[One3rdEV]

I can understand some lukewarm first impressions with some aspects of the announced specifications- but it also appears that Ricoh/Pentax have capitalized on some of its strengths to provide a unique platform / array of features / sensor tuning. As the production release continues to unfold and the camera bodies get into the hands of actual users- I think we'll find that the K-1 really does extend beyond the D810.

[reh321]

No. If I wanted more mega-pickles I would buy the A7rII. For wedding and portrait work I really don't need more than 24MP. I spend more time brushing skin than I want already.

If you look back to the weeks preceeding today, one thing Pentaxians continually asked for was at least 36MP. That may have not been you, but I'm guessing there would have been much more "whining" from many more people if this camera didn't have more than 24MP. My K-30 allows me to specify 16MP, 12MP, 8MP, or 5MP images; perhaps the K-1 will provide similar options. Yes, I know that the price covers a 36MP camera, but looking at all the other features, such as the LCD, it might still be worth its rather impressively low price even if you down-scaled images in the camera.

The only sense in which Pentax is doomed is that they cannot make one camera which makes everyone happy.
If they leave something out, people whine about the omission.
If they put something in, people whine about the added cost.

As you can see from my signature photo, I tend not to purchase expensive equipment, but if I had the finances, I would very happily buy this camera.

[Deimos]

I think anyone that is disappointed was expecting a camera that costs almost double this price. I too opined for a giant OVF, but once I saw the price point, the wealth of features, I understood what Ricoh is doing here, they are replicating the 645z success. Strategically it is the best move they could have made, they have caught up with the price points of even used high end DSLRs.

I think it is safe to say that if this goes well there will be future higher spec'd versions to come, but maybe not for a couple years.

[shardulm]

This pricing is for the pros i am thinking. Pros need 2 bodies with a short and long tele mounted at all times. This price point helps pros have 2 bodies with
1. K1+24-70f2.8
2. K1+70-200f2.8
Potentially a 3rd with 15-30f2.8 on it and they are covered.

[Enrique S Toso]

Frankly I do understand, but this is as important as the Sony $1600 full frame that came out last year. It wasn't extraordinarily high resolution, and had some things that made it a non starter for some, but it redefined the market, including for Ricoh. This body will as well, as a high resolution sub $2k full frame.

By next black friday it may be a $1500 body. I paid $1300 for the K3 when it came out.

I'm not certain whether Ricoh will satisfy the high end demands that are driven by specific requirements. This offering is bread and butter, a functional compelling offering for the price that will satisfy a large segment of the market. Pentax will live to see another day and be in a position to pursue other market segments. It will generate cash flow to fund the service and support necessary for higher end offerings.

A $3500 masterpiece would have been a disaster no matter how exceptional the performance.

I think anyone that is disappointed was expecting a camera that costs almost double this price. I too opined for a giant OVF, but once I saw the price point, the wealth of features, I understood what Ricoh is doing here, they are replicating the 645z success. Strategically it is the best move they could have made, they have caught up with the price points of even used high end DSLRs.

I think it is safe to say that if this goes well there will be future higher spec'd versions to come, but maybe not for a couple years.

Cannot be more agree,

[biz-engineer]

A $3500 masterpiece would have been a disaster no matter how exceptional the performance.

+1, yes , absolutely.

[jatrax]

...thank god I'm single...

All depends. I asked my wife and she said "does that mean I get the k-3?"

[Edvinas]

So while it would be awesome if it were 6.5fps @ 36mp, 4.4fps would neither be a significant improvement nor significant liability vis a vis Nikon's FX offerings.

With my photography high ISO performance is essential, so 36 megapixels doesn't cut it at any framerate. I would choose 16 Megapixel camera over 36 Megapixel any day, 36 Megapixels for me means just noisier images and headache when thinking about storage space.

[jatrax]

I think many old time Pentaxians wanted a home run, beat all the competition, have them shaking in their boots, bring back the glory days camera. I suspect Ricoh could have delivered that, but at a far higher cost. And they wisely did not, but rather did the best they could at the price point they felt they needed to be at to be successful. This might not be the camera of everyone's dreams but it is a solid, honest, feature rich camera at an amazing price.

