Originally posted by Saltwater Images I find the ergonomics of the KP to look very appealing. As a DA Ltd shooter this camera looks like it was designed for me. The low light capability is terrific but my tripod is my tool for shooting in low light. The three things that are making me gravitate toward the K-3II as an upgrade to my K-5II are:
- K-3II shutter life 200,000 actuations (versus 100,000 for KP).
- Larger continuous shooting buffer on the K-3II.
- Price; the K-3II is considerable cheaper and I could put the difference toward a HD DA 35 Ltd.
It seem to be a real compromise camera, the KP.
Guys like the above can use a tripod and shoot studio with a K-3 using a low ISO aren't going to like it.
Guys like me who would like the improved AF and higher clean ISO for bird and wildlife photography won't put up with the small buffer.
It's really a K-5 replacement, not a K-3 replacement. I don't like my K-1 for birds and wildlife, I don't see how the KP has any hope of being an improvement. This is definitely a stepping up from K-30, k-50 type of camera, more than a stepping up from a K-3 type of camera.