[photoptimist]

These discussions-comparisons are quite meaningless because everyone focuses on the qualities that he is interested in.

For me equally important characteristics are (K-1 Vs 6DII):
36Mpxl Vs 26Mpxls
1/8000 Vs 1/4000 maximum shutter speed
1/250 Vs 1/180 flash ss
204800 vs 104400 (40000 expanded to this value)

And I don't add in this comparison advantages for my needs that come from the IBIS of Pentax.

Anyway I have chosen my camera and I know what I want. For now I'm enjoying my K-1 and it will be of great surprise for me if a camera other than the K-1 replacement from Pentax will be better suited for me (with the price being one of the major values in this equation). If Pentax goes on strong like the last years that would be another real winner!

Exactly!

In addition to what you listed, the K-1 trounces the 6D2 on:

3 control wheels vs. one -- this is the biggest deficiency of the Canon
TAv vs. none
Pixelshift vs. none
2 SD cards vs. 1

I'd rather pay $1800 for the pro-level features of the K-1 than $2000 for the entry-level features of the 6D2. But if one wants to buy a popular brand, rather than a great camera, well.....to each his own.

[biz-engineer]

That is exactly what I said above. It is a very oriented camera, not an all around camera.

Not true. With the K1 you can crop, you have a very versatile camera thanks to the 36Mpixel Sony sensor. It covers a wider range than a Canon FF DSLR of the same price. You are being bias because you switched to Canon, if you are saying that K1 is not as versatile as a 6DII , it's like saying that a D810 isn't as versatile as a 6DII. K1 is a workhorse because it is more rugged than a 6DII. The 6DII does not have 4K, like the K1. 6DII AF is poor limited to the center of the frame, like the K1. Canon don't fear any competition from the Pentax K1 because Canon count of their wide retail footprint and they know that Pentax don't have that. The 6D and 6DII are specified to compete with Nikon and to fit within the Canon lineup, Canon can't careless if the 6DII beat the K1 or not. That is why, for Pentaxians, the K1 is still a better choice than a 6DII, you can accept that. For the same price as a 6DII, the K1 can do more things, you can't deny that.

[Uluru]

Just to calm down all the guys, neither Nikon or Canon take into consideration what Pentax DSLR does. As a duopoly, they match each other.
Their cameras and lenses are like watching the ping pong game. Therefore comparing a single FF DSLR from Ricoh Imaging, with their FF DSLRs, is a waste of time.

[mee]

These discussions-comparisons are quite meaningless because everyone focuses on the qualities that he is interested in.

For me equally important characteristics are (K-1 Vs 6DII):
36Mpxl Vs 26Mpxls
1/8000 Vs 1/4000 maximum shutter speed
1/250 Vs 1/180 flash ss
204800 vs 104400 (40000 expanded to this value)

And I don't add in this comparison advantages for my needs that come from the IBIS of Pentax.

Anyway I have chosen my camera and I know what I want. For now I'm enjoying my K-1 and it will be of great surprise for me if a camera other than the K-1 replacement from Pentax will be better suited for me (with the price being one of the major values in this equation). If Pentax goes on strong like the last years that would be another real winner!

Yes very subjective these are.

You left out the burst rate, buffer depth, AF system (both for stills and video), 3rd party lens support, 3rd party flash and accessory support, repair network, and some other things I know I'm forgetting but can't think of off the top of my head at the moment.

Plus, for some, 36 MP is too much. You can actually have too much resolution simply due to workflow.

So it isn't all pro-K1 nor is it all pro-6dii (or any other body for that matter). But, if we're going to be honest (and we should be), we have to admit all cameras have their strengths AND weaknesses. The K-1 is no different and the 6dii is not the silver bullet.

[mee]

Not true. With the K1 you can crop, you have a very versatile camera thanks to the 36Mpixel Sony sensor. It covers a wider range than a Canon FF DSLR of the same price. You are being bias because you switched to Canon, if you are saying that K1 is not as versatile as a 6DII , it's like saying that a D810 isn't as versatile as a 6DII. K1 is a workhorse because it is more rugged than a 6DII. The 6DII does not have 4K, like the K1. 6DII AF is poor limited to the center of the frame, like the K1. Canon don't fear any competition from the Pentax K1 because Canon count of their wide retail footprint and they know that Pentax don't have that. The 6D and 6DII are specified to compete with Nikon and to fit within the Canon lineup, Canon can't careless if the 6DII beat the K1 or not. That is why, for Pentaxians, the K1 is still a better choice than a 6DII, you can accept that. For the same price as a 6DII, the K1 can do more things, you can't deny that.

I'd argue the 6d ii and the D750 ARE much more versatile cameras. They are the middle ground, jack of all trades. They have middle of the road resolution, middle of the road AF system, middle of the road price.

Yet the K-1 is designed with a different set of goals. So one cannot compare the two directly.

[ffking]

Yet the K-1 is designed with a different set of goals. So one cannot compare the two directly.

I think that this is one of the areas that a lot of us (definitely including me) have taken a while to cotton on to - in the late film days, there were cameras (single digit Canon and Nikon) that, if you ignore medium format, and for a price, simply did everything better than cheaper cameras. With digital, all that is gone: ignoring video for a moment, you either have to get one camera which is a compromise between IQ and speed, or two cameras, one for higher fps, the other for higher IQ. The D810, for exampe, is better for large landscape prints than the D5. That never used to be the case.

