[bkpix]

OK, after a bit of waffling I just hit the button for a (second) KP. Who can resist that price?

What this means for me is a firm commitment to APS-C for the foreseeable future. The K-1 called my name as loud as it could, but despite renting one not once but twice, I never really bonded. I couldn't detect a clear advantage to shooting full frame that outweighed the considerable extra expense. (I knew I'd ultimately be buying a bunch of D FA glass to go with it.)

Mostly, though, the KP does everything I need from a camera and does it really well, in a cool, compact little body. The photos I get hold up great in 20x30 prints, with image quality that matches both my 6D and occasional dalliances with the K-1. I like shooting with two bodies, and it helps if they're identical. I have shot a lot of photos with my well-used K-5 and K-5IIs hung round my neck. So now I'm back in camera heaven.

Speaking of those two K-5s, I suppose now I need to sell/donate them. I will miss them. They have a solidity in the hand that is nearly perfect.

Anyway, forking over for a second KP guarantees that Ricoh will announce a K-3 Mark 3 that's got KP image quality in a K-3/5 body. Like, tomorrow. So y'all can thank me when it comes out

The KP at the Oregon coast this weekend. Two in-camera BW jpgs made with handheld HDR, my latest addiction:

---

Last edited by bkpix; 11-25-2018 at 06:17 PM. Reason: Add photo caption

[Thagomizer]

I guess I need to bookmark this section - I get irritated when people ask "Should I get a K-70 or a KP", and the answer is something like "Why pay more for the KP?" I've always thought the prosumer build-quality alone justified the KP, but apparently there is a lot else going on here.

I went through the K-70 vs KP wrestling match myself when ACB failure on my K-S2 left me without a camera for a while. Had I poseesed a crystal ball and waited a year before getting my last camera it probably would have been the K-70, but the breakdown of two Canon lenses in quick succession due to ribbon cable fatigue failures left me without 2/3s of my Canon lens arsenal. My second hand 20D was getting a little long in the tooth, but a 70D (which I had tried and liked) was more than I could afford. Never been a big fan of the Rebel series; a bit too plasticky and insubstantial for my liking. A Rebel would have felt like a step down. I got the K-S2 after trying one out.

Alas, after 43,000 some-odd clicks, my K-S2 started throwing dark frames this past summer, so into the shop for repair it went. In the meantime I studied, read and thought.

Points for the K-70:

-Similarity of layout and ergonomics to K-S2, so less time required for adaptation to a different body form and control configuration.

-Fully articulated screen, which I use a lot on my K-S2 for macro shots in akward places and, yes, selfies of my wife and I in our travels!

-Lower price.

-IR port and wired release capability (though I've never had an IR release or a cellphone; self timer has , so far been sufficient with my K-S2)

-more powerful flash.

-Shared pixel shift with KP.

Points for the KP

-Better IBIS (my hands aren't getting any steadier...)

-More focusing points, more advanced processor, reportedly better AF/high ISO performance.

-Better build, better, quieter shutter unit, reportedly better aperture control block than K-30, K-50, K-S2, K-70(?).

-Battery grip available (which has been recommended for cold weather use; my wife and I are going to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories at the end of winter, so cold will be happening!)

I had a chance to borrow a KP while my K-S2 was in for surgery and was very pleased with its performance. That finally decided me. Reading comments on this Forum had helped, too. I'm liking the new control arrangement. Before buying it, I hadn't thought much about the third control dial, but now that I've got it I'm finding it really useful, moreso than a top deck LCD. Given the choice of one or the other, I'd take the dial. I'm getting used to the different grip, too. I'm using the largest of the three supplied, which is still smaller than that of the K-S2.

I've heard that 2019 will be "interesting" with, I'm guessing, the release of the K-3III (or whatever it's called). While the next flagship APS-C camera will no doubt be an excellent camera, I decided to go ahead with the KP rather than wait. The new machine will probably be bigger and heavier, which I could put up with, but would rather not. It will certainly be more expensive, too. I've never felt the need for a second card slot and I haven't really missed the top LCD that I last had with a Canon 20D. Battery lifre hasn't really been an issue, though I could see it would be for someone shooting more than I do. But I've got a grip now, and some extra batteries, just in case! The KP has been a step up from anything I've had before and I'm enjoying it a great deal.

-

[Breakfastographer]

[...]

Points for the K-70:

[...]

-IR port and wired release capability (though I've never had an IR release or a cellphone; self timer has , so far been sufficient with my K-S2)

[...]

