[mikesbike]

Thats very roughly the weight of one Pentax D-LI90 battery which is good for twice as many shots as the smaller one in the KP, 800 vs 390. If you have to carry an extra one for the older camera because of the limited shots with it you're really not at all far off from the weight of the K3III. It's the lenses you use that make a difference.

Since the very good compact KP can no longer be purchased new the next best option from Pentax would be the K3III. It is slightly heavier just as you noted, but mostly due to the larger battery which many will appreciate and some KP owners would have preferred. By the time you hang the 3/4 pound grip on the KP to bring the battery life up to a more reasonable 800 shots, and needed to improve ergonomics with larger lenses that don't balance well with the body alone, you end up with a much larger and heavier kit than the K3III.

So the new Pentax is a great camera, a significant upgrade from the older KP in all most all respects, without a big hit in added size and weight. While price may be a reason not to choose it, imagining it to be big and heavy is not.

I get the love KP owners have for their cameras. They're unique in the Pentax universe, very capable, well built, and holding their value used, but it's end of the line for them. I don't think there will ever be another KP design. Take care of what you have and when ready for more or it fails there's a very worthy and significant upgrade in the K3III that's neither heavy or huge which was the presumption made in the very first thread post.

Oh, and regarding the price, it's now available new at $1699. Factory refurbished is even less. For what you get with it over any APS-C Pentax has ever offered is a brand bargain IMHO.

Too bad. A camera of K-3 series type of design will NEVER be able to compete on the same footing with mirrorless alternatives. Smaller, lighter camera bodies of high quality was a concept in league with that of the Limited series lenses. The KP is a perfect match for them. As to the the battery, I am an old film shooter, wasting fewer shots, and with a full charge, the only time I might need to reach for my spare battery during a single outing is during lengthy events shooting. Then I might decide to make use of the battery grip so I am less likely to need a battery change during the action, especially if using larger lenses for better balance in overall handling. In which case, the weight will be comparable to that of my K-1 II, which using the reasoning having been expressed here is about the same size as the K-3 III! With the larger battery in the grip together with the smaller battery in the camera, I will have far greater battery life than I would with either the K-3 III or the K-1 II, yet at about the same weight as the latter.

I carry a spare with any of my cameras, whether the KP, K-S2, K-5 IIs, or K-1 II. Usually after multiple outings, the spare will be put into use when the current battery runs low and can be charged up after that outing. Therefore, carrying a model using the smaller battery will help reduced the overall size and weight being dealt with. Of course the idea behind employing the smaller battery in the design of the KP is to enhance the lighter weight philosophy. Saying the difference in weight between it and the K-3 III is due to the smaller battery used in the KP is nonsense. Just another rationalization trying to make the two the same size. The weight difference between the two batteries is hardly anything close of a quarter pound! Just look at the weight of the two cameras without batteries.

I get the enthusiasm for the new K-3 III. I have seen very impressive results from it, particularly in some great birds shots and action shots taken, often using burst shooting. If I had a major interest in this type of subject matter, I would be on the phone with B&H tomorrow, adding a new K-3 III to my arsenal. I am glad for that cost reduction, and if I wanted one, I would take advantage of it, to be sure. Cost then is no longer an issue, as I knew it would come down. I'm not wealthy, but I can easily afford it. However. my interests are best met with what I now have. A new K-3 III would be left sitting.

The departure of the KP concept is a loss to the Pentax brand. Nothing to challenge the ongoing mirrorless expansion. What if it were decided to discontinue the compact Limited series lenses and proceed with just the kit lenses and DA* lenses? Or maybe the high-priced, quality compact Limited series can best be seen as a more ideal match for the lighter, more compact K-70 type amateur-oriented cameras?

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 05-07-2022 at 03:49 PM.

[gatorguy]

Of course the idea behind employing the smaller battery in the design of the KP is to enhance the lighter weight philosophy. Saying the difference in weight between it and the K-3 III is due to the smaller battery used in the KP is nonsense. Just another rationalization trying to make the two the same size. The weight difference between the two batteries is hardly anything close of a quarter pound! Just look at the weight of the two cameras without batteries.

The departure of the KP concept is a loss to the Pentax brand. Nothing to challenge the ongoing mirrorless expansion. What if it were decided to discontinue the compact Limited series lenses and proceed with just the kit lenses and DA* lenses? Or maybe the high-priced, quality compact Limited series can best be seen as a more ideal match for the lighter, more compact K-70 type amateur-oriented cameras?

The difference in weight between the KP battery and the one used for the K3III is a bit more than two ounces, so yes most (not all) of the 4 ounce difference between the two bodies can be accounted for by the battery.

