[mee]

Pentax needs to keep the next APS-C flagship in line with the other makes like the Canon D80, Nikon D7200, & Sony A77II.

It would be nice if they could eventually build some kind of D500/7DII competitor along the way. It could be called the "K-47", "K-16", or something, showing off it's tracking ability while firing several keeper shots. Aaawww yeeaaahh!

Yes. D500 and the 7DII are in a totally different category than the D7200 or 80D. Pentax doesn't have anything like them (D500/7DII) and to expect the AF tracking to go from where it is now to better than D500 is not realistic at all. Especially if they want the price of the updated Pentax body to remain at K-3II pricing.

What monochrome just said though brings an interesting thought to light... for the price of a DFA 150-450mm lens (2496.95 at BH), one could buy a refurb D7200 (799 at BH) and a new Tamron G2 150-600mm (1299 at BH) and still have money in the bank. Just use that for that setup for that particular application (such as birding) if you wanted to otherwise stick with Pentax. Nothing wrong with that.

[Nicolas06]

My hope for the next Pentax APS-C flagship is that it have the following:

1. USB-3
2. Articulating screen w/Touch Screen Menu and Focusing
3. A frame rate of at least 10fps => Not a big change, not really necessary and likely complex/expensive
4. Canon type Dual Pixel Focusing w//Eye focus. => there only Canon there, likely a reason (patents...). And Pentax doesn't make sensor. I don't think Pentax would source a Canon sensor in their body and eveybody there would be complaining of the reduced dynamic range
5. Full APS)C sensor 4K video => Almost no camera if any does that. You most often get a crop or some pixels are ignored. This also mean BSI, very expensive sensor, lot of heat and power consumption and you need the processing power to match.
6. OEM Phottix type HSS/TTL flash system with 1/250 sync speed. => To be honest 1/180s and 1/250s are not very different in term of what that allows.
7. Edge to edge focus point focus points w/joystick
8. XQD or C-Fast card with larger buffer and faster transfer rate.
9. Better Autofocus system. => All depend what you call better. SAFOX 12 from K1 yes, a bit improved yes. D500 like? No

What you want ask for an APSC body sold at same price as K1.

[Nicolas06]

B&H prices body only:
D500 $1,999
d7200 $1,046 Gray Market (says so in title and body text)
K-3ll $846

D500 is clearly not a comparable camera. d7200 is 24% more $, fewer features, lower image quality, equivalent AF. OBF is not a meaningful objection. It doesn't matter real world.

Pentax is unlikely to ever offer what you seem to want, which is how it should be. Pentax offers a different combination of features, strengths and weaknesses than other brands, which defines their brand strategy. If I wanted Nikon's combination, well, you know what I would do.

- D7200 has much better AF, better than anything Pentax has, and unfortunaly, likely to keep better AF than the K3-II successor. We will see when Pentax provide 50+ AF points, some being f/8 so you can put a TC on any lense. The coverage in the frame is also better.
- D7200 picture quality is a bit better SR, almost 1EV more dynamic range (matching more K1 than K3-II) and a bit more color deph and a 50iso mode. You get half the gain of pixel shift but on every image.
- There many more fast AF lenses available from Nikon but also Tamron/Sigma.

In fact if K3-II successor was a D7200, that would be a quite significant upgrade.

[RonHendriks1966]

B&H prices body only:
D500 $1,999
d7200 $1,046 Gray Market (says so in title and body text)
K-3ll $846

D500 is clearly not a comparable camera. d7200 is 24% more $, fewer features, lower image quality, equivalent AF. OBF is not a meaningful objection. It doesn't matter real world.

Pentax is unlikely to ever offer what you seem to want, which is how it should be. Pentax offers a different combination of features, strengths and weaknesses than other brands, which defines their brand strategy. If I wanted Nikon's combination, well, you know what I would do.

D500 just had a price increase overhere and is now 2.299 euro. K-3ii can be had for 799 euro.

[dafbp]

I don't know whether to call it tragic or funny: Pentax users bashing Pentax users for stating that the current Pentax APS flagship isn't up to date with other brands' flagship APS in this or that aspect, and that they want a new camera to fix that.
And then we have some people "defending" Pentax by telling them to switch to a different system instead of asking for something better. I guess those that asked and waited for the K-1 instead of switching should be bashed too...

