[rawr]

So "crop mode" basically turns it into a K-5iis? In all the talk, I had missed the fact that "crop-mode" was that good.

It promises to. But there is always the possibility of some bugs.

I've used crop mode on another system, for example, and routinely the images would over-expose, as if the metering system didn't always get the news that it should meter for a smaller image area when in crop mode, and expose accordingly. Centre-weighted metering seemed particularly problematic.

[Nicolas06]

Put in perspective, the Pentax set is still cheaper then A7R2 plus whatever FE native lenses, but it is still bigger and heavier in volume than A7R2 with any of the native lenses I mentioned above, sure they do not give the unique perpective of FA 77mm, but the fact you can also put FA 77 on A7R2 with adapter will still be lighter and smaller makes this whole thing more complex to look at it. Yes you do lose autofocus, but can't change it fact the A7R2 + FA77 is still smaller and lighter than K-1 +FA 77. The way how I see this is, there is no clear winner for every category, that's why people will ended up buying both K-1 and Sony A7 series bodies. The K-1 + FA77 is certainly good package with better price, and people buy it for many good reasons, but there are people also choose to buy the A7 series and A7R2 because there are other things that Pentax or any brands don't offer as well, horses for courses really.

Well if we want AF, and really that not a feature that is accessory, we can put on that A7R-II (625g):
- SEL 85mm f/1.4: 800g
- macro 90mm f/2.8: 600g

Total is either 1225g or 1425g... The K1 is 1kg and FA77 is 269g.. Total is 1269g.

Now if you compare 3FA ltd vs 3FE lenses and add the K1 or the A7RII, you'll find Pentax cheaper, defend itself quite well for quality... And the weight you'll find a quite capable FF body as compact or more than the Sony. If you want it small, you'll stick to A7 original body that was actually light, at least.

The Pentax FF zooms are behemoh, but the Sony zoom have acceptable distorsion only once corrected and are slow f/4. They are not lighter/smaller than f/4 DSLR lenses or f/2.8 APSC zooms. It's not the mirorless that make them small, but the slow apperture.

I don't want to prevent anybody from buying an A7R-II, everybody is free to choose, but the argument that some give there that Pentax could not compete against mirorless for size/weight and there was a paradigm shift read to much into the marketing statement and didn't really compare the practical difference.

I agree K1 is a big beast and there no way to shrink it. pentax could have made it smaller but you could not have both articulated screen, SR and so on and a light FF body. Still, this isn't that bad once you factor the whole system.

[Barry Pearson]

I agree K1 is a big beast and there no way to shrink it. pentax could have made it smaller but you could not have both articulated screen, SR and so on and a light FF body. Still, this isn't that bad once you factor the whole system.

From when I started to use Pentax dSLRs many years ago, I've always used a battery grip when hand-holding with long lenses to make the camera easier to hold with my right hand!

Sometimes, up to a point, bigger can be better; depending, as you say, on the whole system in use.

[ColiNiloK]

Well if we want AF, and really that not a feature that is accessory, we can put on that A7R-II (625g):
- SEL 85mm f/1.4: 800g
- macro 90mm f/2.8: 600g

Total is either 1225g or 1425g... The K1 is 1kg and FA77 is 269g.. Total is 1269g.

Now if you compare 3FA ltd vs 3FE lenses and add the K1 or the A7RII, you'll find Pentax cheaper, defend itself quite well for quality... And the weight you'll find a quite capable FF body as compact or more than the Sony. If you want it small, you'll stick to A7 original body that was actually light, at least.

The Pentax FF zooms are behemoh, but the Sony zoom have acceptable distorsion only once corrected and are slow f/4. They are not lighter/smaller than f/4 DSLR lenses or f/2.8 APSC zooms. It's not the mirorless that make them small, but the slow apperture.

I don't want to prevent anybody from buying an A7R-II, everybody is free to choose, but the argument that some give there that Pentax could not compete against mirorless for size/weight and there was a paradigm shift read to much into the marketing statement and didn't really compare the practical difference.

I agree K1 is a big beast and there no way to shrink it. pentax could have made it smaller but you could not have both articulated screen, SR and so on and a light FF body. Still, this isn't that bad once you factor the whole system.

I agree people should have the right to choose, but the truth is, FE lineup and A7 series is not consistent and full of issues.. that's recognised by many Sony/Minolta users, and I'm among one of them... the K-1 set does has the price advantage not just comparing to Sony, but also CaNikon as well, it is very competitive price vs performance wise, and I'm sure it will do well.

