Originally posted by asw66 Great explanation, thanks!
Pentax traditionally ekes out better dynamic range from its sensors than just about anyone else, which is one of the things I really value about the brand. So I'll trade a bit of burst speed for dynamic range, for sure.
I don't think it is so simple an explanation.
Real question is how much of difference is visible in everyday circumstances.
Today's KP uses a newer crop sensor tech that an FF from the K-1. But compare the KP with what Sony does with same sensor in Sony a6000. Let's ask valid questions:
1. Do we think KP's 7fps versus A6000's 11fps helps KP be better in image quality? I don't think so — 7fps is limitation set by the mirror. We have no proof 11 fps would degrade it.
2. Is mere 8 RAWs in burst mode enabling KP to deliver such great quality, and say, 32 RAWs would degrade the output? I don't think so: I/O speed has to do with limitations set by Ricoh Imaging, visible from the K-1. That is, the manufacturer reiterates lots of old tech that is not capable of certain performance. Why? To keep the cost down, and the KP was limited too — if the flagship is the K3II, already 3.5 years old tech, Ricoh Imaging limited the KP to be below the K3II speed level, so that it appears K3II is still the flagship. It is like throwing a camera waaay back in time — common mistake made by Canon, Nikon and Ricoh Imaging when issuing "entry" and "mid-level" cameras. And one of reasons mirrorless parties appear to be faster in leaping over them. Because they do not make same mistakes!
I think that strategy is unfair to the KP, to be so deliberately crippled, at levels that precede K3II development! Pentax team should look at mirrorless peers and what they do, not what Nikon does. If the KP had K3II's buffer, it would have much wider audience today. Time moves fast in this industry, there are no excuses for crippling down basic functionality of a camera anymore, which are getting redefined daily. DSLRs are about speed too.
That is my open complaint about, otherwise, excellent cameras. K-1 and KP were made
deliberately slow for no plausible engineering reason — only for the sake of their marketing position. Both could share already available tech from the K3II. In that regard, bad design choices. They could sell more critical cameras like K-1 and KP with better memory and I/O speed specs.