[reh321]

Who wants to bet the asahiman image is the real camera - that the K-3ll has been sunsetted because the big news is an APSc flagship - and they’re setting the table to ‘surprise’ everyone (and Pentax hasn’t said anything. We’ve done it all to ourselves. )

Yes, before everybody jumps off a bridge together, take a good look at the latest K-1 rumor

Pentax K-1 Mark II DSLR camera detailed specifications leaked

Read more: Pentax K-1 Mark II DSLR camera detailed specifications leaked | Pentax Rumors

It is entirely possible that the K-1 upstep is mostly adding the KP/K-70 noise reduction processor to the K-1, while the major effort is replacing the "K-3" with something more major than implied by a "mark iii" designation.

[ogl]

But the K-3ii really isn't a professional camera either, with its mediocre tracking AF and all those DA* lenses with slow AF. .

Based on your logics we can say that Ricoh can't offer any professional camera at all.

The professional camera depends on simple thing - the tasks - if the professional photographer use it or amateur. If he raises money with such camera or not. If he make HQ pictures or not.


You say about sporting/reporting camera with high technical specification.

[Zygonyx]

Professionnal means sometime rugged and resistant gear, with slow, well framed, and acurate focus/bokeh management.
So there is asolutely no problem with Pentax gear in the professional department.

Keep also i mind that sports shooters will be the first to be let along the automation's road...

[Rondec]

But the K-3ii really isn't a professional camera either, with its mediocre tracking AF and all those DA* lenses with slow AF. It's not comparable to the Canon 7dii or the Nikon D500. Rather, it's more in the class the Canon 80d or Nikon 7500, better in some ways (build quality, handling), worse in others (tracking AF). The KP is a camera that's the size of a Nikon or Canon entry level body but designed for serious photographers (far better controls and handling, far superior build quality, 14 bit Raw, 5-axis stabilization). Sure, you can get smaller with mirrorless, but what about those photographers who don't like EVFs? If you want a compact APS-C DSLR with an optical viewfinder designed for serious photographers and you don't require a large buffer, the KP is a very compelling camera. The fact that it's not seen as such, that the KP is grossly misunderstood camera, is a testament to Pentax/Ricoh's poor marketing. The vast majority of serious photographers don't require large buffers in a camera with mediocre tracking AF. But certainly there must be some photographers who would like a compact DSLR designed for advanced enthusiasts. I have run across Canon and Nikon APS-C DSLR users who bitterly lament that the only compact DSLRs in Canon and Nikon lineups are entry level cameras designed for newbies. The KP is right up their alley — if only they knew it.



You could say the same about the DA 35 2.4. It's such a nice lens with such a high value, why do we need a DA 35 f2.8 Limited? But some of us paid several hundred dollars more to get the DA 35 Limited because of the extra bit of image quality of the limited lens (along with superior build quality and handling). That's just kind of the way it is with photography gear. At a certain point, you pay a lot more for incremental improvements. Before I would consider upgrading from my K-5iis, I wanted a Pentax DSLR that featured (1) 5-axis stabilization, like my Olympus E-M5ii; (2) accessory battery grip for use with my larger lenses; (3) comparable DR performance to my K-5iis; (4) improved ISO performance over my K-5iis; (5) improved AF over my K-5iis; (6) direct access to control ISO. The K-70 only checked two of these boxes, the K-3ii three of the boxes. The KP, however, checked all six.

I don't really know what pro is and what isn't pro with regard to gear. My wife has used everything from the K5 to current K1/K3 to shoot weddings. We own both DA */FA limited/DFA * lenses. To me, when you talk about pro, it isn't so much the gear that matters as it is the support and I would agree that Pentax isn't great in that department. Getting quick turn around on repairs sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't, but if you shoot professionally with Pentax you'd better have some back up gear just in case.

I do think these threads do degenerate into people just having lists of what they want. I agree that when Pentax comes out with a K3 II sequel it should have better video, better auto focus, two SD card slots, better dynamic range/high iso performance, and hopefully support for faster SD cards. I do think that there is only so much that Pentax can do without revamping the DA * and DA limited line ups. The SDM motors are slow, many of the lenses have long focus throws and I don't think that just fixing auto focus algorithms is going really turn this camera into a D500.

