[RobA_Oz]

AF speed and accuracy and buffer size and speed are really the only things about my K-1 that I notice enough to wish for changes. Even there I'm not sure improvements would warrant another $2k investment for me.

Obviously Ricoh has to be convinced that people want the improvements badly enough to replace their current K-1, or they won't make the investment in developing them.

I agree that the K-1 needs some improvements in the areas you mention, but I do wonder how much of the market segment is based on in-brand replacement, and how much on new buyers, either new to photography or new to Pentax. This forum sees only a small component of Pentax users worldwide, but I see many new users coming on board, possibly more than long-time users joining for the first time. I suspect the big players rely fairly heavily on equipment turnover from professionals and gearheads that stay within the brand, even Sony, now that it’s an established presence in the market, but whether that’s the case for Pentax I couldn't say with any confidence.

[Wheatfield]

I agree that the K-1 needs some improvements in the areas you mention, but I do wonder how much of the market segment is based on in-brand replacement, and how much on new buyers, either new to photography or new to Pentax. This forum sees only a small component of Pentax users worldwide, but I see many new users coming on board, possibly more than long-time users joining for the first time. I suspect the big players rely fairly heavily on equipment turnover from professionals and gearheads that stay within the brand, even Sony, now that it’s an established presence in the market, but whether that’s the case for Pentax I couldn't say with any confidence.

The big players have been very dependent on sales volumes. I expect they have all downsized to meet the market.
Pentax got the jump on them all in this regard.
Canon sold boatloads more low margin Rebels than anything else. I believe that as the price goes up the per unit profit also increases, but volumes are much lower. Rebels and their ilk are cash flow generators more than they are profit generators aa long as the volumes are good. They become albatrosses around the neck when volumes tank.
They would, if course, rather you bought new than picked up someone's hand me down. Ideally the customer is going to have a drawer where superceded bodies go to die.

[vector]

Ideally the customer is going to have a drawer where superceded bodies go to die.

I have that drawer. I have not been very good at passing along my older kit, partly because I want a backup and partly because I can let my kids shoot the older gear without worrying what might happen to it. By the time it's through that stage it's really not worth much anymore.

I picked up a Nikon Z6II this year to fill the need for the continuous eye tracking AF in people shots and some basic video with the same continuous AF. After months of shooting the 2 side by side I am really on the fence. As much as I like 36mpx it really is overkill most of the time. For landscapes there is no benefit whatsoever to mirrorless. The gear is a little lighter but only compared to bringing the DFA*50 along, otherwise it's basically a wash. I shot a wedding for my niece last month. Used the K3III, K1, and Z6II. Image quality is so close between them I have to look at the filename to figure out what camera it came from. The Z6II wins for moving people, hands down it wins, just point it in the general direction press the AF button and shoot, I even shot off the rear screen a bunch which I normally never do. But I swapped between the Nikon and my Pentax bodies all day (different lenses on each) and other than when people are really moving, the difference is minimal and I have no problem nailing shots at F1.4 on either Pentax body. I even handed either Pentax body to my wife and or daughter throughout the day and they both nailed shots too. So you have to try slightly harder with Pentax AF but not like it's not doable. The K1 filled the buffer a couple times but I was shooting RAW+ to 2 cards and only twice was frustrated by the buffer. My opinion of the market in general is that people are lazy so easy wins, but there is no denying the effectiveness of continuous eye AF for moving people. But with a little effort even in unskilled hands Pentax is pretty good.

I have no idea if Pentax will drop a K1III any time soon but I am struggling to see what I would get in real end results from higher resolution. I would like a little faster operation, better buffer and some improved AFC tracking but for most things we have it pretty good. I would like to see a long FF tele out to 600mm F5.6 though and replacement of screw drive af lenses with DC or PLM. Pentax is going to be slow though, so I am quite happy to shoot my K1 and K3III for landscapes, wildlife, etc, and bring out the Z6II for video and portraits.

