K-1 + kit lens $2200 rumor

Kunzite · 02-09-2016, 03:32 PM

To have a "cheap" kit option. People might buy it, then add better lenses later.
This camera will not be sold exclusively to pros.

Mistral75 · 02-09-2016, 03:47 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

The price is TOO LOW. It's a VA consumer lens. It won't be a competitive body at that price. Just another me-too average FF.

No way are they pricing top line features at $2,200 body-only.

Just imagine the K-1 as a 24x36 K-3 II with a few extra goodies, as the 645Z was a 33x44 K-3 with a few extra goodies and the 645D a 33x44 K-7 with... you got my point.

Neither the 645D nor the 645Z were "another me-too average medium-format camera" though.

Na Horuk · 02-09-2016, 04:08 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

To have a "cheap" kit option. People might buy it, then add better lenses later.

Yeah, but this tells a lot about the target market, and subsequently the value of the product. Some cameras do not come bundled with a cheap kit zoom, because they expect the buyer is knowledgeable and will make an investment in this gear.
Worst case scenario is, people buy this FF with a cheap lens, then get angry when someone with a Nikon 5300 and a great lens gets better photos. Lens is very important, and I understand selling kit lenses with low and mid tier. But the flagship has to come with a fairly good lens to begin with. Honestly, I'd love to see this camera bundled with the likes of DA* 50-135mm or DA* 55mm.

**filoxophy** · 02-09-2016, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

I would expect that price for body only or maybe with DA L 18-55mm (not that this lens would be very good on a new high res FF, but cost-wise).

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Honestly, I'd love to see this camera bundled with the likes of DA* 50-135mm

This camera has approximately zero chance of being bundled with an APS-C-only lens. A "kit" 28-105mm/3.5-5.6 or thereabouts seems much more likely, per the lens road map.

Kunzite · 02-09-2016, 04:28 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Worst case scenario is, people buy this FF with a cheap lens, then get angry when someone with a Nikon 5300 and a great lens gets better photos.

Hold your horses. Let's see the lens before that; the 16-85, an f/3.5-5.6 itself, is no slouch.

Imp · 02-09-2016, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Hold your horses. Let's see the lens before that; the 16-85, an f/3.5-5.6 itself, is no slouch.

That's what i've said

**monochrome** · 02-09-2016, 05:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Imp

Ahem, look at the prices of the K-3, K-3 ii...

Or does no-one care about those cameras anymore?

i have been 'educated'.

**LaurenOE** · 02-09-2016, 05:28 PM

Do we have any final specifications? Did I miss that yet?

**Pål Jensen** · 02-09-2016, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Shanti

But why put a cheap consumer lens on a Pro body aimed at pros?? €2000 seems a great price for the body only,if it is as good as D810 or better

hope its with VAT the price though

as 25% more would not be NICE

Because most pro cameras are bought by consumers; at least in the film days. About 5% of Nikon F3 went to pros....

mee · 02-09-2016, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by LaurenOE

Do we have any final specifications? Did I miss that yet?

39.5 MP
6 axis SR
3.33K video
"Ludicrous speed" burst rate

cost %200000 moon bucks

You have to wait like the rest of us until the release.

Quicksand · 02-09-2016, 05:45 PM

I think Ken will continue to taunt us for at least a few more days. I'm sure he's having a blast!

JeffB · 02-09-2016, 05:47 PM

I don't see anything explicit about a 28-105mm on the roadmap. There is a vague blob titled "D FA Standard zoom".

mee · 02-09-2016, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by JeffB

I don't see anything explicit about a 28-105mm on the roadmap. There is a vague blob titled "D FA Standard zoom".

Look at where the lines begin and end for it. It is clearly a 28-105mm lens they are indicating on the roadmap currently

K David · 02-09-2016, 06:56 PM

I'm planning on getting this in October, when my K-3 hits three years and about 145,000 or so actuations. I would prefer it if there was a kit prime option, preferably the 43mm Limited or 50mm 1.4. I'm not sure why cameras don't include prime options for kit lenses any more (or often.) Zooms just don't get my blood pumping any more.

Shanti · 02-09-2016, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Hold your horses. Let's see the lens before that; the 16-85, an f/3.5-5.6 itself, is no slouch.

Maybe lets see.. in my OM days had a 35-105 3.5-5.6 & was/is a very sharp lens,built like a tank

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CES Pentax K-1 Rumor or Fact?	wtlwdwgn	Pentax News and Rumors	286	01-27-2016 03:27 AM
PENTAX digital SLR K-3II 18-135WR lens kit for $US 1,998.00	ahannan	Pentax News and Rumors	10	05-19-2015 08:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-r, 18-55mm kit, 50-200mm kit, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro lens (CONUS	PastorOfMuppets	Sold Items	3	04-02-2011 07:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-7 Kit WR kit, Kx White kit, FA50mm 1.4, Voigtlander Nokton, K7/5 Grip	Rory	Sold Items	19	02-28-2011 10:16 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-X (black) with kit lens and F 50mm f/1.7 lens	tangus	Sold Items	3	01-06-2010 09:42 AM

02-09-2016, 03:32 PM	#31
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	To have a "cheap" kit option. People might buy it, then add better lenses later. This camera will not be sold exclusively to pros.

