[reh321]

Yup, prepare yourselves for a new round of squealing over video, crop modes, OBF WiFi, GPS and whatever.

I'm hoping that won't happen again until they announce the next APS-C camera.

added: I guess I have to take back my words above. From what I'm seeing on other threads, there will be continual moaning about the lack of optional split-prism focus screen for the K-1. I'm satisfied with what the "focus achieved" signal does {along with what I see in the K-30 viewfinder}, but apparently manual focus is becoming a big issue for some.

---

Last edited by reh321; 04-15-2016 at 01:46 PM. Reason: added thought

[monochrome]

Yup, prepare yourselves for a new round of squealing over video, crop modes, OBF, WiFi, GPS, crippled mount and whatever.

Video is the new FF.

[ogl]

K-1 1.00 will be tomorrow at Moscow Photo Forum.

[Parallax]

I'm hoping that won't happen again until they announce the next APS-C camera.

You don't even have to be asleep to dream, do you?

[rawr]

It wasn't made according to modern FF standards though....

?? What are these 'modern FF standards'? I'd like to learn more about these standards.

The HD DA 40 seems to have OK credentials as a lens for use on 'modern FF'. It has the latest coatings, minimal CA and vignetting, and a design based on the 24x36 film image circle.

[Igor123]

Thats right. You will see the image circle if it is within the full frame.

-1 for square crop. I don’t need or want that option when shooting. All choices I can postpone to post processing makes me focus better on the choices that can't be moved to post process, like choosing the depth of field, consider the lighting situation, waiting for the right moment and so on. If I had to do 100 choices for every shot, I'm sure I would forget to consider at least 90 of them.

I agree that there are times when the crop choice is best left to pp, but there are numerous reasons for built-in crop modes being a good idea some time (and not just pp), as I said elsewhere:

- Some APC-lenses fill 1:1 frame (while not ff) leaving less work for pp-time but still giving more pixels etc
- Smaller images ->
-- Possible to have a faster burst rate
-- More images fit in buffer
-- Faster in-camera processing for hdr, super resolution etc.
-- More room in sd card
-- Faster computer upload
-- Use less space in computer and allow faster processing there as well

Not for everyone, and not for every case or lens, but there certainly are a number of use-cases, that some, at least I, would like to have buit-in crop modes for (even if that means "shooting blind" without proper viewfinder support, but ofc if would be better with toggle-able frames in the finder)

[TwoUptons]

Not for everyone, and not for every case or lens, but there certainly are a number of use-cases, that some, at least I, would like to have buit-in crop modes for

I'd even be OK with crops only showing on the live view, since it would behave like a waist-level finder at that point...

-Eric

[Nicolas06]

I agree that there are times when the crop choice is best left to pp, but there are numerous reasons for built-in crop modes being a good idea some time (and not just pp), as I said elsewhere:

- Some APC-lenses fill 1:1 frame (while not ff) leaving less work for pp-time but still giving more pixels etc
- Smaller images ->
-- Possible to have a faster burst rate
-- More images fit in buffer
-- Faster in-camera processing for hdr, super resolution etc.
-- More room in sd card
-- Faster computer upload
-- Use less space in computer and allow faster processing there as well

Not for everyone, and not for every case or lens, but there certainly are a number of use-cases, that some, at least I, would like to have buit-in crop modes for (even if that means "shooting blind" without proper viewfinder support, but ofc if would be better with toggle-able frames in the finder)

I think this is already available for K1 with APSC crop mode by default and the possibility to not crop if you do want it. The burst rate change too. Point is there could always be more modes and some people would always ask for more. In The end, this a design compromize.

Anyway, if you are serious about investing on an FF body and to pay more for it, it must be because you expect something better from the bigger sensor. It make no sense to not use it then. If you first problem is to reduce storage consumption, fast processing time on an old computer or avoid to spend 30$ on a 64GB SD card, I don't think investing in a K-1 is a great idea. The same if you don't plan to get a set of good FF lenses to pair with the body, it make absolutely no sense to spend that much on an FF body.

[Igor123]

Anyway, if you are serious about investing on an FF body and to pay more for it, it must be because you expect something better from the bigger sensor. It make no sense to not use it then. If you first problem is to reduce storage consumption, fast processing time on an old computer or avoid to spend 30$ on a 64GB SD card, I don't think investing in a K-1 is a great idea. The same if you don't plan to get a set of good FF lenses to pair with the body, it make absolutely no sense to spend that much on an FF body.

