Originally posted by reh321 I am very real - and so is the real performance of the KP, which gives a better view of the action.
What you "know" may not matter - it is not significant when you consider other aspects of the cameras,
What there is to know? Again, the ones who have both K1 and KP say that K1 has a better dynamic range and better ISO. It's user experience. The admin found the same in his review posted in this forum.
Now, the OP wanted better af performance, better ISO performance and better video capabilities. He found a camera suited for what he wants. He could have waited for K-3 Mark III, but he realized that 3 out of 3 features are covered better by a full frame which already proven what it's capable of, while for K-3 Mark III he will have to wait another 3 months until the camera would be released and tested properly. Again, I have no doubt that K-3 Mark III will be based on specs by far the best Pentax camera in terms of tracking, but the ones expecting D500 or R6 af tracking performance will be a little dissapointed, at least the ones who don't have experience when comes to tracking and what makes an af system capable. There are hints in this regard for both categories.
So, the OP said which were his problems without bashing the brand, everybody knows Pentax is lagging in video and af tracking because Ricoh offer field cameras, not sport cameras, but somehow he is the one to blame for something everybody agree with.
Not to mention that he said he will also keep K1 for everything that doesn't imply video or sport.
Again, even if K-3 Mark III will be on par with R6 in terms of tracking and high ISO, it still doesn't cover the video part because not even Sony can match Canon in video af and overall video performance. So, why so much hate and conspiracy?!