Originally posted by DSims I think we'll see a new "flagship" APS-C model later this year, but it won't necessarily be called a K-3 II.
But the last (and only) time I was in Melbourne, the K100D Super still took great pictures. It was only the K200D that could convince me to sell it. Everything else didn't look like it would be an upgrade (at least until the K-x came out). So you're doing pretty well, and anything K-x or newer will be even better. But I shouldn't talk, because as much as I liked my K-x, I eventually sold it and kept my K200D as a second body when I got the K-5. By then I had such nice lenses I could barely get better photos from it than my K-x. For over a year I felt like I'd thrown money away on it, considering how quickly it depreciated (I bought it around launch time). It didn't bother me to have spent nearly that much on a few of my lenses - that didn't seem like a waste at all, once I actually had them in hand (after the initial shock of having spent that much, which only lasted a short time). But on a body that barely improved my photos and is rapidly losing most of its value? The thought kept haunting me, month after month.
Why look for the flagship? Better to get a K-5 IIs or K-3 next time it goes on sale, at the most. Get another lens or two instead. My FA24-90/3.5-4.5 took nice pictures of your beautiful beaches.
That... is tremendously good advice. I'll wait as well for a couple of generations past my K3. Past a certain point photography becomes a skill and art rather than something to be addressed by the latest technology. Aside from admitting (some of us) that we are engaged in a luxury pursuit (and if so perfectly fine buying the latest body or lens) we likely should upgrade only when its clear it would make a difference and address a want rather than a need.
And if its a need and not critically time dependent, buying a good number of months (or a year or two) after introduction makes great sense.