[anu l]

I have the exact same feeling. In-fact I am thinking there is another FF in the cooker possibly 42mPix sony sensor of course that has this hybrid focusing system offering superb video capabilities. This body is going to be better and more capable than the K-1 in the sense what D-810 is to D-750 this new K-2 will be to K-1. Wonder if the newly build D-FA lenses are provisioned for the continuous AF capability.

@Kenspo keeps saying there is more interesting stuff in the pipe and I don't see what else could it be.

Yup, The K-1 as a debut Full frame DSLR will always have many shortcomings, some of which are.

- lack of USB3
- K-1 lags behind the competition in Continuous AF & overall AF performance.
- It lacks in burst speed.
- not that a new model will help bit it also seriously lacks in Full frame lens availability.

I think the last point is today the biggest deal breaker for most non pentaxians who could have choosen Pentax if otherwise.

(Many criticize it, but I think Tony Northrup got it bang on over the lack of FF lenses for Pentax in the second video ("Attack of the PENTAXIANS"). His first one was very practical & he admitted that he didn't consider the 3rd party alternatives for Pentax in first video.
The older lenses lack too much in Image quality to justify a 36MP full frame sensor.
)

[normhead]

Yup, The K-1 as a debut Full frame DSLR will always have many shortcomings, some of which are.

- lack of USB3
- K-1 lags behind the competition in Continuous AF & overall AF performance.
- It lacks in burst speed.
- not that a new model will help bit it also seriously lacks in Full frame lens availability.

I think the last point is today the biggest deal breaker for most non pentaxians who could have choosen Pentax if otherwise.

(Many criticize it, but I think Tony Northrup got it bang on over the lack of FF lenses for Pentax in the second video ("Attack of the PENTAXIANS"). His first one was very practical & he admitted that he didn't consider the 3rd party alternatives for Pentax in first video.
The older lenses lack too much in Image quality to justify a 36MP full frame sensor.
)

Do you write this because of personal experience, you have a K-1 and have found it insufficient for your needs, or because you love reading the prognosticating on-line navel gazers, and have looked into their navels and believe what they saw there?

[fromunderthebridge]

(Many criticize it, but I think Tony Northrup got it bang on over the lack of FF lenses for Pentax in the second video ("Attack of the PENTAXIANS"). His first one was very practical & he admitted that he didn't consider the 3rd party alternatives for Pentax in first video.
The older lenses lack too much in Image quality to justify a 36MP full frame sensor.
)

Oh, stuff it.

While older lenses may have limitations, you need to realize that even Tony's vaunted 'results' were more specific than he mentioned in the videos: Many legacy lenses perform poorly or abysmally wide open and in corners. Stopped down you will have resolution and will get the mileage out of the 36MP sensor. So yeah, old lenses have limitations, but it depends on the lens and the use case whether you run into them or not.

Again, Tony's success criteria for a lens seemed to be corner sharpness wide open. Relevant, yes, but not the whole picture.

[normhead]

Yup, The K-1 as a debut Full frame DSLR will always have many shortcomings, some of which are.

Every camera has lots of shortcomings. The best action sports combo, the $6k Canon 1Dx and 11k 200-400 zoom, is only 20MP, and would probably make a lousy high res landscape camera, like the K-1. Just the fact that you don't understand that every camera has shortcomings makes you totally unqualified to make this kind of statement. It has nothing to do with the K-1 being debut camera. In fact, given the qualities of this camera, that's probably one of the least informative things ever said. It has features no other cameras have, like Pentax's version of pixel shift, and other features none of the top dogs have, like SR for every lens ever made for Pentax. I could just as effectively argue a 1Dx or D4x are obsolete because they are so low res, and don't have pixel shift. But knowing people who shoot those cameras and seeing what they produce, I know that would be silly.

Cameras are valued for what they do, what they don't do is pretty much irrelevant, their strengths sell them. The why folks like Northrup are nothing more than background noise in the on-going experience of photography.

You can buy a 1D for it's 14-16 FPS, and be happy with that despite it's 20 MP (same as K-s2). You can buy pentax K-1 for it's pixel shift and be happy, many are. It gives you something other cameras don't. Focussing on the negatives just makes you boring and irrelevant. And believe it or not, you will get images with that fast burst, slower burst cameras miss. AT that point 20 MP, 24 MP or 36 MP is irrelevant.

- lack of USB3

yawn

- K-1 lags behind the competition in Continuous AF & overall AF performance.

It's not sold as a sports camera, it sold as a field camera. It doesn't matter if others are faster, as long as you don't notice the difference in the field. I've not seen one actual user complain that faster than K-1 AF and shutters are needed in a camera of this type. Users understand what the strengths of the camera are and use it for that reason.