[LeeRunge]

On DxO the score would indicate you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between the D750 and the K-1. But that's because DxO is so heavily weighted towards low light performance. But best case scenario a D750 is little better than a K-3.

D750 2900 lw/ph extinction at over 4000 lw/ph
Pentax K-3ii with Pixel shift 2900, 2750 without.
That's less than a 5% difference in resolution, or even with Pixel Shift.

The K-1 is 3450 lw/ph with Pixel shift. 3350 without. The K-1 is about 20 % more resolution than a D750 with Pixel Shift, 15% without.
The D750 is about the same as a K-3 with pixel shift or 9% difference without.

Th kicker though will be if when the K-3 replacement comes out, the accelerator cleans up the K-3ii image to D750 levels. It's quite possible that from 100-1600 ISO the K-3 replacement will be able to surpass or match the D750 where it is strongest. DxO hasn't rated any camera with he accelerator unit,

At 100 ISO the D750 image can't hold a candle to a K-1.
At 100 ISO the D750 is marginally better than the K-3, probably because the K-3ii is further away for the same image.

The D750 is decidedly better than the K-3 or K-1 at 3200 ISO, if you shoot in low light. The K-1 is the best camera in good light. IN good light the K-3 is only marginally worse than the D750. So in essence, the D750 is better at the worst images. IN good light you may as well have a K-3II, plus with a K-3ii a Pentax 150-450 is longer and gives you more subject resolution than a D750 with a Sigma 150-600.

So I definitely don't agree with your choice. A K-3ii which can match the D750 with pixels shift and is darn close without is around $800 now. $1500 for a D750 seems like a waste of money, it needs bigger more expensive glass and even really expensive long glass is better used on 24 MP APS_c. But, if all your shooting is done at high ISO it's pretty good looking camera. I am almost always able to take my images, even small birds where I have to keep the shutter speed up at 800 ISO or less.

At 1600 ISO or higher no Pentax matches the D750 in the red channel for detail. The camera does have it's strong points. At 100 ISO the D750 isn't close to K-1 resolution. But that's why we shoot 100 ISO whenever we can.

LeeRunge doesn't need resolution (or so he says), I don't need really high ISO performance. Each to his/her own.

I agree the successor to K3 will probably surpass the D750 and the other 24mp sensored full frames. Looking at the KP and D500 image quality it's already really close in ISO. You could pair a 150-450 with a K3 but it would cost more than pairing a D7500 to a Sigma 150-600 so I'm not sure that would be the route to take for APS-C for that extra reach. Keep in mind (not now no sales) that a few of us picked that D750 up for 1999 with the grip and 24-120 (which costs 1000 on it's own). For all around use I'm very happy with it compared to my K3. The AF-C really is that much better on the Nikon's for wildlife as well, it's just easier to use with more keepers. At ISO 100 pretty much anything will work well although your looking at about a stop less DR in the K3 vs D750. At low iso though who cares they both produce nice quality images.

I think the K-1ii is about to knock it out in ISO compared to the other FF cameras which will cement Pentax's advantage for landscape and still photo's.

As much crap as the KP got the sensor is good in it. Hopefully the K3-3 has updated AF on par with the D7500. That and just convince either Tamron or Sigma to bring one of those longer lenses to K mount. The Tamron 150-600 G2 is weather sealed and would make a great Pentax lens. I would stick with Pentax if that lens was around, (and it wouldn't hurt to have all the Sigma ART lenses either.)

Who knows what Nikon will replace the D750 with either, it's 3 years old now and they'll either drop it or replace it with the mirrorless that's enroute or maybe a 36mp version, who knows. A 36mp version with the AF from the D850/D5 would be a competitive camera.

[reh321]

Who knows what Nikon will replace the D750 with either, it's 3 years old now and they'll either drop it or replace it with the mirrorless that's enroute or maybe a 36mp version, who knows. A 36mp version with the AF from the D850/D5 would be a competitive camera.

How would it do in low light, however? The DxOMark "sports" score, a measure of low light performance, is the Achilles Heel of the D850 - the K-1 scores much better there, and I believe this will become increasingly important over time.

