[Uluru]

I turns out that the OP in that thread was writing to both memory cards at the same time, hence his problem with buffer. Now, in that situation, clearly, a bigger buffer or faster buffer clearing would be good, but it's a bit unfair to conclude from that that the K-1 "is designed to be nothing more than an enthusiast landscape camera, with a portrait or two taken in between."

It can be used; I know people who, instead of renting a small but powerful truck, used elegant but underpowered personal Mercedes SLKs to load them with bricks and cement, because they wished to build their weekend houses in style.
Similar is a person who takes the K-1 on a wedding shooting. If that was my daughter's wedding, I would dismiss him right away.

[biz-engineer]

Similar is a person who takes the K-1 on a wedding shooting. If that was my daughter's wedding, I would dismiss him right away.

I used to photograph wedding with a coolpix 2100, somewhere 15 years ago, printed, and lay the photos side by side to compare with pro prints of the same wedding. "customers" said "we can tell the difference with the photos from the pro photographer", it was not worth paying for this pro guy. The K1 is way better than a Coolpix 2100, both AF speed and resolution. It's funny for me to read that the K1 is not good for weddings.

[Kunzite]

There's a pretty nice post about this, from a real world perspective:
Pentax K-1 as a wedding camera! - PentaxForums.com


"It's a good thing I had two cameras. The K-1s proved to be subpar in their buffer size and frame rate - to the point of sheer frustration"
"In conclusion, (and also before you rip me a new one ) I'm dubious to recommend the K-1 for real wedding work."

Some say the Pentax 645z is a wedding photographer's dream. Amazing how people's real world perspectives can be so different.

[ffking]

That Pentax cameras always come with an impediment or two that separate them from professional grounds?

To be fair, medium format apart,there are probably only two full-on professional DSLR lines made that don't hold back on something (1DX series from Canon and single digit Ds from Nikon) - and even they can only achieve this by having fewer Mp than more landscape oriented cameras. All the rest of Nikon and Canon make compromises - as do Sony in build quality and Olympus in sensor size and Leica in some aspects of tech. -and the rest are also rans.

[surfar]

-and the rest are also rans.

Better tell that to all the pros who are doing weddings without those cameras.

[ffking]

Better tell that to all the pros who are doing weddings without those cameras.

sort of my point, in a round about way

[Rondec]

My wife shoots weddings with a K-1. It outperforms her second shooters 5D MK II significantly.

We need to be honest and say that the K-1 is at least as good if not better than 90 percent of the cameras used to photograph weddings over the years. Beyond which when you hire a wedding photographer you are hiring them for their skill and vision, not just for their gear. In point of fact, few clients ask about brand of camera after they look through a portfolio of images.

I understand that the bar has moved and there are better cameras out there, but it would be foolish to say there weren't good wedding photographers who just dealt with the limitations their cameras presented them with.

[bxf]

Some say the Pentax 645z is a wedding photographer's dream. Amazing how people's real world perspectives can be so different.

This. And, with so many obvious "shortcomings" in the rest of the Pentax lineup, one has to wonder how photographers ever managed to shoot weddings in the last century.

[pathdoc]

Similar is a person who takes the K-1 on a wedding shooting. If that was my daughter's wedding, I would dismiss him right away.

Really?

Has it not struck you that the K-1 is a more capable camera in every way than many DSLRs which top-level professional photographers shot weddings with in the past, and shot them magnificently?

I therefore find your attitude indefensible. Your comments indicate that you are a gear snob and FUD merchant. Boriscleto'd. Forever.

[Winder]

Some say the Pentax 645z is a wedding photographer's dream. Amazing how people's real world perspectives can be so different.

I use to shoot with a Contax 645 and I know several others who shot MF film and tried to move over to shooting weddings with MF digital. For Ricoh to make a run at this market segment they really need to develop IBIS for MF, improve the AF, and they need to update the glass. I was talking with a guy who does use a 645z for weddings, but only for the staged and controlled shots. For the actual ceremony and events he goes back to his DSLR. When things start moving fast the 645z slows you down. Its the same with the Fuji GFX. With only CDAF the GFX is never going to be fast enough to be the primary camera for many wedding photographers. Its fine for getting those detail shots and the staged dress shots, but $6,000 is a lot to pay for a body that is relatively limited in what it can do really well. Obviously the image quality is outstanding, but the GFX is too slow. When technology brings the speed of a camera like the A9 to a MF camera like a GFX everything changes. If Sony were to enter the MF mirrorless market with a stacked BSI 100MP MF sensor hitting at even 5fps it would seriously shake up the MF market.

[MarkJerling]

It can be used; I know people who, instead of renting a small but powerful truck, used elegant but underpowered personal Mercedes SLKs to load them with bricks and cement, because they wished to build their weekend houses in style.
Similar is a person who takes the K-1 on a wedding shooting. If that was my daughter's wedding, I would dismiss him right away.

That's just nonsense and of no benefit to the discussion.

