[Rondec]

Not. The "whole point" is APSC is much more affordable. And users have exactly the same range of requirements as for FF. Framerate in the past has been something that was waaayyyy low in the priority list of buyers. Just the same as long lenses. No relevant demand.
There are probably as many people wanting high framerates as there are people wanting more body colors.
It is one requirement out of very many of equal rights.

It is always the same in these threads: people claim their personal agenda is everyone's majority agenda. It is not.

You are correct, although I think the specific question being addressed in this thread is a K3 II sequel. That by definition is a 1200-1500 dollar APS-C camera, not a 600 dollar camera and as such is not a whole lot cheaper than the current crop of low end full frame cameras, like the 6D II and D750. Those who are arguing for high end APS-C line to continue have to think that there is something that it brings to the table that low end full frame wouldn't. That is what my comment was addressing.

[reh321]

That by definition is a 1200-1500 dollar APS-C camera, not a 600 dollar camera and as such is not a whole lot cheaper than the current crop of low end full frame cameras, like the 6D II and D750. Those who are arguing for high end APS-C line to continue have to think that there is something that it brings to the table that low end full frame wouldn't. That is what my comment was addressing.

No, class is defined by capability, not by price tag. If KP had higher frame {which I don't need} and top LCD {which I wouldn't use} would it be adequate K-3ii replacement even they charged $700 for it??

[normhead]

Go ahead, but that won't change the way I perceive them

Again, what's your frame of reference? I have no clue what you are talking about. Show me one of these unsharpened images you so admire.

There was a time when I was shooting the 70-300 when I didn't really understand what a sharp image looked like. The Tamron 300, DA*60-250 and DA*200 changed that. How do I know your preferences aren't shaped by only owning cheap glass?

My first question in such circumstances is "Who is this dude and why should I listen to him?" Is there any money in this for me?

Pay me and I'll go through all my images and turn off any sharpening and send you copies.

Or is this more a "I just want to snipe from the bushes." scenario?

I'd tell you what I think of your sharpening, but I can't recall ever seeing one of your images.

[Rondec]

No, class is defined by capability, not by price tag. If KP had higher frame {which I don't need} and top LCD {which I wouldn't use} would it be adequate K-3ii replacement even they charged $700 for it??

To me, class is defined by the market place and price needs to match specifications (except if you are Leica). If a camera is priced at a certain price point (say 1000 dollars) there is a certain level of specifications that are expected for that price point. The K-P probably was priced a bit to expensive for what it was on release and so Pentax has had to drop that price a bit. The K-1 was priced just right and so the price has been pretty stable over time.

If Pentax releases a 1500 dollar APS-C camera, it will need to have a nice viewfinder, 4K video, frame rate of at least 10 fps, big buffer size, and available grip. I have no idea about the top LCD as that doesn't seem to be a big seller.

I am not sure what specific things the K-P leaves out that people want -- my impression was frame rate and buffer size were probably the major things along with maybe better video.

[beholder3]

You are correct, although I think the specific question being addressed in this thread is a K3 II sequel. That by definition is a 1200-1500 dollar APS-C camera, not a 600 dollar camera and as such is not a whole lot cheaper than the current crop of low end full frame cameras, like the 6D II and D750. Those who are arguing for high end APS-C line to continue have to think that there is something that it brings to the table that low end full frame wouldn't. That is what my comment was addressing.

I understand what you say, but still I assume a K-3 III would be a very attractive camera at that price point if it was a KP in a K-3 shaped alloy body with 2 card slots, top lcd, without any higher FPS.
Low end FF cameras as you mentioned are in many ways crippled, clunky, cheaply built and require expensive glass for the same tele reach, so they are not necessarily at a advantage competing with fully featured APSC models without those manifold weaknesses.

The breadth of user requirements is large. No single aspect drives a majority.

[reh321]

No, class is defined by capability, not by price tag. If KP had higher frame {which I don't need} and top LCD {which I wouldn't use} would it be adequate K-3ii replacement even they charged $700 for it??

My expectation is that the buffer is just a small inexpensive piece of silicon which could be crammed into the KP case, but to get the other things some people seem to value {LCD, added battery capacity, second memory, lack of svelteness}, I'm sure they could put a "K-3iii" package together in K-3ii cases for at most an additional $200, for a possible total price of under $1000 .... but if paying more - say $1400 - made people feel they were getting more, that would be good for the bottom line. Perhaps they could also boost the bottom line by making both the "K-3iii" and KP alternately on the same line.

[Kunzite]

What's the amount of RAM from a K-1, I wonder?
That Milbeaut might not be able to address more than 1.5GB RAM.

[Zygonyx]

You're wrong, it is a FF lens.
We had this discussion in the past, several times - the amount of vignetting seen by Pentaxforums is not worse than for Canon and Nikon's expensive long lenses.

And by the way, those dealers should read the brochures

I tried it, in my opinion it is inacceptable with K-1 as far as IQ is concerned. Never would i change it against my FA*600...

[Kunzite]

Inacceptabile, why?

[normhead]

The breadth of user requirements is large. No single aspect drives a majority.

And Pentax is too small a company to invest a lot in specialized equipment. They have to try and put the things they think are most important to their customers into their cameras.

The question is not "can we do it". It's "Would our customers pay for it."
These things are suspenseful, because Pentax doesn't make a lot of models. Each of us knows what would make our photographic lives better, but whether or not Pentax will address those issues is another question.

