[bobbotron]

I keep saying I'm going to buy the K3III as an upgrade to the K3, but with this delay, maybe it's time to go for the KP or K1...

[Wheatfield]

What isn't clear? The K-3 II was $1100. People are saying the K-3 III will be twice as much or more for the K-3 III. IMO, that is too much! When I say that isn't for me, I mean I wouldn't spend more than $1500 for the K-3 III. I can see a small increase to maybe $1500. That is the price of Nikon's D500. When I said that is more than Nikon, I was talking about the D500. Pentax cameras used to give you the most bang for the buck!


Bang for the buck is an idiom meaning the worth of one's money or exertion.

I hope that makes more sense to you.

Sure.
You do realize that giving more bang for the buck is why Pentax is now a brand name on Ricoh's portfolio sheet rather than being a stand alone company?
Have you ever heard of the economy of scale?

---------- Post added Feb 19th, 2021 at 10:44 AM ----------

We. Don’t. Know. What. The. Price. Is.

Unfortunately, Ricoh is still paying for the bad decisions Pentax made when Pentax was still their own boss. It doesn't matter what the price is, some people will complain because Pentax is supposed to be the cheap and cheerful company that happily loses money on everything they sell.

[tibbitts]

Why go for the K5 Norm? I ask because I've been mulling over the same thing - an apsc to complement my K1. Would a K70 not be better at this stage?

Not Norm, but... having now had experience with both, for me it's a tradeoff between the nicer "feel" (ergonomics, solid build quality) and much longer battery life of the K-5 vs. the almost-better-in-every-respect image output from the K-70. The K-5 does seem to have better dynamic range at very low ISO, and that can be important for many subjects. In terms of reliability, you can sometimes fix your K-5 with gaffer tape (to hold your lens release button on), while if aperture block failure hits your K-70, the fix is more complicated (though some will say how trivial fixing that was for them.)

Ultimately lack of KAF4 support will doom the K-5 generation, but for me not immediately. At the moment I'm planning to still use mine for a while. Norm seems content to use his only KAF4 lens, the 55-300, at open aperture only (the only choice with a K-5) so KAF4 appears not to be a limitation for him.

It's important to also consider which K-5 you're using. The newer II models do have better AF in some respects compared to the original K-5. I'm less enthusiastic about the advantages of the filter-less IIs vs. the II: I'm not convinced you get your money's worth, because the pricing of the IIs often seems irrationally high. If resolution is that important, I believe going to 24mp will be a bigger advantage than merely deleting the AA filter on 16mp. Of course if you compare unsharpened results, dropping the AA filter has a considerable effect, but some of the benefit seems to go away when comparing post-sharpening results.

[Jeff]

Not Norm, but... having now had experience with both, for me it's a tradeoff between the nicer "feel" (ergonomics, solid build quality) and much longer battery life of the K-5 vs. the almost-better-in-every-respect image output from the K-70. The K-5 does seem to have better dynamic range at very low ISO, and that can be important for many subjects. In terms of reliability, you can sometimes fix your K-5 with gaffer tape (to hold your lens release button on), while if aperture block failure hits your K-70, the fix is more complicated (though some will say how trivial fixing that was for them.)

Ultimately lack of KAF4 support will doom the K-5 generation, but for me not immediately. At the moment I'm planning to still use mine for a while. Norm seems content to use his only KAF4 lens, the 55-300, at open aperture only (the only choice with a K-5) so KAF4 appears not to be a limitation for him.

It's important to also consider which K-5 you're using. The newer II models do have better AF in some respects compared to the original K-5. I'm less enthusiastic about the advantages of the filter-less IIs vs. the II: I'm not convinced you get your money's worth, because the pricing of the IIs often seems irrationally high. If resolution is that important, I believe going to 24mp will be a bigger advantage than merely deleting the AA filter on 16mp. Of course if you compare unsharpened results, dropping the AA filter has a considerable effect, but some of the benefit seems to go away when comparing post-sharpening results.

Many thanks for your thoughts- much appreciated. I had a KP but like some on this forum I never got on with its ergonomics. I miss my k5iis very much for all the reasons you gave. My quest continues!

[biz-engineer]

I believe there will never be another Pentax-branded MILC camera.They leaned "MILC is not for us" from the 'Q' and K-01, even if that was not the real lesson.

It's like the MZ-D, there were first to do it and concluded that FF digital wasn't for them, then they missed most of the market by coming too late with the K1.
Market window of opportunity is key concept here, new product released on time when the market is ready to accept it, not before, not after. Timing is fundamental to product success, that's why some companies borrow money or acquire an existing business for gaining speed to enter a market at the right time.

[ThorSanchez]

Sure.
You do realize that giving more bang for the buck is why Pentax is now a brand name on Ricoh's portfolio sheet rather than being a stand alone company?
Have you ever heard of the economy of scale?

---------- Post added Feb 19th, 2021 at 10:44 AM ----------



Unfortunately, Ricoh is still paying for the bad decisions Pentax made when Pentax was still their own boss. It doesn't matter what the price is, some people will complain because Pentax is supposed to be the cheap and cheerful company that happily loses money on everything they sell.

Of course people will complain, since many or even most of them became Pentax customers because of their great performance/price ratio. If Pentax had been an up-market brand in 2012 I'd probably be shooting Canon or Fuji or something.

But that has to be part of the plan. Pentax has to expect that as they move to higher and higher price brackets that they'll shed most of their customer base, and have to endure the criticisms of the people who would have liked to stay where they were, with really good $700 cameras. They've thought about this, and they believe selling many fewer but more expensive cameras is the best way to stay solvent. But it's not in any way unexpected or weird or stupid for people to wonder out loud why the company they invested in no longer caters to their wants and needs.

