[martin42mm]

Theoretically yes but I can imagine situation when the new KP kills sale of K3III.

Possibly, but I was more concerned with your mention of the financial risk to Ricoh regarding a successor to the KP.
Any manufacturer which makes cameras that theoretically are too close in design and features will encounter this issue, and was something that somehow didn't happen decades ago when they were not constantly chopping and changing models to chase market share. We are now in a different world, where theoretical customer demand seems to drive the market, and hence even miniscule changes seem to warrant yet another model, despite sensor improvements being increasingly marginal at best.

[Paulo]

By financial risk I mean eating one product by another one. It would lead to situation when investment made to release K3III would not generate required profits.

Customer demand seems to drive the market? Yes, but not in Pentax world. Otherwise we would have K3III with tilted or articulated screen. Pentax still "knows better"

[martin42mm]

By financial risk I mean eating one product by another one. It would lead to situation when investment made to release K3III would not generate required profits.

Customer demand seems to drive the market? Yes, but not in Pentax world. Otherwise we would have K3III with tilted or articulated screen. Pentax still "knows better"

I can't even remember what type of screen any of my digital cameras have, that's how much that 'feature' means to me. So long as I have an optical viewfinder I don't need a screen to take a photograph, merely to see what information I need to set on the camera such as speed etc. And even that could be solved by a top-screen.... but the point is, if a 'new' KP takes sales away from the KIII, then it clearly mustn't have features that would sway buyers away from that camera to the degree that it would makeit unprofitable. However would that attract enough new buyers? The price of any new camera doesn't really bother me, though, since I don't buy any camera as soon as it comes out, and only change when it becomes imperative because of a failure with my main camera, or the image quality is starting to get to be left behind. I can't see the latter happeneing with my KP any time soon.....

[kypfer]

In answer to the thread title … I'd probably not pay for a "KP successor" unless it had significantly more to offer than "just" the sensor from the K-3iii.
To my mind, there's not such a noticeable difference between the output from the KP and the K-3iii to justify replacing my KP with an 'updated' model.
I vaguely remember reading that one of the reasons the KP was discontinued was parts supply issues.
If that was the case, and the problems could be overcome, then I feel there is a place in the scheme of things for a re-issued KP, but as I already have one, I doubt I'll be needing another

[Paulo]

I can't even remember what type of screen any of my digital cameras have, that's how much that 'feature' means to me. So long as I have an optical viewfinder I don't need a screen to take a photograph, merely to see what information I need to set on the camera such as speed etc.

I remember many Pentaxians (mee too) groaning in disappointment when they realized that K3III would have fixed screen. So, if Pentax had added tilted screen they would be very pleased and buy the camera.

[ZombieArmy]

I think you're right. In the present day market, if Pentax had two brand new APS-C cameras for sale, the total number of buyers would be exactly the same as if they only had one APS-C camera for sale.

I don't think so. The K-3III is very expensive for most, and unless you use the new features it isn't really worth it. To me this is why the street value of the KP has stayed so high despite being released in 2017. I can almost sell mine used for the same price I bought it new in 2018 because people of people who are looking to upgrade to a nice body but aren't willing to spend, or don't need some features on the K-3III.

Now whether or not it's worth justifying having another body for these people is another question I cannot answer.

[cport]

I don't think so. The K-3III is very expensive for most, and unless you use the new features it isn't really worth it. To me this is why the street value of the KP has stayed so high despite being released in 2017. I can almost sell mine used for the same price I bought it new in 2018 because people of people who are looking to upgrade to a nice body but aren't willing to spend, or don't need some features on the K-3III.

Now whether or not it's worth justifying having another body for these people is another question I cannot answer.