KP shutter release ... Wired and Wireless options that work ! - PentaxForums.com

[reh321]

I went through the K-70 vs KP wrestling match myself when ACB failure on my K-S2 left me without a camera for a while. Had I poseesed a crystal ball and waited a year before getting my last camera it probably would have been the K-70, but the breakdown of two Canon lenses in quick succession due to ribbon cable fatigue failures left me without 2/3s of my Canon lens arsenal. My second hand 20D was getting a little long in the tooth, but a 70D (which I had tried and liked) was more than I could afford. Never been a big fan of the Rebel series; a bit too plasticky and insubstantial for my liking. A Rebel would have felt like a step down. I got the K-S2 after trying one out.

Alas, after 43,000 some-odd clicks, my K-S2 started throwing dark frames this past summer, so into the shop for repair it went.

I know this is off topic here, but I'm wondering how many calendar months you owned the K-S2 before it suddenly started producing dark frames?

[Thagomizer]

I know this is off topic here, but I'm wondering how many calendar months you owned the K-S2 before it suddenly started producing dark frames?

Purchased early November 2015; dark frames started late August 2018. That's when I checked my shutter count. I don't know how much use other models typically had before they began to fail, but I imagine 43,000 frames in less than three years is heavier than average use. Frustrating, but I'd known it was a possiblity for some time. Luck of the draw.

[newmikey]

I guess I need to bookmark this section - I get irritated when people ask "Should I get a K-70 or a KP", and the answer is something like "Why pay more for the KP?" I've always thought the prosumer build-quality alone justified the KP, but apparently there is a lot else going on here.

Wow! Surprise...

With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR.

To use your own vocabulary: whatever...

For most people, the K-70 is more than enough. They take their SD card out of the K-70, drive to Wal-Mart, plug in the card and "Viola" they take their perfectly acceptable 4 x 6 pictures home and their Pro-Sumer camera did great. However, many others in this forum take their photography much more seriously--it is a true hobby/passion for me and I take my pictures seriously and strive to improve. Advanced systems on cameras helps me achieve that goal.

That is seriously condescending, isn't it? Also, if you look at K-70 users here and on other forums, it's also very untrue. Since when do we measure how serious someone is about photography by the camera they use?

This whole thread has convinced me more than ever that a lot of people on this forum literally have no bloody idea what they're talking about on the subject of photography, whether cameras, software or results.

[house]

Regarding the photons to photos graphs. The difference could also be attributed to slightly better sensor run with similar accelerator settings? Perhaps I've missed it but do we know if the K-70 and KP have the same sensor?

[reh321]

Purchased early November 2015; dark frames started late August 2018. That's when I checked my shutter count. I don't know how much use other models typically had before they began to fail, but I imagine 43,000 frames in less than three years is heavier than average use. Frustrating, but I'd known it was a possiblity for some time. Luck of the draw.

Experience suggests that age in months is at least as much of an issue as is usage - in fact, many of the failing K-30/50s had been sitting on a shelf for some months and failed when taken off for a vacation or holiday. My K-30 started having issues at almost exactly 3 years - apparently your experience with a K-S2 was similar {thank you for the information}.

[reh321]

With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR.

To use your own vocabulary: whatever...

You must agree with me, since you went from a K-5iis to a K-70.

I actually still don't see a lot of difference between my K20D files and the K-5's and it was only when I upgraded to a K-5 IIs that the usability improvement made me feel that I was actually pushing the envelope. The upgrade from the K-5 IIs was a careful consideration between going for the KP and the K-70 which the latter one won

[newmikey]

You must agree with me, since you went from a K-5iis to a K-70.

I really have trouble understanding what you mean. Are you suggesting the K-5 IIs raws contain less noise and more detail than those the K-70 produces? That's not really my experience and it sounds really odd.

[Merv-O]

Wow! Surprise...


To use your own vocabulary: whatever...


That is seriously condescending, isn't it? Also, if you look at K-70 users here and on other forums, it's also very untrue. Since when do we measure how serious someone is about photography by the camera they use?

This whole thread has convinced me more than ever that a lot of people on this forum literally have no bloody idea what they're talking about on the subject of photography, whether cameras, software or results.

Don't get me wrong: not condescending at all. I owned a K-50 until last year. However, when my young cousin took some sample shots with my K-50 (she was interested in photography) she enjoyed the experience. When she borrowed my K-3ii she said that it was too "advanced" and asked where the "Specific" scene icons were? When her Father asked me what the price point of the K-50 was versus some of my other cameras I let her sample (Leica M9/M240--Nikon D7100), he was relieved to know that the (then) $500 K-50 was her favorite.
I am glad that Pentax offers a camera that bridges prosumer enthusiast needs as well as beginner DSLR shooting at a reasonable price. My point is that a year later, I asked my niece how her photography was progressing and she said great--most of the time I keep it on Auto because the phots are great for posting on the internet.
When I showed her some of the ways she could use the camera as an imaging tool, she wasn't interested.
However, when I asked her if she liked the Pentax, she said that she would probably get another one and had heard the new one (K-70) had a tilt screen for selfies....Anecdotal? Sure. But I stand by what I said. The differences in advanced DSLRs is not the sensor per se, it's the firmware, software and feature set which ultimately allows the photographer to shape, alter and create. The K-70 does well, but it is not a flagship--though I did take great pics with my K-50 that surpass many shots from my K-1ii presently. Ultimately it's the shooter not the device.

