Originally posted by UncleVanya I'm far from the only person who feels this way. This sparked a lot of debate about the K-P and endless threads about IF it was the new flagship or not when the K3ii was discontinued. The "missing" features are only missing when compared to the older K-3/K-3ii models (and now the K-3iii). Nikon for example can offer some of these but not all of them. The K-3 series was a seriously amazing offering and while the K-P appears to be a fantastic camera (and I have now ordered mine) it fell short on a few features from being a complete replacement for those of us who had the older series and loved it. My own evaluation tells me I'm able to look past top lcd, the slight drop in frame rate, the buffer size difference, and the grip. However the advantages for me, Pixel Shift, lighter weight, smaller body, higher performance at high iso, etc. are all worth taking the leap.
I remember when the KP was released, folks (myself included) were kind of expecting it to be the new "flagship" APS-C model, with the same or better features as the K-3 / K-3II. Hence, it was quite strongly criticised for lacking certain features, despite adding some excellent new ones. When you consider the KP as a distinct model in its own right, though, and stop comparing it to the K-3 line, it makes more sense... and at current pricing, I just think it seems like one heck of a bargain.
If I was in the market for a new body, I'd have a hard time passing up on the KP, even though it lacks a couple of things I'd like. The K-3III is going to be fantastic, I'm certain, and probably well worth the money... but the KP offers
incredible bang for the buck. As it is, my K-3 is still going strong and my K-3II is barely broken in, so I'll have to wait for now