[audiobomber]

Hehe, If that is what you mean... there will be k-3 II, III, VI, V, IV etc...

I see three lines of APS-C bodies continuing:

• K-S1, series 1, budget model
• K-S2, series 2, advanced amateur
• K-S3, series 3 pro level, K-3 replacement to come

[r0ckstarr]

Looks like you talk the talk and walk the walk. I see you have K3 Owner listed twice. Are you cornering the market...ready for big money re-sale, when the price of K3's rise dramatically...as per your prediction..

No. I shoot primes and always use two bodies.

[northcoastgreg]

I believe having a robust, high quality APS-C lineup will make Pentax's FF camera more appealing to pros and deep pocket amateurs, many of whom would like to supplement their large and heavy FF system with a smaller APS-C system that nonetheless plays nice with their FF stuff. Pentax's APS-C system, with it's small but high-end primes, will complement an FF DSLR system better than Canon's or Nikon's FF systems. You can go from shooting the rather heavy DFA* 70-200 to either the lighter DA* 50-135 or the even lighter DA 70 with sacrificing only a bit of resolution, some DOF control, and a stop of ISO. With Canon and Nikon, you will generally have to sacrifice not merely what you lose with the smaller sensor, but also such lens-based characteristics as contrast and quality of rendering.

[tim60]

Why would the K3 be last of the line?

As long as there is money to be made the crop market, why wouldn't Pentax be there? And as far as I can tell, there are at least 7 or 8 crop sensor cameras sold for every full frame sensor camera that is sold. Lots of 7D Mk II and D7100 cameras being sold right now.

As a pure engineering thing they would need to update it from time to time because of supplier changes of parts. The current rate of model updates seems to be about the obsolete parts cycle.


If the FF has 'crop mode' and viewfinder cropping to suit, so it is WYSIWYG, then it would be both. Effectiveness of that depends on the price and the overall housing size and mass.

[Jonathan Mac]

Perhaps we should use only lenses that cover the 6x7 format in case in the future they bring one out?

Buying FF lenses and avoiding APS-C lenses for use on an APS-C camera "just in case" is, and always has been, a ridiculous line of reasoning. Buy for the format you use, if you change format, change your lenses.

I have loads of FF lenses, and I use them on my film SLRs as well as my DSLRs. I have three DA limited's and other third-party APS-C lenses, all of which are wonderful. But I wouldn't hobble my K3 by buying a 28-70 in place of a 16-50.

[clackers]

In my view, IS, SR, VR, IBIS, or whatever you call it is really helpful for videography, but for still photography its value is limited.

Well, now we certainly disagree, Dominic.

Well, now we certainly disagree, Dominic.

Perfectly all right by me, mate. Investigate the matter online and you will conclude as follows: people certainly disagree.

There are several factors:

(i) how shaky are your hands?
(ii) does your lens balance well?
(iii) do you perhaps have a camera with faulty SR?
(iv) are you a fanboy unwilling to admit the limitations to your system?
(v) have you actually bothered to carry out rigorous comparisons?

My point is that there is no clear-cut answer. I have carried out the mentioned experiment because I am considering buying into a second system without IBIS.

Worry not, life can be could good without SR as well; plenty of happy testimonies from Canikon users.

[robjmitchell]

Your postulate should be deemed worthy of consideration when Pentax full frame has been in circulation as long as that of Nikon from its launch until now. Most of Nikon's best FX lenses will work with DX cameras, so your critique is devoid of any substantial value. Most of Nikon's FX lenses have downward mobility, whereas many of Pentax's DA limited lenses do not have upward mobility: good luck with 15, 21, and 35 on a full frame.

BTW: it is utterly pointless to lambast competing brands on a forum dominated by myopic fanboys. Go criticise Nikon on a Nikon forum instead.

You obviously missed the bit where Nikon crippled their consumers cameras below dx0 level by forgoing a screw drive! That left these customers with no autofocus primes before they released the 35/1.8. Hardly what you call downwardly mobile.

