[RGlasel]

'Currently the successor to K-3 II is making progress, it seems to be progressing smoothly, I'm excited and thrilled.'

If nothing else, this is an indication that the development team weren't instructed to curl up into a ball and wait for the official end of everything. Hopefully we get a formal announcement by the summer solstice and product availability by autumn. I too am excited and thrilled and I look forward to giving myself a reward before 2021. I don't think I'm alone.

[c.a.m]

An interesting comment from Kimio Tanaka two days ago:

Translation: "K-New: still kickin'"

Thanks for posting.

- Craig

[normhead]

Sorry to bother you guys since you seem to enjoy your discussion but, invoking OP's privilege, I will take the liberty to go back on topic.

An interesting comment from Kimio Tanaka two days ago:



Source: Twitter

Translation by yours truly: 'Currently the successor to K-3 II is making progress, it seems to be progressing smoothly, I'm excited and thrilled.'

That's what I come here for.

[Larrymc]

Sorry to bother you guys since you seem to enjoy your discussion but, invoking OP's privilege, I will take the liberty to go back on topic.

An interesting comment from Kimio Tanaka two days ago:



Source: Twitter

Translation by yours truly: 'Currently the successor to K-3 II is making progress, it seems to be progressing smoothly, I'm excited and thrilled.'

Who do you think you are jumping in here and grabbing the discussion and getting back on topic????? Well thats definitely some great news!!

[boriscleto]

I find that the posts and discussions on Pentax Forums are generally polite, mature, thoughtful, and informative.

Heh. You must not have read the P&R forum before it was closed.

[biz-engineer]

And that's perfectly fine - but then again, the thing is whether the difference would justify the price. For me it most likely wouldn't; I'm more than happy with the technical quality of the images I take.

It's bad thinking to be cost only driven. You have to balance the cost of time lost vs the cost of money. Otherwise your employer would never hire you because you are expensive? Your employer employs you because , although you are expensive, you save him more time value than you cost. What cost more? Messing around tried to make do with the Pentax system? or spend the money for the system that just does what you want and be done with it?

[Serkevan]

It's bad thinking to be cost only driven. You have to balance the cost of time lost vs the cost of money. Otherwise your employer would never hire you because you are expensive? Your employer employs you because , although you are expensive, you save him more time value than you cost. What cost more? Messing around tried to make do with the Pentax system? or spend the money for the system that just does what you want and be done with it?

But that's the thing - what I have does what I want it to do. And I enjoy using it, from day one with a K-7 and 18-55 kit lens (which can be accurately described as "fumbling around" more than "taking pictures" ). I haven't really felt limited since I got the K-1; there are some aspects of some lenses I have that I don't like but that doesn't make me hate the final images. It doesn't even make me spend longer in post processing. So, for me the balance is made.

[thibs]

I wonder if Ricoh are taking some time to add a flippy screen to this camera, given the huge number of members who criticized the original prototype for not having one?

You trying to change subject to something rational, huh? Dont you dare !

LOL

[Rondec]

Some more Churchill quotes below. Needless to say I find them all horrendous. Sorry about posting them but he did indeed say or write them.

Did Churchill shoot Pentax? I would have guessed him as a Kodak Brownie man...

Clearly, folks here like Pentax. We know about the weaknesses of Pentax and we know about the path they have chosen to take (SLR, not MILC). That said, this should be a relatively safe place for us to enjoy our gear without someone constantly bringing up the things that are wrong with it or the disastrous path that Pentax is on.

It feels like both Nikon and Olympus are in trouble right now -- Nikon more than Olympus, but there is no particular reason to bring that up every little bit.

In a sense, most camera brands are a bit tenuous right now. The economy is going to suck for awhile. Some brands have invested tons of money in launching new mounts and will only be able to sell those cameras with deep discounts. If you will, they are all in hospital beds -- not in the ICU, but a step down unit -- and there are certain people who walk the hallways and every so often they stop at one door and one door only and yell, "You, sir Pentax are dying! Dying I tell you!" And then they continue pacing until they stop at the same door and say the same thing.

It doesn't feel helpful and it doesn't feel true.

[BigMackCam]

It's bad thinking to be cost only driven. You have to balance the cost of time lost vs the cost of money. Otherwise your employer would never hire you because you are expensive? Your employer employs you because , although you are expensive, you save him more time value than you cost. What cost more? Messing around tried to make do with the Pentax system? or spend the money for the system that just does what you want and be done with it?

I'm pretty sure most members here don't feel they're "making do" with their Pentax systems. For the few that do:

If they have the financial means to buy something that better suits their specific needs, they should waste no time in doing so. Tempus fugit. Carpe diem. We even have a non-Pentax forum that's just perfect for them... and we'd greatly appreciate it if they use that and not litter the other forums with comments on Pentax's weaknesses compared to their new brand.

