[Flubber]

That makes sense. I guess, at the end of the day, it comes down to what kind of photography you like to do. For my kind of photography (an amateur hobbyist who likes to shoot handheld) it's not an issue, but for someone with your needs is it clearly insufficient with a fixed screen.

[MMVIII]

Flagship mean nothing regarding to pricing: K5 was a flagship too, as well as K10D... it just mean that it is the most advanced model in the serie. It can't be priced like the k-1, lack of K-1 tilt screen already mean that K-3III is not intended to be as impressive as K-1. That was THE feature I most expected for K-3II successor. The more they release information, the more I think it will just be an up to date K-3II with not killing new features. Prism? Every new model have a new prism, this is just the first time they talk about it because they haven't much image quality improvement to talk about... We will know soon. Personnally I just hope it still have a GPS or I am not sure I'll buy it.

Uhm, the implementation of a viewfinder that allows an APS-C camera to show an image the same size as a FF-camera normally shows is not a simple new prism.

[acoufap]

That makes sense. I guess, at the end of the day, it comes down to what kind of photography you like to do. For my kind of photography (an amateur hobbyist who likes to shoot handheld) it's not an issue, but for someone with your needs is it clearly insufficient with a fixed screen.

- Absolutely right, it has to do with the kind of photography we do. But IMO it really hasn't to do anything being a hobbyist or professional. When I started using my first DSLR, a Pentax K-5, in 2011 I only had the DA18-135 and some old M lenses that I got for my Pentax ME Super many many years ago. I didn't have a tripod or other helpful tools.

Time went by and I got curious about using different techniques and tools etc. Today I have some more lenses and tools. Sometimes I use Pixel Shift Resolution, Composition Adjustment, did some Moon photography and a lot of Macro photography. I can tell you, Pentax Forums is a great place to learn and share - stay curious and have fun!

[thibs]

The problem is not that they're unable you design a prism.
They designed a new prism with new materials. It is NOT a simple as to replace one with another material.

[Serkevan]

Uhm, the implementation of a viewfinder that allows an APS-C camera to show an image the same size as a FF-camera normally shows is not a simple new prism.

Which FF camera? The new OVF certainly looks like it will be impressive, but the 40 year old MX has a viewfinder 50% larger than the K-1 (I know, I know, manual camera so the requirements are completely different).

In AF-DSLR land, the Canon 1DXiii has a 0.76x OVF, which is almost as much as an improvement over the K-1 as the K-New is over previous Pentax APS-C cameras, so it is certainly possible to see the new material being used for the K-1iii... I'd love to see that happen.

That said, having the best OVF in any APS-C digital camera ever is exciting!

[ThorSanchez]

Which FF camera? The new OVF certainly looks like it will be impressive, but the 40 year old MX has a viewfinder 50% larger than the K-1 (I know, I know, manual camera so the requirements are completely different).

Why is that? Is there a technical reason why film cameras had larger viewfinders?

[MMVIII]

Which FF camera? The new OVF certainly looks like it will be impressive, but the 40 year old MX has a viewfinder 50% larger than the K-1 (I know, I know, manual camera so the requirements are completely different).

In AF-DSLR land, the Canon 1DXiii has a 0.76x OVF, which is almost as much as an improvement over the K-1 as the K-New is over previous Pentax APS-C cameras, so it is certainly possible to see the new material being used for the K-1iii... I'd love to see that happen.

That said, having the best OVF in any APS-C digital camera ever is exciting!

Are you really asking that? Geez.
In the Pentax system you will be able to have a two body setup and cover all the flippy dreams, nightscapes, macros etc. and now will get an additional camera that can act as a teleconverter, allowing a similar view through the viewfinder for the situations the K-1 has been lacking, fast AF and burst shooting.
But sure, you can also bring your MX with you, whatever floats your boat.

[Serkevan]

Why is that? Is there a technical reason why film cameras had larger viewfinders?

*With "film camera" I assume the entire time we've been talking about manual focus film cameras.

As far as I remember, it comes down to the mirror and focusing screen: on an AF camera the mirror needs to let some light through to the AF sensor underneath, so you're already losing some light. And then, the focusing screen normally used is also slower. Add the light needed for the matrix exposure system that is on one side of the prism, and the end result is that you have much less light reaching the eyepiece. Of course, since the mirror in a FF camera is larger than that of an APS-C camera, the usual crop factor gets applied to viewfinder magnification (which is why APS-C cameras have smaller viewfinders)

To avoid a dark viewfinder, you either improve the materials used (as they are doing in the K-New, or the pentaprism vs pentamirror example), or you reduce the magnification to concentrate the light on a smaller area. With the K-News new prism, they have managed to both increase magnification by about 10% while also increasing brightness, so I suppose that they could have increased magnification a smidgen more (or kept magnification while brightening the view substantially).


Improving both seems like the best decision IMO - you get to the same size as the majority of FF DSLRs while being slightly brighter.

[superdave]

As for image quality; Pentax have more than hinted that the K-new has image quality rivaling or exceeding FF....
They have promised many new features.

You already know that this is not true because of the law of physics...

[Serkevan]

Are you really asking that? Geez.
In the Pentax system you will be able to have a two body setup and cover all the flippy dreams, nightscapes, macros etc. and now will get an additional camera that can act as a teleconverter, allowing a similar view through the viewfinder for the situations the K-1 has been lacking, fast AF and burst shooting.
But sure, you can also bring your MX with you, whatever floats your boat.

It was mostly tongue in cheek - I said the K-New is impressive right after!

---------- Post added 08-29-20 at 05:27 AM ----------

You already know that this is not true because of the law of physics...

