[SteveinSLC]

I have both a KP and K-1, and am happy with both. The KP image quality is good enough that unless I'm needing super high quality landscape, I don't feel like I need the K-1.
But dual card slots, a faster bus/burst rate, and a better battery would be great.
And I'm one of those folks with larger hands that would definitely be OK with a bigger grip to accommodate those things.

[reh321]

I have both a KP and K-1, and am happy with both. The KP image quality is good enough that unless I'm needing super high quality landscape, I don't feel like I need the K-1.
But dual card slots, a faster bus/burst rate, and a better battery would be great.
And I'm one of those folks with larger hands that would definitely be OK with a bigger grip to accommodate those things.

Apparently I have smaller hands, because I'm OK using the KP with the smallest grip, even when using the 55-300mm PLM lens. If Pentax would release a hybrid viewfinder, I might have very little reason to get a MILC, especially if it could then use CDAF focusing .... I do use LV to attain focus when shooting in low light, and I find that to be somewhat awkward sometimes .

[reh321]

10x12.5 cm sheet film
And it’s not sharp... the lenses are a little behind the times...

-Eric

The reason I asked about "sensor" is my experience is that film doesn't provide nearly the resolution many claim. I sent some 35mm Kodachrome 25 slides to a professional and he returned 6mp scans. Much to my surprise, when I set up my slide projector in our family room next to the computer, I discovered every detail on the slide was also included on the scan. Later, when I mounted the 'A' 50mm f/1.7 lens used to take those photos on my K-30, I discovered how much better the lens could do.

[BigMackCam]

The reason I asked about "sensor" is my experience is that film doesn't provide nearly the resolution many claim. I sent some 35mm Kodachrome 25 slides to a professional and he returned 6mp scans. Much to my surprise, when I set up my slide projector in our family room next to the computer, I discovered every detail on the slide was also included on the scan. Later, when I mounted the 'A' 50mm f/1.7 lens used to take those photos on my K-30, I discovered how much better the lens could do.

This is a really interesting subject, and perhaps one for a new thread. Based on what I've seen, 35mm film doesn't seem to compare in resolution to a 24MP APS-C digital camera (that's the highest pixel density camera I own, so the best I can compare to). But there are so many variable factors involved in terms of lenses, focusing accuracy, film stock, digitising, post processing (of both raw digital images and film scans), etc.

I'd love to see an educated and qualified comparison of 35mm film vs digital (APS-C or full-frame), taking into account all the factors. It's beyond someone like me with the levels of equipment, knowledge and experience I have, but it would be quite the learning experience, and an interesting one too.

[TwoUptons]

Yeah, I was trying to make the point that it isn’t just about resolution, or a screen on the back, or an optical finder, or the presence of a mirror... these things have largely been around in one form or another for decades.

But the myriad ways of combining the technologies (and adding new ones... an autofocus Graflex would be amazing) gives us a range of variety in the market that is really nice to have.

As for film resolution, I’d also like to see a good comparison. My own experience is that raw resolution is pretty low (though I’ve seen better than 6mp from 35mm) but that the irregular nature of film makes some images look better than they ‘should’ given the limited resolution. When I’ve seen comparisons, they tend to use assumptions that aren’t particularly realistic and provide unrealistic results.

-Eric

[Mountain Vision]

Thank you, Mountain Vision and Mike.

Good point about the SD readers.

Maybe we could sum it up as:
- the SD is way more consumer friendly, for the reasons stated.
- XQD is better suited when a higher transfer speed is needed - as in pro action shooting, or high quality 4K video. Neither are Pentax' domains.
Note that "higher" doesn't mean "higher than Pentax"! Pentax is far from maxing out UHS-I... while the UHS-II capable D850 can reach 150-200MB/sec with the faster cards.

Rondec, absolutely! Using a faster SD mode is the obvious solution.
Even supporting UHS-I SDR-104 speeds would be a big step forward, effectively doubling the write speed (the D850 can reach 80MB/sec+ with UHS-I cards). I'd be happy if they do at least this.
Then there's UHS-II.

Link to the D850 measurements:
https://alikgriffin.com/best-memory-cards-nikon-d850/

I definitely wouldn't mind faster SD spec but I don't see the need for Pentax to abandon SD cards. I think the faster spec SD do support 4k video just fine. They are smaller and cheaper. And I prefer having slots that in a pinch I can fill with recording media found at just about any big box store while on a trip. Besides SD very few formats are available at most stores in a pinch.

