[Tan68]

As a matter of fact, people don't use camera bodies only, they use camera with a lens mounted on the camera. That is why there is no advantage , except fitting wrong logic, to have a small camera body with a big lens on it...

I will decide you don't intend this comment to be taken the way it reasonably may be taken.

...For example, an apsc camera with a 16-85 zoom lens occupy more volume than a full frame camera with a compact prime on it, and the full frame camera with the prime is more comfortable to handle. ...

As a matter of fact, I think most people here are aware a lens is involved :^)

That is such a stark but obvious contrast that it seems like leading the discussion with a result in mind. Your comment makes a point but not all points. I could suppose you are stating your opinion only but your post reads as if you are imparting to me knowledge unknown. Schooling on the difference between a small camera with large lens & a large camera with small lens is useful and I will add that "small" is more than the sum of its parts.

. ...To compare sizes it's easy: I put a 40mm on the K1 and try to put it in the bag, I mount the same 40mm on a Kp and put it in the bag. Then I mount a 17-70 on a KP and try to put it in the bag, it doesn't fit. So for me, camera sensor format has minor impact on size, but the choice of lens is the key to portability regardless of the sensor size.

Writing that the space saved is only few mm here and there does sound reasonable. However, a few mm here and there can greatly affect the volume of an object... Writing 13mm on this axis isn't as great an impact as 80mm of the waterline because 80 allows for a smaller bag and stating that as a simple fact makes a point but not all points. Perhaps I have missed a particular bag that is part of the discussion but, if not, your point is a little bit disingenuous. It isn't possible to state that x size in one dimension makes more or less impact than y size in another dimension when fitting things in the bag There are all different sizes and shapes of the bag and it is very possible that 13mm may bump a user into the next larger bag.

As comprehensive as an argument may be, there are always other things to consider. A person arguing the size difference between a K3 and K1 is negligible does have a different idea of small than myself and perhaps a few other people here :^) People have successfully argued the KP is a good (small) size and that has been a popular and accepted position! Shouldn't be a far leap to believe people would also like a small camera with more "traditional" Pentax styling.

[alcstudios]

First of all, My Friend, I read your post when it went up. I'm not taking the bait on your loaded question. My answer is I'm prepared to spend what ever I think is a fair price based upon my determination of what features and improvements will benefit me. BTW, I couldn't care less about 4K video.

Well, congratulations

[clackers]

I'll gladly join that group and sit on the front row at the club meetings with you. Ricoh/Pentax will continue to make a profit by doing what they have been doing, develop well thought out nicely featured cameras that offer value for the money asked for the product.

Sure, you chair the first meeting, Larry, I'll bring the beers, we'll do it in reverse next week!

[superdave]

That $1500 would be bang in line with a K-3 III, an incrementally or evolutionary development, with no radical changes to the underlying hardware. 24Mp, no 4k video, modest improvements to SAFOX focusing system. And you may be real happy with that.

But looking at that McBain site, the Nikon D500 has 4k video, and the same AF module from the pro D5, with two CPUs on the mainboard IIRC. A mature product now and no longer at launch price, it still costs $2700, albeit on sale at the moment for $2400.

So yes, mate, you can now see why I asked about your expectation of price, coz it reveals a lot about what kind of product you'd be getting in return.

Now, about that $900 war chest you're looking to expand, there's this horse that's racing in Russia tomorrow, that ….

We don't need a $2000-$2500 APS-C flagship, it make no sense for a K-5/K-3 customer. When K-3 was released, it was a totally new hardware in regards to the K-5, almost everything has been improved, there was no downgrade, huge improvements, and the price stay the same as the K-5 when it was release. I couldn't be happier if the K-3 evolved follow the same path...

A huge improvement would be to use the new 26M Sony sensor that can go up to 16-bit.

---

Last edited by superdave; 02-06-2019 at 02:30 AM.

[clackers]

We don't need a $2000-$2500 APS-C flagship, it make no sense for a K-5/K-3 customer. When K-3 was released, it was a totally new hardware in regards to the K-5, almost everything has been improved, there was no downgrade, huge improvements, and the price stay the same as the K-5 when it was release. I couldn't be happier if the K-3 evolved follow the same path...

A huge improvement would be to use the new 26M Sony sensor that can go up to 16-bit.

