I think I agree with PJ. I took one look at the specs of the KP and
knew it wasn't for me. In my case size and weight was the issue.
A couple of years ago I bought am Olympus E-M10 for a specific purpose -
a compact & lightweight camera for travel that didn't lose much (if
anything) to my K-5.
On 3/11/2017 11:29 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
But it doesn't have a small form factor.
It's small in all the ways to make it /look/ smaller. But it's footprint is
pretty much the same as a K-5.
The people repeating the hype of that it's ultra compact seem to be those
P. J. Alling wrote:
But it doesn't have a small form factor.
It's small in all the ways to make it /look/ smaller. But it's footprint is
pretty much the same as a K-5.
The people repeating the hype of that it's ultra compact seem to be those
who've no actual experience with the Pentax APS-C
But it doesn't have a small form factor.
It's small in all the ways to make it /look/ smaller. But it's
footprint is pretty much the same as a K-5.
The people repeating the hype of that it's ultra compact seem to be
those who've no actual experience with the Pentax APS-C flagships since
Henk said: "You can't have one camera for all purposes."
This is true, but most people have to try, at some point in their life.
For me, the K-3 II with an arsenal of lenses, mostly old and older,
will be my main kit. But I never thought I would really like a small
camera the way I like the Sony
I like the design of the KP. The small form factor, and the higher ISO
made me almost decide to pre-order the KP to upgrade from my K-5.
For use in the theatre, low light performance is important to me.
But the price gap of the KP with K-1 is not that great, so I bought the
K-1 instead.
But now
Watch the review.
On 3/10/2017 3:32 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:
1. High ISO is at least 1 stop better than the K-3. Probably more.
2. Movie mode is vastly improved with the return of sensor based
stabilization. It also has much less noise in movie mode. Also the
bitrate has been increased finally.
Zos Xavius wrote:
1. High ISO is at least 1 stop better than the K-3. Probably more.
2. Movie mode is vastly improved with the return of sensor based
stabilization. It also has much less noise in movie mode. Also the
bitrate has been increased finally. I've seen samples and it was
vastly
P. J. Alling wrote:
Which reinforces all my biases so I'm posting a link to it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjSNou9cQq0
___
I knew this camera was onto a loser straight away because I like it.
I have changed mine to the largest grip
1. High ISO is at least 1 stop better than the K-3. Probably more.
2. Movie mode is vastly improved with the return of sensor based
stabilization. It also has much less noise in movie mode. Also the
bitrate has been increased finally. I've seen samples and it was
vastly better than the K-3 ever
The ergonomics were obviously worse than the K-7/5/3 just looking at
it. The shutter button placement looks awkward. The front dial
placement looks awkward.
The body has been made shorter without actually changing the real
footprint of the camera. I love the ascetic of the more pointed
Not sure what your biases are, but I think these guys do pretty good reviews.
I knew nothing about the K-P before seeing this. Very odd to hear that
ergonomics is such a problem with this camera, when that has been one
of Pentax's strong suits, in the past. Good news for any future Pentax
cameras
Which reinforces all my biases so I'm posting a link to it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjSNou9cQq0
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
