[jpzk]

I've just finished reading the K-70 review from the Home Page here: Pentax K-70 First Impressions Review - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com, combining that review with what is being discussed here.
The review is definitely "biased" toward the K3(II), however not much was discussed about the high ISO handling. I am finding much more information regarding this aspect right in this thread, actually.

So, would I be wrong to presume that this K-70 could beat the K3 for wildlife photography, especially in "less-than-ideal" conditions?
BTW, I am still struggling with the K3 and high ISO shots (ISO 1600 +) in spite of its phenomenal handling of details (resolution ???).
I used the K5 for years ...

Is this K-70 some new type of cross/hybrid between the K3 and the K1 ?
Amazing to see the 24 MP sensor handling noise so well.

[Nicolas06]

You are completely missing the point I have made multiple times.
There are people who are not lazy - they simply cannot justify spending $$$$ for a constant f/2.8 or f/2 lens they will rarely use.
There are people who are not lazy - they simply cannot justify spending time on PP.
These are the people who will benefit from the K-70 with high ISO.

Honestly you transform your own wish and a marketing claim in a reality that is very very unlikely to be in that K70. We didn't see this in practice. At best we saw an under exposed and soft jpeg where the subject was very dark.

A used 17-50 is $200, and a used 70-200 is $450. And DA50 f/1.8 or DA35 f/2.4 can be brought for less than $100 used.

If the use is not that commonas you explain ("they will rarely use") then there no point to spend the $600+ on a K70 for that. You can stick to a $100 used prime or maybe the $200 used 17-50...

[reh321]

Honestly you transform your own wish and a marketing claim in a reality that is very very unlikely to be in that K70. We didn't see this in practice. At best we saw an under exposed and soft jpeg where the subject was very dark.

A used 17-50 is $200, and a used 70-200 is $450. And DA50 f/1.8 or DA35 f/2.4 can be brought for less than $100 used.

If the use is not that commonas you explain ("they will rarely use") then there no point to spend the $600+ on a K70 for that. You can stick to a $100 used prime or maybe the $200 used 17-50...

We are talking about Dad or Grandpa taking pictures of Junior playing basketball. He may not shop used equipment regularly, or that may make him nervous. In any case, when he goes to a typical photography discussion forum, people tend to point him to lenses like the D FA* 70-200 f/2.8 @ $1800, and then argue amongst themselves for several pages about minutia, never noticing that he has never responded. I'm guessing that K-70 + DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 @ $1050 would be a much better option, but neither of us knows for certain. We're just exchanging opinions here. We'll know more in another couple of years.

[normhead]

I've just finished reading the K-70 review from the Home Page here: Pentax K-70 First Impressions Review - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com, combining that review with what is being discussed here.
The review is definitely "biased" toward the K3(II), however not much was discussed about the high ISO handling. I am finding much more information regarding this aspect right in this thread, actually.

So, would I be wrong to presume that this K-70 could beat the K3 for wildlife photography, especially in "less-than-ideal" conditions?
BTW, I am still struggling with the K3 and high ISO shots (ISO 1600 +) in spite of its phenomenal handling of details (resolution ???).
I used the K5 for years ...

Is this K-70 some new type of cross/hybrid between the K3 and the K1 ?
Amazing to see the 24 MP sensor handling noise so well.

To me, if it's as good as it is claimed to be, it wold be like a dream come true. Same noise , high ISO etc. for the K-70 as in the K-1 for images with the same DoF. Just 33% less resolution, which is well less than a stop. Add pixel shift and it's a no brainer for the value conscious.

We need high ISO ability for times when a flash is not suitable, or appropriate, and where you don't want the narrow depth of field that a wide aperture lens setting provides.

Which is exactly why FF is such a non-starter for many of us. The only way to get that extra stop of ISO for lower noise, is to give up DoF. The FF advantage except for resolution, is predicated on one stop, when shooting the FF wide open. IF the K-70 brings noise to one stop worse than the K-1 for the same ISO (that's what I personally am waiting to see) then you will be able to take the exact same image with a K-70 as with a K-1 for the same DoF, which is what it theoretically should be. The 25% 33% more resolution is tempered by the simple fact, in analogue systems, 100% up or down tends to be noticeable. A 30% gain in resolution may or may not be worth something to an image and in buying more resolution, you're gambling that you will actually take an image it will make a difference to, for anything but pixel peeping.

[Nicolas06]

We are talking about Dad or Grandpa taking pictures of Junior playing basketball. He may not shop used equipment regularly, or that may make him nervous. In any case, when he goes to a typical photography discussion forum, people tend to point him to lenses like the D FA* 70-200 f/2.8 @ $1800, and then argue amongst themselves for several pages about minutia, never noticing that he has never responded. I'm guessing that K-70 + DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 @ $1050 would be a much better option, but neither of us knows for certain. We're just exchanging opinions here. We'll know more in another couple of years.

That may be the best option for him whatever that mean.

New and for low light capabilities he would get exactly the same with a K50 and a sigma 70-300 APO for $600 too. Almost half that price. And he would still have a spare 18-55 for that price.

Still with that K50 and a tamron 70-200 f/2.8, he would get much better low light capabilities for the same price as K70 + HD55-300 so rougly $1050. He would gain near macro capabilities and better picture quality too as well as more possibilities of shallow dof for portraiture.

Would he stay with an APSC (whatever the model)+ an f/4-5.8 lens the low light performance will be quite low. There no ways arround that. There no pixies in the dedicated accelarator unit that would invent information the sensor didn't record to begin with. This is wishfull thinking.

Want better performance, that bigger sensor (not the case), improved sensor technology (not the case) or lenses that let in more light (not the case). Sorry.

While I fully agree that would be quite nice, we are not there yet. It had happen few years back with the CCD => CMOS shift. It will likely happen again with other technological change. In the mean time there no way arround bigger sensors and faster lenses. There reason why people buy them.