Originally posted by Excalibor Really? The KP is very nice and I'd love to have one as second body, but for what I have seen around the Internet, the K-70 is almost on par and considerably cheaper. If you are going to keep competing on the pro segment with the K1-II or a K1-III and on the prosumer segment with a K3-III (hopefully!), then you'd want to keep traction at the entry-committed level...
A K-70 II or a K-80 would be great, specially considering how bare bones and basic the entry level cameras from Canon and Nikon are (EOS Rebel or the D3300/D3400...). It would make for a solid entry camera, specially if Ricoh ups a bit the video part to broaden a bit the target audience...
Cheers!
We’ve almost said the same things, you know, except that the Kp has some features that the K70 doesn’t have, like the Accelerator Unit that reduces noise at lower exposure levels and a tilt screen, not to mention its smaller form factor, in some respects. In calling it a test-bed (which I don’t think the K70 could be called) I was emphasising that it had features that might be considered as market trials, and the higher price probably arises from an expectation of lower sales.
However, whether or not Ricoh decides to keep a lower-priced model as entry-level will determine the survival of the K70 or its successor. As far as I can see, the only question would be whether or not it fits with the up-market image that the K-1 and its lenses are projecting. You rightly point out that it stands out against the competition’s offerings in that area, so we’ll see.