Do we need nother camera

Wow, that's 11 years old now and looks great.
I'm not sure that if one's current camera does what one wants it needs to be replaced. Newer cameras do have more advanced features though so many get tempted by them. So need to update? No. Like to update? Yes!

Hi Ian,

If your camera works that well for you, 'no' is my answer. my KR is still in use in the hands of my son in law. i didn't like the mirror instead of a pentaprism or the dust getting in when abroad especially. I found the K5 took a long while to get used to BUT the K3 was easy after that as it was so similar.

Do i like my current K3II, 55- 300 PLM responsive quiet telephoto lens and my recent purchased used 20 - 40mm 'yes'.
Do i take better pics than when i had a KR. Hopefully but only because I get a lot of practice.
Cropping wildlife from 24 megapixels and faster autofocus for action are key ingredients to my current interests.

Finally the way prices have gone this year I think all of us will be hanging on to kit for much longer. Even Jules.

As I hardly ever print beyond A4, I doubt that upgrading was ever really necessary for me. However, I did upgrade for several reasons, including improved camera features, as well as the enjoyment of GAS!

I started in 2011 with a K-R, which I still have, and since then I have gained a K-5IIs, a K-3 and a K-70. The latter is the only one that I bought close to its release, all the others being either used or end-of-line bargains.

I have no intention of buying either the K-P (far too expensive compared with K-3 and K-70) or the K-1 (too expensive, bulky, and heavy, and I don't think FF is of any benefit for me), so it looks like I might be having a few years off from upgrading......?

Cheers.
Philip

Ian, I guess if you are posting the question, then you are probably asking for encouragement to upgrade. I agree with the above comments, you probably wouldn't notice the difference in print quality or indeed screen quality of images. Upgrading won't make you a better photographer, anyway, that's clearly not a problem. In any case, it is generally recognised that upgrading lenses can do more for photography than changing bodies. Having said all that, there are other issues that might be worth thinking about. Let's imagine you upgraded to a K-70 - it's the best value for money new Pentax that is currently in the shops at under £600.

You have identified weather resistance - that's a big plus if you don't mind getting yourself wet. For landscape photography this is a fantastic Pentax feature - but of course needs these WR lenses to make any sense.
The adjustable rear screen is a feature that for me was well worth upgrading for. (also folds in when not in use so is protected)
Improved video resolution might be a consideration
Better low light capability (much higher iso)
More pixels (twice as many) means better cropping options + its a bit like a built in telephoto zoom
Pentaprism always betters mirror in viewfinder (KR) because it is larger and brighter
Focus peaking - especially useful with manual focus lenses
Wi-fi if you want it
Nicer grip
Not more autofocus points but sensitivity improved from -1 to -3 EV
More options in menu
Sharper pics because no anti-aliasing filter
Bigger +/- bracketing range
Pixel shift for super resolution low noise still images
Any colour as long as its black
but most important of all, it does great selfies!

Now if none of the above attracts you, stick with the camera you have and treat yourself to something else.

Only K-r > K-70 drawback I can think of is that it is slightly heavier (+90g)

Now I don't own a K-70, but it combines most of the best features of two which I have - K-S2 and K-3ii. so in a way you get two good cameras in one!

Having said all that, look first at your lenses and ask if they are giving you what you want.

I don't think you can get a definite answer. It's an issue that is very personal. As the fella that took pictures of some Formula X race with a 100 year old camera recently demonstrated. Everything is 'doable'. Whether these are the results one and in case of a pro, their clientelle expects, it's another story. In my opinion, if you need to ask yourself that question; the answer is most likely: no, you don't need an upgrade. I think we do notice when the gear is holding us back; from printing big through high iso performance to faster AF. Even a simple 'convinience' update can be worth paying for as time is money. If your time is valuable in monetary terms, and an upgrade reduces the time and effort needed to achieve something, it's a good investment. Then there is the third aspect: the fun element. Do I need it? No. Do I want it? Yes. Can I afford it? Yes. I am going to have hell of a great time using it. I bought my K1 for exactly that reason. Not only do I enjoy using it much more than any other body I have, I love exploring it's boundaries and I feel it's capabilities are not 'wasted' on me (possibly a very arrogant assumption!). I just keep on learning what it can do and what I can do with it. At the end of the day, if it's affordable, I'd say treat yourself to an upgrade; if it's not, don't stress over it unless you can name what is holding you back so much