- not that a new model will help bit it also seriously lacks in Full frame lens availability.

Because you personally can't get the lens you need for it? There are lenses missing from the Pentax line up, but again, I've seen not one user make this complaint. The complaints come from paper pushers, sitting at their desks with their little bits of paper analyzing the numbers and making up deficiencies. I've yet to see this kind of posting from folks using the camera in the field.

When i reviewer says, "I can't make this camera work for me." does that reflect on the reviewer, or the camera? Usually it's the reviewer. Somewhere someone is making him look like a fool. Smart people don't engage in this type of trash talk.

When I was in school, even after the Spotmatic came out, eliminating the hand held light meter, Nikon fans were still shooting Nikon, despite the clear Pentax advantage. Canon shooters were still shooting Canon. Your mistake is thinking these reviewers would see it even if Pentax came up with the best overall camera the world has ever seen. They'd still find nit's to pick. To me, attacking the Pentax lens line up is an act of desperation. The protestations of a man crying in the wilderness, with really nothing to say.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-29-2016 at 09:14 AM.

[anu l]

Oh, stuff it.

While older lenses may have limitations, you need to realize that even Tony's vaunted 'results' were more specific than he mentioned in the videos: Many legacy lenses perform poorly or abysmally wide open and in corners. Stopped down you will have resolution and will get the mileage out of the 36MP sensor. So yeah, old lenses have limitations, but it depends on the lens and the use case whether you run into them or not.

Again, Tony's success criteria for a lens seemed to be corner sharpness wide open. Relevant, yes, but not the whole picture.

But I will buy a f/2.8 or f/1.8 lens to use it at those settings in most cases. I can accept that there is always some softness wide open, but it must be less.

The thing is Pentax needs more options in full frame domain - the cheaper ones whose quality will be more acceptable considering the price, the mid range & the high quality. This will take some time for Pentax to establish fully,

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

The older lenses lack too much in Image quality to justify a 36MP full frame sensor.

Which older lenses are you referring to? This seems to me to be a bit of a generalisation. I'm sure that some older lenses, especially the cheaper, kit offerings, aren't good enough to do full justice to a 36 Mpx sensor, but then again, I haven't tried them all. I do know that the FA Limiteds seem plenty sharp enough for my purposes (the 31mm in particular is insanely sharp). And the Pentax-A 24 mm f2.8 is pretty good, too. Then again, I'm not a pixel peeper: I even believe the heresy that sharpness, beyond a reasonable level, isn't the be-all and end-all of a lens' characteristics. In fact, for many applications, sharpness is the least desirable attribute. Pentax made the K-1 for us to enjoy the old lenses, and I'm jolly well going to do that whatever Tony Northrup or anyone else says.

[Borrelli]

Anu don't be such a troll. Have you even held a K-1 in your hands yet?

Back on topic. So if I read correctly, existing DC lenses like the 20-40Ltd, the 16-85 and the 18-135 can do AF in video on the K-70 then? Should be a good selling point for second-hand ones

[fromunderthebridge]

Anu don't be such a troll. Have you even held a K-1 in your hands yet?

Back on topic. So if I read correctly, existing DC lenses like the 20-40Ltd, the 16-85 and the 18-135 can do AF in video on the K-70 then? Should be a good selling point for second-hand ones

I wouldn't say troll. Valid criticism in a myopic (gearhead'ish) sort of way. Again everything depends on the use case (I can see corner sharpness wide open as relevant for low light landscapes).

EDIT:
Also, one can factor in what percentage of each person's body of work consists of specifically low light landscapes/astro (for some, a lot, others not so much).

[ogl]

Yup, The K-1 as a debut Full frame DSLR will always have many shortcomings, some of which are.

- lack of USB3

Never use USB port with my digital cameras from 2005.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I can see corner sharpness wide open as relevant for low light landscapes

Possibly, but normally one wants a fair depth of field in landscapes, so one is often better served by a tripod and a smaller aperture. Maybe it's just me, but I've never worried unduly about corner sharpness, even in landscapes, as long as it isn't glaringly obvious.

[shardulm]

ability for video AF

, continuous of course

That one feature sums up to "superb video capabilities" for me. LOL.

[anu l]

Yup, The K-1 as a debut Full frame DSLR will always have many shortcomings, some of which are.

- lack of USB3
- K-1 lags behind the competition in Continuous AF & overall AF performance.
- It lacks in burst speed.
- not that a new model will help bit it also seriously lacks in Full frame lens availability.

I think the last point is today the biggest deal breaker for most non pentaxians who could have choosen Pentax if otherwise.

