[mikesbike]

The K-70 is one of the best DSLR deals out there. It satisfies enough for many people. I know since I am happy shooting with my small but very good K-S2.

However, the durable build quality of the KP and the flagship models such as my K-5 IIs are far superior, as are also their set of controls. The KP's 5-axis SR system is also better for low light hand-held shots. The fact that an optional battery grip is available is important to some people. I don't use mine often, but when I want it, it is there- such as for long-term handling with certain larger, heavier lenses, and for lengthy events shooting where I will not want to be interrupted by battery changing. She people prefer using the battery grip all the time, but I like being able to also minimize size with a small lens and the small grip.

[gatorguy]

The K-70 is one of the best DSLR deals out there. It satisfies enough for many people. I know since I am happy shooting with my small but very good K-S2.

However, the durable build quality of the KP and the flagship models such as my K-5 IIs are far superior, as are also their set of controls. The KP's 5-axis SR system is also better for low light hand-held shots.

Shake reduction is not noticeably different between the 4.5 SR stops of the K-70 and 5 stops of the KP. You probably were confused with your K-S2's 3.5 SR stops, and yes that might be a significantly difference depending on your subjects. That said I can't say I really noticed it myself tho I haven't picked up the K-S2 in a few months (Sold one of the two). That's my son's camera to use if we go hiking, 55-300 PLM attached.

[DW58]

As others have mentioned waiting a little longer for the newest APS-C would be something to seriously consider. If it hits the shelves out of your price range I'm fairly certain there will be a flood of "experienced" cameras that will become available. Personally I like to buy new but there could be some great deals in the near future.

[zahnski]

I‘ve got the K1 and the KP: usually I take the K1, the KP I take when I need the additional reach of the crop factor and a bit more FPS or if I want an unobstrusive camera.
If I only should choose one of them I would pick the K1: I like the field of view of FF better than that of APSC and own the lenses I need to get it.

[stihlmania]

Until the new Pentax camera is officially offered for pre-order,, my K3-II is the way of the future for me. Other than AF-C it excels in everything I ask of a camera. If the new Pentax camera is a K3-II sucessor it will get a pre order from me. Then all my Pentax older DSLR's except the 1ST DS will get sold...If not, OOOOHHHHH!

[MJKoski]

I had K-1 mk1, then some other stuff after which I used KP for a while before getting K-1 mk2. The way I see it, KP requires the battery grip with D-LI90 to be of serious use outside when temperatures drop enough. On the other hand, modern lens selection for KP weights a LOT less than top of the line selection for K-1.

KP with proper pixel-shift technique reaches K-1 level of details but obviously loses when one does the same with K-1. KP tilt screen is pretty basic compared to K-1. So yeah, Pentax means IQ and usability for me and K-1 gives me just that. I have this creepy little IR-converted Fuji for random summertime nature walks and such but that's it.

[Mikesul]

.

I've often wondered just how the K-5IIs compares with the K-3II in terms of image quality. Care to share your thinking of this?


I know the K-3II has pixel shift and more mega pixels and probably better auto-focus - but I don't care about any of that, I only care about the IQ of the images themselves.


Thanks...

I think many of us were initially disappointed in the K-3 (later the 3ii). The K-5iis was a fine camera. in the end I got used to the higher pixel density and generally was very happy with the K-3ii.

[roberts_camera]

Thanks to all of you for sharing your advice. I am going to wait until the new camera is released to make my decision as many of you suggested. Sure it isn't the short term gratification I want, but I'm sure it's the best choice to make!

[Biff]

This is a very helpful thread. I have a K-5 IIs and was thinking about a KP during one of the upcoming sales, or a K-1 II. In thinking of the KP I started reading review and comparisons with the K-3 II and now realize for a variety of reasons I think I'd rather have a K-3 II than a KP. Wish they were still available new.

[JensE]

I am going to wait until the new camera is released to make my decision as many of you suggested.

Congrats to come to a conclusion despite the diverging advice. As long as the K-50 works reliably, it's definitely a viable and arguably a good one in terms of sustainability.

I'd nevertheless like to add some thoughts/experiences, maybe interesting to others: I'm using both a K-1 and a KP currently myself and post-processed a lot of pictures from my daughter's K-50. Several of them from trips, where I used a K-5 or K-1 at the same time.

From a raw image quality perspective, both K-1 and KP provide substantially more detail than the K-50 - you sure will have noticed that when renting the KP. The difference between KP and K-1 is much smaller, despite another 50% of pixels on top, because quite some of the detail in the K-50 is lost in the AA filter. In terms of dynamic range, the K-50 isn't bad at all, but it's clearly where the K-1 with its large sensor really shines. There is a lot of shadow detail, which can be pulled up. I haven't used the KP long enough, but so far it seems to come pretty close if you compare equal amounts of light captured - not wanting to start an equivalence discussion here, but think of similarly big lenses for both, which of course are not always available.

