Will there be a Pentax K2 DSLR anytime soon?

Mark Ransom said:

I don't think it killed the APS-C line - everybody who has bought a KP seems to really like it. It did sap their momentum though, since every camera prior was a definite improvement over its predecessor.

Click to expand...

That definition works too.

Zvonimir Tosic said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I don't know what Ricoh will do, but I challenge anyone around to prove me that KP was not a letdown and that KP virtually *killed* the APS-C DSLR line dedicatedly established by Pentax through many years.

All that effort – puff, it was gone with a wrong move.

K3II was a great moment to step up in whatever way, but the KP did not deliver there – it was a hair width move forward in terms of the sensor, but two steps back in terms of everything else.

Coming from K7, K5, K5II, K3, etc., users naturally expected some sort of progression, as Nikon users have seen with belated D500. But what was delivered with KP was .. a shock.

Very bad move to kill the K3II and keep the KP, selling it for more $ than the K3II was at that same time.

Now it's too late. I loved Pentax for the APS-C line, but I am not that crazy to buy the K1 or any FF camera for that matter. I am getting older, and it's not fun. What Ricoh did to the APS-C line, is not funny at all.

They would be in a better position now if they had delivered K3Mk3 instead and if we never knew about the KP.

Click to expand...

This is what happens when your company is trendy or progressive for the sake of progressivism and not just conservatively giving the people want they wanted all along.

A K-3 II successor in a K-3 II body modified with a rear flip screen, updated AF (even 39 points would be OK), the KP sensor and shutter, and retained the K-3 burst and a bigger buffer would have made for a quality camera. One I at least would have bought.

Instead I went on a crazy ride to the K-1 land (as a result of no other options in K mount), discovered it wasn't for me, and ended up selling it and most of my K mount gear, and then plonking 5 grand on Nikon gear. That money would be in Pentax gear had they just offered a K-3 II successor instead of that KP instead.

Stick with meat and potatoes, Ricoh. If you want to add green beans on the side then fine. But make sure you're still offering meat and potatoes at the same time you start offering side items.

I still am looking forward to an actual K-3 II replacement in the lineup. One day maybe.. But, at this point, it will be a side camera and not my primary.

And the thing is they went half way into Full Frame while giving up ground in APS-C. They can't seem to make up their mind over which one they are supporting. So, in the end, they half-cheeked it on support for both. Who is driving the Pentax bus at Ricoh HQ?

All the elements are in house to thrive, but it seems like some odd missteps from my chair. Ricoh is holding back Ricoh with respect to the Pentax brand.

flektogon said:

DavidB77 said:

Most K-3 users miss something in KP, that's why removing features is a bad idea if you want to sell cameras.

Personnally, when the KP was released, I read that it does not have a GPS and I stopped looking at it. GPS is the reason why I purchased K-3II and I never want to manually geotag my pictures in Lightroom again...

Click to expand...

So, either flash or GPS, i.e. either K3/KP or K3II. Or have you expected both? Actually it would be great if Pentax instead of hollow grips would provide at least one, with a built-in GPS unit for example.

Click to expand...

I have an external flash and it is far better that the popup flash that I had in my K-5 so for me popup flash is totally useless. Howerver as I take a lot of landscape, I like to have my photo geolocated and so GPS is an awesome feature for me. Of course Ricoh have an external GPS but who want to have this big thing always attached to the camera?! Build-in GPS is really convinient for travel/landscape photographers. I can't imagine buying a new camera that do not have this feature.

Zvonimir Tosic said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I don't know what Ricoh will do, but I challenge anyone around to prove me that KP was not a letdown and that KP virtually *killed* the APS-C DSLR line dedicatedly established by Pentax through many years.

All that effort – puff, it was gone with a wrong move.

K3II was a great moment to step up in whatever way, but the KP did not deliver there – it was a hair width move forward in terms of the sensor, but two steps back in terms of everything else.

Coming from K7, K5, K5II, K3, etc., users naturally expected some sort of progression, as Nikon users have seen with belated D500. But what was delivered with KP was .. a shock.