[Breakfastographer]

I really have trouble understanding what you mean. Are you suggesting the K-5 IIs raws contain less noise and more detail than those the K-70 produces? That's not really my experience and it sounds really odd.

Ron Brandon (may he rest in peace) compared the K-5 IIs vs. the K-3 when that was new, and it was clear the K-3 was capturing more detail. I would assume that conclusion is somewhat true of any other 24 megapixel sensor with weak or absent AA filter.

[reh321]

I really have trouble understanding what you mean. Are you suggesting the K-5 IIs raws contain less noise and more detail than those the K-70 produces? That's not really my experience and it sounds really odd.

You must have missed the uproar over the K-1ii. The 'accelerator', first used on the K-70 then on the KP then on the K-1ii, reduces noise, but at the cost of a small loss of detail. I am saying that a 24mp image has enough detail that I can afford to have small amounts of it lost if the benefit is less noise; in your case, most likely a K-70 'raw' has at least as much detail, but less noise, than a corresponding K-5iis 'raw' does.

[kypfer]

Regarding the photons to photos graphs. The difference could also be attributed to slightly better sensor run with similar accelerator settings? Perhaps I've missed it but do we know if the K-70 and KP have the same sensor?

I asked a similar question a few pages back ... I've just reviewed all the subsequent postings and may have missed a relevant answer, but I don't think so. Maybe nobody knows?

[newmikey]

The differences in advanced DSLRs is not the sensor per se, it's the firmware, software and feature set which ultimately allows the photographer to shape, alter and create. The K-70 does well, but it is not a flagship ... Ultimately it's the shooter not the device.

Fully agree! For me the articulated LCD is a godsend for shooting architecture straight up (not possible on a KP-type screen). Either KP or K-70 type LCDs work well for macro-work and very low viewpoints (such as the image of my dog I posted a few weeks ago) but to be able to mount the camera on a tripod and shoot (near)nadir images is a big pro to me. Other than that, both cameras share enough of a featureset to make them near-identical for my kind of shooting (no sports, no flash-photography). The features the K-70 lacks in comparison ended up not being as decisive. Both cameras have Av, TAv, M and B modes and those are the ones I use 99.99% of the time and both cameras deliver near-identical results in landscape photography at low to mid-range ISO levels (100-6400) where I spend most of my effort. As I shoot exclusively in PEF, I don't really care much about what either jpeg engine does in-camera either.

As to the build-quality differences some people seem to hang onto: I've always been able to keep all of my Pentax bodies in a decent condition and have been successful in selling them on 2nd-hand for a fair price so someone else could enjoy them. I don't think I've even come close to testing the limits of sturdiness of any of those cameras. The K-70 still feels quite solid and decent to me but I have the same argument as the one I use against "protecting" lenses with a filter: the cost of the risk of replacement materializing does not justify the extra expenditure if said expenditure is not proportionate to the cost of the equipment it is supposed to protect/replace. Same argument as the one used on insurances: "don't insure against the expected and the bearable".

With other words: if both K-70 and KP do what I need them to do from a technical perspective, deliver the same image quality, better build quality can/may account for a reasonable price difference. At the time of my upgrade from the K-5 IIs some 18 months ago, the price difference between K-70 and KP was nearly 90% and therefore not justified AFAIC.

Ron Brandon (may he rest in peace) compared the K-5 IIs vs. the K-3 when that was new, and it was clear the K-3 was capturing more detail. I would assume that conclusion is somewhat true of any other 24 megapixel sensor with weak or absent AA filter.

All that says that, at equal settings, that particular 24mp camera resolves more detail than that particular 16mp camera. That goes nowhere to explain or backup your statement "With 24mp, I'm willing to forego detail to get good solid NR" and we're not talking about the K-3 here either. If you're just settling for any NR the camera firmware applies either in raw or before cooking the jpeg I would assume you'd have to settle for as good a compromise as possible between NR and detail retention. If all you care about is less noise, just apply a hefty amount of gaussian blur in post - you'll end up with zero noise (and a blurry image without any details).

I'm more interested in the SNR delivered in raw by any given camera model and I'll do my own noise reduction in post if needed. Then, I can analyze the noise characteristics of any given image and trade between detail and noise as much as I care for, using processor power, memory and processing time not available at the time of shooting due to hardware limitations of the camera.

Eventually, the K-70 SNR differs only slightly from that of the KP and only in the higher ISO ranges (which I tend not to use often). But you'll just say "whatever" again so I'm unsure why I'm spending time on this discussion.