that time Nikon had many old models from left over stock at sale. So for one K-S1 with 18-55mm lens you could buy two sets of Nikon. Now it is not very different. The K-70 body is 699 euro, while a Nikon d3300 body is 329 euro and also has 24 megapixel.

I know the Apple and Oranges. ......But most people don't see the K-70 since it is almost in no shops available once released.

[Zygonyx]

Hopefully, there is no Fuji ZT1.

[totsmuyco]

Sorry, I edited my previous post, it's XT-1 and I held one this Saturday. I have no plans of buying one but, the size is really nice.

[anu l]

It won't have better batterylife a top lcd or build quality than the k-3 II, no built in gps either. I prefer a more pro-like body like the K-3 II. Likely the K-3 II successor will have all advantages of the k-70 and the K-3 II plus something extra. Only disadvantage will be it's price.

The K-3 II is a better body than K-70 in almost every respect, except in video, photography where live view makes more sense like landscapes, macro & when mounted on tripod, plus it doesnt have inbuilt wifi.

else if u're using OVF for sports, wildlife, fast action, K-3 II with more AF points, deeper buffer, more FPS & more deicated buttons is by far the best choice.

[Nicolas06]

The K-3 II is a better body than K-70 in almost every respect, except in video, photography where live view makes more sense like landscapes, macro & when mounted on tripod, plus it doesnt have inbuilt wifi.

else if u're using OVF for sports, wildlife, fast action, K-3 II with more AF points, deeper buffer, more FPS & more deicated buttons is by far the best choice.

The benefit of the live view mode for K70 is the newer PDAF that promize fast AF and maybe they also put some tracking capabiity. It may help on video, but it is useless for landscapes or macro! This feature is usefull for sport, wildlife, fast action...

And I wonder if you would use LV for that.? The shooting position give you a worse holding of the camera, the battery autonomy reduce drastically and if the goal was to shoot in LV, you'd better get a mirrorless or Pentax to put an EVF instead of that OVF...

That K70 allows Pentax to try in sensor PDAF, and that's great - for them and to prepare the future. It give better video, and that good's for everybody. But people read too much in the specs to me without thinking of practical use. I don't want to take 10 batteries with me and use LV, change them every hour or so (that was with K3 that has double autonomy). I don't want to handold an heavy lens with my hand extended so I can see the backscreen neither. To me all of this is more therory than being practical...

[anu l]

The benefit of the live view mode for K70 is the newer PDAF that promize fast AF and maybe they also put some tracking capabiity. It may help on video, but it is useless for landscapes or macro! This feature is usefull for sport, wildlife, fast action...

And I wonder if you would use LV for that.? The shooting position give you a worse holding of the camera, the battery autonomy reduce drastically and if the goal was to shoot in LV, you'd better get a mirrorless or Pentax to put an EVF instead of that OVF...

That K70 allows Pentax to try in sensor PDAF, and that's great - for them and to prepare the future. It give better video, and that good's for everybody. But people read too much in the specs to me without thinking of practical use. I don't want to take 10 batteries with me and use LV, change them every hour or so (that was with K3 that has double autonomy). I don't want to handold an heavy lens with my hand extended so I can see the backscreen neither. To me all of this is more therory than being practical...

In case of Landscape and macro I was referring to live view as a feature rather than PDAF,

I shoot macros, and take shots from weird angles, having that articulating mechanism saves a lot of effort for me, I couldnt Imagine many of such pictures shot with a viewfinder. As far as landscapes is concerned, an articulating screen will allow you to get shots from awkward angles, here viewfinder would be inconvenient.

The reason I need DSLR is I also plan to use it for some fast action shooting like bird photography hence I need the OVF instead of viewfinder. DSLR gives a combination of both.

Also while mounting it on tripod, I'd be using the camera remotely via Wi-Fi.

[Nicolas06]

The reason I need DSLR is I also plan to use it for some fast action shooting like bird photography hence I need the OVF instead of viewfinder. DSLR gives a combination of both.

Yeap but beware of that performance wiht OVF, when using the OVF, the sensor can't see the scene so it new features are not usable at all. Using the OVF, the K70 is just a KS2 with 24MP instead of 20.

I am pretty sure the next APSC flagship will have both but it might be expensive for some time

[Na Horuk]

Yeap but beware of that performance wiht OVF, when using the OVF, the sensor can't see the scene so it new features are not usable at all. Using the OVF, the K70 is just a KS2 with 24MP instead of 20.

