Originally posted by kenspo Improved AF algorithms (all improvements helps)
If there is an measurable improvement in real life shooting conditions. K-3 II had the same "improvement" on the press release and in practice, the af was the same as the one from K3.
Originally posted by kenspo Better ISO (crucial for me)
Again, let's see it in practice, because the above text looks like a copy paste text from the press release of K-3 II which Ricoh said it will handle ISO better than K3 and in reality, both performed exactly the same.
Originally posted by kenspo So to all you complainers, you really dont need a D5 to shoot your neighbors cat or flowers.
An amateur photographer doesn't need a D5 or a K1 for shooting cats or flowers. A smartphone it's good enough these days for this kind of images. I understand and agree with your above irony and I understand that it's a facelift and they didn't wanted to spend to much money on new features for this new model, but please don't tell me that a USB 3.0 would have been a huge cost for Ricoh. It's a 36mp camera and people do shoot tethered from time to time and they do transfer images on their computers.
And since is a Mark II camera, why they didn't do anything about the 15 to 30 seconds which are needed to clear the buffer after a burst of 5-9 images? These would have been measurables improvements unlike the one above which remain to be seen if they are true.