Originally posted by cmohr Didn't seem a problem for them to buy previous cameras. Suddenly, it's a failure to not have one.
Oh it was a problem. I don't even take my K-3 out during mushroom season, it' completely replaced by the K-1. Same for flowers, my K-3 is reduced in use to hikes when I want a lighter set up, although even then I often take the K-1. Same for canoe trips when GPS data is often needed.
The K-3 is reduced to action and bird photography. I'm looking or camera that can do what both my K-3 and K-1 can do. Cameras like D500 remains the only viable looking option if I really want to go that route.
Maybe Pentax can make a go with this, cutting features from the K-3 series, maybe they can't. It's a gamble. Personally, I won't pay the projected price increase for a camera missing features I want. The question is will there be enough Pentax buyers to make this camera profitable if buyers like myself don't buy in. You assume there will be. They could also be an exodus of people moving to D500s. What we want is available, just not from Pentax. When you don't make many models, excluding customers by stripping down gear makes no sense.
I don't have a problem with the quality of K-3 images. I'm not convinced 12 FPS will get me a lot more images than the 8 of my current K-3. I'm not paying 2 grand for this camera while my current k-3 is still working. And with my K-1 now doin most of the heavy lifting, my K-3 will be lasting a long time. Maybe long enough for Pentax to come to their senses. Maybe not. it doesn't matter. I like my K-3, I'm not suffering (except for the lack of tilting back screen and GPS, problems the K-3iii doesn't solve), so why would I change?
I bought a D*ist, a K100D, a K20D a K-x, 2 K-5's a K-3 and a K-1. Pentax is definitely culling the herd with this camera. Just my opinion ot course. As long as the camera brings in more customers than it loses that will be fine for Pentax. But not for me.