Well, 24MP sensor, and also 14 bit instead of 12 bit. And higher max ISO, and a little better burst rate. And video features. So there are quite a few little improvements. Maybe they are not significant for everyone, but many users might enjoy them.
Pentax K-70 vs. Pentax K-S2 vs. Pentax K-50 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com
To me, lack of AA, 24MP and 14 bit sounds attractive already.
And, as mentioned above, the big thing is that Pentax gets to experiment and try these new things and continue to evolve. But hey, if you are waiting for a bigger update jump, thats absolutely fine

[reh321]

Well, 24MP sensor, and also 14 bit instead of 12 bit. And higher max ISO, and a little better burst rate. And video features. So there are quite a few little improvements. Maybe they are not significant for everyone, but many users might enjoy them.
Pentax K-70 vs. Pentax K-S2 vs. Pentax K-50 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com
To me, lack of AA, 24MP and 14 bit sounds attractive already.
And, as mentioned above, the big thing is that Pentax gets to experiment and try these new things and continue to evolve. But hey, if you are waiting for a bigger update jump, thats absolutely fine

I totally agree with your comments above.

In addition, I find other features to be compelling.

From 1979 to 2015, although I was an amateur, my equipment looked professional from a distance of more than a couple of feet. Much of my photography involves taking pictures which are not exactly "street photography", but in which human beings play an important role. I would really like to stand around and be "invisible" to my subjects - I don't want their behaviors to be affected by my presence. However, during 1979-2015, I was constantly dealing with people who would come up to me and ask loudly "Who are you with?" or who want me to know that it will cost me to use their image or the image of their possessions. Even if these people are being silly, they disrupt the process. My brother got a digital camera before I did, and I am now convinced from his use of Canon equipment that an articulated LCD would allow me to be less obvious when I take pictures {flippy LCD would be even better} as I stare down at my camera instead of pointing it directly at my subjects. When I moved to Pentax, I had planned to get white/black and silver/black cameras; I got blue/black and yellow/black because our cash-flow was weak, and I got good used-like-new bargains, but I also would love the more subtle K-70 silver/black as being neither loud nor professional-looking black.

As an amateur, I have only so much time to devote to my hobbies {interesting fact: my family expects most of my time to be focused on them}. I am in the midst of digitizing nearly forty years of photographs that I took before I got my first digital camera. Another interesting fact: Even the best scanners create images with visible issues, such as scratches, dust particles, and remains of fungus. Thus, I examine each image at 100% or 200% and then manually fix each issue; this is easy to describe, but it takes much of my valuable "hobby time", and leaves me with little interest in Post Processing. Another interesting fact {based on careful experimentation}: If I read a JPEG file created with minimum compression into an editor such as gimp, make minor corrections, and then write it out as another JPEG file with minimum compression, at 100% I can find no differences between the two file other than the ones I created in the editor. Thus, for me, a camera which does a good job of generating JPEG files is invaluable, because that allows automation to do what automation does well, and saves for my time only those tasks which automation cannot handle {this is even better than my many years of using Kodachrome 25, when automation did everything after I removed the film from my camera}. I have found the JPEGs created by my K-30 and Q-7 to be just right most of the time, and I have every reason to expect the K-70 to do even better.

For example, here is a picture I took last Christmas during a performance by a group called "Straight No Chaser" {we had first row second balcony seats}.



SNC began as a student group at Indiana University, and became successful professionals because of amateur video posted on-line, so they are very friendly towards amateur photography ... but their stage effects not so much. I had to set my Q-7 at ISO 3200 to get reasonable images, and that resulted in more noise than I am willing to wrestle with right now. I'm guessing that the K-30 would have done better {I knew that they would make an opening announcement welcoming photography, but I wasn't sure I'd be able to get a larger camera past the Performance Center's security}, but my hope is that the K-70 will do much much better under circumstances like this, leaving me nothing but a little touch-up if anything at all.

These are differences between those of us who know we are amateurs and those who want to attain professional standards, a difference totally lost in the discussions of the "mere $100" {U.S. dollar sign always precedes the amount} that separates the 2015 K-3ii from the 2016 K-70. And as you have said, those who want these features in a professional standard package probably have just a few months to wait.

[planteater]

One thing that intrigues me is that we are seeing unboxing videos from early adopters but no detailed reviews. It seems a bit odd that review models haven't been made available to magazines and credible websites. Is this normal?
I've pretty much talked myself into buying the K70 but would like to see some sort of considered review before I do.