The same for me. I do not shoot sport, wildlife etc. Therefore KP fits to my needs (although it could be a bit faster). Moreoveer, the rear display is an issue for me - e.g. the last two pictures here


Post Your Best KP Shots - Page 267 - PentaxForums.com

[martin42mm]

The same for me. I do not shoot sport, wildlife etc. Therefore KP fits to my needs (although it could be a bit faster). Moreoveer, the rear display is an issue for me - e.g. the last two pictures here


Post Your Best KP Shots - Page 267 - PentaxForums.com

I haven't managed to pin down the pictures you've referred to, but why use the screen on an DSLR to compose? The whole strength of a DSLR compared to a mrriorless camera is that the viewfinder not only gives you a perfect view of what you are photographing, but also means you are using the camera in its most stable hand-held position, i.e. two hands, cradled from underneath , with one hand to operate the shutter, the other to manually focus ( or not) but nevertheless it provides the most stable way to hold either an SLR or a DSLR. As soon as you hold the camera away from your face to compose using the screen you sacrifice that stability. It is also easier to judge depth of field through the v/f than it is on-screen, and you eliminate any issues with ambient light affecting the screen as well. But I suppose I am just used to this method from decades of SLR use, and the advent of screens on cameras has just provided an additional method to view a potential photograph that personally I just don't find neccessary. A tilting screen does offer some flexibility, although I prefer an r/h finder on the viewfinder for my own needs. Each to their own, though.......

[cport]

I haven't managed to pin down the pictures you've referred to, but why use the screen on an DSLR to compose? The whole strength of a DSLR compared to a mrriorless camera is that the viewfinder not only gives you a perfect view of what you are photographing, but also means you are using the camera in its most stable hand-held position, i.e. two hands, cradled from underneath , with one hand to operate the shutter, the other to manually focus ( or not) but nevertheless it provides the most stable way to hold either an SLR or a DSLR. As soon as you hold the camera away from your face to compose using the screen you sacrifice that stability. It is also easier to judge depth of field through the v/f than it is on-screen, and you eliminate any issues with ambient light affecting the screen as well. But I suppose I am just used to this method from decades of SLR use, and the advent of screens on cameras has just provided an additional method to view a potential photograph that personally I just don't find neccessary. A tilting screen does offer some flexibility, although I prefer an r/h finder on the viewfinder for my own needs. Each to their own, though.......

https://imgbb.com/CMDc1dy

https://imgbb.com/4sG4P5Q

That morning I was lying on the ground several times, sometimes the camera was lying on the ground next to me. Looking through OVF would be much more complicated.


I understand your point, but owning DSLR does not mean that I have lost opportunity to take pictures like these

[martin42mm]

https://imgbb.com/CMDc1dy

https://imgbb.com/4sG4P5Q

That morning I was lying on the ground several times, sometimes the camera was lying on the ground next to me. Looking through OVF would be much more complicated.


I understand your point, but owning DSLR does not mean that I have lost opportunity to take pictures like these

Yes, that is the only time I would use my screen, when I use a low viewpoint and the tilting screen is more convenient than my right-angled finder.

[Henrico]

Taking in account that most people new to serious photography step in the world of MILC, the sales of Pentax DSLR's are already K-mount users replacing their broken gear. If upgrading makes no sense because a new one adds little, that is how the market will look like. I suppose our K3, K1ii and KP cameras will last at least 10 years. DSLR-sales will dry up, successors will be scarce. This is not a sustainable business model I suppose, not even with the Ricoh strategy.

The reason the big three stepped in MILC was not only technology driven, but also marketing / economical. MILC's offer opportunities for lots of new sales of bodies and lenses.

So, how much should I pay for a KP successor? Nothing as long as my KP keeps working. About € 1200 if I could replace it with a KPii. When there is no new KPii, I would replace it with the K3iii, not a K-70.

[martin42mm]

Taking in account that most people new to serious photography step in the world of MILC, the sales of Pentax DSLR's are already K-mount users replacing their broken gear. If upgrading makes no sense because a new one adds little, that is how the market will look like. I suppose our K3, K1ii and KP cameras will last at least 10 years. DSLR-sales will dry up, successors will be scarce. This is not a sustainable business model I suppose, not even with the Ricoh strategy.