The K-3 got us 24 MP, 8.3 FPS and a 23 shot buffer. All were big improvements over previous models.But not big enough my wife wants one, because they weren't improvements in the areas that concern her. The loss of low light performance compared to her K-5 was a deal breaker. The thing with these upgrades is, you want to address the things you value most...but we are not even sure that's possible. I was happy with the 24 MP with the loss of .5-1 stop of low light performance. If there are trade-offs, people are not going to be happy.The things I value, she could care less about. It's hard to build a camera for everyone.

[reh321]

And Pentax is too small a company to invest a lot in specialized equipment. They have to try and ut the things they think are most important to their customers into their cameras.

The question is not "can we do it". It's "Would our customers pay for it."
These things are suspenseful, because Pentax doesn't make a lot of models. Each of us knows what would make our photographic lives better, but whether or not Pentax will address those issues is another question.

The K-3 got us 24 MP, 8.3 FPS and a 23 shot buffer. All were big improvements over previous models.But not big enough my wife wants one, because they weren't improvements in the areas that concern her. The loss of low light performance compared to her K-5 was a deal breaker. The thing with these upgrades is, you want to address the things you value most...but we are not even sure that's possible. I was happy with the 24 MP with the loss of .5-1 stop of low light performance. If there are trade-offs, people are not going to be happy.The things I value, she could care less about. It's hard to build a camera for everyone.

I want small, good low light performance, and my bank account is limited
I don't care about battery life {I seldom take more than ten pictures/day}, burst length, top LCD
KP as nearly perfect for me.

[mtgmansf]

Not. The "whole point" is APSC is much more affordable. And users have exactly the same range of requirements as for FF. Framerate in the past has been something that was waaayyyy low in the priority list of buyers. Just the same as long lenses. No relevant demand.
There are probably as many people wanting high framerates as there are people wanting more body colors.
It is one requirement out of very many of equal rights.

It is always the same in these threads: people claim their personal agenda is everyone's majority agenda. It is not.

Point for many of us is body and lens size and weight! I have several friends who drag around the Nikon D810/D850 with the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 80-400mm. I take two Pentax K5IIs bodies, the Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 17-70mm, and Pentax 55-300, and am many pounds lighter even with my K5 backup, which is almost essential when you have a bad back! Of course, I do not have the same resolution, but I am not a huge-picture-loving-person either. On the other hand, I have been waiting - along with many- for a K3II replacement and have been waiting forever and then some for a Pentax 12-24mm zoom replacement with WR seals...

[normhead]

I want small, good low light performance, and my bank account is limited
I don't care about battery life {I seldom take more than ten pictures/day}, burst length, top LCD
KP as nearly perfect for me.

That's what is so bad about the current situation. The K-P is an excellent camera and has a lot going for it. And it's expensive like a K-3. But it lacks K-3 features I depend on. Did Pentax ditch the requirements that are important to me and just aren't telling me? Who knows?

Is the K-3ii the last Pentax with the performance features I want. Should I snap one up during the closeouts? Or should I just gamble, waiting and hoping Pentax has something better for action than a K-3ii in the pipeline? It's a conundrum.

Compared to even a D7100 for tracking AF, the K-3II just isn't that good. Did Pentax just throw in the towel and abandon the specs needed by action shooters? Or are they readying for big splash.... hardly anyone knows apparently, and those who do aren't talking.

But with the K-3ii out of production, the pressure is on. I'm still amazed they cancelled it without a replacement on the horizon. They clearly don't care a whole lot about this end of the market. My guess is, the K-3ii isn't selling and they stopped the production run before, R&D has had a chance to come up with a replacement. Pentax has said the K-P isn't the K-3ii replacement, and I whole heartedly agree. But Bottom line, K-3ii production is over. The K-P is the current high end APS-c model in production. Pentax is confusing their opinions (ie. the K-P is not a K-3 replacement) with the facts. If my K-3 breaks today, a K-P would be the only relatively recent choice.) The K-P is the current high end APS-c model in production, and no plans for K-3 replacement are announced. So, right now the K-P is the only replacement for those of us with K-3 series cameras. Pentax can claim whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

At current reading, Pentax has said the K-P isn't the K-3 replacement. But they also haven't said there is going to be a K-3 replacement. The K-3 may be the end of Pentax's attempts to go higher performance. We don't know, and that's disturbing.

Looking at models currently in production, I'd rather have the 8.3 FPS and 23 shot buffer, than the plusses for the K-P. That's pretty sad, when a shooter like me would buy a second (5 year old) K-3 before the most advanced model in current production.

[nkull]

Again, what's your frame of reference? I have no clue what you are talking about. Show me one of these unsharpened images you so admire.

There was a time when I was shooting the 70-300 when I didn't really understand what a sharp image looked like. The Tamron 300, DA*60-250 and DA*200 changed that. How do I know your preferences aren't shaped by only owning cheap glass?

My first question in such circumstances is "Who is this dude and why should I listen to him?" Is there any money in this for me?

Pay me and I'll go through all my images and turn off any sharpening and send you copies.

Or is this more a "I just want to snipe from the bushes." scenario?

I'd tell you what I think of your sharpening, but I can't recall ever seeing one of your images.

Not that it matters for this discussion, but I for one like your photos. [shrug]

[normhead]

Not that it matters for this discussion, but I for one like your photos. [shrug]

I guess you can't please everyone, no matter what you do. <shrug>