[slartibartfast01]

I would add two more:

-The use of a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror, which is generally more expensive.

-Different aperture control block

Are you sure K-70 doesn't have a pentaprism?

[Serkevan]

Yep, that's what I get for posting early in the morning. I stand corrected.

[troenaas]

But we've never been held back on a good discussion by a shortage of facts before.

I've never noticed that before..

[Zooland]

KP is perfect as it is for its intended purpose. Making it something it isn’t would be sheer folly. The failure is the lack of a proper pro body, not the KP design. Trying to shoehorn the needs / wants of K-3 replacement buyers into the KP has been a misguided enterprise from the beginning.

K-1 was meant to fill that gap.

[monochrome]

K-1 was meant to fill that gap.

I should have written proper APSc body.

[Serkevan]

K-1 was meant to fill that gap.

But then the people who wanted the deeper buffer and 8.3 fps of the K-3 were disappointed. The K-1 is probably one of the best generalist cameras out there -and I would be willing to say it has THE best price/quality ratio for a machine of its class- but it's not completely, unequivocally better than the K-3, if only for weight, size and frame rate*.


*Which are the only things I can think of, apart from filling the VF with an APS-C lens, which gets weird on the K-1.

[Paul the Sunman]

The K-1 is probably one of the best generalist cameras out there -and I would be willing to say it has THE best price/quality ratio for a machine of its class- but it's not completely, unequivocally better than the K-3, if only for weight, size and frame rate*.

I have to agree. The K1 is a classic, a legend in its own lifetime. My K3 doesn't get much use these days, though it does have the few advantages you mention.... along with

• Better for long telephoto because of the crop factor and higher pixel density
• It gives me the opportunity to use some of my lovely crop lenses, including three DA Limiteds.

[Serkevan]

Of course! I agree on both points. For the first one, I didn't mention it because it's more a format thing than it is a K-1/K-3 issue. The second one comes with the viewfinder "issue".

[reh321]

I’m not sure how all of this related to the overall production cost of the KP, but there are a lot of differences in the specifications that imply it has different components to the K-70.

- The sensor doesn’t have phase detect pixels, is bit cleaner and allows the camera to go up to a higher max ISO
- The body is magnesium alloy vs. plastic
- The processor is called “Prime IV” vs. “Prime MII” so there is presumably some difference
- The sensor shift mechanism is 5-axis up to 5 stops vs. 4.5 stops and no mention of 5-axis
- The focusing sensor is 27 point vs. 11 point
- The metering sensor is 86,000 pixels vs. 77 segment
- The shutter/mirror mechanism is good for 7 fps vs. 6 fps and the KP is much quieter (also the KP is tested to 100,000)
- The sensor has the DRII system, rather than the method of just shaking the sensor using SR on shut-down used by the cheaper models
- It has a connection for a battery grip while the K-70 does not

So it seems to me that there is a lot to suggest that the higher-end components in the KP would make it more expensive to produce. It has more in common with the K-3 than the K-70.

I believe the more “professional “ {these days} aperture control unit is the most important change. The user may not notice any change at all in the first two years, but for someone like me {who had a perfectly good K-30 ‘fail’}, I cannot over-state the importance of this change .... and it’s necessary contribution to the increased cost. If nothing else, I believe the K-90 should have this and the ‘styling’ {squared prism housing and third e-wheel} which mark it as a Pentax. These are the reasons I waited until I could afford a KP - but they are also the reasons I could sell a KP to my neighbors instead of a K-70.

[Serkevan]

While the aperture problem should of course be taken care of, I suppose Ricoh learned their lesson (the K-70 has had almost no problems apparently). We'll probably see further improvements in the next one (or the better control block).

On a less technical note the third e-dial has only been on two Pentaxes (has it ever been on any other DSLR out there?) and it already feels like it's a Basic Design Requirement for me.

[Mistral75]

I, for one, am partial to the look of the MZ-1.

[Belnan]

I, for one, am partial to the look of the MZ-1.

The new K does have a similar look to the MZ-1

[yorik]

MZ-D Mark I?

[mlt]

From the mock up, must have been mirrorless :

[tvdtvdtvd]

From the mock up, must have been mirrorless :

Nah. Clearly it's an x-ray camera with beryllium window.