[Uluru]

That's some total brand brainwashing right there. Pentax cameras are awesome, but there are areas in which they can improve..

Improvements and innovations are two different things.
Nikon cameras improve as available core tech changes: new image sensor, new image processor, etc.
But Nikon does not innovate; their cameras are same now as they were always, minus the new sensor and new image processor anf goodies that come with it.

Faster AF won't help sell Pentax, because fast as it gets AF fails to sell Nikons in enough numbers.
So what's the problem with this industry? Can't we see it?

On the other hand, Pentax innovates. Their cameras are vastly different now, and sales increase.
The core values of Canon, and Nikon, regarding imaging, shared among many mainstream digital photogs and countless amateurs, are all utterly wrong because they push the industry in the wrong direction.

That most un-innovative direction does not work, and smaller innovative companies suffer, because they are constantly and forcibly compared as inadequate against the un-innovatove mainstreamers. In the end, people don't pay attention to really worthy ways of taking images.





---------- Post added 06-08-2017 at 03:04 PM ----------

Some say the Pentax 645z is a wedding photographer's dream. Amazing how people's real world perspectives can be so different.

It cannot be the only camera. It can be one of four, reserved for very special moments, when other three take images of the same scene as well.
The wedding photography industry has changed a lot, and today is required and expected much more than only 10 years ago. Because there are teams that deliver unbelievable footage, 4K and whatnot, and far greater number of photographs at amazing quality, for the same price.
Pentax has no horse in this race. Both K-1 or 645Z can be used sparingly, by father of the bride or groom, but impossible to compete with serious Nikon or Canon rigs and their flash system, or with Panasonic's amazingly affordable and efficient video and still production tools.

[richandfleur]

Nice opinions.

More capable AF will help to retain customers, as well as convert others who don't feel confident in Pentax's abilities in this area. All the DR in the world doesn't mean anything if your subject is out of focus. AF is important, and Pentax consistently reviews poorly because of it, and likewise with Video performance. I can live with Pentax not wanting to be an AF monster, or a Video king, but they need to improve if only to stay within distant touch of the leaders in these fields. Pentax hasn't significantly changed it's video offering since 2012 now, and it shows, like it did in 2013,14,15,16 and now 2017.

There is room to improve and there is room to innovate. Speaking of which, Pentax had video stabilisation working on the k-x/k-7/k-5 models and then abandoned it when they changed processors. Now this IBIS innovation during video is found on Sony, Panasonic and Olympus cameras.

Pentax has a lot of strengths, but lets not pretend it doesn't have any weaknesses either.

[ffking]

Pentax had video stabilisation working on the k-x/k-7/k-5 models and then abandoned it when they changed processors

I - and probably many others - find one of the most frustrating things about the design, component choice and engineering of cameras is that you never get to know the rationale behind such decisions. I'm sure that, to them, having looked at the options, the trade-offs aren't worth the result - almost every decision has several impacts further down the line - most positive, but also, some options are closed off. If we knew, for example, that the reason for lack of 4k was an unavoidable result of something else we value (actually, it probably is, is only affordability) we might be more accepting of the shortcomings - even if the reviewers weren't. On the whole people want performance, not excuses, but it would be nice to know that shortcomings were down to deliberate choices, not inability to do better. The reason Nikon and Canon users accept sub-optimal performance in cheaper models is simply that the 5D and the 1DX are available- they know the company can do it, and provides an upgrade path and choices if they need them - they don't worry that the D810 only does 5fps because they can chose another FF Nikon that does more (even if they have to lose out on Mp) - it's a positioning choice Nikon made while also offering them other choices. Pentax have never proved that they can deliver state of the art AF (and probably couldn't in the foreseeable future) - so it gets highlighted as a shortcoming.

[Dan Rentea]

We all commenting based on our needs and also based on what type of photography we approach.

- There are photographers who 95% of their time shoots landscape and static subjects. For them Pentax is among the best, if not the best. And the af is their last worry.
- There are photographers who have some jobs which require a fast and precise af and they have some difficulties with Pentax cameras to achieve the best results.
- There are a lot of people who shoot events and they are satisfied with Pentax's af. Others aren't.
- There are also a lot of photographers who have 0 (zero) experience when comes to shoot with other cameras from different systems, or if they have any, it's with entry or middle level cameras and lenses. And for them the Pentax af is good enough.
- There are a lot of people who shoot with 2 systems. It's not that much productive in my opinion, but I understand some of their reasons.

Pentax is the Ricoh first full frame. Canon and Nikon have a lot more full frames laying around and yet, there are a lot of people complaining about other stuff like video, dynamic range, price, etc.

We are voting with our wallets and it's important to try and test a camera or a lens before spending our money on a system. Complaining on internet about af, or about video, etc. after we spend a lot of money is not productive and as I said, a lot of complaints can be avoided by renting in the first place the gear we want. Since I started to rent cameras and lenses I'm not having any complains about my gear. I mean, who knows better than me which are my needs and my claims?