Originally posted by The Squirrel Mafia I don't think it's going to sell for that much, but I could be wrong. If it has the AF performance similar to the D500 & 7D Mark II, I bet several users would buy it. There would probably be a shortage of the DA 55-300mm PLM lens shortly after.
I'd take the trade off. I prefer a photo that's dead sharp with some very minor degradation than an out-of-focus photo that has no degradation. If the K-3II successor doesn't have much improved AF, I'll be moving on to mirrorless.
I am totally with you.
The 55-300 PLM would make total sense on such a capable camera...
I haven't bought it already for myself, since I dont see that the cameras available at the moment can make much out of the possible AF-drive speed, when AF algorithms are weak or fail because they have not enough info to calculate more correctly(more AF points...) I estimate that it would take 80(or a bit more) focus points at least to become nearly as accurate as the D500.
(D500 has 153 AF-points of which 99 are cross type)
Its very likely that I would buy the PLM lens and lay out those 1800 dollars for the K-3II successor.
But only (like you also said) IF it has an AF performance similar to the Nikon D500... otherwise i would still not see any reason to walk away from K-3 and K-3II. zip. nada. null.
So yes, such a cam would defenitely need way more AF points spread out much further to the edges of the whole frame... and what they have to work on the most is AF.C!!!
BTW, to all the people who fear more costs for having 4K Video because they dont see any profit in it for their photographical work...:
Talking for myself, i say:
4K would totally kick me to buy such a camera
... since I realized that 4K Video would mean an endless burst mode with 24fps(at least)... at app. 8MP... which is fine for medium-sized posters already...
or for even bigger prints, given that I would use a good resizing algorithm.