Very bad move to kill the K3II and keep the KP, selling it for more $ than the K3II was at that same time.

Now it's too late. I loved Pentax for the APS-C line, but I am not that crazy to buy the K1 or any FF camera for that matter. I am getting older, and it's not fun. What Ricoh did to the APS-C line, is not funny at all.

They would be in a better position now if they had delivered K3Mk3 instead and if we never knew about the KP.

Click to expand...

Yes, the KP was a very poor K3II successor, although always denied that it was just that: the new APS-C flagship. I suppose that even the most sceptical will no longer deny that the KP was not just a one-off side trip. The K3 series has well and truly vanished and still no "successor" in sight.

The truth and cause for this "killing" of the APS-C line though, is very simple: full frame. Had Pentax not ventured into FF, they would undoubtedly have made work off a true K3 line successor, because it would have the flagship label to carry. With the K1 to take that role, they apparently felt free to come up with something like the KP.

Also, I believe Pentax have become more IQ oriented with the switch to FF dominance, and less concerned with performance features, such as buffer, frame rate, AF points etc..

Where they will be heading next, after Ricoh's GRIII has had its moment of glory, only time will tell...

Chris

Smitty1 said:

This is what happens when your company is trendy or progressive for the sake of progressivism and not just conservatively giving the people want they wanted all along.

A K-3 II successor in a K-3 II body modified with a rear flip screen, updated AF (even 39 points would be OK), the KP sensor and shutter, and retained the K-3 burst and a bigger buffer would have made for a quality camera. One I at least would have bought.

Instead I went on a crazy ride to the K-1 land (as a result of no other options in K mount), discovered it wasn't for me, and ended up selling it and most of my K mount gear, and then plonking 5 grand on Nikon gear. That money would be in Pentax gear had they just offered a K-3 II successor instead of that KP instead.

Click to expand...

I've said this before, I honestly think Pentax intended the K-1 to be the replacement for the K-3 II. They somehow didn't realize that APS-C was a feature that people wouldn't want to give up.

DavidB77 said:

flektogon said:

DavidB77 said:

Most K-3 users miss something in KP, that's why removing features is a bad idea if you want to sell cameras.

Personnally, when the KP was released, I read that it does not have a GPS and I stopped looking at it. GPS is the reason why I purchased K-3II and I never want to manually geotag my pictures in Lightroom again...

Click to expand...

So, either flash or GPS, i.e. either K3/KP or K3II. Or have you expected both? Actually it would be great if Pentax instead of hollow grips would provide at least one, with a built-in GPS unit for example.

Click to expand...

I have an external flash and it is far better that the popup flash that I had in my K-5 so for me popup flash is totally useless. Howerver as I take a lot of landscape, I like to have my photo geolocated and so GPS is an awesome feature for me. Of course Ricoh have an external GPS but who want to have this big thing always attached to the camera?! Build-in GPS is really convinient for travel/landscape photographers. I can't imagine buying a new camera that do not have this feature.

Click to expand...

Yes, for you, who needs to have a built GPS unit into camera, the KP is not suitable camera. But for the other half of users (like me), even weak internal flash is welcomed and the GPS unit has no use. So, for us the KP is not a downgrade! But yes, Pentax could have two versions of the KP, similarly like they made two versions of the K3.

We all utilize our equipment in different ways, myself I loved it when cameras went with two card slots and it wasn’t just for redundancy. When I shoot an event for a client I give them the card with the untouched JPS’s and I keep the card with the RAW files on it. The client then sends me a list of the file numbers they want me to run through post processing and what their usage is going to be, newsletters, Web site, Wall display, exc. I personally don’t use GPS, pixel shift, HDR and a host of other features that my camera bodies have but that doesn’t make them gimmicks.

Bob

Mark Ransom said:

Smitty1 said:

This is what happens when your company is trendy or progressive for the sake of progressivism and not just conservatively giving the people want they wanted all along.