I am serious, but probably after a year after some price drop and I admit that I don't photo for a living, so it's not really "economically justifiable", but more of a hobby so I guess I'm not the main target customer for the camera. That said, I have mostly legacy ff glass so I will automatically "get more" compared to what I have now, except for in my case with the DA12-24, which I think is an insane lens, but "only" covers about 1:1 on ff. I don't doubt that the 15-30 is better as a ff lens, but is it worth the difference of €700 for ff vs 1:1? No way in **** for me at least. Is the k1 worth it with 10-20 benefits over k-5 + almost all my lenses will double the usable area? A lot more reasonable.

And about storage, although I doubt you'd find a great fast card for $30, the main points for me is time more than space or money. With small children around time is more than money =), and even though I have an as fast computer as reasonable money can buy, if i can save 10-20% of time both on camera download, pp processing/export, and backup/upload, while retaining as much usable pixels as possible, it would be great.

So no, it makes no sense to spend the money, but if doing it, we can still like more crop options that would help some in some cases. But I do realize this won't be high priority for Ricoh, but I still hope since at least "blind crop shooting" with the listed benefits could be added in a firmware upgrade in theory.

[Zygonyx]

K-1 1.00 will be tomorrow at Moscow Photo Forum.

Good news !

Pls let us know how things are processing there

[ogl]

Good news !

Pls let us know how things are processing there

My friend will try and make brief review at Penta-Club.

[thibs]

?? What are these 'modern FF standards'? I'd like to learn more about these standards.

The HD DA 40 seems to have OK credentials as a lens for use on 'modern FF'. It has the latest coatings, minimal CA and vignetting, and a design based on the 24x36 film image circle.

Of course bit this very 40mm you're speaking about has been reused as an aps lens, not an FF lens. For this very reason.

The DA200 is nowhere bad but it needs a redesign to correct some of its problems.

[Nicolas06]

I am serious, but probably after a year after some price drop and I admit that I don't photo for a living, so it's not really "economically justifiable", but more of a hobby so I guess I'm not the main target customer for the camera. That said, I have mostly legacy ff glass so I will automatically "get more" compared to what I have now, except for in my case with the DA12-24, which I think is an insane lens, but "only" covers about 1:1 on ff. I don't doubt that the 15-30 is better as a ff lens, but is it worth the difference of €700 for ff vs 1:1? No way in **** for me at least. Is the k1 worth it with 10-20 benefits over k-5 + almost all my lenses will double the usable area? A lot more reasonable.

And about storage, although I doubt you'd find a great fast card for $30, the main points for me is time more than space or money. With small children around time is more than money =), and even though I have an as fast computer as reasonable money can buy, if i can save 10-20% of time both on camera download, pp processing/export, and backup/upload, while retaining as much usable pixels as possible, it would be great.

Few throughs:
- if it is worth $700 vs the APSC crop, then Pentax will have greater chance to sell a new lens to you. That's a reason to not add the 1:1 crop. Also it seem you'll buy the K-1 anyway, so for them it is not really worth the investment.
- Selling the 12-24 can finance A great part of a 20-35 + Samyang 14mm. You may have to add $100.
- I just brought one SD card at the hypermarket (Carrefour) yesterday. I don't live in a cheap area and didn't try to get the best price on the internet. So a 533X 80Mb/s card 32GB was €12, VAT included and a 64GB was € 26 VAT included. Brand is sandisk.
- The whole time gained about the few cases where you'd want 1:1 for transfer and processing might be something like 5 minutes a year or less. Likely much less time than what you spent on this thread already. And that's time you don't even have to actively waiting for, you could surf on forums, do a walk or go on with your life while the system is doing it.
- You say 1:1 not worth vs FF, but in most case anyway FF is not worth it vs APSC. You'll not see the difference when you print, when you share it on the net etc and not all your lenses will benefit it. Rationnally for an hobby it isn't really necessary. You manage to justify 1200-1800$ but not $700 or maybe even $100 (if you resell that 12-24 for a 20-35 + Samyang 14mm).

[Nicolas06]

?? What are these 'modern FF standards'? I'd like to learn more about these standards.

The HD DA 40 seems to have OK credentials as a lens for use on 'modern FF'. It has the latest coatings, minimal CA and vignetting, and a design based on the 24x36 film image circle.

Some DA lenses have official FF profiles by Pentax, theses one are the officially supported DA lenses in FF format. For example the DA*200 and DA*300.

Is it the case for the DA40 ? If not, then it is not up to FF standard for Pentax.

[Nicolas06]

I'm hoping that won't happen again until they announce the next APS-C camera.

added: I guess I have to take back my words above. From what I'm seeing on other threads, there will be continual moaning about the lack of optional split-prism focus screen for the K-1. I'm satisfied with what the "focus achieved" signal does {along with what I see in the K-30 viewfinder}, but apparently manual focus is becoming a big issue for some.

Isn't the issue exactly the same with ALL FF bodies with sames feature as K-1 ? That is information directly displayed on the screen like the APSC crop ?