Originally posted by pres589 How would a "portrait camera" be any different from the K-3 III? Serious question.
I think we tend to turn the world into binary choices, when much of it is a continuum with relatively few extremes. And we see our own little niches as the whole world, so the extremes of our little corner are seen as the edges of the universe.
In reality many, many portraits will be taken with the K-3 III, most of them indistinguishable from the results out of a 645Z or a Q or a K-7. Nobody thinks that the K-30 or the K-3ii are hard-core action cameras, but I've taken thousands of photos of sports with them. I'm sure there have been countless beautiful landscapes taken with a Nikon D500, which is an APS-C camera optimized for action.
If you made a scale of 0-10 with 0 being all still life and landscape, and 10 being completely optimized for action, every recent Pentax camera would probably fall into the 4-6 or 3-7 range. All of them could reasonably be classified as all-arounders with perhaps the exception of the 645Z. And even with the 645 I'm sure a really good photographer could get some fine action shots.