[Kunzite]

UHS-II is already old. Camera makers should anticipate that some people are going be obsessed with mandatory use of UHS-III.

People obsessed with this and that are best ignored; whatever you do they'll simply move the goalposts to a newer and "better" technology - even one that is not yet available. Think SD Express or CF Express at a minimum.

The trick is in figuring out what the buyers want.

[biz-engineer]

People obsessed with this and that are best ignored; whatever you do they'll simply move the goalposts to a newer and "better" technology - even one that is not yet available. Think SD Express or CF Express at a minimum.

UHS-II is anyhow outperformed by XQD.

[Rico]

People obsessed with this and that are best ignored; whatever you do they'll simply move the goalposts to a newer and "better" technology - even one that is not yet available. Think SD Express or CF Express at a minimum.

The trick is in figuring out what the buyers want.

UHS-II has nothing to do with figuring out want the buyers want. UHS-II is simply keeping up with the industry standards. That's all I am asking. To give the buyers what they want Ricoh/Pentax has no other choice than to move to UHS-II.

Let's hope at the very least the new crop of Pentax DSLR bodies will have at a minimum UHS-II. Sony Nikon Fujifilm all have moved to UHS-II. A comparison between Fujifilm's X-T3 and X-T30 is a good example to see what UHS-II delivers over UHS-I. Excellent vs Mediocre.

[RonHendriks1966]

UHS-II is simply keeping up with the industry standards.

While UHS-II is an industrie standard........

There is no standard when it comes to the camera makers industrie that has any relation with UHS-II, or many other industrie standards like USB or HDMI. They all are free to chose different paths and so do customers when they pull their wallets.

All these new state of the art industrie standards are costing a lot of money. Not persey someting people want when they buy a K-1ii for 1799 USD.

[Kunzite]

UHS-II has nothing to do with figuring out want the buyers want. UHS-II is simply keeping up with the industry standards. That's all I am asking. To give the buyers what they want Ricoh/Pentax has no other choice than to move to UHS-II.

Let's hope at the very least the new crop of Pentax DSLR bodies will have at a minimum UHS-II. Sony Nikon Fujifilm all have moved to UHS-II. A comparison between Fujifilm's X-T3 and X-T30 is a good example to see what UHS-II delivers over UHS-I. Excellent vs Mediocre.

I think we had this discussion a while back; however, my post you were quoting talked about UHS-II being considered old and outperformed.

Obviously a larger resolution sensor makes the need for faster card writes more urgent. But does it really matter if there are even faster cards, when you can write about two high resolution RAWs per second with available UHS II cards?

[xandos]

Wouldnt it be best to be in the situation where writing to the card is as fast as / faster than your maximum shooting speed?

[RonHendriks1966]

Wouldnt it be best to be in the situation where writing to the card is as fast as / faster than your maximum shooting speed?

The last Pentax camera that could do that was the K-7 on original firmware with jpeg one * quality, limitless until the card was full.

[Rondec]

I think we had this discussion a while back; however, my post you were quoting talked about UHS-II being considered old and outperformed.

Obviously a larger resolution sensor makes the need for faster card writes more urgent. But does it really matter if there are even faster cards, when you can write about two high resolution RAWs per second with available UHS II cards?

Odds are that when the K-1 III does come out, that it will have a lot deeper buffer than the current K-1 and K-1 II have. It still is probably nice if that buffer clears as fast as possible. The bar on the SD Card speed thing is always moving and if Pentax releases a camera next year odds are that it will already be behind, even if they use UHS II because whatever the next gen is for that will be released.

I suppose that is the problem that users don't see is that development starts three years before the actual release date and cards that are available at release date aren't early in the development cycle. But probably more important than having super fast read write speeds is just having a huge buffer and having enough processor speed that you can chimp and keep shooting, even while the camera is writing the images to your card.

[Kunzite]

Yes, a new - newer, faster - processor should be able to address higher capacity memory modules and include a faster SD card controller.

As a likely buyer, I'm not asking for the fastest theoretical speed possible; but for real improvements on what I perceive as weak points. Better is the enemy of good; I'd rather not have Pentax/Ricoh spend effort on overdoing it (e.g. having the camera write as fast as it can shoot, which might be neat but also useless to me).

[Rondec]

Yes, a new - newer, faster - processor should be able to address higher capacity memory modules and include a faster SD card controller.

As a likely buyer, I'm not asking for the fastest theoretical speed possible; but for real improvements on what I perceive as weak points. Better is the enemy of good; I'd rather not have Pentax/Ricoh spend effort on overdoing it (e.g. having the camera write as fast as it can shoot, which might be neat but also useless to me).

It's a bit of a tough sell over all. UHS II cards on Amazon seem to be about 110 dollars for 64 GB and 300 MB/Sec read speeds. In comparison, a UHS I 64 GB card with 150 MB/sec read speed is 18 dollars on Amazon. Assuming that the camera is able to use the faster speeds that UHS II cards offer, I still don't know if I would actually purchase one for personal use.

My wife shoots weddings and it is a lot bigger deal to her to be able to write to two cards and not have her buffer fill up and she probably would get them to use professionally, but if I'm shooting photos of my kids or landscape photos I can just wait a few extra seconds and save the money on the faster card.

[Kunzite]

That's the thing, it has to be fast enough and still affordable rather than "the fastest possible standard even if there are no cards on the market for it".
UHS II cards are more expensive, yes, but you don't have to use them unless you need the extra speed.

[Rondec]

That's the thing, it has to be fast enough and still affordable rather than "the fastest possible standard even if there are no cards on the market for it".
UHS II cards are more expensive, yes, but you don't have to use them unless you need the extra speed.

That's the reason to stick with SD form factor versus going XQD or CF cards. You have a controller capable of faster speeds if you are willing to pay for it, but it isn't as though all of our cards from the K-1 and K3 are obsoleted by a sudden change in form factor.

[Kunzite]

Right; it's also easier to fit 2 of them in a compact body.

[texandrews]

But whatever. For me, a worthy(IOW, one I might buy) K1mk3 would have:

• same body
• user selectable focus peaking color---had this on Sony, and it was great
• built in eyepiece magnifier
• improved video codec
• touch screen could be good---it does help with video, and can be great for critical focus
• incremental improvement of PS
• incremental improvement of DR, especially at ISO 800 and above
• built-in radio flash trigger or a new radio flash accessory (or just partner up with a 3rd party!)
• improved external software package, usable with LR (and/or others)
• internal software improvements, one of which would be a DOF/hyperfocal calculator/display
• faster wireless transfer
• improved tethering

[zazism_rx]

Really hoping they follow the industry trend and release a full frame mirrorless and bring some new life to the company.