Originally posted by normhead But it does start with one strike against it. Another for the lack of GPS.
If the K-new comes out without the tilt screen, I'll wait for the Mark II version. Hopefully with the tilt screen and GPS.
I use the APS-c bodies for 2 things. Macro for more magnification, and birds for more reach. Half my APS-c usage would be impacted.
What would mitigate that? 10-12 FPS, a 50 shot buffer, improved AF, and faster buffer clearing and full control of the camera while the buffer clears.
Way to many times I've fired off a sequence, noticed I need to adjust the EV up or down, and sat waiting for the buffer to clear before I could changes the setting and take another image. The issue with Pentax APS-c being there's so much to be done, and unless it is all good, the camera will still be crippled by it's technology. 3 out of 4 doesn't change anything.
If I can put up with the deficiencies a K-3 works just fine. I've no need to buy the K-new for a half solution with two strikes against it at conception.
Leave off any one of those and it's a no go.
Your logic is viable, until you actually look at what they need to accomplish to make it a go. Then it looks impossible.
On the other hand pixel shift, the tilting backscreen, GPS and incremental improvements else where would have made me happy. The problem being, my K-3 as it is just isn't that bad. So why would I be looking at new that's not much of an improvement and lacks some features?
It could be a deliberate financial play by Pentax, to stop releasing cameras that are 'jack of all trades' and instead gear certain cameras towards different suited genres. Thus if you like Landscape AND Wildlife get a K-1ii AND a K-new.
It could also be that to do one task really well (for them) such as significantly better AF through the eye piece, implementing other pre-existing tech was not gonna be possible.
I also look at tech from R&D perspective, and adding features to the list slows the process down, simply put less features means their staff have less things to work on (problem solve/bug fix) and can instead get the camera out sooner. Adding too many features to a camera might take so long to release it (for a small team like Pentax) that by the time it hits the shelf it just looks old and new tech is out and its harder for them to compete.
Originally posted by phoebus Norm, why the certainty there's no GPS? One less button is one less point of failure. My K-1 GPS is always on, with LED off. Do you really turn your's on and off? A tile on the INFO screen would work fine. Or an icon on the LV (touch)screen. I don't think the lack of dedicated button guarantees lack of GPS...
K-1 has dedicated GPS button on the outside, also a LED light to tell you its on. It doesn't look like such buttons or lights exist, which suggest it may not have GPS. If no GPS it might not have Astro, or even pixelshift. Things are pointing more towards it being a dedicated pew pew pew machine.
Originally posted by house Touch AF is for live view on a dslr with joystick. Live view doesn't use PDAF and has wider coverage even on old Pentax cameras.
Yes, I was thinking any touch screen tech would be ported from GRIII and used for navigating menus quicker, double tapping for zooming in in LV and Playback, stuff like that. Nothing really to do with assisting eyepiece focusing.
Originally posted by normhead What stops me is what it wold cost me to replace the 4 telephoto lenses I have for my K-3. And that in one cases, for example the DA 55-300 PLM, they wouldn't be as good.
Also thinking I'd have to replace all my older glass with newer VR glass to make up for not having SR in the body. For those of us with extensive lens lineups, it would be very difficult to do without losing considerable lens flexibility. What would 22 Nikon VR lenses cost me?
Are there any older Nikon screw drive lenses with SR?
My Tammy 300 2.8 with screw drive was about $1300 USD. On my K-1 or K-3 it has SR.
AT $5500 the The Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR is 4.5 times the price. So I'm guessing you are using slow glass, which is cheaper. With 2 2.8 lenses and one ƒ4 zoom, I'd lose a lot switching. The cost to get equivalent gear would be $7-9K and on most images would produce no noticeable advantage. I know of no one who shoots all action all the time to make good use of D500 images capability. A lot of it would go to having capability I don't use but once or twice year.
Yeah, the 'trap' (at least that feeling for me) is the investment in glass. Grabbing a D500 for me means selling a K body and a lot of glass to fund that change... when instead I 'make do' (because I have been led to believe that there is no perfect camera and you can also be disappointed in another brands shortcoming in a different way, just perhaps not AF disappointment) and instead decide to wait for a better new camera body from Pentax.
I actually believe this K-new might be it, filling in the gap in its line up by really dedicating some serious attention to AF and success rate/keepers.
Originally posted by ffking Hmm - is a (presumably) dedicated SR on/off button new to Pentax? I wonder if that's why it wasn't labelled before, but testiers have preferred it at the front, so it's been moved (sorry if raised previously, just skimming the thread)
Yeah it is new, and has me slightly worried, but also... slightly hopeful.
Here's my 2 cents;
In 2018 Pentax put in a patent for Hybrid OVF/EVF. You can say what you like about EVF shortcomings but it also has many advantages;
- Better Manual Focus Feedback (like LV)
- Gaining Face/Eye Detection through the eyepiece
- Gaining AF tracking through the eyepiece
- Seeing what the image looks like before you take the shot (in negates chimping, if it looks good at the time of the shot, that's how it will look... period).
- No front and back focusing problems with lenses
- Higher Focus Accuracy
- Quieter
But of course this is not always a 'pleasing' way to shoot, and the one criticism of EVF is it's
replaced an OVF. I see the EVF like LV, a different method to take images and a really powerful tool. I don't shoot purely through the OVF, sometimes I use LV too (and not always with a tilty screen), EVF would be one more
major benefit to users,
undeniably. Now that doesn't mean you
have to use it, just like any other feature you can ignore it (much the same way that I'm sure a lot of you don't use Face Detection in Live View).
It's my belief that they had a stab at trying this Hybrid OVF/EVF thing in the K-new... and it's this that has caused certain key features like a tilt screen to be omitted. My only concern is that it didn't work out well for them. It's not enough for them to install that piece of tech, it also has to work well, and I think somewhere along the production of K-new they abandoned it.
Why do I say this?
Well... initially the images circulating the K-new showed a nameless button, that is perfectly placed to being a OVF/EVF toggle. At this time it was left blank as they didn't want to reveal its intentions. They chose to drift away from the K-1 model and not have LV as a button, but instead on a dial like the KP (which I personally do not like as much, it's slower to toggle). So I really felt that this button would be an EVF button as this would be the two modes you would most drift between when using this camera.
If this was not their intention... why have they now recently showed images with a new button layout? What was stopping them having a SR button and Lock button in those areas in the first place? I mean all the other buttons were labelled, even the 'S.Fn' button (which I presume is a Special Function button, a feature that in the menu system you can decide what things it toggles through at a press, ISO, HDR etc). The Lock button has even moved from the traditional front to the rear and we now have a SR button... which does beg the question of whether its really needed at all and they just 'had to put something' there.
That is unless... the SR button is actually quite important to this new improved AF experience that they seem to promise, perhaps AF accuracy is improved significantly with it turned off, thus they present this button as a quick option for higher AF accuracy if the user feels its safe to disarm it...
Sadly however... I think my initial assessment of what has happened makes more sense. They tried the Hybrid EVF thing, it didn't work and now they are salvaging a camera to being a tiltless screen OVF only experience with the promise of better AF (and better viewing through the OVF).
Maybe it will be enough for Pentaxians, I'm sure it will buffer better, fps better and be more accurate, but has it now just come at too much of a price? A 15% AF improvement at the cost of a tilt screen?
Gonna be interesting to see how this all pans out.