(Many criticize it, but I think Tony Northrup got it bang on over the lack of FF lenses for Pentax in the second video ("Attack of the PENTAXIANS"). His first one was very practical & he admitted that he didn't consider the 3rd party alternatives for Pentax in first video.
The older lenses lack too much in Image quality to justify a 36MP full frame sensor.
)

people seem to be getting confused about what I wanted to say.

my point was not about what works for particular person or a particular type of photograph.

When I wrote it I wasn't considering Pentaxians. people who have Pentax gear are the first one's who will be happy.

It was about non Pentax users. & you may ask why worry about them?

the thing which I'm worried is lens variety, availability & along with more Pentax lenses third party support is critical for this (their price point augments the possibility of Pentax being a practical option for more people). One must appreciate the interdependence, if you have more demand of a brand then more 3rd party manufacturers will be interested in making lenses. This will create more options for people & will attract more people in general (more importantly non pentaxians).

for this, a camera which fulfills the demands of a wide range of people will help.

K-1 is still not there.

(for current Pentaxians this is the last concern, since they being with the brand proves their every need is fulfilled by Pentax, & Pentax serves them very well)

but to increase their base beyond the current pentaxians they will need better video, which pentax cleary doesnt do with K-1
they also need the range and availability of lenses (now here please don't think from your point of view, but from PENTAX's point of view because they have to consider the aggregation of all "points of views")

people say - "I havent seen much pentax users who are complaining about the lack or shortcoming of a particular feature". But think about it, if they did chances are they would have left Pentax. Most Pentax users are happy because Pentax (in cases which matter them the most) works for them.

for a meaningful survey you must consider non pentaxians too, & they happen to be the overwhelming majority.

So why do I care?, I care because less pentax users means less pentax availability in my region, higher price & hardly any lens availability & less service/support.

& why do I not take Canon/Nikon because like most other Pentaxians, it's offerings in a product works for me too.

Hope someone gets my point.
jumping the gun doesn't help.

[fromunderthebridge]

people seem to be getting confused about what I wanted to say.

my point was not about what works for particular person or a particular type of photograph.

When I wrote it I wasn't considering Pentaxians. people who have Pentax gear are the first one's who will be happy.

It was about non Pentax users. & you may ask why worry about them?

the thing which I'm worried is lens variety, availability & along with more Pentax lenses third party support is critical for this (their price point augments the possibility of Pentax being a practical option for more people). One must appreciate the interdependence, if you have more demand of a brand then more 3rd party manufacturers will be interested in making lenses. This will create more options for people & will attract more people in general (more importantly non pentaxians).

for this, a camera which fulfills the demands of a wide range of people will help.

K-1 is still not there.

(for current Pentaxians this is the last concern, since they being with the brand proves their every need is fulfilled by Pentax, & Pentax serves them very well)

but to increase their base beyond the current pentaxians they will need better video, which pentax cleary doesnt do with K-1
they also need the range and availability of lenses (now here please don't think from your point of view, but from PENTAX's point of view because they have to consider the aggregation of all "points of views")

people say - "I havent seen much pentax users who are complaining about the lack or shortcoming of a particular feature". But think about it, if they did chances are they would have left Pentax. Most Pentax users are happy because Pentax (in cases which matter them the most) works for them.

for a meaningful survey you must consider non pentaxians too, & they happen to be the overwhelming majority.

So why do I care?, I care because less pentax users means less pentax availability in my region, higher price & hardly any lens availability & less service/support.

& why do I not take Canon/Nikon because like most other Pentaxians, it's offerings in a product works for me too.

Hope someone gets my point.
jumping the gun doesn't help.

Now you are making more sense. In that the lens selection affects the marketability of the system, you are entirely correct. Pundits like to capitalize on details as that is their business and uncertain consumers (people who do not have a clear idea what their work requires) may prefer to select a system that gives them the most potential options even if they never even use anything beyond the kit stuff. Of course there is always the specialty niche stuff that some people require and that's a separate issue in and of itself (and not entirely relevant to this discussion as currently it does not seem feasible for Pentax to cater to every lens niche out there with their limited resources).

---------- Post added 06-29-16 at 06:27 PM ----------

Possibly, but normally one wants a fair depth of field in landscapes, so one is often better served by a tripod and a smaller aperture. Maybe it's just me, but I've never worried unduly about corner sharpness, even in landscapes, as long as it isn't glaringly obvious.

Again, horses for courses and preferences vary. I said I can see the relevance, however, I also usually prefer to shoot at around f5.6 - f8 for landscapes if feasible.

