[Class A]

The KP is a mid-level camera, much costlier to manufacture than the K-70.

@Mistral75

What makes the KP costlier to manufacture than the K-70?

Is it something about the inner construction?

I must admit that I don't know the two cameras too well.
I mainly know that the KP's grip(s) wouldn't work for me.

---

Last edited by Class A; 10-13-2019 at 04:44 PM.

[tvdtvdtvd]

That would argue for a K-80 with the KP's aperture control mechanism, not for the KP replacing the K-70 as entry/mid level camera.

That would certainly make more sense, though I too would rather see the KP continue if it were to be only one. Does Pentax really
need an Entry level DSLR? It's not as if soccer mom's are contemplating Pentax at Best Buy. I do think Pentax has become an
informed choice and the K-70 meets a budget more than it presents an entry to the brand.

[reh321]

What about getting people into one's system by creating a low entry hurdle?

Does Canon profit from all those "Rebels" being ultimately upgraded into more capable cameras and subsequent lens sales?

Or does this future-sales effect predominantly happen with customers that pay more for their first camera?

As far as I know, "we'" don't have those facts,
"We" don't know how many are lured {and stay} because of cheaply built "Rebels".
"We" don't know what Ricoh means by saying that "Pentax" will become a premium brand".
etc, etc, etc

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

[reh321]

What makes the KP costlier to manufacture than the K-70?

Is it something about the inner construction?

I must admit that I don't know the two cameras too well.
I mainly know that the KP's grip(s) wouldn't work for me.

I specifically know of two factors, and hints of a third:

(1) KP has same aperture control motor that K-7/5/3 have, while K-70 seems to have solenoid from K-30/50/S2

(2) KP has mostly metal chassis, while K-70 has plastic chassis that has marked low-level line.

(3) I am under impression that KP has other parts of construction from K-7/5/3 line. but that may just be me.

[Class A]

As far as I know, "we'" don't have those facts,

That's fine.

I probably should have been clearer about the fact that I was addressing @Mistral75.
@Mistral75 knows quite a bit more than the average customer so I hope it is OK for you that I ask this question.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Agreed. The KP seems like an outlier in Pentax design. Too many buttons and wheels put too close together in a small surface space that does not allow for the deep traditional Pentax grip everyone became accustomed to from the K5 forward.

Or, simply give the KP a normal, fixed grip...... Now there's room for a D-Li90, perhaps even a top a small LCD and/or two card slots.

[monochrome]

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.

[tvdtvdtvd]

I guess I am puzzled by this debate. Won't Ricoh give us a new design if they replace either or both of the cameras? The entry level cameras recently have all seemed to follow different design drummers.

I guess we are talking about whether they will continue both cameras, or clearly replace only one. If they replace the "K-70" and "KP" by {for example} a "KL", 'we' may have another debate about whether it succeeds the K-70 or the KP.

The K-70 follows a logic progression from the K-50 and the K-30 before. The KP is, at present at least, an outlier, kind of like the KS-1
and KS-2. Despite the similar product names there is very little in common between the KS-1 and KS-2. The KP could very well
have been named KS-3 but that might have suggested some kind of series in the making.

I personally think the KP is a very neat design and hope Ricoh continues to experiment along those lines.

[monochrome]

The K-70 follows a logic progression from the K-50 and the K-30 before. The KP is, at present at least, an outlier, kind of like the KS-1
and KS-2. Despite the similar product names there is very little in common between the KS-1 and KS-2. The KP could very well
have been named KS-3 but that might have suggested some kind of series in the making.

I personally think the KP is a very neat design and hope Ricoh continues to experiment along those lines.

Put a FF sensor in the KP and see what happens.

[reh321]

Put a FF sensor in the KP and see what happens.

I had that idea and someone told me me there wasn't enough room - that "FF" would require more space for IBIS.

[JPT]

@Mistral75

What makes the KP costlier to manufacture than the K-70?

Is it something about the inner construction?

I must admit that I don't know the two cameras too well.
I mainly know that the KP's grip(s) wouldn't work for me.

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.

[Mistral75]

@Mistral75

What about getting people into one's system by creating a low entry hurdle?

Does Canon profit from all those "Rebels" being ultimately upgraded into more capable cameras and subsequent lens sales?

Or does this future-sales effect predominantly happen with customers that pay more for their first camera?

I would say an entry-level camera is something necessary, including for the reasons you quote, but not something manufacturers make money with.

This is one of the reasons why Ricoh don't seem to be in a hurry to replace the 3-year old K-70: as long as it does the job, why spend money to develop a successor that won't have any sensible impact on the P&L?

[Mistral75]

@Mistral75

What makes the KP costlier to manufacture than the K-70?

Is it something about the inner construction?

I must admit that I don't know the two cameras too well.
I mainly know that the KP's grip(s) wouldn't work for me.

Almost everything: more expensive IBIS system (SR II), more expensive AF system, more expensive shutter, use of magnesium alloy instead of polycarbonate, more buttons, switches and dials and so on.

Edit: @JPT went into more details and his longer list isn't even exhaustive.

[Serkevan]

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 would add two more:
-The use of a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror, which is generally more expensive.
-Different aperture control block

[Mistral75]

I would add two more:
-The use of a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror, which is generally more expensive.
-Different aperture control block

K-70 has a pentaprism too and offers 100% coverage and 0.95x magnification -same as KP.