Well, I always think that the A7 series of cameras should always stay reasonably small and light rather than going big and heavy with f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms, that should leave to the A-mount system, it defeats the purpose of smaller and lighter and it cost heaps, but Sony did it anyway coz it sells.... That's why I mentioned it before, the E-mount system is not meant to host FF sensor from the beginning, it's short flange distance has made it harder to design high performance lenses or leaving compromises in lens designs. This also mean that the Sony engineers needs to start from scratch in lens design again thus making the cost high and they need to figure out new QC standards and it can't be refined in a short time thus leaving lens quality vary a lot. Adding unto that they also need to design their body to reinforce the actual mount to host larger high performance lenses( that agin adds costs), also to cater the lineup of lenses with OSS and no OSS the mount needs to accept a higher degree of lens variance to compensate that etc etc as you can see all kinds of issues, it is just not consistent at all...While with A-mount and K-mount it was introduced by Minolta and Pentax long time ago and it is engineered well from the start and refined through out the years thus there is none or less of those issues when designing Full frame lenses for the mount.

Thus you see with FE lenses, there are 2 types of lenses resulted from all those issues: 1. the lenses that needs to be kept in reasonable size needs some software to correct and enhance the performance due to physics; 2. the high performance f1.4 and f2.8 primes like FE 35mm f1.4 Zeiss, FE 85mm f1.4 G Master, FE 90mm f2.8 Marco G lens can't be designed smaller and lighter than 35mm, 85mm f1.4 and 90/100mm f2.8 DSLR lenses due to the fact they need to compensate the short flange distance and pushing performance at the same time, thus they are also pretty expensive from the R&D perspective.

However, the f1.8, f2 and f2.8 primes for the FE lineup are quite good in size,weight and performance too. If you consider the Batis 85mm f1.8 from Zeiss, that's 475g, with A7R2 that's 1.1kg, and FE 55mm f1.8 that's 281g, with A7R2 is 906g, FE 35mm f2.8 is 102g with A7R2 is 727g, now those combo makes the set much smaller, lighter and travel friendly and thus I think those sets should be the ideal combo Sony should aim to push with the A7 series and again leave the big behemoth G Master lenses to A-mount( The G Master 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 is actually bigger than the A-mount f2.8 equivalent)...

Meanwhile, the K-1 body it self isn't the lightest in its class, it is in fact even heavier than 5D3 and D810, however it is smaller than most if not all FF DSLRs and you are right it is jam packed with features. I don't know if Pentax can shrink it or not, maybe they can, but I think it's small enough for an FF DSLR otherwise it may compromise ergonomics combo with big D-FA zooms. The weight and size of FA limited primes sure would helps to not add on too much weight and their size together with the K-1 should be rather smallish and it also adds awesome optical performance.

---

Last edited by ColiNiloK; 03-01-2016 at 05:05 AM.

[Mistral75]

Well if we want AF, and really that not a feature that is accessory, we can put on that A7R-II (625g):
- SEL 85mm f/1.4: 800g
- macro 90mm f/2.8: 600g

Total is either 1225g or 1425g... The K1 is 1kg and FA77 is 269g.. Total is 1269g.

(...).

You forgot Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 85mm f/1.8: autofocus, stabilised, 475g. Total weight with Alpha 7R II: 1.1kg.

[monochrome]

New Godwin's Law: eventually every thread invokes Sony.

[Zygonyx]

Sony has been getting high up

[Winder]

New Godwin's Law: eventually every thread invokes Sony.

They are making the most waves and leading the way in several key technologies.

I would be more than happy to ditch Sony and use all Pentax, but Pentax has some work to do with AF and glass. If Ricoh can find away to implement eye-AF and face tracking AF in the OVF I would be sold. Getting tack sharp eyes when you primarily shoot portraits and weddings a huge advantage. Pentax makes better cameras. The Sony bodies are basically plastic fantastics compared to the higher end construction of the K-3 or K-1.

[Digitalis]

If Ricoh can find away to implement eye-AF

Not a chance, Canon has all the patents on that.

[Simen1]

And when does the patents expire? Canon introduced the eye tracking feature in EOS 5, about 24 years ago.

[Digitalis]

Canon introduced the eye tracking feature in EOS 5, about 24 years ago.

And they haven't used it in a single camera to date...have you ever wondered why that is?

[Winder]

Not a chance, Canon has all the patents on that.

And when does the patents expire? Canon introduced the eye tracking feature in EOS 5, about 24 years ago.

The Eye AF that Sony and Olympus use locks focus on the subjects eye (closest to camera) so you always have the eyes in focus. I'm not talking about the old technology where the camera focuses where you are looking.

I had an old EOS 3 with eye control and it was nice at time. I preferred the ESO RT though.

[Digitalis]

'm not talking about the old technology where the camera focuses where you are looking.

Thanks for the clarification.

[mee]

New Godwin's Law: eventually every thread invokes Sony.

Is that really a Godwin's law then? You should claim it..

[Digitalis]

Is that really a Godwin's law then? You should claim it..

Monochromes law: As an online discussion of pentax camera gear grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving SONY Approaches 1.

hmm, sounds a bit restrictive as It only mentions SONY, there are other camera manufacturers out there.