[rawr]

If the articulated screen would be THE reason for you, while performance would be pretty much irrelevant, you'd have a KP.

Articulated screen would certainly be nice to have onboard any new high-end Pentax, I must admit. The other flagship Pentaxes such as the K-1 or 645Z offer it for good reason.

If they throw away that selling point in the K-new, I hope they have some very, very strong new features to at least balance out the absence of flippy, plus set it above KP.

[Pål Jensen]

One good reason for K-new to not have flip screen is because it is probably built to meet certain size and built quality standards. K-1 style screen is too large and complex for a compact body. KP style probably seen as too flimsy for a flagship camera. And then there's that new finder design that might interfere with the design of a flip screen.

[bxf]

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the implication that some people cannot think of anything that would attract them to a new camera. In other words, all is well with what they already have. Examples of where the above DOES NOT apply are requests for better AF and better video. But given that some of us do not need better AF because we don't shoot action, nor video, it raises the question of what can one realistically want from a camera that is not already present in existing models? Perhaps that is the reason we are not so easily excited by new announcements.

As for me, I like new toys. Aside from that, I can even hope for more consistent AF, even though I'm not sure that my occasional failures in that area are not self-inflicted. I can also see that perhaps all this explains the apparent emphasis on features, rather than performance. And finally, I could claim that a new camera would help me produce better photos, but I know better.

[normhead]

One good reason for K-new to not have flip screen is because it is probably built to meet certain size and built quality standards. K-1 style screen is too large and complex for a compact body. KP style probably seen as too flimsy for a flagship camera. And then there's that new finder design that might interfere with the design of a flip screen.

One good reason to have a flip screen is that people like myself won't buy it if it doesn't have one. That K-P looks ike a really nice camera, and is currently selling for great prices.

I see little advantage to doing something others do so well, given that appeals to such a small, but noisy.segment of Pentax users. They are walking a tightrope. All of us who didn't buy a Nikon D500 are watching. We didn't buy it because the feature set wasn't what we wanted to pay for. That doesn't change because of the brand.

I'm going with what we actually know. The new accelerator chip has pushed noise reduction to 2 stops, now that's impressive. It builds on the Pentax rep for image quality. And the new viewfinder is a bold attempt to aggressively go after those who like optical viewfinders and want the best, at a time when others are ignoring viewfinders and putting R&D money into EVFs. You get the accelerator noise reduction on every image. I need really fast tracking AF once a year at most.

Most of the time when I do use it, what I find out is that most of the complainers aren't making the most of their gear's capabilities. Not that the camera is in some way insufficient.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/410925-k-1-tracking-10-images-10-focus.html

This is a distinct improvement from my K-3 and 18-135 where I could count of 5 of 7 in similar tests. That's something not noted by the complainers on the forum. I'm expecting the K-new to be somewhat better than the K-1. But I've already noticed improvements K-3 to K-1 so that's almost a given.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-22-2020 at 06:12 AM.

[jgnfld]

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the implication that some people cannot think of anything that would attract them to a new camera. ...it raises the question of what can one realistically want from a camera that is not already present in existing models? Perhaps that is the reason we are not so easily excited by new announcements...

... I can also see that perhaps all this explains the apparent emphasis on features, rather than performance.

OMG...a sane response!

What makes you think actual needs (present and future) and actual performance are important factors in an environment heavily driven by marketing? Essentially this is what manufacturers in many industries face with marketing products that are essentially interchangeable. Cigarettes used to be the crowning example of so-called and very artificial "product differentiation".

I think Ricoh has picked a somewhat risky path (not sure there was a better one available) of putting more focus on actual needs of much of their customer base in terms of sensor and performance at a very good comparative price point as opposed to surrendering totally to marketing hype.

