[shiner]

Overall, I'm very happy with my K70 and KP for the kind of photography I'm into. I hardly ever use my old K-3, as either of these cameras can make nicer looking images and have key features that simply trump the old K-3. I'm not in the market for a FF, but if they DID announce a new K-3iii, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat.

[Larrymc]

Today the K-3 II was moved from the current camera list to the discontinued list on the Ricoh Japan website.

Gone! Products | RICOH IMAGING

It's reflected at most retailers as well. I wonder how much of a gap there will be, but a new advanced APS-C camera must be on the way now.

Lets hope so!!

Larry

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Today the K-3 II was moved from the current camera list to the discontinued list on the Ricoh Japan website.

Gone! Products | RICOH IMAGING

It's reflected at most retailers as well. I wonder how much of a gap there will be, but a new advanced APS-C camera must be on the way now.

Hopefully the real K-3II replacement comes out sometime this year.

[aurele]

Today the K-3 II was moved from the current camera list to the discontinued list on the Ricoh Japan website.

Gone! Products | RICOH IMAGING

It's reflected at most retailers as well. I wonder how much of a gap there will be, but a new advanced APS-C camera must be on the way now.

YEAH !!! Soon a new K3

[jacamar]

Having just received a $300+ CDN estimate to fix the mirror flop issue that afflicted my K-3 this weekend, I hope the Kii replacement finally nails that one once and for all. I understand at least some K-3iis have that problem as well. This is the second major repair for this camera's electronics.
I'll also add my voice to those calling for a flippy LCD screen and improved tracking for bird in flight photography. I know that some have debated the latter, but I've tried a number of approaches and still don't have a great success rate.

[c.a.m]

Today the K-3 II was moved from the current camera list to the discontinued list on the Ricoh Japan website.

It seems that the cold Canadian climate causes the online machinery to be sluggish - Ricoh Imaging Canada still lists the K-3 II on it's main page. It's also listed on the Ricoh Imaging USA site. Maybe just a matter of catching up with the mother ship?

[Mistral75]

It seems that the cold Canadian climate causes the online machinery to be sluggish - Ricoh Imaging Canada still lists the K-3 II on it's main page. It's also listed on the Ricoh Imaging USA site. Maybe just a matter of catching up with the mother ship?

Whether the K-3 II is presented as current or discontinued might also have to do with the remaining level of inventory in each region. The manufacturing of the camera stopped months ago.

[Wheatfield]

Mee and Twilhelm, I agree completely.


I'm not surprised by any delay here. Pentax is not a behemoth, with tons of resources to throw at the wall. The K1 is a solid DSLR that should serve well for a large percentage of users who would be in the market for a K3 III+ class APS-C SLR camera.

Pentax must be scratching their head, watching the rest of the world and marketplace shift around them.

High volume consumers are vanishing, increasingly happy with the camera in their iPhone 6/7/8/10 (which frankly are darn good.) Judging by the questions I answer at work (where folks always ask me for camera advice) there is less and less interest in carrying a DSLR system. Many people bought one, and either have no need to upgrade, or they realized they never bring their DSLR anywhere because of size and weight.

Meanwhile, pros and dedicated amateurs are warming to mirrorless, lead there by the pro mirrorless cameras offered by Hasselblad, Fuji and Sony. Pentax is left with SLR-based MF digital and full-frame 35mm digital that suddenly look outdated and clunky.

Yes, there are times you want an optical finder of a DSLR -- birding and high speed sports. But I don't personally know anyone who shoots those, and judging by Flickr the majority of folks shoot landscapes or slow-moving people (portraits.) For this majority, there are real advantages to mirrorless, and the DSLR architecture starts to look clunky and rube-goldbergian.

As a manufacturer (whether it's Pentax or Nikon) you have to look at Sony and Fuji and Hassy and think .... here's a way to make desirable cameras that cost less to engineer, manufacture and support, and/or offer a better profit margin.

If Pentax (and Nikon) aren't having these thoughts, then I worry about them still being here in ten years time.

The move to mirrorless is inevitable. It's like the move from viewfinder/rangefinder cameras to SLR cameras in the 60's. The rational drivers are too strong to resist for most of the market and manufacturers. Those with a valid reason to prefer the older technology will continue to be served, but likely only by one manufacturer who stakes claim to the legacy form. With rangefinders it was Leica. With SLRs ... who knows. But do Pentax or Nikon really want to become even more of a niche brand? Especially as they don't have the Veblen glow of Leica?

Therefore any thought of the Pentax K3 II successor being mirrorless is music to my ears.

The reason a K3II successor won't be mirrorless is because electronic viewfinders still lag quite far behind optical ones. Nothing is inevitable, no matter what the cheerleaders of any particular technology would care to believe.
If/when EVFs catch up to OVFs, I would expect we will start to see them showing up on the lower end cameras at first.

