[RobA_Oz]

I don't use the GPS on my K-3II often as I don't do astro photography. However, when I went to France last year, I should've used it as it would indicate the place that I took my photos. It would've been a great help in my documentation.

That’s exactly the reason I’d like a GPS in my next APS-C body. I am not in the slightest bit interested in adding the O-GPS module to my K-3, let alone the K-3iii.

[Rondec]

Ok I'm beating a dead horse here but being that all current production Pentax DSLR have some type of adjustable rear screen I just can't wrap my head around why they wouldn't put one on their flag ship camera.

Basically we have a number of different possibilities. (1) Size. Having a tilt screen increases size somewhat. I don't think this is a big deal, but it could be the engineers thought this camera was big enough without adding a tilt screen. (2) Cost. This camera is going to be the most expensive APS-C camera Pentax has ever released. Adding a tilt screen would bump that cost a little bit -- maybe enough that they thought that they would leave it off to limit cost just a bit. (3) Viewfinder/Frame Rate. This camera is going to have the best OVF of any APS-C camera on the market and really fast frame rates. It is pretty clear that the main intention for it was to be an "action" photography tool and to be used mainly through the viewfinder.

As I have said before, in a perfect world, they would have put a tilt screen on this. I also think it is clear that they made a deliberate decision to leave it off, even if that turns out to be a bad decision.

(I do think that most of those who are the target for this camera will buy it anyway, even if they want a tilt screen).

[house]

Ok I'm beating a dead horse here but being that all current production Pentax DSLR have some type of adjustable rear screen I just can't wrap my head around why they wouldn't put one on their flag ship camera.

Sometimes I feel like I'm beatin' a dead horse
And I don't know why you'd be bringin' me down.

You are in a mindset where moar features means moar "flagship". If "flagship" means a camera for professionals or at least accomplished amateurs a more focussed model makes more sense. Almost all very serious photographers use a minority of features, unused features are more or less in the way. If you are a live view shooter the K-3 III is not for you. They've improved the rear screen to help with reviewing and editing according to their communications. Besides these arguments there is also the issue of haptics. If you have a K-5 or K-3 and a KP or K-1 just pick both of them up and handle them. The fixed screen models feel so much better. Imho this is largely due to the fixed screen. For some this feeling isn't worth the lack of moveable screen.

Geo tagging is a very important feature for me personally. We don't know the status of gps on the K-3 III but it looks like it's not included. Despite finding gps a great feature I fully understand why Ricoh would go for bluetooth gps today. Very few new cameras have gps but many can use external gps. People are now quite adept at using their phones. When looking at the whole, omitting in camera gps makes sense even if I personally don't like it.

I'm not the target photographer for the K-3III and won't be getting one. It would be nice if us slow shooters would get the new viewfinder at some point though.

[someasiancameraguy]

You are in a mindset where moar features means moar "flagship". If "flagship" means a camera for professionals or at least accomplished amateurs a more focussed model makes more sense. Almost all very serious photographers use a minority of features, unused features are more or less in the way. If you are a live view shooter the K-3 III is not for you. They've improved the rear screen to help with reviewing and editing according to their communications. Besides these arguments there is also the issue of haptics. If you have a K-5 or K-3 and a KP or K-1 just pick both of them up and handle them. The fixed screen models feel so much better. Imho this is largely due to the fixed screen. For some this feeling isn't worth the lack of moveable screen.

Geo tagging is a very important feature for me personally. We don't know the status of gps on the K-3 III but it looks like it's not included. Despite finding gps a great feature I fully understand why Ricoh would go for bluetooth gps today. Very few new cameras have gps but many can use external gps. People are now quite adept at using their phones. When looking at the whole, omitting in camera gps makes sense even if I personally don't like it.

I'm not the target photographer for the K-3III and won't be getting one. It would be nice if us slow shooters would get the new viewfinder at some point though.

I remember reading somewhere that adding in body GPS reduces the ruggedness of the prism hump, so it's a compromise between durability and geotagging - both features that wildlife shooters typically want.

[beholder3]

You are in a mindset where moar features means moar "flagship".

The use of a term like "flagship" really is for small kids only, as it has no meaning at all beyond a single brain, simply because photography is a large field and requirements are very different with the makers offering solutions for all the requirements but never in one box.

If I own a Porsche 911, a mega expensive super offroad car, a large 40 ton truck and one car which can also fly: Which one of these is the "flagship"?

[house]

The use of a term like "flagship" really is for small kids only, as it has no meaning at all beyond a single brain, simply because photography is a large field and requirements are very different with the makers offering solutions for all the requirements but never in one box.

If I own a Porsche 911, a mega expensive super offroad car, a large 40 ton truck and one car which can also fly: Which one of these is the "flagship"?

911 = GRIII
Offroad car = K-3 III
40 ton truck = 645z
A car that can fly and land on the moon = K-1

8-)

[Serkevan]

The use of a term like "flagship" really is for small kids only, as it has no meaning at all beyond a single brain, simply because photography is a large field and requirements are very different with the makers offering solutions for all the requirements but never in one box.

If I own a Porsche 911, a mega expensive super offroad car, a large 40 ton truck and one car which can also fly: Which one of these is the "flagship"?

The one the company literally calls "flagship". If they use the terminology, they have to deal with people applying the term. They could have called it "action-oriented", "high-performance" or whatever other marketing buzzword they so chose, but they chose the "flagship" moniker.


Also, your example only applies if all of those cars are Porsches and the answer is, anyway, very simple: the one Porsche calls flagship. It's in the definition of the word.

