[Lowell Goudge]

For the ISO parameter, look at the mode. If there is a sport mode landscape mode etc, these will follow different program lines. Sport for example will push ISO and suutter speed up, landscape will push to lower ISO and shutter speed,

[Oktyabr]

I checked the manuals for my old K100D Super and K-30. They didn't provide for changing the program line. Confirms Adam's point, that this has been one of the points of differentiation between flagship and lower models in the whole run of Pentax DSLRs.

In the grand scheme of things, while we might always wish for more in any particular model, an entry model like the K-70 or my K-S2 comes with an amazing array of features.

As for the folder-naming options, the option for date-first is in the PF members' list of suggestions for software improvements: Thread to collect easy firmware improvement suggestions (software feature requests) - PentaxForums.com


I like the fully-articulated screen too (same on the K-S2) but I wouldn't describe the tilt screen on the KP or K-1 series as a shortcoming. I suspect that Ricoh went for a tilt rather than flippy screen for greater durability on models that have a longer life expectancy. (I don't know what else you could mean about shortcomings in the KP compared to the K-70. The only other pluses for the K-70 v KP I can think of would be scene modes, slightly larger buffer, more powerful popup flash and a few mm smaller dimensions.)

My real thinking is that the flagships lack scene modes and need this feature to provide more control over the automation behavior that otherwise those scene modes offer. The two offer different ways to achieve similar goals. The mtf line might be harder to emulate using scene modes.

Of course both of you are right, but it still makes no sense to force a customer to choose between two models on such a "nitpicky" "feature". I've said it before and I'll say it again... If Pentax came out with a model that combined all the guts (chip, code, software "features", etc.) from the KP stuffed into the body of the K-70, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I imagine such a model would outsell both these two current models, combined.

K70 vs KP: The K70 does indeed have "scene" modes (there is no design prohibition to including them on the KP), it's lighter, slightly more compact, has a better grip (subjective, I know, but the grips on the KP are rarely raved about), has TWICE the flash range, faster startup, on-sensor phase detect(!), dedicated HDMI out port, and while it's true that the KP is faster, shooting bursts of either JPG or RAW (7 vs 6), the K70 has significantly better buffering under such conditions (not "slightly"), and a significantly lower price. Last but not least, rather than substitute in a less capable live view for durabilities' sake, how about they just design a sturdy one in the first place? I'm honestly not convinced that the metal tip-out frame found on the display of the KP/K1 is all that sturdy looking either, when it comes down to it, *especially* when you consider that a feature of the K70 display is that the screen can be flipped entirely around to face the back of the body, further protecting the display. Obviously not so on the KP (and the K1). Or offer an extended warranty to cover such mishaps?

In a nutshell I think the K70 offers far more "bang for the buck" and at least I would still chose the K70 over the KP, even if they were the exact same price.

All "nitpicks", but you DID ask

[reh321]

There is no production cost advantage to NOT having said features, when it was obvious that far inferior hardware (CPU) and code was capable of such a decade ago. Does the K70 *need* it? Of course not! No camera does, if you know how to use it properly. Personally I'll take the articulated screen of the K70 over having such "flagship" features in the KP or the K1, and their assorted shortcomings.

As has already been said, the K-70 is the latest member of the K-n0 line, so this was not a case their removing things the line has always had, but a failure to add one more feature that has never been in that line. I am glad that you like the articulated screen - I like the tilting screen on my KP, which fits my needs much better.

[reh321]

Of course both of you are right, but it still makes no sense to force a customer to choose between two models on such a "nitpicky" "feature". I've said it before and I'll say it again... If Pentax came out with a model that combined all the guts (chip, code, software "features", etc.) from the KP stuffed into the body of the K-70, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I imagine such a model would outsell both these two current models, combined.

