Originally posted by iudex Of course if your budget is limited itīs about priorities. But which of those has higher priority? Adding some irrelevant features to a reatively new camera that would be perfectly OK for one more year or so, or introducing a successor to a camera that is too long in the tooth (and which wasnīt a significant novelty even at the time of itīs release)? From my point of view the answer is obvious. ;-)
P.S. We all love Pentax and are still with it (well, the small bunch thatīs left and havenīt gone mirrorless) but that does not mean we cannot state our opinion and critisize Ricoh (when there is reason to do so).
Let's ask a different question. Which is easier, adding a few features on to an existing (very well received) camera to make it slightly better or launching a brand new camera with high end specifications? I feel like I'm a stuck record (just dated myself with that reference), but a K3 II sequel is going to need better auto focus (both number of points and tracking), better video (probably 4K), 9 to 10 fps frame rate, plus all of the little features that make Pentax cameras stand out.
This K-1 II release doesn't mean that Pentax isn't working a K3 III -- it has been stated clearly by Asahiman and Kenspo both that they are -- it is just a lot tougher project and the K-1 II was done and they decided to release it.
To me, the worst case scenario would Pentax doing with the K3 II sequel what they have done here -- taken the existing K3 II and just tweaked pixel shift, added an accelerator chip and called it a day. Yes, that would get a "high end APS-C" camera out the door, but it would likely fail in the current market and I don't really think Pentaxians would be happy long term with such a camera either, as it wouldn't provide enough of an improvement over the K3 II and KP to warrant its price point.