A K-3 II successor in a K-3 II body modified with a rear flip screen, updated AF (even 39 points would be OK), the KP sensor and shutter, and retained the K-3 burst and a bigger buffer would have made for a quality camera. One I at least would have bought.

Instead I went on a crazy ride to the K-1 land (as a result of no other options in K mount), discovered it wasn't for me, and ended up selling it and most of my K mount gear, and then plonking 5 grand on Nikon gear. That money would be in Pentax gear had they just offered a K-3 II successor instead of that KP instead.

Click to expand...

I've said this before, I honestly think Pentax intended the K-1 to be the replacement for the K-3 II. They somehow didn't realize that APS-C was a feature that people wouldn't want to give up.

Click to expand...

In one interview I vaguely recall the Ricoh/Pentax rep stating how APS-C format is essentially the 'best' (my word for lack of a better one) format to support. That was when they were peppered with questions about going full frame (pre-2016).

I really think they were pressed into going full frame and parts of the company didn't want to. And I think I see why now.

Not that the K-1 isn't a really nice camera, but they don't seem to have the resources to promptly support yet another format. I think they wanted to be the DSLR version of Fuji for awhile -- crop and medium format.

Just imagine if the K-1 didn't happen and instead we got all those resources on the APS-C system. We'd have a K-3 replacement and probably several to many updated lenses similar in quality to the 11-18mm.

Oh and probably still a lot of people asking for full frame.. haha. I can't really say much on that though.. because I was in there too iirc. Sometimes the company just has to keep executing their plan and ignore the noise. Or you end up with a mishmash of products and lots of delays..

Smitty1 said:

Mark Ransom said:

Smitty1 said:

This is what happens when your company is trendy or progressive for the sake of progressivism and not just conservatively giving the people want they wanted all along.

A K-3 II successor in a K-3 II body modified with a rear flip screen, updated AF (even 39 points would be OK), the KP sensor and shutter, and retained the K-3 burst and a bigger buffer would have made for a quality camera. One I at least would have bought.

Instead I went on a crazy ride to the K-1 land (as a result of no other options in K mount), discovered it wasn't for me, and ended up selling it and most of my K mount gear, and then plonking 5 grand on Nikon gear. That money would be in Pentax gear had they just offered a K-3 II successor instead of that KP instead.

Click to expand...

I've said this before, I honestly think Pentax intended the K-1 to be the replacement for the K-3 II. They somehow didn't realize that APS-C was a feature that people wouldn't want to give up.

Click to expand...

In one interview I vaguely recall the Ricoh/Pentax rep stating how APS-C format is essentially the 'best' (my word for lack of a better one) format to support. That was when they were peppered with questions about going full frame (pre-2016).

I really think they were pressed into going full frame and parts of the company didn't want to. And I think I see why now.

Not that the K-1 isn't a really nice camera, but they don't seem to have the resources to promptly support yet another format. I think they wanted to be the DSLR version of Fuji for awhile -- crop and medium format.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, I don't think they were treating it as a new format. I think they were treating it as a feature, a feature reserved for their top-of-the-line camera. A feature that their best customers were repeatedly asking for. Other features like dual card slots and GPS were also reserved for the top-of-the-line camera and weren't considered for lesser models.

Member said:

Just imagine if the K-1 didn't happen and instead we got all those resources on the APS-C system. We'd have a K-3 replacement and probably several to many updated lenses similar in quality to the 11-18mm.

Oh and probably still a lot of people asking for full frame.. haha. I can't really say much on that though.. because I was in there too iirc. Sometimes the company just has to keep executing their plan and ignore the noise. Or you end up with a mishmash of products and lots of delays..

Click to expand...

Pentax Is Doomed either way. It would have been interesting though.

Mark Ransom said:

Smitty1 said:

Mark Ransom said:

Smitty1 said:

This is what happens when your company is trendy or progressive for the sake of progressivism and not just conservatively giving the people want they wanted all along.

A K-3 II successor in a K-3 II body modified with a rear flip screen, updated AF (even 39 points would be OK), the KP sensor and shutter, and retained the K-3 burst and a bigger buffer would have made for a quality camera. One I at least would have bought.

