Originally posted by Kunzite Nonsense. Fast frame rate was never promised for the K-1; nor higher pixel density, nor small size and lighter weight.
FF's advantages are very real, now those have to be judged against each individual's needs - but they don't disappear just because someone needs a faster frame rate.
Similarly, the K-3 Mark III's speed advantage is very real, and won't disappear just because X on the Internet only shoots landscapes.
The K-1 II has very real benefits with regard to high iso performance over APS-C cameras currently in the line up. It is possible that the K-3 III will match or exceed those, but for the moment it is king of the hill. It also does really well for landscape and portraiture.
It is not a high speed camera though. I think with that sensor and processing engine, 4.5 fps and the current buffer is what you are stuck with. It kept the price down on the initial release of the K-1, but certainly it is getting long in the tooth.
I would expect many of the K-3 III improvements to make their way to the K-1 III (better AF, bigger buffer, faster cards, better video) but it probably won't do anything close to 12 fps -- if you need that sort of speed then it will still be better to go with APS-C.