[Pål Jensen]

To begin with, we still don't know the full feature set, and there may well be an ace or two up the developers' sleeves yet. And second, for all the tangible efforts to make it handsdown awesome, I also sensed a down-to-earth approach to what is possible at a price point significantly lower than the current FF flagship. Which means, my hopes have risen that if only I save up for a limited time, I should actually be able to afford the new model. Now that's good news in my book.

Last time they talked about it they promised "many new features".

[jcleary47]

It's perfectly fine and normal for those invested heavily into the Pentax ecosystem to be excited for whatever the K-New camera is.

Here's the thing though, Pentax absolutely has to innovate or at least start playing catch up.

No matter what you are using, any modern day body with high quality glass is going to produce great, high quality images. So the difference comes down to the other factors. If you have a user who's use case is shooting fast action in addition to portraits and landscapes, why would they choose Pentax when the auto-focus is completely blown away by the competition? Many more people are vlogging and creating video content, and just recording video in general these days. Why should they buy into the Pentax ecosystem and have to carry around a second dedicated device for video when they could have it all in one package?

These are legitimate questions - questions that are absolutely fair to ask of a company producing products that we have bought, and want to continue to buy. But if we want products to be developed well into the future, these shortcomings need to be addressed. The writing is on the wall. Do you not want the Pentax community to grow?

I've used my Pentax system, I've rented bodies and lenses from just about every other system out there. I'm sorry but all things being equal the image quality is excellent no matter what you choose. So then you have to decide, well which ecosystem has the best quality of life improvements and continues to innovate? What is going to make my job easier? Again, these are fair questions, and clearly questions consumers are asking.

I'm not trying to knock Pentax - I know it probably seems that way - but not everyone is content with buying a body and using it for 10 years and being satisfied. Just as it is your prerogative to do that, it is other folks prerogative to look for the shiny new thing that has quality of life improvements and technology that makes their photography experience either easier or more fun. Neither side should be judged, but understood.

[Sidney Porter]

I have never used an articulating screen but there have been times where I think it would have been nice.

An alternative would be the ability to use my phone as a 2nd display via blue tooth

[Kunzite]

That's what I'm pointing out when I say that a "flagship" camera should cover the needs of as many different users as possible.

At some point, features will conflict one another.

An optical viewfinder conflicts with the video mode.
An articulated screen conflicts with a reduced thickness, and requires interface changes.
Performance conflicts with small size.

Having all features possible and performing well conflicts with a reasonable cost.

[Sidney Porter]

I think I will be happy, with the better low light/high iso and better auto focus for sports when compared to my k3. We know that they can improve the low light based upon the kp.

I think they should improve the video, even though I don't use it. But it sounds like a gap that should be able to be improved

[normhead]

It's perfectly fine and normal for those invested heavily into the Pentax ecosystem to be excited for whatever the K-New camera is.

Here's the thing though, Pentax absolutely has to innovate or at least start playing catch up.

No matter what you are using, any modern day body with high quality glass is going to produce great, high quality images. So the difference comes down to the other factors. If you have a user who's use case is shooting fast action in addition to portraits and landscapes, why would they choose Pentax when the auto-focus is completely blown away by the competition? Many more people are vlogging and creating video content, and just recording video in general these days. Why should they buy into the Pentax ecosystem and have to carry around a second dedicated device for video when they could have it all in one package?

These are legitimate questions - questions that are absolutely fair to ask of a company producing products that we have bought, and want to continue to buy. But if we want products to be developed well into the future, these shortcomings need to be addressed. The writing is on the wall. Do you not want the Pentax community to grow?

I've used my Pentax system, I've rented bodies and lenses from just about every other system out there. I'm sorry but all things being equal the image quality is excellent no matter what you choose. So then you have to decide, well which ecosystem has the best quality of life improvements and continues to innovate? What is going to make my job easier? Again, these are fair questions, and clearly questions consumers are asking.

I'm not trying to knock Pentax - I know it probably seems that way - but not everyone is content with buying a body and using it for 10 years and being satisfied. Just as it is your prerogative to do that, it is other folks prerogative to look for the shiny new thing that has quality of life improvements and technology that makes their photography experience either easier or more fun. Neither side should be judged, but understood.

If you don't mind, post your opinions and let us decide if they are "legitimate".
Hint I don't think "legitimate" is the adjective I'd apply to those opinions.
It is more likely that a pile of people have paid for high end focusing systems they don't use, and could use something more final image friendly than capture friendly and put the money saved into lenses.

Too funny, it is also people's prerogative to imagine buying the latest marketing hype darling systems that they will never become competent at using is a good thing. People can buy every new system as it comes out and never achieve the competence level of someone using the old system that they just ditched. Quality of life improvements? Really? Sorry, I can't stop laughing.

