[dmrbrtsn]

This is only my second thread in here and I have a question pls. My first was asking about troubleshooting a new k70 I had received. Ended up returning because it was defective (bummer). Now that Ive read more info here I’m wondering about the KP. I’ve just started photography again after many years. I have a istdl2. I like to shoot a lot of zoom landscape and wildlife so that’s important but if one is good at that does it mean it’s lacking in the macro or moving photos? Hope this makes sense since I’m not as knowledgeable as others. Would appreciate any suggestions or info. Thank you.

[SSGGeezer]

I wanted a K-70 when I initially started looking to buy a DSLR last summer and found a good deal on a Kit K-50 that saved me a few hundred dollars versus purchasing the K-70. I ordered my KP today at Adorama since it was an amazing deal with free goodies including a DA 50 1.8 lens. I wanted the extended ISO performance, more focus points, ultrasonic dust removal, and the SR II Shake reduction system. The magnesium frame was also something I was intrigued with. I am just future-proofing my APSC purchase since I don't expect to buy another one for the next several years at a minimum..
I ordered without ever handling one since by all accounts it is like a little brother to the K-1, which feels like an ingot of metal that takes pictures when you hold it. I am getting excited since it is packed and on the way.
Here is the best way to compare by using the pull down menus to select the cameras you want to compare. There are also links to the PF reviews.Pentax K-70 vs. Pentax KP vs. Pentax K-50 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

[Adam]

This is only my second thread in here and I have a question pls. My first was asking about troubleshooting a new k70 I had received. Ended up returning because it was defective (bummer). Now that Ive read more info here I’m wondering about the KP. I’ve just started photography again after many years. I have a istdl2. I like to shoot a lot of zoom landscape and wildlife so that’s important but if one is good at that does it mean it’s lacking in the macro or moving photos? Hope this makes sense since I’m not as knowledgeable as others. Would appreciate any suggestions or info. Thank you.

From an image quality perspective, the K-70 and KP are on equal footing. So, do you mind spending a little more for a better-build body with a quieter shutter and better longevity? If not, then get the KP.

Any modern camera will completely crush the DL in terms of performance.

[btnapa]

Would appreciate any suggestions or info

If money is not a problem get the KP. There is a special going on at B&H and Adorama. I also saw the special price for the 55-300 on the forum today. That would be a killer combo for landscape and nature work. You will still need a shorter lens possible the 16-85 or any of the excellent primes Pentax offers.

I own a K1 and a K5IIs but got to try the KP at the recent WPPI show and was blown away by the quality of the image especially at high ISO settings. The camera felt nice in my hand (smallish hand). I am thinking about selling the K5IIs and getting a KP instead. one of the lenses I always wanted was the 20-40 limited zoom. It is an APSc lens and will not work on my K1 otherwise I would have bought it a long time ago.

K70 vs. KP? You cannot go wrong with either. But for extra rugged magnesium body and additional goodies, I would go for the KP. Also remember you may change bodies but lenses last longer and through many body upgrades so choose your lenses for the long run. Hope I was of some help.

---

Last edited by btnapa; 03-01-2018 at 05:53 PM. Reason: typo

[Alex645]

I like to shoot a lot of zoom landscape and wildlife so that’s important but if one is good at that does it mean it’s lacking in the macro or moving photos?

This is a bit of oversimplification, but the main advantage of the K-70 is the ergonomics and the price.

But other than those two areas, the KP is better in terms of ISO performance, auto focus speed, and frames per second. For someone shooting wildlife or using a long lens, those are important assets.

It doesn't mean you can't get great action or movement with the K-70, but in a comparison, the KP is a better camera IF you don't mind the retro grip and can afford the higher price tag.

[mikesbike]

Depends on what ergonomics are considered. Depends on what one is looking for. The KP has a control set of superior design. The K-70 has a deeper built-on grip. But the KP's grip can be altered, or customized, including the availability of the optional battery grip, which not only considerably extends its gripability beyond that of the K-70, but also extends its battery capacity well beyond that of the K-70, and has duplicated vertical-position controls as well. There's the quieter shutter, superior build quality, and a host of other refinements also.

[mnhoj]

I'm very happy with the K-70.
Imo it represents a great value all things considered.

I think I'd be happy with a KP.
The set of features worth the extra $.

Either one.
Win win.

[mike.hiran]

From an image quality perspective, the K-70 and KP are on equal footing. So, do you mind spending a little more for a better-build body with a quieter shutter and better longevity? If not, then get the KP.

Any modern camera will completely crush the DL in terms of performance.

While it's probably true the image quality, all else being equal, should be the same between the KP and k70, it's also true that the KP has better stabilization and an easier to use interface. These two things will make it so you get more keepers. Granted, the times that these things will make the difference between getting the shot and not are pretty fringe cases. But increased stabilization will give you sharper pictures more often in use cases like low light work where a tripod isn't used. So social, travel, and sports would all benefit from 5 stop vs 3 stop stabilzation.

But the question becomes is it worth the extra cost. I think someone is giving a DA50 f.18 with the purchase of a KP so the difference in price is about $200. If you keep this camera for 4 years, that's about an extra $1 a week. I'd do that...

[SSGGeezer]

Adorama has the lens with a carry pouch, lens filter, lens cleaning kit, and software codes for the same price as the body alone.

[Adam]

5 stop vs 3 stop stabilzation.

5-axis, not stop, AFAIK.

[Alex645]

5-axis, not stop, AFAIK.

Actually itʻs both: 5-axis and "up to" 5 stops. In published tests itʻs more like 3.7 stops 100% of the time and a lower percentage up to 5 stops. Thatʻs still a huge benefit for anyone with a two legged tripod.

[cport]

Because your intention is to keep this camera longer, definitely buy KP now. Among stuffs mentioned above, the aperture mechanism in K-70 might be more prone to fail.

And other features - much better IS (even in comparison to K-3 II), better AF, much higher usable ISO values, possible grip option ...

[Cerebum]

I recently moved from the k30-K3 and was staggered by the difference. I didn’t see much in image quality as the K30 is great but functionality and build are at a different level. Every time I pick up the K3 I smile because the feel is indescribable. The comparison is similar because the Kp is currently in the K3ii gap Having a top lcd is also incredibly handy. Re the aperture issue, it is hugely expensive and that would stop me getting a K30, 50 or 70. It only affected 30%, and not many of them were K70s but I wouldn’t take the risk. The Kp has had some reviewers underwhelmed but those here who use it, love it, but you could always see if you can find a nearly new K3 (mine had 415 clicks) or K3ii. Sorry for the ramble, my vote goes to Kp

[gatorguy]

While it's probably true the image quality, all else being equal, should be the same between the KP and k70, it's also true that the KP has better stabilization and an easier to use interface. These two things will make it so you get more keepers. Granted, the times that these things will make the difference between getting the shot and not are pretty fringe cases. But increased stabilization will give you sharper pictures more often in use cases like low light work where a tripod isn't used. So social, travel, and sports would all benefit from 5 stop vs 3 stop stabilzation.

But the question becomes is it worth the extra cost. I think someone is giving a DA50 f.18 with the purchase of a KP so the difference in price is about $200. If you keep this camera for 4 years, that's about an extra $1 a week. I'd do that...

I think the K-70 has up to 4.5 stops of stabilization compared to the KP's 5 doesn't it? That's a negligible difference IMHO.

[gatorguy]

When I can count the barbs on the vane of a bird's feather on a 110% crop (IIRC) of a K-70 pic I think it becomes good enough for me.