[NickF]

Not sure if this is the right place to mention this, but recently RICOH was doing some survey to Japanese users on KP and there were two questions that was interesting to me.

Q20. There are 3 types of camera which the only difference will be its size and number of frames it can shoot continuously. Which would you choose?

a. Max 15 frames/sec, a bit larger in terms of size to K-3.
b. Max 9 frames/sec, smaller in terms of size to K-3.
c. Max 7 frames/sec, size similar to entry models.
d. Not sure, uninterested.

Q21. Which viewfinder sounds attractive to you?

a. Eye relief length couple of millimeters short compared to K-3, but wide enough to cover the view of full size DSLR.
b. Eye relief length same to K-3 and magnification over 1.0x
c. Not sure, uninterested.

I chose a and b. The rest of the questions were all about KP in general, but the above had "K-3" in it and sounded bit interesting to me.
Not sure if this is something related to the K-3 series successor, but isn't it fun to imagine how that going to be?

[leekil]

Did they also ask about buffer size, or only frame rate?

[tvdtvdtvd]

It would be interesting to see the entire survey. Is it online?

[Kunzite]

Interesting, thanks for the heads up.
I think there's room for 2 higher-end APS-C cameras, a "true flagship" a+b solution and a "travel companion" b/c+b. Then some less expensive option which I don't care about
(I wear glasses so eye relief is important to me).
In other words, an "up there with the best" camera, for which size isn't as important; and... a KP?

[The Squirrel Mafia]

These are very interesting questions

I'm 50/50 on 15 FPS & slightly larger body or 9 FPS & smaller body. I'd be cool either way. It does make me wonder if they have made a huge improvement in the upcoming AF module.

I'd definitely pick B for the second one.

I do wonder if they're going to attempt to grab some Nikon D500 or Canon 7DII market share or if they're trying to 1 up the Nikon D7500, Canon 80D, & Sony A77II. In either case, hopefully they are hard at work at making a really good K-3II upgrade. I'm patiently waiting to upgrade my K-50.

[beachgardener]

in general, a bigger buffer and they need a processor that will initiate faster buffer clear speeds

[Kunzite]

What is really interesting here is the connection between size and performance.

[Sandy Hancock]

Now we have the KP as a highish end compact travel option, I think a new APS-C flagship needs to give the D500 a bit of competition.

15 FPS would be great, as long as it was accompanied with a decent buffer and ideally improved AFC and tracking. Use the big AF sensor array of the K-1 to cover most of the APS-C frame and we'd really be cooking.

If all that necessitated a modest size increase I'd be willing to wear it.

[GodsPetMonkey]

I would have thought that the specs for a K-3II successor would be pretty much locked in (assuming launch later this year). Though they may be looking further down the line, or even at revamping the way they position their lines (moving away from the entry/mid/flagship model?).

Still, 15fps would be stunning... class leading... even the D500 only pulls off 10fps. More buffer would help, but it wouldn't deliver a near 2x improvement over the current K-3II. A massive FPS boost and an increase in size? Maybe a massive jump in processing power... or maybe Ricoh are considering duplicating the imaging chain? Certainly some interesting scope for innovation if they can pull it off, but I question the value in sinking R&D into sports-camera features given Pentax's reputation in that space. Still, if they have they develop the AF capability to match, it would be a stunning product and knock the wind out of Canon/Nikon.

[normhead]

Of course my choice would be probably 10 or 11 FPS, with an 150 shot buffer that could be cleared in under 20 seconds. To me the survey is composed to discourage that answer. 15 FPS is really fast, like 1Dx fast, that's creating a lot of files. 9 FPS is barely better than a K-3.

That's the trouble with these surveys. They are designed so no human needs to interpret the answers (that would cost more money) and kept simple. Would want maybe 12 FPS with focus confirm turned on. With tracking turned on my 8,3 FPS K-3 slows down to 4 FPS.

The issues are not as simple as the survey would indicate. Pentax has cheated on the FPS thing. Compared to a D 750 or D500 which maintain their frame rate with tracking on, clearly a fast AF system that is being held back by the shutter, Pentax has a similar shutter but it's held back by the AF system when tracking. They didn't ask the right question.