K70 vs KP: The K70 does indeed have "scene" modes (there is no design prohibition to including them on the KP), it's lighter, slightly more compact, has a better grip (subjective, I know, but the grips on the KP are rarely raved about), has TWICE the flash range, faster startup, on-sensor phase detect(!), dedicated HDMI out port, and while it's true that the KP is faster, shooting bursts of either JPG or RAW (7 vs 6), the K70 has significantly better buffering under such conditions (not "slightly"), and a significantly lower price. Last but not least, rather than substitute in a less capable live view for durabilities' sake, how about they just design a sturdy one in the first place? I'm honestly not convinced that the metal tip-out frame found on the display of the KP/K1 is all that sturdy looking either, when it comes down to it, *especially* when you consider that a feature of the K70 display is that the screen can be flipped entirely around to face the back of the body, further protecting the display. Obviously not so on the KP (and the K1). Or offer an extended warranty to cover such mishaps?

All "nitpicks", but you DID ask

I paid $700 for my KP, which is not much more than the K-70, but I like the camera much more. I like the build quality much more - weight difference is a one result of 'build quality' {body has metal frame}; and I have yet to see anyone question the KP's aperture control, but already several people have raised questions about aperture control on two+ year old K-70 cameras. I love the small grip on the KP {count this as one rave for it }. Most people who prefer the articulated screen are shooting either video or 'selfies'. I use the flip-down screen when taking 'discrete' photos {'street photography'} - the subject sees me looking down at the camera, but doesn't see the screen {which is hidden by the camera body} .... an articulated screen would stick out like a sore thumb. And I absolutely love the design of my 'silver' model .... reminds me so much of my beloved Super Program

---

Last edited by reh321; 12-26-2018 at 03:53 PM. Reason: expanded comment about build quality

[Des]

Actually the most common complaint about a feature missing from recent entry-level models is the flash master/controller that was there in the K-30/K-50 but was dropped from (I think) the K-S1 onwards. But then the K-3ii and K-1 series don't have it either, because there is no popup flash. KP is the only current model that has it.

K70 vs KP: The K70 does indeed have "scene" modes (there is no design prohibition to including them on the KP), it's lighter, slightly more compact, has a better grip (subjective, I know, but the grips on the KP are rarely raved about), has TWICE the flash range, faster startup, on-sensor phase detect(!), dedicated HDMI out port, and while it's true that the KP is faster, shooting bursts of either JPG or RAW (7 vs 6), the K70 has significantly better buffering under such conditions (not "slightly"), and a significantly lower price. ... In a nutshell I think the K70 offers far more "bang for the buck" and at least I would still chose the K70 over the KP, even if they were the exact same price.

I had to rack my brain to think of the list of pros for the K-70 over the KP. Most of these things are very minor. (I can't comment on how the on-sensor phase detect works - presumably for video.) There's a good use-case for the flippy screen (e.g. it provides easier viewing when the camera is in portrait orientation), and many would find the grip better, but other than that personally I'd find it hard to argue for the K-70 when the price difference is now so small (only $A100 or $US70 here at present). That's no criticism of the K-70, just that the KP is now exceptional value. I think it's a different class of camera - superior build, AF, exposure metering, SR, etc etc.

I have a feeling the Pentax DSLR lineup will look very different by this time next year.

[Oktyabr]

As has already been said, the K-70 is the latest member of the K-n0 line, so this was not a case their removing things the line has always had, but a failure to add one more feature that has never been in that line.

Interesting guess, and perhaps partially correct, but I disagree. Software isn't sealed forever into gold plates or anything and we aren't talking about thoroughbred horses, but as a "retired sw engineer" (I am assuming "sw" stands for software), you should know that. The K-70 shares almost nothing with the "K-n0 line", rather being a hodge podge of features from the K-S1/S2, K-5/5ii, K-3/3ii, and even the K-1.

It shares the same Prime MII as the K-S1 and K-S2, not the Prime M of the K-n0 line before it and yet the K70 has the 14 bit RAW of the the K-7, K-5 K-3, KP, and K1 (all the other previous models were 12 bit, including the K-S1, K-S2, K-01, K-30, K-50, K-5, etc.), and the newer UI shared with the KP and K1. K70 has a microphone jack (missing on the earlier K-n0 models). The K70 has "pixel shift", only shared with the K-3ii, the KP and the K-1, and further, the "motion correction" in pixel shift mode, only shared with the KP and K1. It also has on-sensor phase detection, the first and only Pentax body to do so, and this necessitates the software implementation to utilize it. These are just a few examples of low-level coding, to interface with the associated hardware. Mid-level and upper-level; UI, for example, such as offering direct access to my "nitpicks", which are really only mid-level pipelines to the lower hardware I/O... can be changed with a simple firmware update, should the company marketing department management chose to do so.

