[RonHendriks1966]

Built-in retractable P-TTL flash, GN: approx. 6.0 (ISO100/m)

SIX???? Is it real???

Fill light.

[Foxbat]

I think the weather-resistance is one-level down from the flagship products, whatever the marketing material might be trying to suggest. I mean, something is either waterproof or it isn't.

None of the Pentax cameras are waterproof. We're talking about weather resistance here and so far there are no substantial claims that KP has worse level of protection than K-3. Somebody already posted video where some guy does usual Pentax marketing trick - drop the camera in mud/sand and then wash it under running water. Furthermore, TCS did the same trick using K-S2 with mounted DA Limited zoom when they reviewed it (covered it with mud and silt from riverbed and then rinsed it in the same river), so I find it hard to believe that dearer camera which boasts "A highly environment-resistant imaging system" has weaker weatherproofing.

And the shutter is nothing special these days at 100,000 actuations, about the minimum anyone claims. Flagship products will offer twice that or more, just another way of saying there's a higher-spec part. Nothing wrong with any of this and of course many comparable cameras don't have any weather resistance at all, but it is mid-range stuff really, not top-end hence an asking price of around 1100 or 1200 rather than 1500 to 1800. Of course Ricoh are going to present these things in the best possible light, that is their job

There is a difference between "specs don't look for the long haul either" and "flagship will offer more". I have almost five year old K-5II, which still is going strong and it's not even the oldest working K-5 II in existence by far. How much longer haul, hardware wise do you need for a 1000$ camera, it will get obsolete in those five years anyway!

There is nothing wrong in wanting a better speced, pro level camera, but saying that KP hardware is inferior to K-5/K-3, without at least holding it in hands or reading review by a competent photographer, is wrong.

Looking at 7 FPS and 100,000 shutter actuations and how silent it is, I would bet they simply (re)use the K-5IIs shutter mechanism.

And I think there have been zero reasons to complain about the K-5IIs shutter. Ever. Compared to anything. The rest is 12 year old's spec sheet geekery.

Those were my thoughts exactly

[Erictator]

Built-in retractable P-TTL flash, GN: approx. 6.0 (ISO100/m)
SIX???? Is it real???

Prolly for fill and close ups only, maybe ideal for selfies? and... that's prolly all the little battery can handle. :-(
Eric

[Rondec]

+1, 1/6000 instead of 1/8000, Safox 11, not 12, 1 SD card, small battery. Lack of direct control like AF back button (I use only that personally). Not even the astrotracer thing thas was in K3-II.

While I think the KP is fantastic mid level camera with no weakness, and that maybe the low light is a bit better it is no flagship and the price asked price is flagship price.

I think we have the choice -- GPS/Astro tracer or pop up flash. Pentax got a huge amount of flack for dropping the pop up flash and replacing it with a unit that probably costs more in the K3 II and K-1. But probably space wise and cost wise there probably isn't room for both in a mid/entry level camera.

[geomez]

that's prolly all the little battery can handle

All Pentax entry and mid level DSLR's dating back to 2010 that use that battery have GN 12.

[Scintilla]

Lack of direct control like AF back button (I use only that personally). Not even the astrotracer thing thas was in K3-II.

To be clear, the AF/AE-L button will still work for back button AF, and it does still have Astrotracer functionality... if you get the GPS accessory.

Prolly for fill and close ups only, maybe ideal for selfies? and... that's prolly all the little battery can handle. :-(
Eric

And perhaps most importantly, for controlling other P-TTL flashes off-camera.

[Erictator]

All Pentax entry and mid level DSLR's dating back to 2010 that use that battery have GN 12.

Yeah, but I was thinking of the 2 extra axis image stabilization, extra CPU, probably more gain on sensor read for crazy high ISO, big new flippy LCD, etc etc etc. all prolly cut the battery life a little.
Eric

[pathdoc]

You can w**K all over the spec sheet all you want, but at the end of the day all that really matters is how the new camera works out in the hands of users. Actual photographers taking actual photographs of actual things in the real world, NOT test charts.

The control system - a work-over of the K-1 extra knobs but now with customizable functions, is hideously tempting; the stratospheric climb in maximum ISO (two more stops over anything before) is as well, but only if they've proportionally improved some of the other ISOs that were previously beyond the reach of film. If they've given us noiseless 51,200 that's something to write home about. Otherwise I'm not interested in further ISO bragging rights; I'd rather they perfected what they have (and frankly I'd rather they take it further into the LOWER register).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[geomez]

Yeah, but I was thinking of the 2 extra axis image stabilization, extra CPU, probably more gain on sensor read for crazy high ISO, big new flippy LCD, etc etc etc. all prolly cut the battery life a little.
Eric

Good point

[mecrox]

There is a difference between "specs don't look for the long haul either" and "flagship will offer more". I have almost five year old K-5II, which still is going strong and it's not even the oldest working K-5 II in existence by far. How much longer haul, hardware wise do you need for a 1000$ camera, it will get obsolete in those five years anyway!