[LeeRunge]

How would it do in low light, however? The DxOMark "sports" score, a measure of low light performance, is the Achilles Heel of the D850 - the K-1 scores much better there, and I believe this will become increasingly important over time.

I wouldn't expect any more than the current K-1 or D810 for low light if they do that. The other rumor for them is a updated 24mp and D5 Autofocus. A new 24mp would probably be better at low iso but still not have the resolution of the 36mp sensors, framerate would likely increase though.

The D850 is worse in high iso. You get more color depth and DR for that tradeoff and more resolution. If I had 3300 dollars I would get the D850 over a K-1 for sure as it does everything but low light better and low shutter speed primes. It's double the price of the K-1 and not double the image quality. Really a minor upgrade in IQ and a downgrade in iso on the D850. That camera's main strength is it also shoots fast framerates (double K-1 9fps) and has a really good AF system. Crop mode (19.4mp) would also be viable for getting that extra reach on telephoto's and you'll have that D5 autofocus.

Camera sales have contracted a ton in the past 5 years so everyone's piece of the pie shrank. Nikon's about to chase the mirrorless market and who knows how that will turn out since Sony/Fuji/Olympus have a huge head start. The Nikon 1 1" camera's face planted compared to Sony's 1" options.

They're saying *Nikons Doomed* over there as well now that ILC camera sales have contracted more than half in the past 5 years.

[Rondec]

I wouldn't expect any more than the current K-1 or D810 for low light if they do that. The other rumor for them is a updated 24mp and D5 Autofocus. A new 24mp would probably be better at low iso but still not have the resolution of the 36mp sensors, framerate would likely increase though.

The D850 is worse in high iso. You get more color depth and DR for that tradeoff and more resolution. If I had 3300 dollars I would get the D850 over a K-1 for sure as it does everything but low light better and low shutter speed primes. It's double the price of the K-1 and not double the image quality. Really a minor upgrade in IQ and a downgrade in iso on the D850. That camera's main strength is it also shoots fast framerates (double K-1 9fps) and has a really good AF system. Crop mode (19.4mp) would also be viable for getting that extra reach on telephoto's and you'll have that D5 autofocus.

Camera sales have contracted a ton in the past 5 years so everyone's piece of the pie shrank. Nikon's about to chase the mirrorless market and who knows how that will turn out since Sony/Fuji/Olympus have a huge head start. The Nikon 1 1" camera's face planted compared to Sony's 1" options.

They're saying *Nikons Doomed* over there as well now that ILC camera sales have contracted more than half in the past 5 years.

I think the whole point of the D850 was faster read out of the sensor. That gave them a better electronic shutter, better video, and of course faster frame rates. Pretty impressive to do that and keep the dynamic range and high iso decent. The resolution is really not that much different -- the difference between 36 and 45 megapixels sounds bigger than it really is.

From my standpoint, more than 4 to 5 fps is not really needed and with image quality being awash at best, I couldn't see getting a D850 (mainly because of the cost). The issue for the K-1 is just improving auto focus, particularly tracking AF. It doesn't really matter what your frame rate is if your camera can't keep up.

Mad Math Mind mentions the DA *55 and that is probably the slowest AF lens I have used and probably the number one reason to get the DFA *50 would be for better auto focus.

[LeeRunge]

I think the whole point of the D850 was faster read out of the sensor. That gave them a better electronic shutter, better video, and of course faster frame rates. Pretty impressive to do that and keep the dynamic range and high iso decent. The resolution is really not that much different -- the difference between 36 and 45 megapixels sounds bigger than it really is.

From my standpoint, more than 4 to 5 fps is not really needed and with image quality being awash at best, I couldn't see getting a D850 (mainly because of the cost). The issue for the K-1 is just improving auto focus, particularly tracking AF. It doesn't really matter what your frame rate is if your camera can't keep up.

Mad Math Mind mentions the DA *55 and that is probably the slowest AF lens I have used and probably the number one reason to get the DFA *50 would be for better auto focus.

I'd have been perfectly happy with a K-1 and D750 level AF over a D850. IQ on the K-1 is plenty for me and I don't see much difference vs the 45mp in the D850. It's the other things in that camera that are attractive like the D5's AF, framerate (although as you mentioned 5fps isn't bad at all).

