[Zygonyx]

That is clearly their aim, making us buy K-3II, instead of only 55-300 PLM....
but let's wait for K-2 APS-C

[ChrisA]

Late to the party, but me too - K-3.

[Nicolas06]

That is clearly their aim, making us buy K-3II, instead of only 55-300 PLM....
but let's wait for K-2 APS-C

If I had a K3-II or another compatible body and no 55-300 this would be something I would think of.

As I have K3 and HD55-300, I think the upgrade is far from worth it. I used the old lens version for quite a few day and it work great overall. The small improvement I might get is far from being worth the trouble. I would be more likely to go used 60-250 as I'd get much more for not necessarily that much more money.

I think if you end up trying too many variation of basically the same thing, you end up spending lot of money for somewhat moderate improvements.

Now if I didn't have HD55-300 but still K3, that would maybe even prevent me from buying anything. HD version for fear it then doesn't make sense anymore and would losse value, not the PLM because it wouldn't work... I'd may have decided a cheaper 70-300 for 100-150€ to be safer while waiting for a better body. Less money invested.

[lorgarTheOrc]

Hello everybody!

you can add my name as well: Lorenzo Garofoli owner of a Pentax K-30 (I know...)

Thanks!

[reh321]

That is clearly their aim, making us buy K-3II, instead of only 55-300 PLM....
but let's wait for K-2 APS-C

Actually, it will get me to buy a K-70 earlier.

This new lens looks a lot like the Canon lenses that lured me away from Pentax twenty years ago.

[BigMackCam]

Actually, it will get me to buy a K-70 earlier.

Looking at the image samples from the new K-70 review, I think quite a few people will pick the K-70 rather than the K-3II for the high ISO performance. ISO 51,200 looks pretty good - definitely better than the K-3II...

[Zygonyx]

In JPEG, certainly.
But "enthusiasts" shoot RAW, and i guess the difference isn't that much...

[BigMackCam]

In JPEG, certainly.
But "enthusiasts" shoot RAW, and i guess the difference isn't that much...

The improvement is very much there in RAW too... see attached from DPR's image quality comparison - the noise profile, especially colour noise, is much nicer at ISO 51,200. Comparing the test shots at different ISO settings, there's at least a one stop advantage to the K-70...

[Zygonyx]

Your priority might differ, low light AF performance isn't quite what K-70 is up to.... for a wildlife or sport shooter in particular.
I do prefer neat images even if slightly more noisy, DxO Prime will do the job.

---------- Post added 18-10-16 at 10:55 ----------

Oh, and i wanted to thank PF for the nice survey they did get out of this thread.

[normhead]

The improvement is very much there in RAW too... see attached from DPR's image quality comparison - the noise profile, especially colour noise, is much nicer at ISO 51,200. Comparing the test shots at different ISO settings, there's at least a one stop advantage to the K-70...

That is actually pretty awesome....

More important to me, having established that I like the K-1 to 3200 ISO, the K-70 looks better at 3200 ISO than the K-1 does... excellent for detail in birding and macros..or anywhere you need to keep your shutter speed up... and completely negating the FF low light noise advantage.

That leaves the sole domain of the K-1 as resolution. With this noise reduction system, K-1 AF, and 8-10 fps, the next APS-c system should be a knockout.

K-1 on the left...

[BigMackCam]

Looking at the image samples from the new K-70 review, I think quite a few people will pick the K-70 rather than the K-3II for the high ISO performance. ISO 51,200 looks pretty good - definitely better than the K-3II...

In JPEG, certainly.
But "enthusiasts" shoot RAW, and i guess the difference isn't that much...

The improvement is very much there in RAW too... see attached from DPR's image quality comparison - the noise profile, especially colour noise, is much nicer at ISO 51,200. Comparing the test shots at different ISO settings, there's at least a one stop advantage to the K-70...

Your priority might differ, low light AF performance isn't quite what K-70 is up to.... for a wildlife or sport shooter in particular.
I do prefer neat images even if slightly more noisy, DxO Prime will do the job.

Quite, but - per my initial comment above - I wasn't discussing the AF performance; I only mentioned that quite a few people will pick the K-70 for its high ISO performance - which, as we can see, is better than the K-3 / K-3II by about a stop. DxO Prime and other software can do an excellent job of noise reduction, I agree, but it can't bring back lost detail, and the K-70 appears to retain more of that at higher ISOs.

Interestingly, from my own tests with downloaded RAW files, Lightroom 6 is much less effective on the K-70's high ISO luminance noise than it is with other Pentax models (Google Nik Dfine 2 does a far better job in this instance).

I'm not personally interested in buying a K-70 - I already have a K-3 and K-3II that I'm very satisfied with, and even though high ISO performance is important to me, it's not a deal maker or breaker. It will be for some, though.

Anyway... we've drifted off topic...

[normhead]

Anyway... we've drifted off topic...

I would say the advantages in high ISO performance on the new k-70 and forward models will be right on topic. Being able to increase ISO and therefore shutter speed for use with a K-70 means the lens is in effect 2 stops faster. Great for sports, wildlife and birding.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well looking at this comparison

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-1-versus-Penta..._1075_1026_998

Having a one stop advantage would be exceptional. So maybe we will see Testing of this camera at dxo (but they don't seem to test many models this year) if this holds. Or is it noise reduction in the camera, even with raw? The sensor itself would be to give the same results as the best D5500 and there for not so much better in itself.

[BigMackCam]

With this noise reduction system, K-1 AF, and 8-10 fps, the next APS-c system should be a knockout.

Being able to increase ISO and therefore shutter speed for use with a K-70 means the lens is in effect 2 stops faster.

My thoughts exactly

[BigMackCam]

Or is it noise reduction in the camera, even with raw?

I hope not, but I wouldn't rule it out. As I mentioned a couple of posts up, the luminance noise profile of the K-70 is... "unusual". Unlike any previous RAW files I've processed, the K-70's high ISO files don't respond very well to LR6 luminance noise reduction (at least, not with my attempts, and I'd say I'm pretty adept at getting the most from LR6 noise reduction). You have to ramp it way up to reduce the noise, at the expense of significant detail. Google Nik Dfine 2 does a much better job.