Handling-wise, with a bit of routine and customization, both cameras are quick to use and handle well. Compact/lightweight lenses, such as an FA35/2.0 (or the DA 35LTD) as a normal prime, the 15mm LDT ultra-wide, the often underrated compact and lightweight HD DA 18-50mm as standard zoom, any of the old-style 50mm lenses (F50/1.7 or 1.4, DA50/1.8), the still compact FA77mm, DFA 100mm macro and even the still lightweight 18-135mm and 55-300mm PLM handle on the KP really well. I'm using the 'large' grip and while it only covers 3 fingers plus the pinkie halfway below the camera, I feel confident with it. Other than those, I have used the Sigma 70-200mm/2.8, and that one feels a lot better with the grip. The K-1 in contrast feels glued in as soon as I take it into my hand, with any size of lens. No need for a grip, which would make it even heavier than it is. When I bought the KP, my plan was to use it for slightly other purposes/advantages than it turned out to be: The higher pixel density promised more detail for macros and less fatigue in my hand than from the heavy K-1, alas I underestimated the difference in handling that the K-1 display makes. The ability to arbitrarily tilt it allows me to reach better angles when using live view, and - to my aging eyes - the 10% extra height of the K-1 display makes a surprising difference. The K-1 viewfinder has a significantly wider angle of view, which is not always an advantage when wearing glasses. I tend to compose differently with both cameras. For another potential application, photographing sports on the field (more reach), I'm still torn between the KP and K-1. The later gets used in crop mode, which provides some nice context around the frame in the viewfinder, whereas the KP has a little more crop potential for far-away shots. Frame rates are similar (in crop), buffer is deeper in the K-1, but I haven't hit the limit on the KP the way I shoot. In the gym, every bit of extra light counts, the K-1 it is.

I always need to remember to pack fresh extra batteries for the KP, the higher processing power seems to eat up the LI109s even quicker than in the K50.

Despite my unmet expectations, the KP is far from being a disappointment. One reason are the out of camera JPGs. The combined Pentax/Ricoh expertise seems to show - while the GRIII seems to still have an edge, the KP offers a lot already. I usually shoot DNG+JPG and I find that with the KP, I have am much higher rate of JPG images than from the K-1, for which I don't even bother to pull up the DNG. The KP has quickly become my camera of choice for trips, where space and/or weight are important: A kayak trip (2w), a bicyle trip (1w), numerous business trips, where it made it much easier to stay within the 8kg carry-on limit. With the compact lenses, it also draws a lot less attention in the streets. I'm happy to carry it on a PD capture clip, nothing I'd do with my K-1. My K-1 on the other hand will continue to be my first choice for hunting bees, any night/astro shots, trips where photography is a primary planned activity and in general when I plan to use a tripod anyway. Even for full-day hikes, when I carry a backpack anyway, it's my first choice.

So back to the original question: The KP is a huge step up from the K-50 and has its own advantages over the K-1. Unless there are aspirations in fairly specific areas, the KP would be a much more economic choice, reusing lenses such as your very fine 50-135 star and batteries. For me, I even bought two additional APS-C lenses and I'm holding on to others, which I planned to sell, because I really enjoy using the KP. Much to the delight of my daughter, who likes borrowing the lenses as her K-50 is still going strong and frequently produces better pictures than my cameras combined - the most important factor is still behind the camera. So get what makes you happy and inspires and it will likely show.

[noelpolar]

I have a K3 (don't use it much now) and 2 K1's and am thinking of a KP.... as a lighter travel camera..... I love the K1s.... but at times something a bit lighter might get some use... one of my K1s is a silver one.... so thinking a silver KP..... as life is better in silver.

Was thinking of a Ricoh GR.... but small 20mm lens on KP will do me... with more flexability I'm thinking...

[Sandy Hancock]

The KP is a great travel camera. I have taken mine to Italy, Argentina, Antarctica, New Zealand, England, France and Alaska. It is made for the DA Limiteds, but if you like using bigger lenses, get the grip - with the DFA150-450 it actually makes for a better feeling camera than the K-1 without a grip.

[Kerrowdown]

I know it's asked a lot, but... KP vs K-1 vs K-1 II

I think the short answer is IMHO it's not specifications/money, it's about what you want back from your photography and then what you need it to be... get both the wants and needs to match.

All the camera choices you mention are more than capable of producing fine imagery, subject of course to the photographer using it.

For me... its FF and the K1 II offered nothing extra that I needed for my work, so I still have K1's.

[jgnfld]

If you've been comfortable with the K-50's feature set and ergonomics, then perhaps a K70 would be the safest choice for you. Really, if there's nothing about the KP or K1 variants that jumps out at you as being "necessary", then don't bother spending the money. At least, that's how I see things when my budget is so limited. I was seriously considering the K70, but I jumped on the KP (on sale) because I fell in love with it the first moment I saw it. I would have been happy with the K70, but there always would have been the feeling of missing the few things I liked most about the KP. If you haven't had that feeling yet, then I suggest holding out until your K50 really doesn't do it for you anymore, or at least wait for the new flagship to come out to reconsider. Maybe the release will bring along some further price drops for existing models that will make them more enticing, although the K70 currently seems to be at it's lowest price ever so maybe it's to to take that leap.

One thing to consider on the subject of APS-C vs full-frame is that although the K1 may have a big comfortable grip, it will also be significantly heavier (exponentially so when you consider the general incompatibility of DA lenses). The KP is the only APS-C DSLR that many would consider to have an insubstantial grip, though you may not mind it if you happen to need the battery grip anyway.

I went with a K70 for a K50 upgrade. At current prices the KP is only marginally more expensive. I'd go that way today for mainly body construction reasons. But it all depends if you want to stay with your present style or actually need a different camera entirely...which the K1 is.

[mcleoud151]

I realize you're waiting for the as-yet-unnamed APS-C to come out before making your decision, but I would like to throw in my thoughts as an owner of a K-1 and KP. These are two completely different cameras. For pure image quality, low light detail, low noise, GPS, the K-1 is the clear winner. For a fun, small, feature-packed camera, that is barely noticeable and incredibly light, the KP takes the cake (don't get me wrong here though, it's images and dynamic range are very impressive for an APS-C). My KP sits in my camera bag as a backup now because I always want that extra ISO, that extra light, and those extra pixels. It's worth the weight for me (though having to rebuild my lens collection for FF is a bummer, financially). Either one of those cameras are awesome, and you'd be stoked to have them, I'm sure. A used KP can be found on here now and then for insanely low prices.