If K-1 had D750 Af and a few more lenses Pentax is there.

The primes could use some faster motors, way to much screw drive with Pentax at the moment. The 50 1.8 on Nikon which is 200 dollars has a decent electric motor in it, why can't Pentax at least update some of those and get some midrange priced 24/35/50/85's out like the Nikon G line.

[northcoastgreg]

Based on your logics we can say that Ricoh can't offer any professional camera at all.

The 645z could be considered professional for those who don't require high fps, large buffers, and state of the art tracking AF. The same could be said of the K-1 (especially when Pentax finally releases those three f1.4 primes). But Pentax's APS-C system is a hard sell as a pro system. Can you use a K-5, a K-3ii, even a KP for pro work that doesn't involve shooting things that move fast? Of course you can. And if, per implausible, I was ever dragooned into doing wedding photography, I would want to use my Pentax DSLRs, since I have a preference for the way these cameras handle and for Pentax lens rendering. But would Pentax APS-C DSLRs be the absolute best tools for that kind of job? Probably not.

[ogl]

The 645z could be considered professional for those who don't require high fps, large buffers, and state of the art tracking AF. The same could be said of the K-1 (especially when Pentax finally releases those three f1.4 primes). But Pentax's APS-C system is a hard sell as a pro system. Can you use a K-5, a K-3ii, even a KP for pro work that doesn't involve shooting things that move fast? Of course you can. And if, per implausible, I was ever dragooned into doing wedding photography, I would want to use my Pentax DSLRs, since I have a preference for the way these cameras handle and for Pentax lens rendering. But would Pentax APS-C DSLRs be the absolute best tools for that kind of job? Probably not.

Say it to Henri Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams

[LeeRunge]

Say it to Henri Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams

Wasn't Ansel a serious gear nut?

I'd imagine him doing some impressive photography with drones if he were around today.

[MSL]

It will be a K-33! They have almost boxed themselves in with their naming protocols.

K- 33 & 1/3 - the revolution continues

[Rondec]

The 645z could be considered professional for those who don't require high fps, large buffers, and state of the art tracking AF. The same could be said of the K-1 (especially when Pentax finally releases those three f1.4 primes). But Pentax's APS-C system is a hard sell as a pro system. Can you use a K-5, a K-3ii, even a KP for pro work that doesn't involve shooting things that move fast? Of course you can. And if, per implausible, I was ever dragooned into doing wedding photography, I would want to use my Pentax DSLRs, since I have a preference for the way these cameras handle and for Pentax lens rendering. But would Pentax APS-C DSLRs be the absolute best tools for that kind of job? Probably not.

I just don't think most professionals are really shooting "action." A wedding isn't action photography and Pentax auto focus systems can definitely keep up with that and also with portrait work -- particularly if you are shooting with the newer DC lenses and DFA zooms.

The negative on using APS-C to shoot a wedding has more to do with struggles with high iso dynamic range and noise. You'd probably want to do more flash work if using APS-C, but otherwise I think you could make it work without too much problem.

[AyeYo]

On DxO the score would indicate you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between the D750 and the K-1. But that's because DxO is so heavily weighted towards low light performance. But best case scenario a D750 is little better than a K-3.

A little better? This entire post is madness. The D750 has a full stop better DR at lowest ISO (50 vs 100) and maintains that advantage right through the available ISO range. That's not a trivial difference at all. The K1 barely bests the D750 at lower ISOs and is identical after ISO1600.

Their "sports" measure is almost a stop and a half better. That's the difference between a K3ii and a K10D. Not at all trivial. The D750 is only fractionally worse than the K1.

Pixel Shift is irrelevant because it's useless 98% of the time unless you're a dedicated, tripod stabilized landscape shooter only.

There's no comparison between a K3ii and a D750 - exactly as you'd expect when putting a 24mp APS-C against a 24mp FF. You don't even have to just geek out at DXO to see the difference. Compare the actual photos taken with both cameras. The D750 produces some of the richest, broadest DR images in a camera under $2k.

The selling point of the K3ii over the D750 is that it's half the price (when the D750 isn't on sale for $1500) - so performance per dollar it might beat it, but in absolutely image quality, not even close.