The reason the big three stepped in MILC was not only technology driven, but also marketing / economical. MILC's offer opportunities for lots of new sales of bodies and lenses.

So, how much should I pay for a KP successor? Nothing as long as my KP keeps working. About € 1200 if I could replace it with a KPii. When there is no new KPii, I would replace it with the K3iii, not a K-70.

If Ricoh's business model is so fragile that unless they have a new camera to sell they won't make money seems unlikely. I suspect most profits come with selling dedicated lenses, especially since many of the independants no longer support the K mount. Thinking back to the days of the Spotmatics, they didn't have a new model every other year. But they survived, despite there being much more competition for m42-fit lenses. I still think the DSLR is THE way to make the most of modern technology, and I doubt you will find many professionals prepared to forgo the advantages of the system. If Pentax can mop up some of those disillusioned by other competitors dropping the DSLR models then they will have a healthy future. And for that they may have to develop high-end models to attract those professionals. Chicken and egg scenario as usual!

[martin42mm]

What possible advantage does a DSLR offer professionals in the 21st Century? And by professionals I mean actual working photographers whose only interest in gear is that it can produce sellable results as easily as possible while taking a beating. If working professionals weren't prepared to forgo the DSLR then Canon and Nikon wouldn't be forgoing it either.

The future of the DSLR is as a prestige camera for those who value a direct optical viewfinder over looking at a video screen. Almost all of those people will be ones who do photography purely for pleasure and not ones who do it to pay their bills. But if Pentax can establish itself as the obvious choice for those people then it does have a future.

Most professionals I know would not accept anything other than an optical viewfinder, whether for industrial photography, or news-gathering sports photography. I don't know any who still indulge in studio photography, but I suspect they will be skewed towards larger format.

[Paulo]

Most professionals I know would not accept anything other than an optical viewfinder, whether for industrial photography, or news-gathering sports photography. I don't know any who still indulge in studio photography, but I suspect they will be skewed towards larger format.

Apologize but what Pentax can give professionals? AF? All pro mirroless cameras have much better. Profi lens selection? The same. Professional service? The same. What else?

I have to ephasize - Pentax produces really amazing and cool gear but it is rather a niche for true enthusiasts. OK, I know some professionals using Pentax but believe me, it is huge minority. And some of them think of switching to mirrorless

[martin42mm]

Really? I'd be interested to know what it is about the optical viewfinder that they find so indispensable. Perhaps you can ask them next time you get together for a coffee?

The guys I know ( and oddly I had a coffee with one today- acceredited sports photographer for a number of local and national papers), like the reality that a real-time optical viewfinder gives, with the ability to determine depth of field to a degree that you just cannot get with a digital v/f or a screen. He said that, not me, and he works with seriously long Canon ( sorry Pentax) pro lenses that have wafer-thin depth of field. Things may improve as technology catches up, but at the moment nothing touches a true optical DSLR. I for one ( sadly not a pro) would not ditch my optical v/f-ever!

---------- Post added 08-30-22 at 12:36 PM ----------

Apologize but what Pentax can give professionals? AF? All pro mirroless cameras have much better. Profi lens selection? The same. Professional service? The same. What else?

I have to ephasize - Pentax produces really amazing and cool gear but it is rather a niche for true enthusiasts. OK, I know some professionals using Pentax but believe me, it is huge minority. And some of them think of switching to mirrorless

So far I have not met a single pro who would use a mirrorless DSLR against an optical v/f camera . That's amongst my UK contacts. It may not be -at the moment- a Pentax, but when their Canon and Nikon pro camera start to become unreliable they will look for another camera. If Nikon & Canon do not have a suitable camera, they may -and I emphasise may-turn to Pentax. So Pentax do not offer a pro-level camera at the moment ( although I could argue for the K-1), there may well be a market in due course. These are all hypotheticals, of course.