KP review in Outdoor Photography

Recently made the decision to get a KP and a 16-85mm lens. Had rented this kit before and enjoyed it. The 16-85mm works quite well compared to my 18-135mm.

Comparing the KP the the K-3 isn't a complicated en devour. The co-processor of the KP allows for sensor information to be more accurate instead of interpolated. Sharper images over my K-3 but no real improvement in auto focus of moving subjects.

I had intended to purchase the Olympus e-m1 mark ii, however i have many Pentax lenses and the single quick low light exposure of the KP is better when it comes to noise.

I remain interested in the version three of the K-3 if it and when comes to fruition.

Not so much (being a mod I mean, he is a good chap to do reviews!) anymore, he left funnily enough after reviewing the K-3 after the response on this forum from one or two members and lack of support by the main moderator when it happened. My own response to these posters resulted in aggressive PM and again no action from Moderator, although I didn't leave completely like Daniel, I certainly cut back on posting as a result

---

UK Wildlife blog ----- UK Wildlife Facebook page ----- UK wildlife Twitter

I remember being quite shocked by what some were posting, as was Dan and the rest of the team. It was a long time ago and what was done both publicly and behind the scenes I am not going to revisit and certainly is lost to the memory.

If anyone receives an objectionable PM they should let us know and action can be taken, but in the normal run of events PMs are private as their name implies.

---

Best regards, John

Not certain what all this recent kerfuffle was about. The KP is a good camera but there are problems with what it considers detail or noise with it's built in pre-processor for high iso. Some times it will add noise to simulate textures in darker areas even in full sunlight, however it more often than not get's those textures wrong and makes subject look like old 8bit computer graphics. It's random but three out of five noise integrated images is quite common with the KP. When it does not get confused the images are on par with full frame. The KP keeper rate is less than the K-3 at least in my experience. However you have to take into considerations that the KP has experimental hardware img accel in it, hardware that was rushed into use on top of it all. The KP is not quite the K-S1 level of lower quality, however it needs work. Especially for the price. In the US it's now promoting for about 1300$ for a KP body and a 40mm pancake lens.
Not certain what to make of that promotional offer.

Are these issues in JPEG or RAW formats, or both?

That's adjustable in the menu. (See page 55 in the camera manual.)

Sorry, don't understand what you mean by this? Sounds you don't like the K-S1. For a budget camera I find it exceptional!

---

John K

Did someone mention my name?

I have been absent for quite some time, and really clearly shouldn't still be shown as a Mod any more. I don't think it was any one thing that caused me to drift away, mainly the over all tone of the forum at the time, and just wanting to spend less time at the computer really, business was really starting to pick up and this place just took up a lot of time.

I've had the pleasure of reviewing the KP, K-1 and K-70 (as well as the K-3 four years ago) for Outdoor Photography mag, but you do get such a short period of time with the camera you can't find every foible (I had the K-1 and the K-70 at the same time, for just one week). My main gripe with the KP was the small buffer, really quite frustrating for a raw shooter trying to do bursts of shots of birds in flight and the like.

Anyway, thought I'd swing by and say hello, I may well pop back a little more often, but I can't promise anything.

---

K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

Great to see you around again Daniel.
As to the KP, I reckon its main issue is that it was designed to be in the budget range albeit with an improved specification over existing models in that range, but marketed and priced as a premium product. There was quite a lot of confusion as to where it sat in the range at launch, some believing it was the top APS-C model. Could be some still believe it is.

---

John K

Sorry, don't understand what you mean by this?[/quote]

Neither do I.

I own a K-S1. Nothing wrong with quality - very good in fact - but quirky design and features, and a more basic spec. Designed for phone users I'd say, but I find it's great as a high IQ walk-around body paired with any Ltd lens.

To be fair Pentax have done that one on several camera releases. The K-S1 was a classic in this regard. Priced very high initially and reviwed poorly against similarly priced offerings, but then a much better value proposition once reduced to a sensible market position.

I have a K-S1 too.

Tiny buffer. Plastic, no weather sealing, battery door will snap off eventually etc Lightweight in a bad way.

Stunning IQ. Actually cool LED light in the grip which countdown for group shots. 20MP, no AA filter. Lightweight in a good way.

The K-S1 is possibly the lightest DSLR around so convenient to carry when I don't want to carry a DSLR! Given it cost me under £100 brand new (store display model) was incredible value. Then I used it and was stunned by its image quality.
PS I'm not really much of a phone user yet don't feel disadvantaged using it because of that!

---

John K

Yep K-S1 IQ is stunning. It really delivers.

I looked at the KP before buying a used K3 II, but didn't like the feel of it, same as the K70, which I thought felt nasty and cheap.
I'm curious about the K3 II I, or I Is as they may call it. Does anyone think they will take a leaf out of Nikon book and lower the sensor size, like the 7500, which is fab.

---

K3, K3 II, 100MM 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20 3.5, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon D7500, Tamron 150 600 G2