If I bought a Chevy car for $17,000, then eight years later want a new model and find they don't make anything under $30,000 I'd have a similar response. I'd be a little incredulous, then move on to another company. Even if that decision made sense for Chevy's beancounters.

[thibs]

Why go for the K5 Norm? I ask because I've been mulling over the same thing - an apsc to complement my K1. Would a K70 not be better at this stage?

The K5 (vannila, not II) has really inferior AF compared to K1 IMO.

[gatorguy]

Of course people will complain, since many or even most of them became Pentax customers because of their great performance/price ratio. If Pentax had been an up-market brand in 2012 I'd probably be shooting Canon or Fuji or something.

If I bought a Chevy car for $17,000, then eight years later want a new model and find they don't make anything under $30,000 I'd have a similar response. I'd be a little incredulous, then move on to another company.

Unless you couldn't find a really good 2021 model car for $17K from anyone else either.

[normhead]

The K5 (vannila, not II) has really inferior AF compared to K1 IMO.

Why go for the K5 Norm? I ask because I've been mulling over the same thing - an apsc to complement my K1. Would a K70 not be better at this stage?

Two year ago on this trip
A few shots from our 19 Day summer canoe trip, and a link to Tess's trip report. - PentaxForums.com

We did a thorough review of these K-5 images and images taken with my K-1.
It turns out for this type of image and these uses, the K-5 is adequate. I already own it so I don't have to pay for it. (Tess just picked up a K-5ii) And it is small enough to save considerable pack space for trips like this, because it fits into a smaller pelican case.

Sometimes the best thing for the job is what you already own. As far as I can tell there isn't a thing on this type of trip that benefits from a K-1 or a K-3.

Other people definitely have other needs and shoot in more demanding circumstances. But I'd be a fool to buy something because other people need better. I guarantee you if you go through Tess' blog you won't be able to tell which are the K-1 images and which are the K-5 images.

On a 4k screen you can't tell the difference.

For me camera use is a pretty natural thing, even with an SV (no AF, no in camera light meter etc.) My question is not how do I pack in the most features, it's "Can I get the job done." If it's marginally easier, if it's a little bit better, this way or that way, if It has the latest gizmo or buzz word, that's all irrelevant to me. I know with the K-5 I can get the job done. I also know that for what I do, it's not going to be easier or a better result with a better camera.

Looking back over the years, one of the biggest disappointments has been the little real world improvement in quality over my K-5, especially reduced to 3840x2160. Unimportant things have been incrementally improved. For those who complain about AF, for people who do what I do, understanding hyperfocal focussing is more important than what the AF system is like. IN day light, there is no downside to the K-5 AF system. The problem was always tungsten light. The fraction of a second better AF provides is usually meaningless.

I could go on and on... I haven't addressed battery life, DR (which is better than any of the 24 MP sensors to date) and weight, in a situation where every gram matters, because I have to carry 70 pounds, and my camera gear.

For me and cameras, it's all about what's the best set of compromises for the job? Not which is the best camera overall.
IMHO the K-5 is the best camera for this job.

If the K-P was 5mm shorter and free, I'd consider it. But that last 5mm won't let me close the smaller size pelican case. Something as simple as that can trump all the lasted greatest tech.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

[boriscleto]

The entire reason I own a Pentax now is because Hoya put a 12MP CMOS into a K2000 body and priced it in-between the Nikon D5000 and the D3000, and it was able to use legacy AF lenses unlike those cameras. It even had better legacy support than the D90 at half the price...

I didn't buy a K-5 until right before the K-5 II was announced. If the K-30 had been announced at the same time as the K-01 I probably would have bought that instead...no regrets...

[ThorSanchez]

Unless you couldn't find a really good 2021 model car for $17K from anyone else either.

Then I guess I'd have to get used to the train/smartphone. They make some pretty nice trains and smartphone cameras today.

[Wasp]

Sony has similar problems...

Sony Japan delays release of its FE 35mm F1.4 GM lens, cites 'production reasons': Digital Photography Review

[gatorguy]

Then I guess I'd have to get used to the train/smartphone. They make some pretty nice trains and smartphone cameras today.

Yes they do, it's all about meeting your wants. For a great number of people a smartphone camera is all they want. I want a DSLR...AND a smartphone.

[Serkevan]

Unless you couldn't find a really good 2021 model car for $17K from anyone else either.

If the options are either a car that's far too expensive or a slightly worse/older car, then many people are gonna pocket the price difference. Or not buy a car altogether
That said, just because the flagship offerings are moving up in price (which... they aren't really doing by THAT much, Pentax is just getting more in line with the others instead of undercutting like with the K-1 which had what's basically clearance sale electronics when it came out), doesn't mean that decent cameras aren't going to be available at lower prices.

And there are literal piles of used cameras as well, but that hardly helps Ricoh's bottom line :P

[gatorguy]

If the options are either a car that's far too expensive or a slightly worse/older car, then many people are gonna pocket the price difference. Or not buy a car altogether
That said, just because the flagship offerings are moving up in price (which... they aren't really doing by THAT much, Pentax is just getting more in line with the others instead of undercutting like with the K-1 which had what's basically clearance sale electronics when it came out), doesn't mean that decent cameras aren't going to be available at lower prices.

And there are literal piles of used cameras as well, but that hardly helps Ricoh's bottom line :P

Of the 8 cameras I've bought in the past 6 years only three were new. But those three did benefit Pentax/Ricoh, and I did buy a DFA 50 1.4 new (and a new FA77 come to think of it) because I bought a KP.

Bought for the KP but stayed for the (used) K1.