[MMVIII]

I think that the past, first when Nikon took pole position, then when Canon achieved their current dominance, shows that you need to be know for being the best at something significant. Pentax / RI (notice I avoided RI/Pentax ) seem to have decided (realistically) that they can't be the best in the electronic whizz-bang area, so they are trying to be the best (or affordable best) at build quality and IQ, both through work on sensors and lenses. Perhaps if and when they have established a solid reputation in premium areas, they can create an upgrade path to get there, but an upgrade path that peters out half way up the hill doesn't seem to be a good strategy.

Right. If you have a look at images from the new fancy Z7, or whatever the Canon etc. fancy latest mirrorless equivalent might be, I don't see the slightest advancement in IQ.
Same for APS-C, has anyone compared the RAW-images of the new kid on the block XT-3 to the not so new KP? And, what do you see?

[surfar]

has anyone compared the RAW-images of the new kid on the block XT-3 to the not so new KP? And, what do you see?

Raw support isnt out yet for this body...its in the hands of a few in SE asia(first firmware to iron out initial bugs is out).

The CaNiks are not out amonst users either,Canon is updating firmware in Oct.

Do you expect anything new to come out and be flawless?...

From what ive seen so far CaNik will be great systems(their first efforts are just a little ahead of $$$onys first)

As for Fuji, their system is well developed and it will win new buyers.

[fsge]

No, the main reason for you to get a mirrorless camera is that your need was created by marketing folks. Before knowing that mirrorless exists, you were content with what you had. It's not real, being content is a state of mind that has no substance, it all happened in your mind. That's how marketing make a living off their jobs: making customers constructively discontent of their old product in order to create the motive to buy something new even if the older product just works fine.

I think I have read here and there that even if ML body would be smaler and lighter the set body + mounted lens would not be in comparison with a standard DSLR
If this is confirmed I dont see any strong reason to move to ML, especially now that mirror is almost silent...

---------- Post added 09-20-2018 at 10:27 AM ----------

From my point of view announcement (or beater releasing) of this new DA* zoom lenses is more anticipated than a new body. I think it would also show more commitment to APS-C system than this new body, as lenses still last longer than camera bodies

To be honest I am not sure, there are competitive alternative to these lenses, exactly what the KP would be to a K3 iii.

[MMVIII]

Raw support isnt out yet for this body...its in the hands of a few in SE asia(first firmware to iron out initial bugs is out).

The CaNiks are not out amonst users either,Canon is updating firmware in Oct.

Do you expect anything new to come out and be flawless?...

From what ive seen so far CaNik will be great systems(their first efforts are just a little ahead of $$$onys first)

As for Fuji, their system is well developed and it will win new buyers.

Haha, I like your approach. But you avoided to answer my question.
Dpr just uploaded studio scene test shots of the X-T3 and if I compare it to the KP I see:

Studio comparison X-T3 vs. KP vs. D500 vs. A6500

And as far as I am concerned, the KP is still easyily amongst the best in it's category, if not the best. The new Fuji is softer and noisier, and from my perspective it lacks IBIS. Sure, a fine system, but if I am looking for high image quality this fancy new offer does not deliver me anything above the existing on the market. And in case of a change from KP it would be, for my style of shooting, even a downgrade. And I#m pretty sure this applies also to a large degree to existing K3-II shooters. Along these lines, I do understand the desire for a follow up of the K3II, but what IQ is concerned not much gain can be expected.

I was using digital cameras in my job since the early days starting with a Fuji Finepix S1Pro, Nikon D600, D800, Hasselblad H3D... and I must say the actual generation of APS-C is at such a high level of IQ, that it beats almost all of them, except for D800. Even the MF H3D did not have such a great noise performance at high ISO (it excelled in other areas) and was definitely lacking the speed and versatility of an actual model. That's why I decided that it is a good time to spend my private money and buy into a system with a mature technology, that will stay top notch for a longer time. And I think this is where we are at the moment. The latest generation of cameras is capable to deliver highest IQ that might be sufficient to 99% of users for the next say, five years.

And that is the problem of the camera industry, there are no real arguments for consumers to upgrade. They can offer new lenses, that make even better use of existing sensors, like Pentax is doing. Or they can start marketing campaigns trying to convince photographers, that their eqipment is inferior and that they should keep on investing, buying new camera models with new gimmicks, like some other manufacturers do. The decline in DSLR sale is not because there is a new better technology, but because the market is saturated and there is no reason for anyone with a last generation DSLR to buy a new one. The ILC might grow, but not because it is superior technology delivering better images, but just because if someone still wants to buy new equipment it is those who feel the urge or have the feeling that new must be better, somehow, "or they would not sell it"... Sites like dpr at least claim that - wait, they are owned by a company that wants to sell new equipment, gosh!

Yes, the K3 should be updated, but I don't think to come to a new level of IQ, but to offer some of the little helpers and gimmicks for convenient every day photography, like capable AF etc. Again, if I ask you to go to the comparison tool and compare the output of the Fuji with the latest sensor and the "old" KP: do you see any progress in the resulting images these tools are supposed to produce eventually? And I'm asking you, surfar, just because you replied, not specifically, can you SHOW it?