Neither side should be judged, but understood.

Every body gets a gold star, I get it, but I don't subscribe to it.

[Serkevan]

At some point, features will conflict one another.

An optical viewfinder conflicts with the video mode.
An articulated screen conflicts with a reduced thickness, and requires interface changes.
Performance conflicts with small size.

Having all features possible and performing well conflicts with a reasonable cost.

Video/OVF is absolutely right, and performance/size is also mostly true (or rather, some ultra-high-performance features require larger size - look at the Panasonic monster needing active cooling)


However, the increase in thickness is almost negligible*, though (the K-5 is thicker sensor-to-back than the KP). Remember that the chassis runs behind the screen, so you are basically adding at most 1 mm or so of thickness - and in the case of the K-new, the right side of the camera is thicker anyway, so even if they added an articulated screen it would, at worst, level out to the thicker part. There are no buttons in the area, either. So I think the reasons will lie either in price point, perceived sturdiness of a up/down tilting screen or maximum weight - maybe the K-new got slightly heavier with the new pentaprism material, all the new dials or what have you, and the few extra grams of the screen would have put the camera over the limit.


*Not in the case of the cross-tilt screen of the K-1, which is thicker and heavier to increase ruggedness and certainly wouldn't fit an APS-C sized camera.

[SteveinSLC]

At the risk of dead horse flogging, I have KP, had K-1, and have 645Z. I used the articulating screen a fair amount on all of them. Not just for ground level shots, but for landscape shots on a tripod. It's not essential, but it sure was nice to have. And I wouldn't think they eliminated it due to a desire to keep the body small...the KP is the small body option. If indeed there is no articulating screen, given the announcement of the big viewfinder, then it seems they may have decided to emphasize use of the viewfinder.

I would say it does concern me a little bit relative to the competition. Assuming they do improve the focusing, then the biggest competitors would be the D500 and A9, maybe the EOS R. All of which have articulating screens. In any case, an interesting gamble on the part of Pentax to go this way.

[hjoseph7]

1.05x magnification on the optical viewfinder just like a K-1. Slicker Pentaprism or whatever, Joystick design is different little bit. Viewfinder has a sensor to brighten or darken something.. A new battery grip. Better subject tracking..
No other info. :-(

I hope it comes with a pop-up flash !

[Serkevan]

Too funny, it is also people's prerogative to imagine buying the latest marketing hype darling systems that they will never become competent at using is good thing. People can buy every new system as it comes out and never achieve the competence level of someone using the old system that they just ditched. Quality of life improvements? Really? Sorry, I can't stop laughing..

That's a problem with the public perception* of Pentax: if it becomes "common knowledge" that Pentax AF (as an example of an overused target for reviewers) sucks - or even that Pentax AF isn't "that good" while everyone sings the praises of Canikony's AF - someone who starts out in the hobby will be swayed away.

And I understand that Pentax is great - I've put more money towards photography in two years than I've spent in any other single hobby period, after all (okay, travel notwithstanding). But people who start are normally looking for cameras that take better photos than their phones while not being overly complicated things. And I get it, people should have lofty artistic goals and want to create art, but the reality is that a lot of newcomers to the hobby just want better, prettier pictures of their vacation. They might end up growing into "proper" photographers, but for that they have to start. Making things easier for them helps the brand in the long term. Quality of life improvements *are* important. Look at the electronic levels on the K-1, or the third dial, or having separate AF and AE locks, or even AF at all.

Yes, I'm aware that what I'm saying would apply to entry-level cameras more than a flagship, but the quality of life things can make or break a system. Luckily, Pentax is basically at the top of the pack in important things, even if AF could use some "marketable" improvements.


*When it even exists - several people who are into photography didn't know that Pentax makes DSLRs, much less good ones. I basically considered the brand as an option because my brain had imprinted on the Espio 115G my parents used when I was a child, but if I had listened to any of my friends, or asked at a store, I would be using Canon or Nikon.

[bertwert]

That's a problem with the public perception* of Pentax: if it becomes "common knowledge" that Pentax AF (as an example of an overused target for reviewers) sucks - or even that Pentax AF isn't "that good" while everyone sings the praises of Canikony's AF - someone who starts out in the hobby will be swayed away.

And I understand that Pentax is great - I've put more money towards photography in two years than I've spent in any other single hobby period, after all (okay, travel notwithstanding). But people who start are normally looking for cameras that take better photos than their phones while not being overly complicated things. And I get it, people should have lofty artistic goals and want to create art, but the reality is that a lot of newcomers to the hobby just want better, prettier pictures of their vacation. They might end up growing into "proper" photographers, but for that they have to start. Making things easier for them helps the brand in the long term. Quality of life improvements *are* important. Look at the electronic levels on the K-1, or the third dial, or having separate AF and AE locks, or even AF at all.