If, however, their finances are limited, and allocation of spending needs to be prioritised on essentials first, luxuries and indulgences second (as is the case for most of us), then they're going to be cost-driven to a greater or lesser extent, and making do may be the most sensible option. Certainly, some degree of compromise will be essential. In which case, they should acknowledge and accept that, knuckle down and get on with using what they have or can afford. Any amount of complaining won't make their situation (or ours) any better... They might be making do, but they don't have to keep telling us we are too.

Cost of time lost vs cost of money is mostly relevant to professionals rather than hobbyists (even those with professional aspirations or dreams). A little extra time or creative thinking required to get the shot, or some extra work in post-processing, really shouldn't matter to most hobbyists. Indeed, it can be part of the challenge and fun. For professionals with sufficient funds, though, they should work with the kit that's most appropriate and efficient to their use cases. If that means spending more money, and they're confident of getting a return on that investment, so be it.

I know you're printing big at high resolutions with the aim of creating professional-quality fine art that sells for thousands of dollars or euros per print - yet from recent threads I note you keep working ("messing around" ?) with your existing 36MP 35mm Pentax system, using all manner of time-consuming workflows involving aperture bracketing and stitching to achieve your end result. I assume that's a cost-driven choice, otherwise you'd ante up and buy a Phase One or similar... no?

[ThorSanchez]

"You basically just said that I wasn't very smart for investing in Pentax because of a capability that I didn't know I'd need years later."

Yas, exactly what I said. You say it like there's something wrong with that.

That coupled with your belief that you'd be happy with the first camera you bought as you and your demands grew photographically. I started playing tennis with wooden rackets, in the end I was using carbon fibre rackets. I never in my wildest dreams considered that I'd never want better rackets as I became a better player. The rackets I ended up with I wouldn't have been able to keep the ball on the court with when I started out. In cameras I went from 120, to 8x10 and 4x5 film in school to 35mm, to 645 to APS-c. The reasons why there are lots of different cameras is because there are lots of different people with lots of different needs.

I currently own 6 cameras in 4 different formats and 3 different companies, and my wife owns 2. Each for a different use. How did you get sold on this idea that you're going to buy one camera and it was going to do every thing you wanted? In my experience it comes down to every time you find something new you want to do, you might need a new camera.

I didn't. I just hope that the K-new has better tracking autofocus than my K-3ii, so I'm not tempted to go spend many $thousands to buy a Nikon D500 and a bunch of lenses or God forbid a Sony or something. I like my Pentax quite a lot, I have a fair amount of time and money invested in the system, but I'd also like it if the new one improved upon the older one's weaker points.

---------- Post added 05-03-20 at 08:06 AM ----------

I get so tired of people with way more capability than I ever had whining about what Pentax has to do for their photographic needs. You do the best you can with what you have and don't complain.. if you're smart. Complaining detracts from your life and adds nothing.

You can be a fan without being a cheerleader. You can be a member of a political party without an unquestioning endorsement of every plank of the party's platform. You can love your car, while cursing its stereo interface. And you can happily shoot Pentax for years while hoping the company improves some things in the next release.

[Kunzite]

You can be a fan without being a cheerleader.

You should be a fan without being called a cheerleader.

And you can happily shoot Pentax for years while hoping the company improves some things in the next release.

Who doesn't?

[reh321]

It's bad thinking to be cost only driven. You have to balance the cost of time lost vs the cost of money. Otherwise your employer would never hire you because you are expensive? Your employer employs you because , although you are expensive, you save him more time value than you cost. What cost more? Messing around tried to make do with the Pentax system? or spend the money for the system that just does what you want and be done with it?

I AM NOT MAKING DO!!!!!

The Pentax KP is the best camera I have ever owned - it does do what I want.
Why - why - would I replace it with something less??

[normhead]

You can be a fan without being a cheerleader. You can be a member of a political party without an unquestioning endorsement of every plank of the party's platform. You can love your car, while cursing its stereo interface. And you can happily shoot Pentax for years while hoping the company improves some things in the next release.

You continuously insult Pentax users, what's with that?

Fan cheerleader is a continuüm. All you are doing is establishing your place on it.

Originally posted by biz-engineer
It's bad thinking to be cost only driven. You have to balance the cost of time lost vs the cost of money. Otherwise your employer would never hire you because you are expensive? Your employer employs you because , although you are expensive, you save him more time value than you cost. What cost more? Messing around tried to make do with the Pentax system? or spend the money for the system that just does what you want and be done with it?

The amount of time I spend frustrated with my Pentax equipment is probably less that 10 minutes a year.

How much do you think I should pay to cover that?

And, how do you know that what you buy next won't cause you frustration as well?

There seems to be this assumption that Pentax users and Pentax users only have frustrations with their gear. What's with that? You guys are really on the insult roll today.

[BigMackCam]

It's been brought to my attention that this thread has outlived its original purpose and usefulness, and I'm closing it as a result. We can revisit the new body if and when more information is released