[Kunzite]

Your interpretation is flawed, not sure if in a tragic or funny way
1. A Pentax APS-C flagship doesn't try to compete on the same performance class as a Nikon APS-C flaghsip (and obviously nor on the same price class). This is a fact.
That doesn't make the K-3II - or the still unknown successor we're talking about here - any less capable than they are; indeed, Pentax makes great cameras. They just aren't 10 fps beasts with an advanced 153 points AF systems.

2. If one wants Nikon D500 performance, indeed, the best idea is to get one - instead of waiting for Pentax to make it.
Those who jumped ship because they wanted a FF before Pentax said they'll make one proceeded correctly. Those who waited, because they didn't want a FF right then, proceeded correctly. No bashing is needed...
OTOH, those who needed a FF before Pentax said they'll make one (i.e. before Ricoh), but waited and - despite information to the contrary - hoped it will come and believed silly April 1st jokes...

[Prairie Dog]

I'm having a lot of fun with my brand new K3-II and battery grip which arrived a week ago. I added it to my pair of K5s and K5IIs. I expect to be satisfied with it for several years and am not worried about or longing for an enhanced feature set from Pentax. It's main service will be with the DA*200 and DA*300 for airshows. I contemplated the D500 and the matching battery grip, however the additional expense of a couple of modern Nikon lenses was an expenditure I did not want to make and I have learned how to work with the Pentax auto focus system, plus the frame rate on the K3II is really quite adequate for my purposes.

[FantasticMrFox]

1. A Pentax APS-C flagship doesn't try to compete on the same performance class as a Nikon APS-C flaghsip (and obviously nor on the same price class). This is a fact.
That doesn't make the K-3II - or the still unknown successor we're talking about here - any less capable than they are; indeed, Pentax makes great cameras. They just aren't 10 fps beasts with an advanced 153 points AF systems.

2. If one wants Nikon D500 performance, indeed, the best idea is to get one - instead of waiting for Pentax to make it.

That's a bit of a straw man, because unless I have missed something no one here has seriously compared the K3 II to the D500, rather most commenters have explicitly stressed that they are aware that the D500 sits in a different tier. The comparisons have been with the D7200, which also has significantly better AF and better image quality than the K3 II, and people simply hope that the K3 II's successor manages to do some catching up in that regard, while retaining its strengths.

[Kunzite]

It's not a strawman, because I'm making no such accusations. I'm just making it clear that I'm not bashing the K-3II - nor its replacement - for not being a D500-class camera.

Is this "better image quality" observable, or only measurable? I'm assuming we're somehow not allowed to use Pixel Shift resolution, to prevent the Nikon from utterly losing.

Anyway, why aren't you asking for a "D7300" which would catch up with Pentax, in many other regards?

[LFLee]

I am looking forward to what come after 645z.

Now that Hassy has one (mirrorless) that is close enough in price with the Pentax 645.
eager to see how Pentax response... what can be added to the 645z?
- 5 axis stabilization?
- wifi?
- astro tracer?
- update focus?

[Nicolas06]

Is this "better image quality" observable, or only measurable? I'm assuming we're somehow not allowed to use Pixel Shift resolution, to prevent the Nikon from utterly losing.

Anyway, why aren't you asking for a "D7300" which would catch up with Pentax, in many other regards?

It depend who you are. If you love pixel peeping and landscapes with tripod, then K3-II the superior camera. If you love small high quality prime (that's me here) then K-mount the superior system... And I hope we get some more and not only DFA behemoh

If simply you do handled shots, D7200 picture quality is better than K3/K3-II. But yes the different will only show in your raw processing software enlarged to 100%. Exactly like pixel shift in fact.

But if you shoot at 1600iso and up, the D7200 significantly better dynamic range at high iso and sligly better SnR is quite significant. And if you shoot action, the better AF may be much more effective than 8.3FPS.

But yes obviously if we can keep K3-II current features, fix the AF various flows (so say at least K1 AF with z few more point, some f/8, the same coverage as K1 on APSC crop) and level the high iso perf of K70 with also a 50iso mode that would be truely great. A dedicated joystick to move the AF would also be really really nice.

For sure that camera would be superior the D7200 because of SR, pixel shift, build quality...