Dave, sorry but you can't have the unicorn of both advanced technology and low cost, the K-3 had HD video, arguably going backwards from the K-5 without IBIS, and the K-3 also still had a modified SAFOX AF system.

The K-1 is in many ways a modified K-3 with a double size sensor inside it (from the old K-5 you were talking about, BTW!) That's why it's so affordable.

What you can do today for pricing is look at similar spec cameras of other brands on the market, and unless they're using yesterday's technology, make them even more expensive if Pentax, because Canon and Nikon have 'economy of scale' advantages.

There will also of course, be the Pentax special sauce, the reason we own one instead of a Canon or Nikon, of IBIS, excellent ergonomics, ruggedness, GPS, astrotracer, WR, noise co-processor, etc, and because of their experiment with the GR III expect a touchscreen too, but the commodity sensor and image engine will need to be bought on the market from other companies. An Epson EVF too, if it's mirrorless, the bosses are inscrutable in Tokyo.

[Rondec]

Hey clackers!

Since a K-70 body costs about $800 CAD, a KP body about $1200 CAD, and a K-1ii body costs about $2500 CAD, I would expect to pay in about the $1500 ball-park (all before taxes).

I've got about $900 in my squirrel fund so far!

May I ask why you have an interest in the price I'd pay?

References:
Pentax K-70 DSLR Body (black) | McBain Camera Canada
Pentax KP DSLR Body (black) | McBain Camera Canada
Pentax K-1 Mark II DSLR Body | McBain Camera Canada

That $1500 would be bang in line with a K-3 III, an incrementally or evolutionary development, with no radical changes to the underlying hardware. 24Mp, no 4k video, modest improvements to SAFOX focusing system. And you may be real happy with that.

But looking at that McBain site, the Nikon D500 has 4k video, and the same AF module from the pro D5, with two CPUs on the mainboard IIRC. A mature product now and no longer at launch price, it still costs $2700, albeit on sale at the moment for $2400.

So yes, mate, you can now see why I asked about your expectation of price, coz it reveals a lot about what kind of product you'd be getting in return.

Now, about that $900 war chest you're looking to expand, there's this horse that's racing in Russia tomorrow, that ….

I don't know that Pentaxians are really wanting a D500. How about something more like the D7500 with dual card slots? The D7500 sells for 1100 in the US and with the exchange rate I suppose it comes in around 1500 Canadian. It does have 4K video, 8 fps, and plenty of auto focus points. Those specs would be adequate for a K3 II replacement to me and would be quite a bit cheaper than the D500.

[clackers]

I don't know that Pentaxians are really wanting a D500. How about something more like the D7500 with dual card slots? The D7500 sells for 1100 in the US and with the exchange rate I suppose it comes in around 1500 Canadian. It does have 4K video, 8 fps, and plenty of auto focus points. Those specs would be adequate for a K3 II replacement to me and would be quite a bit cheaper than the D500.

Yep, since from Nikon it currently comes in at around $1500 CAD, it would have to already be more than that coming from Pentax, and higher again at launch.

That sensor has only 20 Mp so it's a resolution loss on the K-3 but it's newer, and has a readout speed making 4k video possible.

[Rondec]

Yep, since from Nikon it currently comes in at around $1500 CAD, it would have to already be more than that coming from Pentax, and higher again at launch.

That sensor has only 20 Mp so it's a resolution loss on the K-3 but it's newer, and has a readout speed making 4k video possible.

Pentax sells in the current market place and looking at their other product's pricing, they are quite competitive. The K-1 II is selling for 1800 USD, the K70 for 600, and the KP for 800. None of those is significantly higher priced than the competition in their segments.

Assuming some sharing of tech between the K3 II sequel and the K1 II sequel, I think they could certainly come in close to Nikon's pricing. The question has more to do with sensor cost and availability as well as new imaging processing engine, but Sony currently has APS-C cameras that they are selling for less than 1000 that have decent frame rates and 4K video and eventually Pentax is going to have to replace their PRIME engine with something newer. Now is probably the time for that.

[clackers]

Pentax sells in the current market place and looking at their other product's pricing, they are quite competitive. The K-1 II is selling for 1800 USD, the K70 for 600, and the KP for 800. None of those is significantly higher priced than the competition in their segments.