What's scary about that is, if they aren't asking the right questions they won't get the right answer. The right answer is 11-12 FPS with focus priority turned on.
And the other scary thing is they asked everyone in Japan, they didn't ask shooters like me.

If I really care about that type of photography, I'm going to probably go to a Nikon D500 with a 150-600 type lens, like everyone else. I can't imagine Pentax doing anything that would change that. They just don't have a track record with high performance gear. The Nikon for action thing has been going on since the F4 back in the 90s when they came out with 6 FPS and AF on a film camera.

Here we are 3 years later, having gone digital, and Pentax still can't do 6 FPS with tracking AF turned on. SO seeing it even mentioned in a survey is scary. It's just not what they are good at, and like the survey, they just don't seem to understand the extent of an upgrade they'd need to implement to get me to buy their product. It's not just a matter of FPS. 8 FPS is awesome, if focus priority is turned on. The frame rate is not the problem.

[Jeff Lopez]

This is a very horrible way to do metrics, for a complicated and expensive electronic device. If you were to ask for features for a dream dslr, you would consult with field related professionals.
Surveys like this are targeted to amatuers and point and shoot people, seems that Ricoh has plans
for a new GR. This particular survey is worthless, how many people in your town know about buffer size and camera fps?

[NickF]

Did they also ask about buffer size, or only frame rate?

They only mentioned about the frame rate.

It would be interesting to see the entire survey. Is it online?

It's an online survey but you will need an account to login and all in Japanese. I can list up the questions, but it will be a looong list for sure.

Besides the KP related question, the two questions came from the section "What would you like to see in future Pentax APS-C models?" section which had multiple choice like "4K video" "faster AF speed". I personally liked the new stuffs being listed like "BLE" and "USB mobile battery compatible".

[beholder3]

Q21. Which viewfinder sounds attractive to you?
a. Eye relief length couple of millimeters short compared to K-3, but wide enough to cover the view of full size DSLR.
b. Eye relief length same to K-3 and magnification over 1.0x

I need help here:
Are not both options describing a larger viewfinder perception?
a) talks about "wide enough to cover the view of full size DSLR" which seems to suggest that by shortening eye relief they make the viewfinder appear larger (as large as FF)
b) does not use a shorter eye relief but higher magnification (which will make things a little darker, because then the same light is used for a larger area)

Anyhow it hints at them wanting to provide an even better viewfinder experience on APSC and the K-3 was already very good with no competition being significantly better.

---------- Post added 18th Apr 2017 at 17:15 ----------

I can list up the questions, but it will be a looong list for sure.

That would be interesting. Probably good enough to use google translate and then only manually correct the weirdest things.

---------- Post added 18th Apr 2017 at 17:16 ----------

I personally liked the new stuffs being listed like "BLE" and "USB mobile battery compatible".

The latter sounds like powerbank compatible which would be a good move.

But what is "BLE"?

[farhagh]

Not sure if this is the right place to mention this, but recently RICOH was doing some survey to Japanese users on KP and there were two questions that was interesting to me.

Q20. There are 3 types of camera which the only difference will be its size and number of frames it can shoot continuously. Which would you choose?

a. Max 15 frames/sec, a bit larger in terms of size to K-3.
b. Max 9 frames/sec, smaller in terms of size to K-3.
c. Max 7 frames/sec, size similar to entry models.
d. Not sure, uninterested.

Q21. Which viewfinder sounds attractive to you?

a. Eye relief length couple of millimeters short compared to K-3, but wide enough to cover the view of full size DSLR.
b. Eye relief length same to K-3 and magnification over 1.0x
c. Not sure, uninterested.

I chose a and b. The rest of the questions were all about KP in general, but the above had "K-3" in it and sounded bit interesting to me.
Not sure if this is something related to the K-3 series successor, but isn't it fun to imagine how that going to be?

Interesting; are the other questions in that details too? If so, that's a very good sign they intend to consider users needs/priorities in design strategy. You do not see it often enough!

[The Squirrel Mafia]

But what is "BLE"?

Bluetooth Low Energy