Let me preface this by saying I have perfectly satisfactory K-3. It meets my needs in almost all respects.
What I don't like about the K-3 II as announced:
1. No flash. Yes, I have an external flash unit, but it's cumbersome to carry around everywhere on the off chance that I will need it for a spur-of-the moment shot. With the K-3, flash capability is always with me.
2. The GPS unit on the K-3 II is superfluous. I have an external GPS unit for the K-3 that works just fine if I choose to use it. I'd rather carry that (it's tiny) than an external flash (it's bulky).
3, Marginally sharper pictures with a tripod? Sorry. I take many such pictures, and in post-processing I can make very sharp pics apparently even sharper. If it takes pixel-peeping to see any real difference, I really don't want it. The real sharpness comes from the quality of the lens - the Limited series is outstanding. If the color isn't the way you like it, shoot RAW and correct it in post. If you downsize the picture for posting on the internet, any difference disappears. If you could use this feature without having to use a tripod, that would be well and good, but apparently you haven't figured that out yet. Too much fuss and bother for very minimal benefit.
4. You would think with this "upgrade" you would feature an articulating display on the back of the camera. Useful for down-low shots, shots where the camera is held overhead, selfies, etc. This is a major boo-boo.
5. Better shake reduction? That's nice, but if you want sharper hand-held shots, there are many paths to this. Better stabilization of the person taking the photos, faster shutter speed, higher f/stop, etc. Again, nothing to write home about. In the film era, I got along fine without ANY stabilization. That's why tripods were invented. There is always one in the trunk of my car.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll pass. Better luck next time.
John
PENTAX : PENTAX Photo Gallery artist page
Last edited by PALADIN85020; 04-27-2015 at 10:10 AM.