As for competing with mirrorless body dimensions, the newer flagships from Canon and Nikon are not small and compact. Companies have been realizing that small bodies and premium glass make for imbalanced combos, and ergonomics suffer. More recent premium camera bodies have become larger.

I really do understand the love for the KP. Given the chance I think you'd develop a love for the K3III as well. It is not a large heavy camera.

[mikesbike]

The difference in weight between the KP battery and the one used for the K3III is a bit more than two ounces, so yes most (not all) of the 4 ounce difference between the two bodies can be accounted for by the battery.

Still faulty reasoning. The Pentax engineers know what they are doing in their designs. As to your statement- well, with the spare, that means 4 oz of weight and depth of space LESS that I must accommodate in my travel. I still say- see the weight of these two cameras without their batteries. The KP weighs 639.5 grams, the K-3 III 735 grams, or about 100 grams more, or around a quarter pound. Since then both cameras are empty, that difference in battery weight you bring up, when both are loaded, with the lighter battery being in the KP, will increase the DIFFERENCE in weight between the two cameras, making the KP even lighter yet than the K-3 III. No matter how it is sliced or diced, the K-3 III is substantially larger and heavier than the KP. Not to mention the difference in features I find useful.

If the KP were designed for use with the larger battery, the attending differences in camera structure would add more weight AND size to its overall form, yet it would be still below that of the K-3 III, but not as svelte as it turned out to be. The designers did a great job, making the KP the most versatile, flexible DSLR Pentax, or perhaps ANYONE, has ever made. My K-5 IIs weighs 680 grams empty, still heavier than the KP, but both its dimensions and weight are yet quite a bit smaller than the K-3 III. This is a desirable thing for me. Aside from that, I still also prefer it in other ways to the K-3 III for my particular needs. If this were not true, I might consider replacing my K-5 IIs with the new model. But I must go by my needs and the facts.

[mikesbike]

I doubt they make another camera after the K3.iii.

Their decision to stay DSLR will cost them. Only existing users with many lenses and fanboys would get into a new Pentax. Add the chips shortage.

To be fair, let us not forget the fangirls. It doesn't have to be this way. An updated KP II having the new BSI sensor and an improved LV AF function, along with its size and features, would compete even better with the high-end APS-C mirrorless crowd, so as to attract more new Pentaxians, and would appeal to those current Pentax users who value the more compact design of the KP. There would still always be those who value the K-3 series style of body with its meatier size and grip, higher fps for burst shooting, 2-card slots, etc. A K-3 IV update might include a K-1 style pull-out rear screen and a larger buffer. The BSI sensor in the new KP II might necessitate a higher price, maybe starting around $1,450 USD, eventually settling perhaps around $900, and worth every penny. It would be perfect as the mid-price high-quality model of the KP's unique compact body design. Keeping the K-70 the way it is for entry level, but hopefully as the K-80 with a reliable solenoid upgrade..

An updated K-1 mkIII could also employ the new BSI sensor technology.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 05-08-2022 at 05:55 PM.

[Digitalis]

Companies have been realizing that small bodies and premium glass make for imbalanced combos, and ergonomics suffer. More recent premium camera bodies have become larger.

Also there is a limit to how small that battery can get before it starts to restrict the user experience with the camera. There is only so much energy density you can pack into 55cm3 of space.

[Rondec]

I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm fine if Pentax releases a K-P II, but I think it is very unlikely. There's a much better chance they would release a K-70 update with a few K-3 III trickle down features and a price in the 800 to 900 dollar range.

I do find it amusing that people remember the K-P so fondly. It reminds me of the K-200 in this respect. At the time of its release, it got a lot of grief for being too high priced (it came out at 1100 dollars as I recall), odd styling, smaller battery size, single card slot, and small buffer size. People who wanted a K-3 sequel weren't satisfied with it and those who were shooting with a K-70 claimed it didn't have enough extra features to warrant the additional price.

The fact that Pentax was able to sell some of these cameras when the price dropped to 800-ish dollars says that it was actually a failure. If they could have sold it at 1000-ish, they might have decided to try a follow up in that line, but it is clear that Pentaxians will not pay a premium for the features that the K-P offered.

[mikesbike]

The fact that Pentax was able to sell some of these cameras when the price dropped to 800-ish dollars says that it was actually a failure. If they could have sold it at 1000-ish, they might have decided to try a follow up in that line, but it is clear that Pentaxians will not pay a premium for the features that the K-P offered.

PPG; Flickr

I don't agree. The KP's price came down, as have all models compared to the intro price. Its intro price of $1,100 USD was not especially high, and taking into account the reduction of the dollar value. The K-3 came in at $1,300 USD back in 2013. The K-3 II came in a bit less, but then it was basically the same camera with a few upgrades, and the disappearance of the built-in flash, to the dissatisfaction of many. Prices soon settled quite a bit.