[Kunzite]

All right, let's try again - since you're avoiding my question

The D7200 itself is "fixing" some issues with the previous camera - the abysmal buffer, for example, and image quality/banding issues. The K-3 II is just a minor update of the K-3, thus stuck at year 2013 level; what I'm expecting now is a true replacement for the K-3.
Even so, the D7200 is not better than the K-3/K-3 II from every point of view, but it's actually losing from some. A comparison fixated on the K-3 II's weaker points is invalid, strong points should be considered as well.

[Nicolas06]

All right, let's try again - since you're avoiding my question

The D7200 itself is "fixing" some issues with the previous camera - the abysmal buffer, for example, and image quality/banding issues. The K-3 II is just a minor update of the K-3, thus stuck at year 2013 level; what I'm expecting now is a true replacement for the K-3.
Even so, the D7200 is not better than the K-3/K-3 II from every point of view, but it's actually losing from some. A comparison fixated on the K-3 II's weaker points is invalid, strong points should be considered as well.

I agree but it is valid, people concentrate on the point they care. I care of small/light decent AF, great small primes. K3 + ltds give me 2 things out of 3, and that why my hope is with more ltds in the future as well as a mirrorless K-mount with much better EVF/liveview than even K70 today. Some spoke to me about Fuji, and maybe was I coming from 0 that would be a possibility, but it doesn't look better. In particular I see that I use most often my FA77 on my K3 (so 115mm FF equiv) and the shoots I tend to like the most are from this lens... There no equivalent in Fuji. So in a sense I am quite happy with what I have and will not change brand. There nothing better for me than what I have today. I am waiting for smaller/ligher body, better small WA prime better than DA21/DA15 for field curvature and would appreciate better high iso, better AF along the way, but that's it as long as AF is at least at K3 levels. I also fully benefit of SR.

But in the end this is still a mater of lenses to me. As far as features are concerned, the best feature of Pentax APSC is K-mount support (read DA/FA ltds).

As far as camera are concerned, I do think D7200 overall in absolute term a better camera. Sure K3-II has more FPS, more buffer, but this useless if the AF system doesn't pick up. pixel shift is very specialized and cover an area where all camera are more than good enough, so it doesn't matter and it can be used only in select few situations anyway. This is not like we were still at 6-8MP. But anyway I don't leverage that much the D7200 strengths neither.

I am not alone thinking that but I guess Ricoh can really work from what they have, the AF problem is almost solved I guess next generation or the one after will have 50+ AF points wide coverage (at least on APSC) and they will continue to tweak the algorithms so K3-II sucessor would be likely superior or equal to D7200.

Nikon will of course make a D7300 and D500 will still be better, but that may be completely inconsequential it may be better to be great everywhere without much weaknesses (AF still a bit a weakness with K3/K1, but a quite small one now) and I do think that what K3-II sucessor will be can be without any weaknesses. But that suppose at least K1 AF sensor, improved algorithms, 4K support, an joystick to select the AF point, an articulated screen, K70 or better high iso perf for the next APSC flagship and keeping the actual strengths: SR, pixel shift, build quality, good buffers and FPS.

It is quite likely we will get that actually even if I don't hold my breath on video or the joystick and I would dream a new AF sensor (with 50+ AF points) will be this generation but I think we are more likely to get 27 or 33 AF points instead.

[totsmuyco]

There will always be improvements on cameras particularly with canikon. Pentax has a lot of catching up to do particularly in AF. If the k-3II successor will be as good as the D7200, I agree with Nicholas06, Nikon will have its D7300. But, it having the D7200 AF would be a great improvement for Pentax.

[Kunzite]

Nicolas, you might be trying to find out what camera is better for you, but "overall in absolute term"?
What if we change a little bit the context, and AF isn't as important? (By the way, I'm also not seeing any of the new D FA lenses in your gear list). What if the ability to shoot with compact high quality stabilized primes is the better choice? What if we're talking build quality? Ergonomics? What if you're shooting static subjects on a tripod, and Composition Adjustment would help greatly with precise alignment?

An absolute judgement should still remain valid in any context. Yours, doesn't; and this kind of thinking, that one could devise an "overall in absolute term" evaluation of a camera is what gave us those silly review scores. Oh, wait, the Nikon is an 84% camera while the Pentax is just an 73% camera, the Nikon is so obviously better!
And just like that, there would be no reason to buy Pentax, ever.