Where Ricoh falls down w.r.t. actual needs is with various pros who really do have specialized equipment needs and exacting--and fast--service needs. But then they are not marketing to that crowd much. One of my dental specialists uses specialized Pentax medical imaging equipment, however. Don't know what the servicing arrangements are. That might make me edgy as opposed to (I can't believe I'm saying this) Canon etc. pro gear and contracts.

[Henk T]

If the picture is final, the LCD is definitely fixed. The enlargement is undoubtedly. The eye sensor is nice.

But, why is the viewfinder yellow?

I cannot believe the LCD is fixed. Compared to the K3 II on the right it looks that there is a definite edge along the panel. And couldn't the black button on the upper left side not be a release spring for the LCD? In 2020 Pentax/Ricoh wouldn't be able to launch a new top model with a fixed back panel even though it may have a novel viewfinder.

[Gray]

I bought the KP precisely because it has a tilt screen. I would have preferred a fully articulated screen, but a fixed screen is a real handicap for waist-level or ground-level photography.

[normhead]

I bought the KP precisely because it has a tilt screen. I would have preferred a fully articulated screen, but a fixed screen is a real handicap for waist-level or ground-level photography.

Taken with the tilt screen and live view, many with manual focus. I'm not giving this up.
More Pixel shift from the K-1 and DFA 100 macro.






For people who can do without, no problem. They don't shoot what I shoot. They don't shoot the way I shoot, maybe shooting without the tilt screen wouldn't cost them many images, it would cost me many of my favourites. I have not used my K-3 for this type of image since I got the K-1 even though APS-c is more suited to getting more magnification and DoF out of your macro images. SO the question becomes, are there enough people who both already didn't buy into Canon or Nikon for AF left who will now buy into a faster Pentax, just for the AF? I absolutely want to take these images with APS-c and save my K-1 shutter actuations for the things the K-1 is good at. Any APS-c camera without a tilt screen isn't that camera.

I would not recommend the K-new to any of my Flickr followers without this feature. If you want to shoot what I shoot, it's essential.

[reh321]

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the implication that some people cannot think of anything that would attract them to a new camera. In other words, all is well with what they already have. Examples of where the above DOES NOT apply are requests for better AF and better video. But given that some of us do not need better AF because we don't shoot action, nor video, it raises the question of what can one realistically want from a camera that is not already present in existing models? Perhaps that is the reason we are not so easily excited by new announcements.

As for me, I like new toys. Aside from that, I can even hope for more consistent AF, even though I'm not sure that my occasional failures in that area are not self-inflicted. I can also see that perhaps all this explains the apparent emphasis on features, rather than performance. And finally, I could claim that a new camera would help me produce better photos, but I know better.

I purchased a KP eighteen months ago; I try to use any camera for at least four years. I have little interest in new toys - more interested in the 'loyalty' of old toys.


I cannot think of any feature that I need right now, but I need to make better use of the camera I have - so why would I spend more money right now?

[Henk T]

Taken with the tilt screen and live view, many with manual focus. I'm not giving this up.
More Pixel shift from the K-1 and DFA 100 macro.






For people who can do without, no problem. They don't shoot what I shoot. They don't shoot the way I shoot, maybe shooting without the tilt screen wouldn't cost them many images, it would cost me many of my favourites. I have not used my K-3 for this type of image since I got the K-1 even though APS-c is more suited to getting more magnification and DoF out of your macro images. SO the question becomes, are there enough people who both already didn't buy into Canon or Nikon for AF left who will now buy into a faster Pentax, just for the AF? I absolutely want to take these images with APS-c and save my K-1 shutter actuations for the things the K-1 is good at. Any APS-c camera without a tilt screen isn't that camera.

I would not recommend the K-new to any of my Flickr followers without this feature. If you want to shoot what I shoot, it's essential.

100 percent agree with @normhead. Pentax camera's are designed for nature lovers. I find it essential to use some sort of movable screen for flowers, critters and mushrooms. This is no longer a time to lay flat on the ground (as I did when I was young) or use an angle viewer. Before I owned the K-1 I used the K-5 for mushrooms and took several shots at random from the ground until one shot showed the subject mushroom. Now it is so much easier to take decent pics on the tripod with focus stacking using the tilted screen for focusing.