Sorry for this longish rant.

[Rondec]

Lenses may last longer than body .... but these days Pentax seems to be concentrating on a level of perfection that makes them cost as much also, resulting in a really slow development cycle and putting them out of reach of my budget.

Other than the DFA *50 I don't really see that. The DFA *70-200 is quite reasonably priced compared to Canon, Sony, and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 options and my expectation is that when Pentax does release their 70-200 f4 it will actually be quite reasonably priced.

They have a lot of entry level zooms and a couple of entry level primes (DA 35 and DA 50) and to me, they even have the mid-level are covered pretty well with the DA limiteds, FA limiteds and DA *primes. I do think think that the three or four DFA * primes they want to have their best engineering go into them and have them be really top end. That will put them in the thousand-ish dollar range, which is quite expensive, but they still have a lot of other options in their line up.

My expectation is that even when they upgrade the DA * zooms, they will still be less than a thousand dollars.

[Kunzite]

Other than the DFA *50 I don't really see that. The DFA *70-200 is quite reasonably priced compared to Canon, Sony, and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 options and my expectation is that when Pentax does release their 70-200 f4 it will actually be quite reasonably priced.

Rondec, but the D FA* 50mm is also quite reasonable priced compared to Sony and Nikon.

[Rondec]

Rondec, but the D FA* 50mm is also quite reasonable priced compared to Sony and Nikon.

I agree and I hope my statement didn't come across as saying it was exorbitant. Reh had just commented that the DFA *50's price was too rich for him and that maybe Pentax is moving towards top end products that will be too expensive for him. My expectation is that they will continue to have different tiers supported. There will be a DFA 70-300 variable aperture zoom and a 70-200 f4 lens, both of which should be relatively cheap. The DFA * primes aren't going to be cheap, but they will be reasonably priced for what they are (will be). I will buy a DFA *85 on it's release if it is less than 1500 dollars. The other lens I'm looking for is the DFA 20mm f2.8 or a prime right around there.

But I agree, even Pentax's top end lenses are priced quite reasonably. It is just that if you are a hobby photographer, you may have a hard time paying over a thousand dollars for a 50mm prime.

[surfar]

Sorry for this longish rant.

Thats OK,

The KP is a great Pentax,for what it is....IQ, yes its great.I dont own it but i see the images here.

I shoot a K-1 for landscape its great too.Its good for other things but they dont interest me.

And, what do you see?

I saw camera images on DiPstikReview...i dont give those people any credibility I'm afraid,lots refer there so i have a look sometimes if i'm interested enough.

What you have to realise,Fuji isnt RI. Now i'll explain what i see the difference is.

RI/Pentax however you phrase the designation of brand,refine their product to the Nth degree.So when it comes out its of very good standard.Thats their style.

Fujifilm on the other hand get their(many) products out there and even though they are of a high standard as well,they usually get updated thru firmware.The initial release can be a bit different to the final "finished" product.Thats the Fuji style.

The first firmware update has been released already(mainly a bug fixer) but plenty of markets dont even have the body for sale at this point in time.

[reh321]

Yes,"over there" they play games with proper shaped balls.They dont specialise in those things shaped like a baked bean!

So, how would you describe a ball used in playing rugby??

[Mistral75]

So, how would you describe a ball used in playing rugby??

A testicle?

[mtgmansf]

Right. If you have a look at images from the new fancy Z7, or whatever the Canon etc. fancy latest mirrorless equivalent might be, I don't see the slightest advancement in IQ.
Same for APS-C, has anyone compared the RAW-images of the new kid on the block XT-3 to the not so new KP? And, what do you see?

I have. They have studio/test scenes in DPreview. Frankly, the raw files from the KP and Fuji's own XH1 look better- slightly more detailed, slightly less noisier, and sharper- to me than x-t3 at iso's higher than 400. Oddly, there is also a yellow cast in these files, which may be a glitch of conversion? Still hoping for a new, top shelf aps-c sensor, but the new xt-3's 26mp ain't it...

[fsge]

Haha, I like your approach. But you avoided to answer my question.
Dpr just uploaded studio scene test shots of the X-T3 and if I compare it to the KP I see:

Studio comparison X-T3 vs. KP vs. D500 vs. A6500

I tested several ISO levels and multiple selections on the test screen : I didnt see a big difference between these 4 bodies.

[surfar]

a ball used in playing rugby??

Which Rugby? we have two.

We also have AFL,its got a different ball as well.

[thibs]

If XT3 sensor is indeed from Samsung, this is encouraging.
Means Samsung is in the same ballpark performance wise as Sony.

[MMVIII]

I tested several ISO levels and multiple selections on the test screen : I didnt see a big difference between these 4 bodies.

Exactly. I mean, on the good side, we can be happy that the new generation of APS-C cameras does not produce significantly worse images than cameras from some years ago...