02-09-2016, 03:47 PM - 1 Like	#32
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Originally posted by monochrome The price is TOO LOW. It's a VA consumer lens. It won't be a competitive body at that price. Just another me-too average FF. No way are they pricing top line features at $2,200 body-only. Just imagine the K-1 as a 24x36 K-3 II with a few extra goodies, as the 645Z was a 33x44 K-3 with a few extra goodies and the 645D a 33x44 K-7 with... you got my point. Neither the 645D nor the 645Z were "another me-too average medium-format camera" though.

02-09-2016, 04:08 PM - 1 Like	#33
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by Kunzite To have a "cheap" kit option. People might buy it, then add better lenses later. Yeah, but this tells a lot about the target market, and subsequently the value of the product. Some cameras do not come bundled with a cheap kit zoom, because they expect the buyer is knowledgeable and will make an investment in this gear. Worst case scenario is, people buy this FF with a cheap lens, then get angry when someone with a Nikon 5300 and a great lens gets better photos. Lens is very important, and I understand selling kit lenses with low and mid tier. But the flagship has to come with a fairly good lens to begin with. Honestly, I'd love to see this camera bundled with the likes of DA* 50-135mm or DA* 55mm.

02-09-2016, 04:16 PM	#34
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,132	Originally posted by Na Horuk I would expect that price for body only or maybe with DA L 18-55mm (not that this lens would be very good on a new high res FF, but cost-wise). Originally posted by Na Horuk Honestly, I'd love to see this camera bundled with the likes of DA* 50-135mm This camera has approximately zero chance of being bundled with an APS-C-only lens. A "kit" 28-105mm/3.5-5.6 or thereabouts seems much more likely, per the lens road map.

02-09-2016, 04:28 PM - 1 Like	#35
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Na Horuk Worst case scenario is, people buy this FF with a cheap lens, then get angry when someone with a Nikon 5300 and a great lens gets better photos. Hold your horses. Let's see the lens before that; the 16-85, an f/3.5-5.6 itself, is no slouch.

02-09-2016, 04:38 PM	#36
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	Originally posted by Kunzite Hold your horses. Let's see the lens before that; the 16-85, an f/3.5-5.6 itself, is no slouch. That's what i've said

02-09-2016, 05:22 PM - 1 Like	#37
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Imp Ahem, look at the prices of the K-3, K-3 ii... Or does no-one care about those cameras anymore? i have been 'educated'.

02-09-2016, 05:28 PM	#38
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Do we have any final specifications? Did I miss that yet?

02-09-2016, 05:31 PM	#39
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Shanti But why put a cheap consumer lens on a Pro body aimed at pros?? €2000 seems a great price for the body only,if it is as good as D810 or better hope its with VAT the price though as 25% more would not be NICE Because most pro cameras are bought by consumers; at least in the film days. About 5% of Nikon F3 went to pros....

02-09-2016, 05:34 PM	#40
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by LaurenOE Do we have any final specifications? Did I miss that yet? 39.5 MP 6 axis SR 3.33K video "Ludicrous speed" burst rate cost %200000 moon bucks You have to wait like the rest of us until the release.

02-09-2016, 05:45 PM	#41
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	I think Ken will continue to taunt us for at least a few more days. I'm sure he's having a blast!

02-09-2016, 05:47 PM	#42
JeffB Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: 'Merica! Posts: 209	I don't see anything explicit about a 28-105mm on the roadmap. There is a vague blob titled "D FA Standard zoom".

02-09-2016, 05:50 PM	#43
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by JeffB I don't see anything explicit about a 28-105mm on the roadmap. There is a vague blob titled "D FA Standard zoom". Look at where the lines begin and end for it. It is clearly a 28-105mm lens they are indicating on the roadmap currently

02-09-2016, 06:56 PM	#44
K David Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Colorado Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,437	I'm planning on getting this in October, when my K-3 hits three years and about 145,000 or so actuations. I would prefer it if there was a kit prime option, preferably the 43mm Limited or 50mm 1.4. I'm not sure why cameras don't include prime options for kit lenses any more (or often.) Zooms just don't get my blood pumping any more.

02-09-2016, 07:19 PM	#45
Shanti Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Western Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Kunzite Hold your horses. Let's see the lens before that; the 16-85, an f/3.5-5.6 itself, is no slouch. Maybe lets see.. in my OM days had a 35-105 3.5-5.6 & was/is a very sharp lens,built like a tank