Oh my goodness no, that is exactly how camera-makers want people to think. In fact it is far better and financially more advantageous to buy a well-make flagship product every five years, say, rather than treadmill through midrange products every three years. Now that the pace of technical change is slowing, it makes more sense because that more costly flagship product probably won't become obsolete nearly so quickly and certainly won't be taking inferior pictures - but it is likely to have lasted far better, proved much more satisfying to use and may even have a decent resale value. A thousand really doesn't buy you much in the camera world these days and there will be a lot of compromises in a camera at that level, from any maker (fewer compromises from Pentax than from most, in fact, hence nice cameras like the KP or the K70). But imho if you want the best ride on the aircraft, look at 1500 to 2000 or more at least and choose the ones which are built for the long haul.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

That might very well be, but the competition is moving too... If you compare the KP to the XT-20 - both one step below top-level, though presumably so in the case of the Pentax - the value proposition is very different than it was when I bought my K-3, and it was K-3 vrs XT-1. At that time, the K-3 clearly outgunned the XT-1 for waaaay less money, in my opinion. Now, some years later, KP vrs XT-20 isn't so clear anymore. They're both 24MP now, but fairly different cams. There's WR and IBIS on the Pentax side, but on the other side there's 4k, touchscreen, faster bursts with deeper buffer, a much lighter body, possibly better AF and arguably nicer JPG engine for the Fuji. Fuji is also coming out with some nice reasonably inexpensive primes which address the issue of expensive lenses. And the KP is launching $200 above the XT-20. Some people dislike x-trans, and EVF vrs OVF can be a religious issue, but my point is the comparison isn't the same kind of ass-whuppin' that the K-3 dealt to the XT-1, value-wise, when I went with the K-3... On the other hand, Pentax bodies tend to go down in price much more than Fuji bodies, so maybe in six months the equation will be very different. For myself, I think I'll try to soldier on with the K-3 for now. Still one heck of a nice camera.

Excellent analysis. The XT-10 still is out there priced only $100 lower than the XT-20 at intro. I think these companies are very much in competition, and I'm not sure that the traditionalists can expect to win out in the long run...

[monochrome]

^^^ @ mecrox IOW Just buy a K-1 and great lenses - good to go!

[Foxbat]

Oh my goodness no, that is exactly how camera-makers want people to think. In fact it is far better and financially more advantageous to buy a well-make flagship product every five years, say, rather than treadmill through midrange products every three years. Now that the pace of technical change is slowing, it makes more sense because that more costly flagship product probably won't become obsolete nearly so quickly and certainly won't be taking inferior pictures - but it is likely to have lasted far better, proved much more satisfying to use and may even have a decent resale value. A thousand really doesn't buy you much in the camera world these days and there will be a lot of compromises in a camera at that level, from any maker (fewer compromises from Pentax than from most, in fact). Look at 1500 to 2000 or more at least and choose the ones which are built for the long haul.

That's a valid point, if you need the features of pro grade sports cameras - AF tracking, with deep buffer size and fast shooting speeds. But I (and I presume some other people) don't need those features - size, ergonomics and IQ are of the most importance to me, everything else is just a bonus/insignificant problem.

What I want from KP won't get obsolete in 3 or 5 years, shutter and IBIS will still be working, screen will be tilting, Wi-Fi will allow me to share images with my family and friends on the spot, weather resistance will encourage me to use my camera while others will be hiding theirs, and of course, I will still be able to mount my Limited lenses. I'm not a pro photographer, I don't do sport events and don't frequent photo shoots that result in 1500+ images per day. There is no benefit whatsoever for me in spending additional 500 - 1000 units of currency on a professional tool, which I don't use. By your logic Porsche would make a better choice to carry my ass from home to work and back every day through traffic and potholes, because in the long haul it's a better car than VW Golf

[lithedreamer]

That's a valid point, if you need the features of pro grade sports cameras - AF tracking, with deep buffer size and fast shooting speeds. But I (and I presume some other people) don't need those features - size, ergonomics and IQ are of the most importance to me, everything else is just a bonus/insignificant problem.

What I want from KP won't get obsolete in 3 or 5 years, shutter and IBIS will still be working, screen will be tilting, Wi-Fi will allow me to share images with my family and friends on the spot, weather resistance will encourage me to use my camera while others will be hiding theirs, and of course, I will still be able to mount my Limited lenses. I'm not a pro photographer, I don't do sport events and don't frequent photo shoots that result in 1500+ images per day. There is no benefit whatsoever for me in spending additional 500 - 1000 units of currency on a professional tool, which I don't use. By your logic Porsche would make a better choice to carry my ass from home to work and back every day through traffic and potholes, because in the long haul it's a better car than VW Golf

Your car analogy doesn't make sense. Porsches are luxury cars, and they might even be more prone to break down. I think a better analogy is that you can buy 'cheap shoes from Walmart', they'll last a year or two under heavy use, or you can buy a really nice pair of shoes that will last far longer, for an additional outlay of money. You avoid shutter and aperture block issues when you buy a flagship.

Now, maybe you don't wear shoes often enough to justify spending the extra money, that's fine too.

[reh321]

Your car analogy doesn't make sense. Porsches are luxury cars, and they might even be more prone to break down. I think a better analogy is that you can buy 'cheap shoes from Walmart', they'll last a year or two under heavy use, or you can buy a really nice pair of shoes that will last far longer, for an additional outlay of money. You avoid shutter and aperture block issues when you buy a flagship.

Now, maybe you don't wear shoes often enough to justify spending the extra money, that's fine too.

How about air-conditioning in a car?

I'm guessing that A/C would be relatively unimportant to me if I lived in Nome AK {just as quicker AF is to me considering the pictures I actually take}, but essential to me if I lived in Los Angeles CA