[pakinjapan]

I don't get all this discusion.
Why Pentax wouldn't be first to make real hybrid of SLR an MILC?
Just add display, that will be reflected by mirror, when it's up (or semitransparent mirror and display below between sensor and lens), and we have SLR when mirror is down, and MILC with viewfinder, when mirror is up. Sure, it's not as small, as most MILCs, but you can choice if you want what world do you want to use at the moment, what suits you best, and when lens is attached, camera size is not so important any more.

I would say “weight”. One factor pushes people to mirrorless are the weight. [I agree, size is not so important any more. my K3 is no way a big camera, IMO]
Rather than a hybrid body, a dedicate EVF unit could be an answer here, but some (at less me) will say, I can just use the rear LCD, why pay for a dedicate EVF. lol

[MatKus]

I would say “weight”. One factor pushes people to mirrorless are the weight.

Realy? What's the difference, if weight is 500g or 650g? When you attach lens that weights 1000 or 2000g?

I don't think cameras all must go to mirrorless. I think cameras will divide into 3 main groups + several mionor. Minor groups are like street, who needs somethins as small, as possible, but with better IQ (like GR), or bird guys, who needs super zoom only to recognize bird they see at horizon, bot don't care about IQ (like P900 users). Major groups are smartphones for those, who don't care much for uber quality, small MILC (like m43) or for people, who needs long lens or wide angle lens etc, but are not pro, and pro users (FF or MF), who want super sharp images at all cost. Here few grams or milimeters does not matter much, when you can get better IQ, faster AF or anything else. And in this group i see Pentax.

[ogl]

The name of new camera will be K-2.

[x4rd]

The name of new camera will be K-2.

Source?

[ogl]

Source?

My fantasy

[Na Horuk]

Pentax has not really improved Focus peaking, CD AF, live view, digital SR, overall video performance (cropping, codecs, jello effect problems) since the K-01 was released in 2012. This shows that mirrorless is not a priority. If it were, the KP and K-70 would already be testing new technology for improved live view, that would later be used in a mirrorless model. You can't make a mirrorless camera out of nothing, it has to be a gradual process.
With Pentax it was always gradual. For example, AA filter was present on all 16MP cameras, then they made a weaker one on K-01, tested it out, and then they made K-5IIs without AA filter, and now all the cameras come without AA filter. Pentax is not one to jump full force into something completely new. Even the K-01, the first Pentax APSC mirrorless and a very odd camera, shares most of the technology from the other 16MP cameras of that time

But yes, Pentax needs a new APSC flagship. Something like the K-3, but with all the new tech found in K-70 and KP and K-1. A fast camera, with fast AF and fast burst mode and low noise at high ISO. The KP and K-70 already cover the introduction and hobby tiers well enough. Pentax just needs a new pro/semi-pro APSC, for birders and sports photographers and adventure photographers

[Wheatfield]

I would say “weight”. One factor pushes people to mirrorless are the weight. [I agree, size is not so important any more. my K3 is no way a big camera, IMO]
Rather than a hybrid body, a dedicate EVF unit could be an answer here, but some (at less me) will say, I can just use the rear LCD, why pay for a dedicate EVF. lol

A mirrorless APS-C camera with K-Mount and a viewfinder will not be significantly smaller than a K3. Much of the size of the camera is dictated by the registration distance the large battery and in body image stabilization.
The compromises Fuji made to get the X-T cameras as small as they are (and they are quite svelte) would be unacceptable to many photographers. The battery life alone would be enough to chase a lot of people away. If you tend to spend a lot of time with the camera to your eye, you can expect as little as 50 pictures to a battery. The most I can squeeze out of my X-T1 is about 250, and that is by being very aware of how I am doing things to ensure i am conserving battery power as much as possible.
One can say, yes, but one can carry spare batteries, and this is quite true. I have to carry 4 -6 batteries, to give me the same shooting life as one Pentax battery. This does cut into the weight advantage, and now one has to keep track of more strew in a camera bag. Batteries also seem to die at the least convenient moments.
There are advantages to a heavier camera as well. It is much easier to handhold a camera steadily if it weighs more.
It is also easier to handhold a camera steadily if it is close to the body (like pressed against your face looking through a viewfinder) than if it is held at arm's length looking at a rear screen.
With my X-T1, for example, using the viewscreen rather than the viewfinder costs me about 2 stops of low speed shutter duration because the camera is now less stable. I discovered this because the EVF does tend to give me a headache (one of the things that EVFs need to catch up on compared to OVFs) and I was trying to figure out if arm's length hand holding was a viable approach (it isn't, at least not for me).