---------- Post added 12-26-18 at 05:43 PM ----------

I paid $700 for my KP, which is not much more than the K-70, but I like the camera much more. I like the build quality much more - weight difference is a one result of 'build quality' {body has metal frame}; and I have yet to see anyone question the KP's aperture control, but already several people have raised questions about aperture control on two+ year old K-70 cameras. I love the small grip on the KP {count this as one rave for it }. Most people who prefer the articulated screen are shooting either video or 'selfies'. I use the flip-down screen when taking 'discrete' photos {'street photography'} - the subject sees me looking down at the camera, but doesn't see the screen {which is hidden by the camera body} .... an articulated screen would stick out like a sore thumb. And I absolutely love the design of my 'silver' model .... reminds me so much of my beloved Super Program

Honestly I was really leaning towards the KP over the K70, initially. I actually *like* the KP's overall style, especially the knobs. I thought that the screen was something I would never miss. Was I ever wrong! Maybe that's just me. No, I don't use it for video or selfies, but the flexibility in shooting angles combined with the extra protection of being able to flip the screen inwards is something I would greatly miss, if I had to do it all over again.

---------- Post added 12-26-18 at 05:52 PM ----------

Actually the most common complaint about a feature missing from recent entry-level models is the flash master/controller that was there in the K-30/K-50 but was dropped from (I think) the K-S1 onwards. But then the K-3ii and K-1 series don't have it either, because there is no popup flash. KP is the only current model that has it.

Huh! I wasn't aware of this!

I had to rack my brain to think of the list of pros for the K-70 over the KP. Most of these things are very minor. (I can't comment on how the on-sensor phase detect works - presumably for video.) There's a good use-case for the flippy screen (e.g. it provides easier viewing when the camera is in portrait orientation), and many would find the grip better, but other than that personally I'd find it hard to argue for the K-70 when the price difference is now so small (only $A100 or $US70 here at present). That's no criticism of the K-70, just that the KP is now exceptional value. I think it's a different class of camera - superior build, AF, exposure metering, SR, etc etc.

I'm not so sure... Yes, the KP has some very nice features lacking on the K-70. Again, if it had the same grip as the K-70, and the same screen functionality, I would buy one. As the line up stands right now? I would still buy the K70 over the KP even if they were the same price.

I have a feeling the Pentax DSLR lineup will look very different by this time next year.

I hope so! ~fingers crossed~

Ultimately neither model is what many would have hoped for in a K-3ii successor. Neither is very cost prohibitive either. If I get 60,000 shots out of my $600 K-70, that's only a penny per exposure, and I will have felt very satisfied. Even at 10 cents a shot, before an untimely death (or the "aperture lock up" lightning bolt happens to strike mine), would I still buy another Pentax? You bet.

[reh321]

Interesting guess, and perhaps partially correct, but I disagree. Software isn't sealed forever into gold plates or anything and we aren't talking about thoroughbred horses, but as a "retired sw engineer" (I am assuming "sw" stands for software), you should know that. The K-70 shares almost nothing with the "K-n0 line", rather being a hodge podge of features from the K-S1/S2, K-5/5ii, K-3/3ii, and even the K-1.

It shares the same Prime MII as the K-S1 and K-S2, not the Prime M of the K-n0 line before it and yet the K70 has the 14 bit RAW of the the K-7, K-5 K-3, KP, and K1

Actual functionality looks more like K-n0 than any other Pentax camera - for example, as already observed, it shares "scene modes" with other K-n0. Most likely they ported code base from K-n0 line, which you seem to be totally unfamiliar with; in that case, they would be adding the functionality to get what you wanted - they did not remove it. Your "remove it" words, your "virtually all" words, are based on top tier cameras ..... and you simply cannot apply that knowledge to the lower tier which you have now purchased your way into.