[Kunzite]

What does it mean to fulfill the demands of a wide range of people? In which way the K-1 is still not there?
There's no on/off switch between fulfilling, and not fulfilling these unnamed demands. There's no arbitrary target below which the K-1 is useless because "is still not there". What we have, is gradual but significant progress: the K-1 itself, together with the firsts of the new lenses, are expanding the Pentax K applicability. Pentax K digital FF is huge, for the system.
Next year, we should have some modern primes; that's significant too. From there, we'll see.

I don't subscribe to the way of thinking arbitrary targets, because those are often set just outside what Pentax offers; I've seen it happening over and over again. Just not long ago Pentax was not "up there" because we didn't had a FF. Now we have the incredible K-1, and that's not good, because the target moved to "they don't have enough lenses". Yawn.

[normhead]

people seem to be getting confused about what I wanted to say.

I think it might be the other way around. The criticisms you made would be of absolutely no use to non-Pentax users.

Or in other words, if you can't tell people why they should use the camera, you cannot possibly understand why they shouldn't.

Back to my 1Dx example. Someone who doesn't utilize 14 FPS criticizes the camera for being only 20 MP. They do not understand that nothing, not the less dynamic range, not the small MP, none of the negatives of the camera will mean it isn't the best camera for what that person needs, and they would buy a camera with even less dynamic range a and lower MP if it gave them 20 FPS, because that feature is really important to what they do.

Now on a K-1, and I don't own it, it is the incredible resolution/detail and colour rendition of the pixel shifted images. Now understand, nothing is free. You can't get that on any other camera. If that feature will improve your work, and it is a feature that will take your great work, ( because you have to be a really good photographer just to understand how to best make use if it.) and push it over the top to a higher level. ( if you're an amateurs that isn't already getting great images the pixel shift won't improve your images). From an absolutist stand point, that is priceless. If it was 1 fps, USB, 1, and there were only three good lenses for it, it would still be the camera for some people for whom it would push their work over the top.

So, you're saying, from your paper analysis, that those people need to be told what the negatives are.

When the D810 came out some of the published images blew me away. Just like some of the images taken with the K-1, especially the ones with pixel shift. So, my question is, why did so many go nuts over the d810 and so few drop what they were doing and buy a K-1. And a lot of that has to do with people getting bad impressions from people like Tony Northrup which is picked up and repeated pretty much verbatim by people like yourself. I mean it isn't even good stuff. It's nit picking about stuff that is pretty secondary to the process of creating images.

Well no, it's not your job to bad mouth a camera who's existence and place in the world you don't really understand. Neither is it Tony Northrup's.

The fact that you don't get it, means you are exactly the person who shouldn't be commenting. You don't appreciate what the K-1 does. You shouldn't be trying to influence people who would, if they gave it a chance.

For myself, I'm really tied to one camera body that can do everything good enough and does better than average on the things that are most important to me. None of my work right now would benefit from a K-1, or a 645z. IN the areas that are most important to me, the K-3 s a great compromise.


Does that mean I'm going to bad mouth a bunch of other cameras because of their supposed deficiencies? The fact is if tomorrow, I need a 1Dx, I'll buy it, if I need a K-1 I'll buy it, if I need a D750, I'll buy it. There is a place for every one of those cameras in some shooter's camera bag. Just not mine. To me Tony Northrup's equipment is a pile of garbage i wouldn't pay for. And I can make just as good arguments as to why my equipment is what I need, as he can for what he needs. The difference between me and him is, I don't go blabbing my mouth off about what I use and why everything else's is crap.

Your little list of criticisms is offensive, in that it's shallow, narrow minded and addresses no really important issues.

He says there are no lenses for the K-1. Because he's been through every lens in the Pentax line up and all the legacy glass and come to this conclusion? No, that's not it is it.

It's because he's a fool that quickly comes to ignorant conclusions and then doesn't even bother to explain them or provide any data supporting his claims. I could just as easily say, that because Nikon doesn't have a 31, 43 or 77 in their line up, and Pentax does cover their odd ball FLs and all the traditional ones, Nikon doesn't have an adequate line up. But I don't. That kind of posturing is meaningless. If one of Pentax lenses is the one that clicks with you, then all the Nikon glass in the world is useless.

______________________________________________


Back to the K-70, I'm definitely going to give it a look. 24 MP pixels shift and the rotating back screen, are definitely keeper items. The movie thing is fascinating too, but I don't do movies. That part makes me curious as to whether or not that technology is introduced in a a high FPS still camera. After all if you can get a camera to do 30 FPS with trading autofocus in movie mode, surely you can do a lot better than 8 FPS in still mode.

And the whole thing about only the 55-300 being able to use new AF tech. that part is just confusing. Until it's clear it can help my FPS in stills, and with the lenses I have, it's not really of interest. Maybe it won't beef the stills up to 30 FPS, but 15 would be awesome. Obviously that will come later if it comes at all.