[Belnan]

There is only one good reason to not include a flip screen, and that is to keep people buying the KP and the K1. Jack the price if K new for those that want the higher fps and better autofocus while they try to get rid of remaining camera stock.

[BigMackCam]

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the implication that some people cannot think of anything that would attract them to a new camera. In other words, all is well with what they already have. Examples of where the above DOES NOT apply are requests for better AF and better video. But given that some of us do not need better AF because we don't shoot action, nor video, it raises the question of what can one realistically want from a camera that is not already present in existing models? Perhaps that is the reason we are not so easily excited by new announcements.

As for me, I like new toys. Aside from that, I can even hope for more consistent AF, even though I'm not sure that my occasional failures in that area are not self-inflicted. I can also see that perhaps all this explains the apparent emphasis on features, rather than performance. And finally, I could claim that a new camera would help me produce better photos, but I know better.

I'm definitely attracted by the new camera. Like you, I like new toys and would probably appreciate - perhaps even benefit from - improved performance and new features... but I can't justify the expenditure, given the equipment I already own and my relatively modest needs. I have too many toys already, too much invested, and too little desire to release much of my existing gear. One day, though... when the price has come down...

[ThorSanchez]

Most people know it's not over until the fat lady sings.

We're going to the bottom of the ninth with the flippy screen down seven runs. But anything can happen.

---------- Post added 08-22-20 at 01:32 PM ----------

One good reason to have a flip screen is that people like myself won't buy it if it doesn't have one. That K-P looks ike a really nice camera, and is currently selling for great prices.

I see little advantage to doing something others do so well, given that appeals to such a small, but noisy.segment of Pentax users. They are walking a tightrope. All of us who didn't buy a Nikon D500 are watching. We didn't buy it because the feature set wasn't what we wanted to pay for. That doesn't change because of the brand.

I'm going with what we actually know. The new accelerator chip has pushed noise reduction to 2 stops, now that's impressive. It builds on the Pentax rep for image quality. And the new viewfinder is a bold attempt to aggressively go after those who like optical viewfinders and want the best, at a time when others are ignoring viewfinders and putting R&D money into EVFs. You get the accelerator noise reduction on every image. I need really fast tracking AF once a year at most.

Most of the time when I do use it, what I find out is that most of the complainers aren't making the most of their gear's capabilities. Not that the camera is in some way insufficient.

K-1 Tracking--- 10 images, 10 in focus - PentaxForums.com

This is a distinct improvement from my K-3 and 18-135 where I could count of 5 of 7 in similar tests. That's something not noted by the complainers on the forum. I'm expecting the K-new to be somewhat better than the K-1. But I've already noticed improvements K-3 to K-1 so that's almost a given.

Labeling people who want better tracking autofocus noisy whiners isn't going to get you your flippy screen.

[Snakeisthestuff]

One good reason for K-new to not have flip screen is because it is probably built to meet certain size and built quality standards. K-1 style screen is too large and complex for a compact body. KP style probably seen as too flimsy for a flagship camera. And then there's that new finder design that might interfere with the design of a flip screen.

I hope they didn’t omit it because they want to claim the camera as being the smallest DSLR or at least very small.
They tried that somewhat with the K-1 also. But I agree there must be another more complicated reason as you suggested.

I am pretty sure they will address this decision in one of their videos.

[reh321]

I bought the KP precisely because it has a tilt screen. I would have preferred a fully articulated screen, but a fixed screen is a real handicap for waist-level or ground-level photography.

I was very happy the the KP does not have an articulated screen.
As far as I can tell, most who prefer it use it to take "selfies", typically video.
To me, it advertises its use by putting screen off to the side, and I often use it for reason of stealth {my KP hides it behind the body}.