Instead I went on a crazy ride to the K-1 land (as a result of no other options in K mount), discovered it wasn't for me, and ended up selling it and most of my K mount gear, and then plonking 5 grand on Nikon gear. That money would be in Pentax gear had they just offered a K-3 II successor instead of that KP instead.

Click to expand...

I've said this before, I honestly think Pentax intended the K-1 to be the replacement for the K-3 II. They somehow didn't realize that APS-C was a feature that people wouldn't want to give up.

Click to expand...

In one interview I vaguely recall the Ricoh/Pentax rep stating how APS-C format is essentially the 'best' (my word for lack of a better one) format to support. That was when they were peppered with questions about going full frame (pre-2016).

I really think they were pressed into going full frame and parts of the company didn't want to. And I think I see why now.

Not that the K-1 isn't a really nice camera, but they don't seem to have the resources to promptly support yet another format. I think they wanted to be the DSLR version of Fuji for awhile -- crop and medium format.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, I don't think they were treating it as a new format. I think they were treating it as a feature, a feature reserved for their top-of-the-line camera. A feature that their best customers were repeatedly asking for. Other features like dual card slots and GPS were also reserved for the top-of-the-line camera and weren't considered for lesser models.

Click to expand...

Hmm perhaps so. Like I said before, I think they were sort of 'pushed' (both internally and externally) into releasing the K-1. But releasing the K-1 isn't where it ends. Because now people want a full set of new lenses. They just didn't seem to be ready for that imo.

Then they (iirc) tried to market the KP as the crop counterpart to use alongside the K-1, as if that would be THE answer to crop. Yet forgetting the K-7/5/3 series were the meat and potatoes of their brand's crop format.

Whatever the reason, Either way, I think we're left with two interesting yet half-complete systems now in the second month of 2019.

Mark Ransom said:

Mark Ransom said:

Just imagine if the K-1 didn't happen and instead we got all those resources on the APS-C system. We'd have a K-3 replacement and probably several to many updated lenses similar in quality to the 11-18mm.

Oh and probably still a lot of people asking for full frame.. haha. I can't really say much on that though.. because I was in there too iirc. Sometimes the company just has to keep executing their plan and ignore the noise. Or you end up with a mishmash of products and lots of delays..

Click to expand...

Pentax Is Doomed either way. It would have been interesting though.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not in the doomed camp. But I do think they remain in this slow churn indefinitely. So long as Ricoh want to pay Hoya for use of the brand.

I really wish they'd pick a course and then hurtle down it though - be it crop, full frame, or medium format. Instead of a sprinkling of crop... and full frame... maybe some medium format here and there.

It would be interesting to see what goes on behind closed doors at the Ricoh HQ. :-O

Rahto said:

We all utilize our equipment in different ways, myself I loved it when cameras went with two card slots and it wasn’t just for redundancy. When I shoot an event for a client I give them the card with the untouched JPS’s and I keep the card with the RAW files on it. The client then sends me a list of the file numbers they want me to run through post processing and what their usage is going to be, newsletters, Web site, Wall display, exc. I personally don’t use GPS, pixel shift, HDR and a host of other features that my camera bodies have but that doesn’t make them gimmicks.

Bob

Click to expand...

O.K., how you use those two slots makes sense. Maybe this is the only sensible way to use 2 slots. But how many users need it? And not including second slot doesn't mean a "degradation" of a given camera.

flektogon said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what you (anyone) could dislike on the KP. Together with the Olympus Pen-F it is the most aesthetic camera ever made, and otherwise it a a typical Pentax camera, i.e. excellent .

Click to expand...

As far as modern camera "aesthetics" go I would rank the K-7/K-5/K-3 cameras as both the best looking & as having the best ergonomics irregardless of brand. Having said that & disliking the appearance of the KP from the beginning, I did buy a KP during Ricoh's "12 Days of Christmas" sale - mainly for pixel shift & better high ISO performance. Now that I have it I like it much better than I thought I would, although I will never regard it as a replacement for my K-3.

