[monochrome]

The point is whether a first-time dSLR buyer will buy a K-S1 but would pass on the (you say) nearly identical K-500.

[RonHendriks1966]

K-S1 vs K-500: The specifications are basically identical with the exception of the K-S1 having 20megapixels vs 16 megapixels for the K-500... However the K-500 pixel size is larger (23um(squared) vs 17um(squared) and almost the same size as a Nikon D810... Lager pixels equates to more data for the processor to use... Once you get past the cosmetics, is the K-S1 really worth twice the price ($800) of a K-500 ($399) both with the same kit lens... I don't feel that the K-S1 will produce a significant gain in image quality (maybe 2-3%) if any, and maybe, just maybe, the K-500 would prevail to produce better pictures... Remains to be seen and some reviewers testing could unveil the results... For a few bucks more would it be worth the road trip from the K-S1 to the K-3... And we know that the image quality between the K-50/K500 and the K-3 using the same lenses is marginal (maybe 5-8%) better with the K-3... Ho humm... The marketing tactics of the "pixel count" as being better (Do you really need a 454 CID in a short bed pickup to take the trash to the dump) hahaha. If your printer prints 300 dots per inch (considered Professional Quality) then it would take 7 megapixels to print an 8x10... Does this mean that a 20 megapixels can print 24x30 at 300dpi... At 150 dpi (very acceptable) that is 5 feet tall. (My printer can't print that big - and I am not spending the money for a plotter that can)... hahaha Do I see printing some wall murals around the corner... Cheaper to buy wall paper... lol... Real life - K-3, K-S1, K50/500 using the same lens, print an 8x10 at 300dpi, I doubt that anyone could tell the difference without a magnifying glass... So if I show up at your house with a magnifying glass to look at your wall pictures - you will know why... hahaha

I think there is a lot of thruet in this story.

For newspaper on average (remember pro's) you are good to go with 2 megapixel (8 inch wide), while you only need 6 to 7 megapixel to fill a whole page. For magazines 6 megapixels is good enough for a normal sized magazine (11 x 8.7 inch overhere).

[ElJamoquio]

24*30*300*300 = 64.8 MP

40*60*150*150 = 54 MP

Don't fear the pixel.

[Mistral75]

Buckaroo50, whith your logic, during the film era when any 'sensor' could be paired with any camera, nobody should have bought anything but a Zenit E. And yet some people did buy Pentax LXs or Nikon Fs.

[Buckaroo50]

The point is whether a first-time dSLR buyer will buy a K-S1 but would pass on the (you say) nearly identical K-500.

I think that all Camera companies use a marketing approach that wants to use "pixel count" as a means to attract buyers. From the stand point of buyers (first time DSLR or otherwise). People think in terms that more is better (thus the "pixel count" game)... I was once told that it isn't the number of pixels you have, it is the amount of data that the pixel can obtain and the processing of the data of those pixels is what really matter.. I sort of look at it this way - A full frame Nikon D810 uses a pixel size of 23um(squared). If you cropped a picture from a D810 to equal 16 megapixels the results would be the same as using a cropped sensor ASP-C using the same pixel size... Obviously if you printed a picture from the D810 utilizing all the pixels (instead of cropping) the quality would be better but not that much better, just in minor detailed resolution where most people would not notice without a magnifying glass... And I hardly doubt that the naked eye could tell any difference at any viewing distance...

So back to the question - first time buyers will more than likely go the "pixel count" route being unsure of making a mistake in selection (thinking more is better). They will hock up double the money over a K-500/K-50... for image quality that may not be any different... And in real life where most people print 5x7, 4x6 most of the time, occasionally 8x10 (for a keeper) and seldom any larger (most don't own plotters capable of larger prints)... then actually 16 megapixels is over-gunned for the task... So where does that leave 20 megapixels... also over-gunned for the task at hand and costing twice the money...

I think the K-S1 will sell but I think if (even first time) buyers digging and doing some research that many will opt for the K-500/K-50 and save a bundle, for better lenses and in the end be further ahead... I feel that the K-500/K-50 fitted with a quality lens would hands down stomp a K-S1 with a kit lens (not that the kit lens is bad - just that some lenses are better)... Total cash layout would be about the same - So there ya have it - one mans take on the subject... For the same amount of money my choice would be K-50 with 18-135mm vs K-S1 with 18-55mm kit lens. The same amount of money would give you a better quality lens and a more flexible lens with more zoom and also a weather sealed camera.... And with the better quality lens you would get better picture quality too....

[monochrome]

IF they continue to make the K-500 (uncertain) and don't upgrade the K-50 and bump the price. Your math works this month, but won't work forever.

[thibs]

Well, an inexpensive kit lens on a Hires FF vs a good lens on APS should bring the same conclusion.
Nobody stopped buying FF cams though.

[RonHendriks1966]

I think the K-S1 will sell but I think if (even first time) buyers digging and doing some research that many will opt for the K-500/K-50 and save a bundle, for better lenses and in the end be further ahead... I feel that the K-500/K-50 fitted with a quality lens would hands down stomp a K-S1 with a kit lens (not that the kit lens is bad - just that some lenses are better)... Total cash layout would be about the same - So there ya have it - one mans take on the subject... For the same amount of money my choice would be K-50 with 18-135mm vs K-S1 with 18-55mm kit lens. The same amount of money would give you a better quality lens and a more flexible lens with more zoom and also a weather sealed camera.... And with the better quality lens you would get better picture quality too....