Considering the title of this thread I think it is rather on topic to point out the strength of pentax in APS-C as a reason they will keep upgrading the K3 line. Although one day you might see them change over to EVF for a bigger better viewfinder.

You obviously missed the bit where Nikon crippled their consumers cameras below dx0 level by forgoing a screw drive!

Nikon have a much wider line-up of cameras, including DX format with screwdrive. In other words: you have the option of downward mobility if that is what you want. Some people want it - others could not care less. Nikon cater to both. I don't see that as a weakness.

[clackers]

My point is that there is no clear-cut answer.

I use many of the same lenses on K-30 and Sony NEX 3N handheld (same sensor), Dominic, and the Pentax is sharper, especially at lower speeds.

Tripods make this moot, but not practical.

Zooms on other brands may or may not have IS (and you pay accordingly), but it's rare on their primes.

Look at all the people who are currently eBaying, KEH, etc for film era lenses to go on the new FF.

IBIS rocks.:-)

[robjmitchell]

Perfectly all right by me, mate. Investigate the matter online and you will conclude as follows: people certainly disagree.

There are several factors:

(i) how shaky are your hands?
(ii) does your lens balance well?
(iii) do you perhaps have a camera with faulty SR?
(iv) are you a fanboy unwilling to admit the limitations to your system?
(v) have you actually bothered to carry out rigorous comparisons?

My point is that there is no clear-cut answer. I have carried out the mentioned experiment because I am considering buying into a second system without IBIS.

Worry not, life can be could good without SR as well; plenty of happy testimonies from Canikon users.

You missed out (vi) can you shoot between heartbeats!
I actually agree that 1/10th is about the limit for reliable shots with SR and a normal lens. However that is quite amazing when you consider the otherwise minimum recommended shutter speed is focal length x 1.5 for APS-C. Yes its more limiting than a boost in ISO, but a 3 stop advantage with no IQ losses (unlike earlier IS/VR) is a significant advantage.

[Rondec]

Perfectly all right by me, mate. Investigate the matter online and you will conclude as follows: people certainly disagree.

There are several factors:

(i) how shaky are your hands?
(ii) does your lens balance well?
(iii) do you perhaps have a camera with faulty SR?
(iv) are you a fanboy unwilling to admit the limitations to your system?
(v) have you actually bothered to carry out rigorous comparisons?

My point is that there is no clear-cut answer. I have carried out the mentioned experiment because I am considering buying into a second system without IBIS.

Worry not, life can be could good without SR as well; plenty of happy testimonies from Canikon users.

My wife shoots weddings and her second shooter uses Canon 5D Mk II and 70D with, for the most part lenses without shake reduction. My wife has commented to me several times that she can tell the lack of shake reduction in her second's photos and is glad that she has it on her K3 photos.

As you say, each person is different. You may have hands of stone, but there are many folks who struggle to get sharp photos at 1/focal length shutter speed, particularly with the higher pixel densities of today's cameras. I have never found it to be a detriment and it is often helpful. A long enough shutter speed, all bets are off either way. Tried to hand hold 1/4 second or 1/2 second and you'll wedge yourself against a wall and hold your breath -- whatever -- and odds are you'll still have camera shake, but in non extreme situations it works quite well, in my opinion.

[robjmitchell]

Nikon have a much wider line-up of cameras, including DX format with screwdrive. In other words: you have the option of downward mobility if that is what you want. Some people want it - others could not care less. Nikon cater to both. I don't see that as a weakness.

Suppling half of you customers with a camera that can't AF a large portion of your lens line up when you lack alternative options is the definition of a weakness!

Suppling half of you customers with a camera that can't AF a large portion of your lens line up when you lack alternative options is the definition of a weakness!

I will have to look up this intriguing definition of 'weakness' in the dictionary before I pursue this matter any further.

[robjmitchell]

I will have to look up this intriguing definition of 'weakness' in the dictionary before I pursue this matter any further.

They have released enough primes with lens motors that it is no longer a problem, but its obvious they should have released more lenses before crippling their consumer camera mounts.