Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 I think it is three years ago (or is it already 4 years) that I said that with the K-1 there is almost no market left for hi end aps-c users to bring a new model to market. Those with money changed ship and use the fullframe model. Those who didn't, either had not enough funds, or are not with enough people for such a model. Im still good on track to be right.
What is coming......next year......is a new model that has nothing to do with K-3ii.....but will replace KP.
Ummm... I am not so sure. APSC is still the weapon of choice for action and long tele work, which I think is what is delaying the release. They need to release a camera that is at least ***usable for birding, sports, long tele work, etc which is where the K-1 is a bit weak in FPS, buffer, and crop pixel density (no better than K-5IIs giving AA-less 15.xx mp crop).
To say that APSC people all moved on to the K-1 and don't still want an APSC seems like folly... I know I for one want a high density APSC for birding, etc. to carry with my K-1. The weight of adding an APSC body in my bag is lighter than carrying a 600mm F4... so I could carry my K-1 with my FA31/FA77 and the new K3.xxx with HDFA150-450 and still have a lighter total kit for less total cash outlay. If I was just doing portraits, landscapes or street, you might have something to your claim, but everyone's needs are different.
Unless of course they released a new Full Frame replacement for K-1 with a 50+mp low noise sensor... which would give a similar pixel density to APSC... heh.
but chances are, the 2 technologies will always remain unparallel, so the current gen APSC will probably always maintain the advantage for density. I dunno... maybe I am talking out my booty, but it seems historically true, so it seems logical moving forward to maintain a flagship APSC line for the many reasons it makes sense.
Eric
***EDIT: Usable, not meaning that past K-3 models were not usable, just saying usable in the vane of staying current with competitors as they are usable, IE: staying at least in the realm of FPS, CAF & buffer, not necessarily having to be on top in specifications on paper, because you pay a lot for that last 2% of performance, where as reaching 98% is still pretty darn good and lost in the noise of individual ability to use that last 2%.