Well my K-01 with one of my lenses FA31mm, DA*55mm or FA*85mm can beat the Canon 5D Mark II with the 24-105mm kitlens. So you are on the right track here. I have the feeling that buyers of the K-S1 are just one time buyers that leave the shop with one pack they choose with the kitlens and never expand on that photohobby.

[clackers]

K-S1 vs K-500: The specifications are basically identical with the exception of the K-S1 having 20megapixels vs 16 megapixels for the K-500...

Smaller, wifi capability and no AA filter.

[JPT]

I don't understand how anyone can claim the K-S1 is basically identical to the K-500. The K-S1 is better in almost every way.
- A new sensor. On Sony cameras, that sensor is no better, but also no worse than the 16mp one that preceded it. It is definitely a newer model, though.
- A new processor. It enables faster CDAF, diffraction correction and probably has more benefits.
- A new SR system. The K-S1 can stimulate an AA filter, which means the hardware has been upgraded to support that.
- A redesigned body which is considerable smaller and lighter. It's not easy to fit all the extra bits of a Pentax DSLR into such a body. Remember that Canon and Nikon models of a similar size and weight don't have SR, screwdrive motor or a pentaprism viewfinder.
- A redesigned user interface, including a new appearance for the firmware.

So in fact only the PDAF system appears to be recycled from the K-500. I'm sure the K-500 is good value, but the K-S1 is a generation further on in most respects.

One final point, it's certainly true that you could buy a better lens for the money you save with the K-500, but you can carry another lens in you bag with the weight saved by the K-S1. I don't think you can underestimate how many people reject DSLRs because of their weight, and not everyone is that cost sensitive.

---------- Post added 09-29-14 at 07:48 AM ----------

I forgot to mention, not having an AA filter will also improve image quality.

[RonHendriks1966]

I don't understand how anyone can claim the K-S1 is basically identical to the K-500. The K-S1 is better in almost every way.
- A new sensor. On Sony cameras, that sensor is no better, but also no worse than the 16mp one that preceded it. It is definitely a newer model, though.
- A new processor. It enables faster CDAF, diffraction correction and probably has more benefits.
- A new SR system. The K-S1 can stimulate an AA filter, which means the hardware has been upgraded to support that.
- A redesigned body which is considerable smaller and lighter. It's not easy to fit all the extra bits of a Pentax DSLR into such a body. Remember that Canon and Nikon models of a similar size and weight don't have SR, screwdrive motor or a pentaprism viewfinder.
- A redesigned user interface, including a new appearance for the firmware.

So in fact only the PDAF system appears to be recycled from the K-500. I'm sure the K-500 is good value, but the K-S1 is a generation further on in most respects.

One final point, it's certainly true that you could buy a better lens for the money you save with the K-500, but you can carry another lens in you bag with the weight saved by the K-S1. I don't think you can underestimate how many people reject DSLRs because of their weight, and not everyone is that cost sensitive.

---------- Post added 09-29-14 at 07:48 AM ----------

I forgot to mention, not having an AA filter will also improve image quality.

Very well spoken, but I still think the K-S1 is to expensive at introduction.

[clackers]

I've ordered one ... the time to replace my K-x is now. But of course it will be cheaper later in the product cycle.

[y0chang]

I don't understand how anyone can claim the K-S1 is basically identical to the K-500. The K-S1 is better in almost every way.
- A new sensor. On Sony cameras, that sensor is no better, but also no worse than the 16mp one that preceded it. It is definitely a newer model, though.
- A new processor. It enables faster CDAF, diffraction correction and probably has more benefits.
- A new SR system. The K-S1 can stimulate an AA filter, which means the hardware has been upgraded to support that.
- A redesigned body which is considerable smaller and lighter. It's not easy to fit all the extra bits of a Pentax DSLR into such a body. Remember that Canon and Nikon models of a similar size and weight don't have SR, screwdrive motor or a pentaprism viewfinder.
- A redesigned user interface, including a new appearance for the firmware.

So in fact only the PDAF system appears to be recycled from the K-500. I'm sure the K-500 is good value, but the K-S1 is a generation further on in most respects.

One final point, it's certainly true that you could buy a better lens for the money you save with the K-500, but you can carry another lens in you bag with the weight saved by the K-S1. I don't think you can underestimate how many people reject DSLRs because of their weight, and not everyone is that cost sensitive.

I think this is a extremely good point that the SR system is the K3 gen SR system, this must have been an additional cost. Plus the changed megapixel count means they cant use the same routines verbatim. Pentax specifically chose to make the KS-1 with much better gear so that it can stand a long life cycle. The one thing pentax does is give you more hardware for the money than any other system. This means down the line when the KS-1 falls down on the totem pole its going to still be a top notch competitor. People forget the K30 was $899 starting out with the 18-55 and more than $1000 with the 18-135mm when it came out.

[clackers]

People forget the K30 was $899 starting out with the 18-55

Nicely pointed out, y0chang.

[ogl]

I don't understand how anyone can claim the K-S1 is basically identical to the K-500. The K-S1 is better in almost every way.
- A new sensor.
- A new processor.
- A new SR system.
- A redesigned body which is considerable smaller and lighter.
- A redesigned user interface, including a new appearance for the firmware.

- it's not new sensor.
- it's the same PRIME M just with a small tweaks for video.
- Why do you call it new? SR system is the same.
- It's not be plus or minus.
- It's not be plus or minus.