Well if what you need is better high ISO capability, they I can't argue
with that. I'm just pointing out that it's not particularly compact
compared to it's two immediate predecessors, but all the reviewers and
Ricoh itself seem to be making a big deal over it.
The K-3 took a pretty big hit in battery longevity over the K-5 family
with the same battery. There seems to be a smaller hit taken with the
KP with a smaller battery, merely for the "appearance" of a smaller camera.
I'm not buying the hype about size, plus there's a lot of people who
think that keeping the same metaphor in camera controls is boring, but
there's a reason that Canon hasn't made a major change in it's camera
body design in unpteen zillion years.
If you pick up a Canon camera, and you've used an EOS built in say the
last 20 years, you know pretty much know where everything is and how it
works.
I've moved from a *ist-D in conjunction with a Ds, to a K20D, then to a
K-5II each time there's always been a serious period of adjustment. I
sometimes still find myself trying to press the green button on the
K-5II and end up pressing the exposure compensation button, and the
K-5II has been my primary camera for about three years now. I still
occasionally shoot with the K20D, and I have to get used to it all over
again
On 2/25/2017 10:30 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Alright in the first two paragraphs I already have issues with this review.
First there are the incorrect terms, the reviewer confused mechanical with
manual (as in "manual shutter"), then there's the size issue.
The reviewer talks about it's compact size. Well go to Camera size and
compare it to the K-5II <http://camerasize.com/compare/#706,372> and the
K-3 <http://camerasize.com/compare/#706,485> there is no significant
difference in size! It will take up exactly the same room in your bag, and
if you use the deep grip, in your hand.
Hyping how much smaller it is than a K-3, then comparing it to a mirrorless
camera is foolish, unless it's a Panasonic DMC-GH3 and even that is about
30% lighter!
It's a lower spec K-3 crippled by it's smaller battery, with a K-1-ish UI a
slightly improved AF module, and all new battery grip, the one for the K-3.
Maybe it's high ISO performance is a bit better, or maybe not. But I'm not
excited about it. There are too many steps backward for the two steps
forward.
_____________________________________________
Having now held it, I can make a reply. My cameras live in the same bag
whilst I'm out, so in the bag it doesn't matter if it's a KP or K1 sized.
There seems to be a rush to make things smaller. The size reduction wasn't
the selling point to me, only the higher ISO capability. By making it
smaller the big trade off to me is the new battery and charger, which I
consider a negative. I like interchangeability.
Maybe there is a market for smaller cameras that I'm missing the point of. I
would still have happily bought the KP if it had been the size of the K3, or
indeed, a K1.
Anyway, that's as much as I can say about it until I've used it for a while
and learnt more about it. First impressions are that it will do the job I
wanted it too.
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