[biz-engineer]

I have no idea if Pentax will drop a K1III any time soon but I am struggling to see what I would get in real end results from higher resolution.

A lot of customers buy cameras based of prices that look affordable relative to their average income, typical camera price from $1000 to $3000, so they own quantities of cameras and lenses having similar photographic qualities, but that are mostly redundant , same aspect ratio, similar sensor sizes, similar megapixel count. Same economics as for telecom subscriptions: if you ask people what is more expensive, a monthly subscription of $30, one time payment of $300/year or one time payment of $600 for 3 years, most people will feel $300/year and $600/3 years are more expensive than $30/month. So the largest segment for digital camera is for cameras or lenses that are priced around $989, when seeing that price, people instantly compare to their monthly income, and they think "$989, hummm, yeah I can buy that". It's much harder to sell an Hasselblad 100Mpixels camera at $8000, although that camera will outlast 10 years of consumer camera upgrades, while the total cost will be the same or less.

[reh321]

AF speed and accuracy and buffer size and speed are really the only things about my K-1 that I notice enough to wish for changes. Even there I'm not sure improvements would warrant another $2k investment for me.

Obviously Ricoh has to be convinced that people want the improvements badly enough to replace their current K-1, or they won't make the investment in developing them.

Capturing more pixels means processing more pixels. I believe that requirement alone will hold back any movement to capture more pixels. In any case, I hear more need for processing pixels faster than I hear need for more pixels. Just as the K-3iii was more about processing faster, I believe a K-1iii would be about processing faster - more elements in the buffer processed faster, and improvements we don’t even foresee.

[StiffLegged]

...And why competitive with Nikon (which announced cutting back on DSLR camera's)?

Because camera ownership is a highly competitive sport, donchaknow!

[vector]

A lot of customers buy cameras based of prices that look affordable relative to their average income, typical camera price from $1000 to $3000, so they own quantities of cameras and lenses having similar photographic qualities, but that are mostly redundant , same aspect ratio, similar sensor sizes, similar megapixel count. Same economics as for telecom subscriptions: if you ask people what is more expensive, a monthly subscription of $30, one time payment of $300/year or one time payment of $600 for 3 years, most people will feel $300/year and $600/3 years are more expensive than $30/month. So the largest segment for digital camera is for cameras or lenses that are priced around $989, when seeing that price, people instantly compare to their monthly income, and they think "$989, hummm, yeah I can buy that". It's much harder to sell an Hasselblad 100Mpixels camera at $8000, although that camera will outlast 10 years of consumer camera upgrades, while the total cost will be the same or less.

The problem with cameras is that no single camera is going to be an amazing all rounder that excels at everything one might want to do over the next 10 years. If I were to buy that Hasselblad and a bunch of lenses but then I want to go out in the bush stalking grizzly bears, the Hasselblad may not be the camera I want to bring... I also still regularly use my K3 mark I from 2013 which is now 9 years old. If I need 100mpx I stitch panos which have turned out quite nice but then they get viewed on the same screens or print sizes so I may as well just have shot a 24mpx single frame.

I am a complete amateur who makes $0 from photography. I have printed up to A1 size from my K1 and found the 36mpx to look pretty good even though that doesn't give 300dpi at that size. Most of my prints are A3 or smaller though and for that 24mpx is already overkill. I also care about the other handling improvements that come with new bodies like speed, buffer, and AF and I don't necessarily want to wait 10 years between upgrades. As an amateur this is fun for me and new gear is part of the fun. For me personally a K1III with the 33mpx sensor from the sony A7IV with faster overall performance and better AF would still be worth it, but the 45mpx sensor or higher probably makes the most sense to appeal to a broader audience. I just know that my own photography won't see any significant benefit from more megapixels for the foreseeable future and I am unlikely to quit my tech job which finances reckless camera gear buying in favour of trying to be a pro photographer because I'm just not good enough at it

[biz-engineer]

The problem with cameras is that no single camera is going to be an amazing all rounder that excels at everything one might want to do over the next 10 years.