---

Last edited by reh321; 12-26-2018 at 07:28 PM.

[Oktyabr]

Actual functionality looks more like K-n0 than any other Pentax camera - for example, as already observed, it shares "scene modes" with other K-n0. Most likely they ported code base from K-n0 line, which you seem to be totally unfamiliar with; in that case, they would be adding the functionality to get what you wanted - they did not remove it. Your "remove it" words, your "virtually all" words, are based on top tier cameras ..... and you simply cannot apply that knowledge to the lower tier which you have now purchased your way into.

No. The software is, intelligently, programmed as a comprehensive (OOP) framework and then higher level functions, impossible for the lack of hardware (like the flash contoller Des mentioned)... OR marketing decisions (which I think is what you are actually attempting to imply) are deleted.

Am I wrong?

Concepts like "scene modes" and program line are brand and line agnostic.

[reh321]

No. The software is, intelligently, programmed as a comprehensive (OOP) framework and then higher level functions, impossible for the lack of hardware (like the flash contoller Des mentioned)... OR marketing decisions (which I think is what you are actually attempting to imply) are deleted.

I see lots of buzz words here but few meaningful sentences

[Oktyabr]

I see lots of buzz words here but few meaningful sentences

Am I wrong? That's the only question you need to seriously think about. And no, I'm not "retired sw", not yet, anyway.

[microlight]

You are wrong on at least two points: the K-5 RAWs are indeed 14-bit, and the K-3II does have motion correction in pixel shift. It’s not selectable in the UI and is on by default, but it’s there.

[Oktyabr]

You are wrong on at least two points: the K-5 RAWs are indeed 14-bit, and the K-3II does have motion correction in pixel shift. It’s not selectable in the UI and is on by default, but it’s there.

Granted, I pulled most of that from memory, accented with a quick google search or two (most of the results from this very forum). That's not the point.

[Adam]

Actually it is also available on the K-5, K-7, and I suspect the K2 models as well. Full program line (including the "MTF" setting that I sorely miss) was available all the way back to my old K10D.

The K-5, K-7, and K10D were all part of the high-end line when they were released. The K-70 is more analogous to the K-r and K-50 at their time (but with better image quality relative to the higher models). To give another example, one more feature not available on the K-70 (but available on the high-end models) is wireless flash triggered by the on-board flash.

[mcgregni]

What the OP is missing, or choosing not to hear, is the factors here that relate to the users, the targeted purchasers of the camera model. He is focusing on the technology, capabilities, price points, build costs ... Everything except the people.

He is a K70 owner who wants fine tuning sophistications, relating to the exposure programing, that his camera doesn't have. It doesn't have them because the designers decided that the targeted user group would not understand it / not use it / fail to appreciate it / misuse it ...... They believed that the owners would get better pictures by leaving the exposure automations entirely to the camera.

This may be the same decision process in relation to the wireless flash feature ...... That it is more likely to lead to trouble than its worth.

What has happened of course, is that the sensor capabilities have sped ahead and outpaced the other control features of such "entry level" cameras, meaning they appeal to more experienced users who are looking for a bargain. It remains the case that we should choose a camera that is suited to our needs and experience in an all-round way (controllability, interface, depth of features, as well as IQ). Price point and sensor only give us some of the important mage capture potentials, not all.

[UncleVanya]

It is common across all brands to pull features from lower end products. The k-70 has lost little if you compare the features it has vs the higher end models to a low end Nikon or Canon vs their high end. The k-70 budget camera lost a few things like on board wireless flash master (k-50 was the last budget camera with that) and gained some like the 14 bit raw (I think it was the first budget Pentax to offer that) overall the mix is good in aggregate, but if it lacks a feature you expected I know how that can suck especially when very little if any cost would be needed to add it. But like Apple and other companies, price differentiation and discrimination is used by camera manufacturers to make more expensive offerings more attractive. Unlike some Pentax seems to have a list of common features that tic most of the necessities for modern photography and leave out little.