Swinging for home runs is great if you connect, but not so good if you miss. Pentax felt, I believe, that this camera HAD to be a success. A failure here and that is it for the Pentax FF dream. A success here and there will be more cameras and more lenses. When you only get one shot you make sure you get a hit. And I think have one. Runner on first, nobody out..................

[biz-engineer]

Pentaxians wanted a home run, beat all the competition, have them shaking in their boots

I suspect Ricoh could have delivered that, but at a far higher cost.

Although I'm please with the K-1 announcement, I'd comment on your statement: unit cost and R&D costs are two separate things. The K-1 is priced according to goals in terms of revenue and serviceable market, number of customers willing to buy a such camera given its price. Units cost is an internal company figure that customers don't have to know. For example, the unit cost of pixel-shift = $0.0 but since some customers see a value in it, pixel shift contribute to the value they perceive, hence how much money they are willing to pay for the camera. However, R&D cost depends on the amount of efforts Ricoh have put in developing the camera, which , to me is relatively low, they've followed a minimum engineering approach: kept as much as they already had and changed what was needed to accommodate a larger sensor, but that's all. You can clearly see their approach for lenses: no R&D spending , reuse of third party tech. Unit cost of a 50 AF points is the same as 33 AF point, it's a peace of silicon. The trick to make money is to propose features that cost much less than the value perceived by customers. What's funny about this Ricoh full frame is that they tried to teased like for a luxury product, nurturing the dream that Ricoh would come up with some bright features (larger view finder than competition, different sensor or whatever), and they release it as a mass market me too product. Kind of an original approach , since there is a kind of disconnect between the tease and the reality, it's the first time I see that.

[Deimos]

With my photography high ISO performance is essential, so 36 megapixels doesn't cut it at any framerate. I would choose 16 Megapixel camera over 36 Megapixel any day, 36 Megapixels for me means just noisier images and headache when thinking about storage space.

The sample high-ISO images I have seen on DPR look insanely clean (RAW). Only exposure was adjusted no NR

6400 RAW


12800 RAW

[Not a Number]

With my photography high ISO performance is essential, so 36 megapixels doesn't cut it at any framerate. I would choose 16 Megapixel camera over 36 Megapixel any day, 36 Megapixels for me means just noisier images and headache when thinking about storage space.

The Real Megapixel Myth

[rawr]

AF-C may be lacking compared to the best, but not ever pro job requires great AF tracking, if at all.

That's part of the issue. To understand a camera's strengths or weaknesses, or even features, you may need to place it in a usage context (or as DxO terms it, 'usage case'). Pros or hobbyists alike.

Great camera features for portrait shooting may not be considered so useful when shooting sports. Wedding pros may also want different features from landscape or architecture shooters. Etc.

The 'problem' with the K-1 is that it kind of has to do it all - satisfy all usage cases - and at a good price. Somehow in getting to that point, Ricoh has chosen to enhance some camera features (eg 5 axis SR) while leaving others less developed (eg the AF or the metering), or by downgrading or removing other features entirely (eg USB, on-board flash).

So naturally users who approach the K-1 with particular needs (eg pro sports shooters who value tenacious AF-C tracking) may be legitimately disappointed with the K-1, whilst others may not notice any problem at all.

This might not be the camera of everyone's dreams but it is a solid, honest, feature rich camera at an amazing price.

Exactly.

I personally think Pentax could have done more in some areas (eg the AF, which still looks very similar to K-3 AF), but it will be interesting to see if in reality the K-1 AF performs a lot better than the spec sheet would suggest.

[Digitalis]

36 Megapixels for me means just noisier images and headache when thinking about storage space.

Storage is cheap, and there is nothing stopping you from downscaling the 36mp images to 16Mp - it would actually produce comparable or better IQ than any 16Mp camera by virtue of the reduction in image size.

Sounds to me like you are complaining for the sake of complaining.

---------- Post added 2016-02-18 at 05:08 PM ----------

So naturally users who approach the K-1 with particular needs (eg pro sports shooters who value tenacious AF-C tracking) may be legitimately disappointed with the K-1

Really? the camera isn't even in your bloody hands and you are already ripping on the AF.

[rawr]

Really? the camera isn't even in your bloody hands and you are already ripping on the AF, saying it won't be good enough.

Note the last part of my post.