BryantP said:

flektogon said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what you (anyone) could dislike on the KP. Together with the Olympus Pen-F it is the most aesthetic camera ever made, and otherwise it a a typical Pentax camera, i.e. excellent .

Click to expand...

As far as modern camera "aesthetics" go I would rank the K-7/K-5/K-3 cameras as both the best looking & as having the best ergonomics irregardless of brand. Having said that & disliking the appearance of the KP from the beginning, I did buy a KP during Ricoh's "12 Days of Christmas" sale - mainly for pixel shift & better high ISO performance. Now that I have it I like it much better than I thought I would, although I will never regard it as a replacement for my K-3.

Click to expand...

I think that this is a sticking point for a lot of people. If you want it to be a K-3 replacement you will be disappointed. If you take it for what it is, good and not so good, then it is quite likable, capable of taking excellent pictures.

Doug

BryantP said:

flektogon said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what you (anyone) could dislike on the KP. Together with the Olympus Pen-F it is the most aesthetic camera ever made, and otherwise it a a typical Pentax camera, i.e. excellent .

Click to expand...

As far as modern camera "aesthetics" go I would rank the K-7/K-5/K-3 cameras as both the best looking & as having the best ergonomics irregardless of brand. Having said that & disliking the appearance of the KP from the beginning, I did buy a KP during Ricoh's "12 Days of Christmas" sale - mainly for pixel shift & better high ISO performance. Now that I have it I like it much better than I thought I would, although I will never regard it as a replacement for my K-3.

Click to expand...

This is a sentiment I keep hearing over and over - the KP is good if only you can talk yourself into buying it. If the K-3 hadn't existed for everybody to compare it to, it probably would have been a best seller for Pentax.

Unfortunately the Christmas sale came 6 months too late for me, or I'd have one too. I gave up waiting for a sale based on their previous lack of them.

I still think the grip is ugly.

Mark Ransom said:

BryantP said:

flektogon said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what you (anyone) could dislike on the KP. Together with the Olympus Pen-F it is the most aesthetic camera ever made, and otherwise it a a typical Pentax camera, i.e. excellent .

Click to expand...

As far as modern camera "aesthetics" go I would rank the K-7/K-5/K-3 cameras as both the best looking & as having the best ergonomics irregardless of brand. Having said that & disliking the appearance of the KP from the beginning, I did buy a KP during Ricoh's "12 Days of Christmas" sale - mainly for pixel shift & better high ISO performance. Now that I have it I like it much better than I thought I would, although I will never regard it as a replacement for my K-3.

Click to expand...

This is a sentiment I keep hearing over and over - the KP is good if only you can talk yourself into buying it. If the K-3 hadn't existed for everybody to compare it to, it probably would have been a best seller for Pentax.

Unfortunately the Christmas sale came 6 months too late for me, or I'd have one too. I gave up waiting for a sale based on their previous lack of them.

I still think the grip is ugly.

Click to expand...

Yes, those two cameras are not replacements one of another. They are different, their common feature is especially excellent IQ (at first), then excellent OVF, excellent ergonomics (just use the medium grip on KP). What is different, it is appearance. Just look at them:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#706,619

While K3 looks like a standard, high quality photographic tool, the KP is simply a beauty!

Mark Ransom said:

BryantP said:

flektogon said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what you (anyone) could dislike on the KP. Together with the Olympus Pen-F it is the most aesthetic camera ever made, and otherwise it a a typical Pentax camera, i.e. excellent .

Click to expand...

As far as modern camera "aesthetics" go I would rank the K-7/K-5/K-3 cameras as both the best looking & as having the best ergonomics irregardless of brand. Having said that & disliking the appearance of the KP from the beginning, I did buy a KP during Ricoh's "12 Days of Christmas" sale - mainly for pixel shift & better high ISO performance. Now that I have it I like it much better than I thought I would, although I will never regard it as a replacement for my K-3.

Click to expand...