---------- Post added 11-04-20 at 05:17 AM ----------

You are in a mindset where moar features means moar "flagship". If "flagship" means a camera for professionals or at least accomplished amateurs a more focussed model makes more sense. Almost all very serious photographers use a minority of features, unused features are more or less in the way. If you are a live view shooter the K-3 III is not for you. They've improved the rear screen to help with reviewing and editing according to their communications. Besides these arguments there is also the issue of haptics. If you have a K-5 or K-3 and a KP or K-1 just pick both of them up and handle them. The fixed screen models feel so much better. Imho this is largely due to the fixed screen. For some this feeling isn't worth the lack of moveable screen.

Geo tagging is a very important feature for me personally. We don't know the status of gps on the K-3 III but it looks like it's not included. Despite finding gps a great feature I fully understand why Ricoh would go for bluetooth gps today. Very few new cameras have gps but many can use external gps. People are now quite adept at using their phones. When looking at the whole, omitting in camera gps makes sense even if I personally don't like it.

I'm not the target photographer for the K-3III and won't be getting one. It would be nice if us slow shooters would get the new viewfinder at some point though.

Honestly they could have just gone with another descriptor and we wouldn't be having this issue. There's of course the unstated idea that a flagship camera is always the ultra-fast-frame-rate one (D500, A9, D6, 1D, etc. etc. etc.), which many makers posit, but that's not really a definite truth.


BTW, the K-1 is more comfortable than the K-7 to me, so I don't personally think the screen is an issue. And that's for the chunkiest of moveable screens.

[house]

The one the company literally calls "flagship". If they use the terminology, they have to deal with people applying the term. They could have called it "action-oriented", "high-performance" or whatever other marketing buzzword they so chose, but they chose the "flagship" moniker.


Also, your example only applies if all of those cars are Porsches and the answer is, anyway, very simple: the one Porsche calls flagship. It's in the definition of the word.

---------- Post added 11-04-20 at 05:17 AM ----------



Honestly they could have just gone with another descriptor and we wouldn't be having this issue. There's of course the unstated idea that a flagship camera is always the ultra-fast-frame-rate one (D500, A9, D6, 1D, etc. etc. etc.), which many makers posit, but that's not really a definite truth.


BTW, the K-1 is more comfortable than the K-7 to me, so I don't personally think the screen is an issue. And that's for the chunkiest of moveable screens.

I didn't mean shooting or grip comfort but feeling when handling, lifting, adjusting on strap, etc

[Serkevan]

I didn't mean shooting or grip comfort but feeling when handling, lifting, adjusting on strap, etc

Ah, then it's poteito potahto for me . I don't use a strap so I can't quite comment on that, though .

[Kunzite]

The one the company literally calls "flagship". If they use the terminology, they have to deal with people applying the term. They could have called it "action-oriented", "high-performance" or whatever other marketing buzzword they so chose, but they chose the "flagship" moniker.

Every single term they could use would be misinterpreted by people bent on misinterpreting anything Ricoh says.
Flagship is fine.

[normhead]

Every single term they could use would be misinterpreted by people bent on misinterpreting anything Ricoh says.
Flagship is fine.

Especially since in this case it has everything every other model does (except the flip screen) and more.

[beholder3]

The one the company literally calls "flagship". If they use the terminology, they have to deal with people applying the term.

Actually I disagree. If the marketing freaks from any company choose to name their product "flagship" or "the best camera since sliced bread" I'd rather not use that. Especially when it comes from marketing.

If we then do better and call it "action-oriented" it is much easier to discuss what such a camera should have as features. Which suddenly would also shine some light on flippy screens (which is mostly - not all - favored by macro and astro shooters). At least we had some more clear understanding of the flying offroad truck racing car with low carbon footprint.

[Serkevan]

Actually I disagree. If the marketing freaks from any company choose to name their product "flagship" or "the best camera since sliced bread" I'd rather not use that. Especially when it comes from marketing.

If we then do better and call it "action-oriented" it is much easier to discuss what such a camera should have as features. Which suddenly would also shine some light on flippy screens (which is mostly - not all - favored by macro and astro shooters). At least we had some more clear understanding of the flying offroad truck racing car with low carbon footprint.

Yep! My point is that if marketing says the product is supposed to represent the company at large (hence "flagship") it's very easy for people to jump to "must have absolutely everything ever invented". Sometimes - the horror - they even take what marketing tells them at face value even if it is just marketing speak and then are inevitably disappointed when their idea of flagship is not the same .

To me, a camera is just a tool, and I choose tools according to what they can do to make my work easier and/or more enjoyable, not according to the sales pitch. But I'm not everyone. Lots of people want "latest, greatest and shiniest" and have a preconceived idea of how that should look.

[house]

Actually I disagree. If the marketing freaks from any company choose to name their product "flagship" or "the best camera since sliced bread" I'd rather not use that. Especially when it comes from marketing.

If we then do better and call it "action-oriented" it is much easier to discuss what such a camera should have as features. Which suddenly would also shine some light on flippy screens (which is mostly - not all - favored by macro and astro shooters). At least we had some more clear understanding of the flying offroad truck racing car with low carbon footprint.

I honestly suspect Pentax is just using the nomenclature most of Pentaxforums were screeching in pain when the KP launched. Single slot, lower battery capacity, lower burst speed "This is no FLAAAGGGSHIIP!" The entire internet followed suit in the same manner and it reached Pentax who conciously or unconciously adapted the thinking.

[FozzFoster]

I don't mind that they call it a flagship. I'm not going to get hung on a term.
Terms can mean whatever they want to as long as the parties define the terms.

However, it would seem to me that Ricoh is defining 'flagship camera' to mean 'statement camera' and I'm cool with that