Software processing is a hell of a drug. What modern phones are doing is impressive - they look about as good as many 1" compacts (at the limited focal lengths they have available, of course). I wouldn't be surprised if the K-New has better quality than the EOS RP, for example. Let's see what the new accelerator(s?) does.

[superdave]

Nothing of the above make any sense.
- you might want a tilt screen (why didn't you get the KP, then?), but that's not THE feature to differentiate this camera from the K-3 II

Because I already have the K-3II, the KP is lower end.

Nothing of the above make any sense. for image quality.
- the K-new should be a completely new camera, with advancements in pretty much every area.

Sure, like the K-3 improved in every aspect in regards to K-5, but K-3 was not a $2000 camera.

- no, they don't make a new prism for every new model, and this one, a high refraction glass prism allowing for a larger image while increasing the brightness, was never included in any camera.

What I mean is that each new generation, coverage and magnification has improved, and so the the viewfinder has always been better in each new flagship : K-3 > K-5 > K20D etc... but again the price has never be $2000.

- Ricoh was talking about improved image quality, and that was compared to the K-70 and KP - themselves much improved over the K-3 II.

IQ has always improved in each new gen camera without requiring a $2000 pricetag. Just remember how the entry level K-x had a better IQ that previous flagship. It was because of new Sony sensor.

[reh321]

Because I already have the K-3II, the KP is lower end.

It depends on what you mean by "lower end".
The KP is fantastic at higher ISO values and does have that flippy screen.
{I could say basically the same thing about the K-70}

[Kunzite]

Because I already have the K-3II, the KP is lower end.

Then, a tilting screen isn't that important to you.
Criticism where people don't put their money where their mouth is, is just an excuse.

Sure, like the K-3 improved in every aspect in regards to K-5, but K-3 was not a $2000 camera.

That's debatable regarding image quality, and then you have no clue about most of the improvements in the K-new. It might very well be worth whatever price they'll be asking.

What I mean is that each new generation, coverage and magnification has improved, and so the the viewfinder has always been better in each new flagship : K-3 > K-5 > K20D etc... but again the price has never be $2000.

You're talking as if they'd sell the pentaprism and not a complete camera.
Olympus tried to sell a crop camera for $3000; and not long ago launched a $1800 one as well. The Nikon D500 was announced for $2000. The Canon 7D Mark II, for $1800. The Fujifilm X-T4, for $1700. The Panasonic GH5S, for $2500.
It pretty much depends on the camera. One thing is certain: you cannot fix performance in a cheap camera.

IQ has always improved in each new gen camera without requiring a $2000 pricetag. Just remember how the entry level K-x had a better IQ that previous flagship. It was because of new Sony sensor.

The K-70 has improved image quality compared to your K-3. So? Do you have a point to make, because it all looks like kettle logic against the K-new?

[Parallax]

Fair enough. You could be right. I don't know - I haven't used digital cameras so far, so I'm just talking from a film perspective where the lack of such features aren't an issue.

I don't remember ever hearing a complaint about Spotmatics not being able to shoot 8 frames per second, or complaints that Nikon F3s didn't do 4K video, or the Canon A1 didn't have dual film slots.
It's true that the more features something has the more there is to go wrong, but it seems also that the more features that are possible the more people complain about the lack of them.
I don't see why people are so adamant about demanding a flippy screen. I think we should demand a articulating/detachable screen that incorporates all of the controls, has a two mile range, and, just for good measure, Dish network reception?

[ThorSanchez]

Sure, like the K-3 improved in every aspect in regards to K-5, but K-3 was not a $2000 camera.

What I mean is that each new generation, coverage and magnification has improved, and so the the viewfinder has always been better in each new flagship : K-3 > K-5 > K20D etc... but again the price has never be $2000.

IQ has always improved in each new gen camera without requiring a $2000 pricetag. Just remember how the entry level K-x had a better IQ that previous flagship. It was because of new Sony sensor.

1) We don't know what the launch price of the Knew is going to be. It might be $1700 or $1800.

2) Here's a quote from a decade ago:

Available from October 2010, the Pentax K-5 comes body-only, or with a weather-sealed 18-55mm kit lens. Body-only pricing is set at around US$1,600, while the 18-55 WR kit costs about US$1,750

Factoring in inflation, $1600 in 2010 is about $1900 today.


3) It's 2020, not 2005 or 2010 or 2015. The camera market is very different today.

---------- Post added 08-29-20 at 09:38 AM ----------

I don't remember ever hearing a complaint about Spotmatics not being able to shoot 8 frames per second, or complaints that Nikon F3s didn't do 4K video, or the Canon A1 didn't have dual film slots.

Because that would be like people buying a '75 AMC Gremlin and complaining that it didn't have 2020 crash protection, or satellite radio, or wasn't an electric car with 400-mile range. You could drive to work today in a '75 Gremlin, but after having experienced 2020 cars you'd likely find it lacking.


In 1877 people didn't complain that their giant wet-plate view cameras didn't have an eye level optical viewfinder, or that it didn't take film cartridges. Maybe that Spotmatic was hopelessly over-spec'd, since all we really need is the bare minimum feature set.

It's true that the more features something has the more there is to go wrong, but it seems also that the more features that are possible the more people complain about the lack of them.
I don't see why people are so adamant about demanding a flippy screen. I think we should demand a articulating/detachable screen that incorporates all of the controls, has a two mile range, and, just for good measure, Dish network reception?

A wide range of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, and even Pentax cameras have an articulating screen. People aren't asking for fanciful, pie-in-the-sky features, they're simply expressing displeasure that the new Pentax APS-C flagship doesn't appear to have a feature that's pretty standard across manufacturers and camera types, and that they find useful from experience taking photographs.