*When it even exists - several people who are into photography didn't know that Pentax makes DSLRs, much less good ones. I basically considered the brand as an option because my brain had imprinted on the Espio 115G my parents used when I was a child, but if I had listened to any of my friends, or asked at a store, I would be using Canon or Nikon.

I don't even know how I ended up with Pentax, I don't know anyone with it and I wasn't around during the film days. Good luck though, however it happened...

[Serkevan]

I don't even know how I ended up with Pentax, I don't know anyone with it and I wasn't around during the film days. Good luck though, however it happened...

I'm also super happy - but out of the happy few who "step up" from phones, the vast majority will be suckered in by Canon/Nikon entry level super deals, Sony marketing and spec-sheet length or Fuji's "hipster-retro" cool looks.

[bertwert]

I'm also super happy - but out of the happy few who "step up" from phones, the vast majority will be suckered in by Canon/Nikon entry level super deals, Sony marketing and spec-sheet length or Fuji's "hipster-retro" cool looks.

I doubt I'd be taking the sort of pictures I currently take if I went with one of the entry level Canikons I was looking at, or if I'd still be as interested in photography. This forum also helps a lot with inspiration and learning...

[jcleary47]

People can buy every new system as it comes out and never achieve the competence level of someone using the old system that they just ditched. Quality of life improvements? Really? Sorry, I can't stop laughing.

What are you even talking about here? Not sure what your point is. So let me get this straight, someone who is a competent photographer, can only be so if they stick to their old system for what? 10, 15, 20 years? Give me a break. There's nothing brave or impressive about someone sticking to a system and never ever switching. There's more to the user experience than just pointing the camera and releasing the shutter and getting a high quality image.

If you want to fiddle around with a sub-par auto-focus system when systems exist out there to make it easier and more painless, go for it. If you want to lay down on the ground to get the shot you want instead of just flipping a screen up, go for it.

You sound like you are old, stubborn, and stuck in your ways so I'm not sure it matters to you, and that is fine. Like I said, that's up to you. I don't see any logical reason for not wanting to see Pentax adopt what are clearly popular, functional improvements that other manufacturers have implemented in their systems over the years. What are you so scared of, exactly?

Either way, you're throwing an awful lot of shade for being someone I've never heard of. You have art hanging in what gallery? Before you start chirping about other people's photographic abilities and their desire to have improved cameras, get some respect on your own name. You clearly wanted to go to battle, so here's your battle. Get this man a snickers.

---------- Post added 05-15-2020 at 01:07 PM ----------

That's a problem with the public perception* of Pentax: if it becomes "common knowledge" that Pentax AF (as an example of an overused target for reviewers) sucks - or even that Pentax AF isn't "that good" while everyone sings the praises of Canikony's AF - someone who starts out in the hobby will be swayed away.

And I understand that Pentax is great - I've put more money towards photography in two years than I've spent in any other single hobby period, after all (okay, travel notwithstanding). But people who start are normally looking for cameras that take better photos than their phones while not being overly complicated things. And I get it, people should have lofty artistic goals and want to create art, but the reality is that a lot of newcomers to the hobby just want better, prettier pictures of their vacation. They might end up growing into "proper" photographers, but for that they have to start. Making things easier for them helps the brand in the long term. Quality of life improvements *are* important. Look at the electronic levels on the K-1, or the third dial, or having separate AF and AE locks, or even AF at all.

Yes, I'm aware that what I'm saying would apply to entry-level cameras more than a flagship, but the quality of life things can make or break a system. Luckily, Pentax is basically at the top of the pack in important things, even if AF could use some "marketable" improvements.


*When it even exists - several people who are into photography didn't know that Pentax makes DSLRs, much less good ones. I basically considered the brand as an option because my brain had imprinted on the Espio 115G my parents used when I was a child, but if I had listened to any of my friends, or asked at a store, I would be using Canon or Nikon.

The criticisms of Pentax AF compared to other platforms isn't anecdotal and it's not conjecture. It's reality. Sure, people can shoot action just fine on Pentax. But there's easier, faster, better systems out there for doing the same thing. That ends up being a huge user experience issue. I've shot using Sony's AF system, and it's cheat mode in comparison. Nikon and Canon haven't even caught up to Sony's Eye-AF. These three are so far ahead, maybe everyone is right - there's no point in Pentax trying to catch up. Which is fine - for some.

[bertwert]

You sound like you are old, stubborn, and stuck in your ways

You obviously haven't met Norm before...