Yes.

I am a complete amateur who makes $0 from photography. I have printed up to A1 size from my K1 and found the 36mpx to look pretty good even though that doesn't give 300dpi at that size. Most of my prints are A3 or smaller though and for that 24mpx is already overkill.

You've just confirmed what I meant. The difference between 24Mpixels and 36Mpixels is the difference between 4000 pixels and 4912 pixels on the short side, not a big difference. In order to double the print size, you need four times the megapixels, e.g from 25Mpixels to 100Mpixels = print from A3 to A1.

---------- Post added 25-09-22 at 07:36 ----------

I just know that my own photography won't see any significant benefit from more megapixels for the foreseeable future and I am unlikely to quit my tech job which finances reckless camera gear buying in favour of trying to be a pro photographer because I'm just not good enough at it

You bought two cameras, which you say give you about the same (not much difference in practice). You could have bought only one, even if that one camera was twice as expensive.

I bought a K1 and K1 II (no difference, practically), and 9 lenses, I use 3 lenses mostly, because the first lenses I bought I bought them because the choice was limited. I could have spend half the money, or for the same money I could have bought a 645z or GFX with 3 lenses, or a flagship FF with high performance AF and I wouldn't be lacking anything. Camera companies are releasing products in "zig zag" fashion, sequentially and without telling in advance what products they are going to release and when they are going to release them, and they advertise the most when the system is new and incomplete. If you buy a camera when the system is new, you don't have visibility of what's coming next, so you buy what's available, then they release something better, so you want the newer better camera or lens, and so on... it's a game. If you want to buy only what you need and nothing else, you have to wait (5 years or more) until the lens system is fairly complete and they've ironed out the bugs and issues on cameras, then you have the full view on the system to make a good choice, but then the camera tech is obsolete, so it's a never ending game that drains cash from bank accounts. For apsc cameras is differences between camera models were even smaller: you were sold a 10Mpixels camera, then 12Mpixels, then 14Megapixels, then 16Mpixels, than 24Mpixels, while they could have waited a couple of years and go from 10Mp to 24Mp in one camera iteration.

[vector]

You've just confirmed what I meant.

That's what I was going for

You bought two cameras, which you say give you about the same (not much difference in practice). You could have bought only one, even if that one camera was twice as expensive.

For me I would still rather have the 2 lower resolution cameras. I regularly carry 2 cameras for both backup and different lens reasons so if I went 645 I would end up wanting 2 of them or carrying a second of a different format. But you are correct, I have no requirement to have 2 cameras so I could have gone for 1 more expensive model. You are completely right about the marginal gains in resolution used to market cameras and suck us all in. It's no different in computers, cell phones and cars. The same race is going on in lens sharpness and we all get sucked in to thinking we need the sharpest possible corners even though there is rarely any interesting detail in image corners.

I found the jump from 16 to 24 to be noticeable and worthwhile. 24 to 36 was noticeable but it made less difference. It's like 24 seemed to be a tipping point to diminishing returns and may be why 24 has remained so common across the industry for 10 years now. It's enough to still crop and have enough pixels left over, and enough to print larger than most people will ever do. The jump from 36 to 45 or 50 will be even more impacted by diminishing returns. It's only going to matter for very large displays and prints and even then most viewers under normal viewing conditions would not notice or care if a lower res image was upscaled to make the final image. It's the same for video resolution. Everyone wants 4k but most of the content we see from cable or streaming is 720p or low quality 1080p. High quality 1080p looks better but the gap is small. 4k is almost indistinguishable from 1080p in most viewing conditions. 8k is pointless.

I still think the priorities for a K1 replacement would need to be speed, buffer, and AF to keep the system relevant. Resolution doesn't need to be class leading.

[biz-engineer]

I found the jump from 16 to 24 to be noticeable and worthwhile. 24 to 36 was noticeable but it made less difference. It's like 24 seemed to be a tipping point to diminishing returns and may be why 24 has remained so common across the industry for 10 years now.