[Nicolas06]

@reh321: Yep that all about priorities and usage and everybody different.

For me RAW vs JPEG doesn't change anything but I don't shoot that many photos and I don't mind the space. DxO manage the noise automatically (as well as distorsion, optical aberations and all the rest) so I don't have to spend time on post process just for that. I just need to ask for an export and go on with my life, the photo are ready when I go back. But this mean no instant sharing on social media and alike.

I agree with you that JPEG is enough for most case, really in term of quality and that even if you save a second time, this doesn't show. The thing that does show a difference is high iso, white balance and exposure. Even on the K3 you get burned highlight on that JPEG that can get brought back on a RAW. Because there lot of information in that Raw and more margin I typically under expose a bit (by 0.3EV in general) so I never get burned highlight on my photo and can push... So it ease the post procesisng for me. Until now, you get better high iso result (let's check how the K70 improve camera JPEG in that regard) and there much more margin to push shadow or correct under exposure.

I use raws because for my workflow it is free for me to do so consume no time and I get better results at time. But this require a good raw procesing software and still to export the pictures, thing I would do anyway to change the rendering, reframe a bit etc. But if you do not do any post processing then it add an unecessary and annoying step.

For the articulated screen there no ways arround it. Having one would help that's sure. And today that's KS2, K1 or K70. As for the street photography stuff you like to do, I wonder if the Q not better if you do that in daylight. Or just an Olympus Pen EPL7 or something equivalent with an articulated screen. Much small/lighter and with a collapsible 14-42 nobody would think much of your gear... That would not help for the high iso, sure but maybe you need different devices for different uses?

[anu l]

Yeap but beware of that performance wiht OVF, when using the OVF, the sensor can't see the scene so it new features are not usable at all. Using the OVF, the K70 is just a KS2 with 24MP instead of 20.

I am pretty sure the next APSC flagship will have both but it might be expensive for some time

By "hence I need the OVF instead of viewfinder" written below I meant I also need the OVF over the EVF, the live view will give me many of the advantages of an electronic screen present in EVF of mirorrless cameras e.g. knowing what the sensor is actually seeing and that too at a much improved speed, but mirrorless EVF has the inherent delay, now there exists some delay in OVF of DSLRs too but it's much less, hence I believe DSLR has the edge in fast action photography & you also get the advantages of electronic screen thanks to the Live view.

With mirrorless you basically get electronic screens at both places, with one having some advantage over the other.

In case of Landscape and macro I was referring to live view as a feature rather than PDAF,

I shoot macros, and take shots from weird angles, having that articulating mechanism saves a lot of effort for me, I couldnt Imagine many of such pictures shot with a viewfinder. As far as landscapes is concerned, an articulating screen will allow you to get shots from awkward angles, here viewfinder would be inconvenient.

The reason I need DSLR is I also plan to use it for some fast action shooting like bird photography hence I need the OVF instead of viewfinder. DSLR gives a combination of both.

Also while mounting it on tripod, I'd be using the camera remotely via Wi-Fi.

[Pentigor]

One thing that intrigues me is that we are seeing unboxing videos from early adopters but no detailed reviews. It seems a bit odd that review models haven't been made available to magazines and credible websites. Is this normal?
I've pretty much talked myself into buying the K70 but would like to see some sort of considered review before I do.

I have exactly the same questions, every day I check several sites to find a first review, but nothing...


Igor

[D1N0]

The camera just wasn't available yet apart from some pre production copies probably. We should also see firmware updates for kAF4 soon.

---------- Post added 26-07-16 at 13:00 ----------

Here are some Japanese reviews:
https://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yao...ntax-k-70.html
https://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fehbtj.c...lr-pentax-k-70

[JPT]

Just tried this camera in the store to see what the new sensor AF was like. I used the lenses they happened have on the display, and they tended toward the consumer end the spectrum. My point of reference for LV is a K-01. It work significantly faster than that. Just first impressions, but . . .

DA18-135: reasonably fast, sure
DA 35 2.4 and DA50 1.8: very quick and sure
DFA50: macro slow, struggled to find focus at all
DA50-200: slow, hunted
DA18-270: average
DA17-70: slow, hunted
Some long slow Sigma (70-300?): Average

Some of the lenses now seem to be faster in LV than through the OVF.

In the hand, the camera just has a more conventional, serious flavour than the K-S2. I think it's the finish, appreciably on the top plate.