I am wondering, however, if accessing the faster cards UHS-3 is hardware dependent or is it a software issue? I assume with UHS-3 it's a hardware issue?

[SteveinSLC]

Apparently I have smaller hands, because I'm OK using the KP with the smallest grip, even when using the 55-300mm PLM lens. If Pentax would release a hybrid viewfinder, I might have very little reason to get a MILC, especially if it could then use CDAF focusing .... I do use LV to attain focus when shooting in low light, and I find that to be somewhat awkward sometimes .

I'm pretty much fine with the large grip and the 55-300 PLM. The issue is more if I want to use it with the bigger, heavier, pro-level lenses. The DFA 70-200 or 150-450. Those feel heavy but OK on the K-1, but not so much on the KP.

[reh321]

I'm pretty much fine with the large grip and the 55-300 PLM. The issue is more if I want to use it with the bigger, heavier, pro-level lenses. The DFA 70-200 or 150-450. Those feel heavy but OK on the K-1, but not so much on the KP.

My lenses are all 'DA' .... 55-300 PLM being the largest ..... obviously that would make a difference.

[Mountain Vision]

My lenses are all 'DA' .... 55-300 PLM being the largest ..... obviously that would make a difference.

That fortunately does make a huge difference, especially when talking about the current FA lineup. I'm not sure how much larger the PLM version of the 55-300 is than the HD WR version, but to me it's a pretty small compact travel lens. Maybe it will matter less if/when the F/4 zooms hit the market but for now the difference between DA and FA system size is significant.

[Larrymc]

My lenses are all 'DA' .... 55-300 PLM being the largest ..... obviously that would make a difference.

It makes a big difference! I have a variety of lens from DA 10-17 fisheye to a Big ole 70-200 Tamron f2.8 as well as the 55-300 plm the Tamron (a bit over 1100g) is more than three times the plm ( a bit over 440g) weight and would make the KP handling very awkward for me even with the large grip. I have small hands but the deep grip of the K-3 series is very reassuring when carrying the Tamron/K-3 combo and even when shooting sans tripod. I'm not really afraid of the single card slot but the lack of a top LCD, like Mike, would be a problem for me. its all about how you use your equipment.

[Mountain Vision]

I'm not really afraid of the single card slot but the lack of a top LCD, like Mike, would be a problem for me. its all about how you use your equipment.

The little LCD on the K-1 is just barely adequate. In some ways it's almost useless but on the other hand I still do use it, even in its crippled form. I miss the big LCD on my K-5IIs. I wonder if the 3rd wheel could be made smaller to fit a larger LCD. Making the third wheel and the function wheel a little smaller would definitely allow a slightly larger LCD.

[Not a Number]

Can't you tilt the rear LCD up and get the readings from there?

[Mountain Vision]

Can't you tilt the rear LCD up and get the readings from there?

Sure but I don't walk around with my LCD screen open. If I just want to quick check my settings I just glance at the top LCD, that's what it's there for. It's like physical buttons. You could hide them in menus but having them accessible makes a difference in ease of use.

[monochrome]

I’m in the other camp. I’ve barely looked at the top LCD of any camera, going all the way back to the K10D. I gather my information and settings from the LCD, Mode Dial and VF LED’s,

I use my KP with the DA Limited pancakes and the 35/2.8, the 28~105 and the 1st version SMC DA55~300. It is a tiny bit too small with the medium grip. I’ve tried the FA* 200/2.8 and 300/4.5 and they’re OK but the new D FA lenses are far too large and heavy.

The K-1 is ergonomically perfect in my view with larger lenses and all my traditional manual lenses..

[punkrachmaninov]

I definitely wouldn't mind faster SD spec but I don't see the need for Pentax to abandon SD cards. I think the faster spec SD do support 4k video just fine. They are smaller and cheaper. And I prefer having slots that in a pinch I can fill with recording media found at just about any big box store while on a trip. Besides SD very few formats are available at most stores in a pinch.

I am wondering, however, if accessing the faster cards UHS-3 is hardware dependent or is it a software issue? I assume with UHS-3 it's a hardware issue?

the only difference between uhs-2 and uhs-3 is duplexing and latency--the SD hardware pinout was universal and remained unchanged until uhs-2.

the readers are backwards compatible, throttling newer cards on older devices.

LEFT: SD/SDHC/SDXC/UHS-1
RIGHT: UHS-2/UHS-3