This is a sentiment I keep hearing over and over - the KP is good if only you can talk yourself into buying it. If the K-3 hadn't existed for everybody to compare it to, it probably would have been a best seller for Pentax.

Unfortunately the Christmas sale came 6 months too late for me, or I'd have one too. I gave up waiting for a sale based on their previous lack of them.

I still think the grip is ugly.

Click to expand...

The KP is a nice camera for allround shooting, but I traded it in for a K3II a month after purchase (coming from a K3). In many regards, the KP was a departure from the wildlife outdoors type of shooting that the K3 seemd designed for, in many ways, from shutter/mirror (too light assembly for serious birding, resulting in lack of crisp sharpness at certain shutterspeeds), to hopeless fps and small buffer, to IQ, that was much more suited for colorful artistic city/landscape/portrait photography than crisp, detailed and transparent birding and wildlife (but that may have also been that particular sensor to a degree). The K1(mkII) strikes a much better balance here i.m.o., but the Nikon D500 is even better suited with a very nice clarity and crispness. So no, the KP was definitely not a K3 successor, and left a hole in the Pentax line-up, certainly for those coming from the outdoors wildlife and birding Pentax that the K3 was fit for (but is now outdated and too limited).

Chris

flektogon said:

Mark Ransom said:

BryantP said:

flektogon said:

21William said:

I missed the boat on any of the K3’s and don’t much like the look of the KP. It looks like Pentax won’t be going mirrorless anytime soon so wondering if a new APS-C Camera is on the way. I’d really like an upgrade from My K5 and am looking at Sony if Pentax don’t release something soon.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what you (anyone) could dislike on the KP. Together with the Olympus Pen-F it is the most aesthetic camera ever made, and otherwise it a a typical Pentax camera, i.e. excellent .

Click to expand...

As far as modern camera "aesthetics" go I would rank the K-7/K-5/K-3 cameras as both the best looking & as having the best ergonomics irregardless of brand. Having said that & disliking the appearance of the KP from the beginning, I did buy a KP during Ricoh's "12 Days of Christmas" sale - mainly for pixel shift & better high ISO performance. Now that I have it I like it much better than I thought I would, although I will never regard it as a replacement for my K-3.

Click to expand...

This is a sentiment I keep hearing over and over - the KP is good if only you can talk yourself into buying it. If the K-3 hadn't existed for everybody to compare it to, it probably would have been a best seller for Pentax.

Unfortunately the Christmas sale came 6 months too late for me, or I'd have one too. I gave up waiting for a sale based on their previous lack of them.

I still think the grip is ugly.

Click to expand...

Yes, those two cameras are not replacements one of another. They are different, their common feature is especially excellent IQ (at first), then excellent OVF, excellent ergonomics (just use the medium grip on KP). What is different, it is appearance. Just look at them:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#706,619

While K3 looks like a standard, high quality photographic tool, the KP is simply a beauty!

Click to expand...

Plastic-bodied cameras in the $1000+ region are becoming (thankfully) much rarer.

DiffractionLtd said:

flektogon said:

While K3 looks like a standard, high quality photographic tool, the KP is simply a beauty!

Click to expand...

Plastic-bodied cameras in the $1000+ region are becoming (thankfully) much rarer.

Click to expand...

While the KP has some plastic surfaces its hardly a "plastic-bodied" camera. It has about the same amount of plastic vs. magnesium as a Nikon 7200 has.

DiffractionLtd said:

flektogon said:

While K3 looks like a standard, high quality photographic tool, the KP is simply a beauty!

Click to expand...

Plastic-bodied cameras in the $1000+ region are becoming (thankfully) much rarer.

Click to expand...

No comments!

--
Regards,
Peter

Rahto said:

We all utilize our equipment in different ways, [...]. I personally don’t use GPS, pixel shift, HDR and a host of other features that my camera bodies have but that doesn’t make them gimmicks.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The same problem exists in commercial software. Things like MSWord have hundreds and hundreds of features, and nobody ever uses more than 20 or 30. It's just not the same 20 or 30. Thay all get used by somebody.

bob5050