The fact of the KP's popularity is reflected in its being the ONLY Pentax model to increase in price after designated as discontinued!! In all other cases, the prices of left over stock of discontinued models went even lower to clear the shelves for the new incoming model. Even then, the left over new KP stock soon sold off the shelves in record time. I have never seen such as this before.

This says, if the price had been RAISED to $1,000, the KP would still have sold well, and would be perfectly placed as the quality mid-priced more compact model. But, as others have said, its presence was seen as taking away from sales of the new K-3 III. I say, not very much. The K-3 III was not, and cannot be the replacement for the KP, just as the KP was not and could not be the replacement for the K-3 II. Two different concepts. Many K-3 II owners passed on the KP, as they wanted an updated K-3 II style of camera, with attending features. I do understand this. After much R&D time, they finally got their wish in the K-3 III with its BSI sensor combined with accelerator, easily the best-performing version of this style, ever bearing the Pentax name. At the same time, there are many out there looking for a used KP body in top condition. Others instead may be turning an eye towards new high-end APS-C mirrorless offerings. These models' main claim to fame is for high-end excellence in a more compact camera body- like the KP, the only DSLR alternative

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 05-09-2022 at 07:19 PM.

[Rondec]

I don't agree. The KP's price came down, as have all models compared to the intro price. Its intro price of $1,100 USD was not especially high, and taking into account the reduction of the dollar value. The K-3 came in at $1,300 USD back in 2013. The K-3 II came in a bit less, but then it was basically the same camera with a few upgrades, and the disappearance of the built-in flash, to the dissatisfaction of many. Prices soon settled quite a bit.

The fact of the KP's popularity is reflected in its being the ONLY Pentax model to increase in price after designated as discontinued!! In all other cases, the prices of left over stock of discontinued models went even lower to clear the shelves for the new incoming model. Even then, the left over new KP stock soon sold off the shelves in record time. I have never seen such as this before.

This says, if the price had been RAISED to $1,000, the KP would still have sold well, and would be perfectly placed as the quality mid-priced more compact model. But, as others have said, its presence was seen as taking away from sales of the new K-3 III. I say, not very much. The K-3 III was not, and cannot be the replacement for the KP, just as the KP was not and could not be the replacement for the K-3 II. Two different concepts. Many K-3 II owners passed on the KP, as they wanted an updated K-3 II style of camera, with attending features. I do understand this. After much R&D time, they finally got their wish in the K-3 III with its BSI sensor combined with accelerator, easily the best-performing version of this style, ever bearing the Pentax name. At the same time, there are many out there looking for a used KP body in top condition. Others instead may be turning an eye towards new high-end APS-C mirrorless offerings. These models' main claim to fame is for high-end excellence in a more compact camera body- like the KP, the only DSLR alternative

The price of cameras is rising. If the K-3 III had been released ten years ago it would have been priced at 1600 dollars on release. If a K-P II is released it will be released at 1200 with much less discounting.

Camera companies are selling fewer numbers of cameras and so they need to make more money per camera sold to support R and D for future models. This is especially true for Pentax that usually has only three K mount camera lines running at once.

The K-01 sold terribly on initial release, but when it was discounted, it sold really well -- enough so that they released a Smurf version. Was it a success? Not really. Selling well at discount is not the goal. That's what got Olympus into the state they are in now. The goal is to sell well without significant discounts.

Pentax will build a camera that they can sell at 800 dollars and clear a decent profit and that is what they will release, but that camera will be more of a K-70 sequel than a KP sequel.

[mikesbike]

Pentax will build a camera that they can sell at 800 dollars and clear a decent profit and that is what they will release, but that camera will be more of a K-70 sequel than a KP sequel.

They went that route before. For a time they discontinued all but the cheapie DSLR models, the ist-Ds, DL, etc. all staying at 6mp, and at bargain prices. But at that time there was not this big swing to mirrorless as there has been now. B&H now has only 3 bands of DSLR listed- Canon, Nikon, and Pentax. The cheapie models cost less than the K-70. But much less is offered. The same can be said for the KP, which is the only DSLR that can compete with the high-end APS-C mirrorless designs, which are generally quite expensive. The K-70 is competitive as it is, only needing a fix for the less than reliable solenoid. The K-3III is a bit different, being priced well up there. Time will tell if it will be competitive, with its superior VF, BSI sensor plus accelerator for excellent quality high ISO imaging, and good burst shooting performance. The BSI sensor technology is a good thing, but no longer a new thing. Perhaps with the accelerator it will surpass the competition in high ISO quality results.