If you read back up the thread, Rondec, they do this only with previous generation sensors, CPU, mainboard, buffer, card interface and focus systems.

That's the pricing we currently enjoy, and the point is how much people are prepared to pay for a new APS-C flagship - $1500 or north of that - will determine the technology that goes into it.

Sony will come in cheaper if only because they make the sensors, their production cost is lower and it's up to their board to markup less than Nikon and Pentax to achieve sales volume or more for unit profit.

In this declining camera market they've changed their mind in the last couple of years - there haven't been any entry or midrange APS-C bodies from them.

[Rondec]

If you read back up the thread, Rondec, they do this only with previous generation sensors, CPU, mainboard, buffer, card interface and focus systems.

That's the pricing we currently enjoy, and the point is how much people are prepared to pay for a new APS-C flagship - $1500 or north of that - will determine the technology that goes into it.

Sony will come in cheaper if only because they make the sensors, their production cost is lower and it's up to their board to markup less than Nikon and Pentax to achieve sales volume or more for unit profit.

In this declining camera market they've changed their mind in the last couple of years - there haven't been any entry or midrange APS-C bodies from them.

Maybe so, but the A6300, which does 4K video and 11 fps, came out in 2016, almost three years ago. And Sony sells it for 850. Surely Pentax would be able to release a camera around a sensor like that and even with a 20 percent mark up on the sensor, get it in for under 1500.

My feeling was more that the issue for Pentax was the fact that they were using a really old processing engine from Milbeaut that couldn't handle the newer sensors and so there was no particular benefit to getting a newer sensor, even if it wouldn't have been that much more. But surely they are just going to have to move on and share the R and D over several cameras (645z, K3 II and K-1 II sequels).

[superdave]

The main question is not to put all the latest technology in the next ASP-C, but only what really matter to take better photos. It's more what did you miss in your current body to take better photos?

Personnally I would like the following improvement from my K-3II:
- Keep the GPS unit (flash and GPS would be perfect) - the main reason why I didn't look at the KP at all...
- Better sensor - always good, 20M, 24M or 26M
- Better AF - I miss a lot of shot because of poor AF with my DA*300mm, but I think it's more about lenses than body.
- 5 axis stabilization for DA300mm - exist in KP
- Oriented screen for creative landscape shot - exist in KP
- Wifi and tethering (for LiveView on my phone) for product photography or difficult angleview - exist in KP
- PixelShiftResolution of the K-1
- Higher resolution screen to detect focus problem on field.
- New cool software features - pixel shift braketing, focus stacking braketing, better (auto?) AF finetuning, eye detection, super resolution, pixel shift to four corner then merge in panorama, this kind of stuff...
- I am not against EVF if that improve AF.
- I don't need 4K video but whhy not, touch screen is not useful to take better photo but why not.

I think it is possible to have those features in a $1400 camera, and most of the list already exist in KP or K-1. This is my K-3III...

[reh321]

Better AF - I miss a lot of shot because of poor AF with my DA*300mm, but I think it's more about lenses than body.

The DA 55-300mm PLM is much better than its predecessor - you are right about lenses.

[reh321]

I don't know that Pentaxians are really wanting a D500. How about something more like the D7500 with dual card slots? The D7500 sells for 1100 in the US and with the exchange rate I suppose it comes in around 1500 Canadian. It does have 4K video, 8 fps, and plenty of auto focus points. Those specs would be adequate for a K3 II replacement to me and would be quite a bit cheaper than the D500.

Pentaxians do not appreciate what the 'accelerator' provides. Some crazy site compared the KP to the D500 at ISO 819200
Pentax KP First Shots: Going head-to-head against the Nikon D500 at ISO 819,200!
In the photo below, KP on the left and D500 on the right, clearly shows better colors from the KP even at this absurd level.

I don't think anyone will actually do this normally, but my tests show good results from the KP at lower ISO values.

Photons to Photos also shows better dynamic range for the KP
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

[Kunzite]

Pentaxians do not appreciate what the 'accelerator' provides.

We don't?

[awscreo]

hmm was away for a while, missed a ton of discussion) so this new 35 f2 - seems it's screw drive focusing? Would be interesting to see image quality vs the FA version, a bit disappointed it's not a more modern focusing motor..