Originally posted by biz-engineer it's not a mystery The replacement was the KP.
Maybe, maybe not. From its release I always saw the KP as the next in the line of experiments begun with the KS-1.
Much more serious than the KS-1 or KS-2 and clearly aimed at the prosumer crowd and yet also clearly and distinctly
different from the flagship line.
Originally posted by biz-engineer People deny that the KP was the successor of the K3II because they don't realize that the Pentax user base is a user base of slow shooter and Ricoh doesn't make a 300 f2.8 , 400 f4 and 600 f4 lenses. The difficulty when being the camera business, is the diversity of customers, some want features that they understand, while others want features because they saw it in the catalogue on competitor brands and they want the same.
?????
I am a slow(*) shooter and I rarely ever use long lenses. But I fail to see how that obviates the other qualities of the K-3. Top end build
is my first draw to the flagship line to be quite honest, especially when Pentax has always delivered that at such a reasonable price.
The fact that the K-3 has a much higher rated shutter and has not suffered from aperture block failure is IMO plenty validation for
wanting to purchase the flagship line. Throw in dual card slots, better battery and a few other features and I will continue to set my
eyes on the flagship line, even if I'm paying for things I really don't need, like 8.3 fps.
Now, whether or not the APS-C flagship line was meant to come to an end with the K-3 is debatable. I do think their is some credence
to suggest the >
K-1< was the intended successor to the K-3. Most all the people pining for FF were flagship APS-C shooters
and the overall design philosophy of the K-1 is that of the APS-C flagship line, only bigger.
The KP, on the other hand, is an entirely different camera, with natural advancements but also clear disadvantages. Sound familiar?
That's because we saw those same qualities in the KS-1 and KS-2 when they were released.
Denial isn't even required.
* - I assume by 'slow' you mean someone who doesn't chase fast moving subjects at a long distance??? To that end, yes, I am a slow
shooter. I typically shoot wide to portrait, I use MF as much if not more than AF and I rarely ever shoot on burst. I like to consider my
shooting style as 'measured', as opposed to the spazzy spray and pray shooter who argues about burst rates and buffer capacities.