That's right. In Europe, a couple years ago I was looking at the largest volume of poster type photo prints (also the cheapest prices per square cm), and I found it was 50cm x 70 cm or 50cm x 75cm , for panoramas 50cm x 150cm (stitched images). That's the most popular large size for people who print, and such sizes pretty much matches the 24Mpixels/36Mpixels quality. We shouldn't confuse causes and effects however. The mass is satisfied with 24Mpixels also because that's what it is being sold. Let's say tomorrow, most marketing folks decide the brainwash everyone that 24Mpixels is bad, and 100Mpixels is the new must have for photography, people expectations will shift to 100Mpixels. I mean, 20 years ago, some people like you right now, were saying we settled on 7 megapixels and your 6Mpixels camera was more than enough. Except for needs anchored in vital needs, such as for commodities, the need for non-essential goods is floating and in constant change as a result of innovation and mass marketing interaction with markets.

[Dave 7508]

No, not for me. I'll stick to my K3 mark 3. I don't need full-frame, so I'll look out for the K3 mark iv. Niot in a hurry though as the mark iii is such a leap from the mark ii.

[Robin]

Perhaps a mirrorless version then? DSLR body with a hybrid OVF like Fujifilm on the X-PRO series cameras ?

Nooooo! Not the mirrorless question again! (insert crying emoji)

[Kingman]

60+ BSI MP would be nice but I'd settle for 50+ BSI but it must have eye detect and faster AF and faster FPS and larger buffer. Must keep the lunar lander back screen. Lighter weight if possible too! DLR is just fine.

[Scobra]

Gigapixel and Gigapan photographers can never, ever get enough megapixels. But they are a rare breed.

[Rondec]

Pentax is obviously working on something right now. I think Wheatfield's guess about the end of next year is most likely. Certainly it could take longer than that, but my hope is that a lot of the firmware has been hammered out with the K-3 III already and it won't take quite as long as some of the skeptics think.

We can guess about things that will remain the same and what will change from the K-1 II to the K-1 III.

Different:

1. Joystick. I'm pretty sure they will add a joystick to this model for focus point adjustment.

2. Touch screen. Unlike the K-3 III the K-1 III will have an adjustable screen (probably same as current) but will add touch screen capability.

3. Improved video capability. At a minimum the new model will support 4K 30p. I know this isn't a big deal to most Pentaxians, but since the software is done and the sensors all support it, why not?

4. Faster card support. I imagine that Pentax will continue to use SD Cards, but they will have dual slots that support much faster write speeds -- hopefully even faster than what the K-3 III can. Assuming a higher megapixel sensor, it makes sense to be able to clear the buffer quickly.

5. Higher megapixels. Pentax will use one of the Sony sensors and I can't imagine them going lower than 40 megapixels. That only leaves a couple of options for them.

6. Faster frame rate. I don't imagine that Pentax will be trying to even match the K-3 III frame rate. Most likely they will try for something in the 7 fps range, even if it means throttling back a sensor that is capable of higher frame rates.

7. K-3 III auto focus algorithm with full frame PDAF array.

Same:

1. Ergonomics will be pretty much the same, as will body size. Other than the addition of the joystick, it seems likely that everything will stay basically the same.

2. Focus on still image quality. This has always been the case, but Pentax will continue to tweak the sensor to get the most out of it from a still photography standpoint.

3. Accelerator. There will probably be a new generation of the accelerator, but I don't see them getting rid of this.

4. GPS. I think it is likely that Pentax will attempt to keep GPS on this model, which hopefully would also mean built in astro tracer (although I suppose they could go with the calculated version from the K-3 III).

I wonder about things like pixel shift -- could they add new versions of this for higher resolution? Could they do a new battery for longer battery life? Will they do a new, brighter pentaprism like on the K-3 III?

Depending on what they throw into this camera it could be quite expensive, but at the same time it could be the last camera that most of us need for 6 or 7 years.