Originally posted by microlight I have a little pot of cash saved up for the III that’s been accumulating since the first photos of it hit (its pentaprism is so cutely retro). I would hesitate if GPS was missing, I have to say - but I don’t think it will be as it seems to be an ideal use for the Bluetooth implementation in getting the GPS coordinates from your smartphone. Yes I know the argument about being tied to having your phone with you when you’re out shooting - but who doesn’t these days?
I have hundreds of pictures from our family farm in rural Virginia where there's no cell coverage due to the mountains. The first month I had the K-3ii I used the GPS to track a hike we did up a nearby mountain, plotted each photo on a map. I was immediately sold on the convenience and utility of GPS.
The Bluetooth connection to the phone is a decent work-around, but it's not quite the same when you're in a remote place with your rugged, weather-sealed Pentax.
---------- Post added 10-28-20 at 07:31 AM ----------
Originally posted by RobA_Oz That would be quite puzzling, I agree. In both the K-3ii and the K-1, on-board flash was sacrificed to make way for GPS. To have neither would be simply odd, especially as GPS is pretty much the norm in cameras, now. Perhaps you're expected to provide your own through a smart phone, as with using one to supplement the immovable rear screen. As you say, perhaps it just an omission from the specs.
It's plausible that they sacrificed the flippy screen and GPS, expecting everyone to have a smartphone all the time and to use that as a work-around while keeping the body as small and light as possible. I wonder, does anywhere in Japan not have cell coverage? I'd guess not too many places, as even in the US coverage is probably 80-90% of the lower 48, with most of the gaps being in the mountains of the west.