[mee]

I think that this is one of the areas that a lot of us (definitely including me) have taken a while to cotton on to - in the late film days, there were cameras (single digit Canon and Nikon) that, if you ignore medium format, and for a price, simply did everything better than cheaper cameras. With digital, all that is gone: ignoring video for a moment, you either have to get one camera which is a compromise between IQ and speed, or two cameras, one for higher fps, the other for higher IQ. The D810, for exampe, is better for large landscape prints than the D5. That never used to be the case.

The solution is to buy both! (At least that is what they want us to do.. hehehe )

[Dan Rentea]

Not true. With the K1 you can crop, you have a very versatile camera thanks to the 36Mpixel Sony sensor. It covers a wider range than a Canon FF DSLR of the same price. You are being bias because you switched to Canon, if you are saying that K1 is not as versatile as a 6DII , it's like saying that a D810 isn't as versatile as a 6DII. K1 is a workhorse because it is more rugged than a 6DII. The 6DII does not have 4K, like the K1. 6DII AF is poor limited to the center of the frame, like the K1. Canon don't fear any competition from the Pentax K1 because Canon count of their wide retail footprint and they know that Pentax don't have that. The 6D and 6DII are specified to compete with Nikon and to fit within the Canon lineup, Canon can't careless if the 6DII beat the K1 or not. That is why, for Pentaxians, the K1 is still a better choice than a 6DII, you can accept that. For the same price as a 6DII, the K1 can do more things, you can't deny that.

Let me quote myself from my other comment and tell me where I said anything about 6D Mark II being better than K1. Quote "Partially true. But if Pentax and Canon starts from zero, 5D Mark IV (which is the direct competition to K1) it will sell better than K1, despite the price. Why? Because K1 is a camera dedicated mostly to landscape photographers with tons of features in that regard, while 5D Mark IV is a workhorse camera."

I said that if both companies starts from zero and Canon shows 5D Mark IV and Pentax shows to the public the K1, I think Canon will sell better because it is a more versatile camera.

All I said about 6D is that is an interesting camera. I never said it's better than K1 as a general camera. You have to learn to read properly what I'm writting.

[beholder3]

Everyone can compare everything depending on their priority of features.

I see the 6D2 as a direct competitor to the K-70 and nothing else. Not even in the KP-League. Its a mainstream entry/medium level camera with a lot of poorly crippled features.
And for the average entry/medium level shooter soccer mom / forum user it's nowhere convincing when compared to the K-70. The masses don't care for "lens selection" or the n-th iteration of tiny autofocus improvements or video bitrates. But they care about price. A lot.

What practical advantages does the 6d2 bring to soccer mom shooter that is an excuse for a +180% surcharge in price (690 EUR versus 2100 EUR) versus the K-70?
None.

I am not saying it wont sell well. Canon sells everything well compared to the small makers like Fuji, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic. But that is not related to any specs but much more related to perceived quality overall.

[biz-engineer]

Everyone can compare everything depending on their priority of features.

I said that if both companies starts from zero and Canon shows 5D Mark IV and Pentax shows to the public the K1, I think Canon will sell better because it is a more versatile camera.

No, because if Canon was selling a K1 named with a Canon logo on the front and rounded shape of the outer plastic shell, there is no question that Canon would sell more "Canon K1" than Canon 6DII. Do you realize that the only lesser feature of the K1 is the AF module, every other spec being higher than the Canon 6DII. The big advantage of Canon is how large they retail, no the products. Although, I fully understand that if you own a Canon, you don't feel good to realize that features/price is not as good with Canon. You said it yourself, you went for Canon in Romania because Canon offer a much wide presence, availability and service, and I agree with that. If you are not splitting hairs on camera specs and are satisfied with all rounder (but not the best) camera that takes good photos and come with a reliable after sales services and selection of lenses and third party lenses, Canon is a good choice. However, Canon have products that are inferior to others, especially, their entry level products are really built cheap, cheaper than Pentax. Pentax tries to differentiate on product features only to compensate for the lack of global system approach, lack of good sales and lack of brand recognition.

[redpit]

Yes very subjective these are.

You left out the burst rate, buffer depth, AF system (both for stills and video), 3rd party lens support, 3rd party flash and accessory support, repair network, and some other things I know I'm forgetting but can't think of off the top of my head at the moment.

Plus, for some, 36 MP is too much. You can actually have too much resolution simply due to workflow.

So it isn't all pro-K1 nor is it all pro-6dii (or any other body for that matter). But, if we're going to be honest (and we should be), we have to admit all cameras have their strengths AND weaknesses. The K-1 is no different and the 6dii is not the silver bullet.

Exactly, I mentioned many times that the K-1 is the camera that best suits my needs, not that it's the best camera out there. I know the shortcomings but I also recognize that Pentax does its best to offer great value for money without intentionally crippling her cameras. Since my priority is the best IQ K-1 is one of the best options with D810 being my alternative. Having seen many side to side comparisons I still feel that the K-1 has the edge and then come the ergonomics where Pentax excels. The new D820/50 most probably will change this and provide improved IQ over both the K-1 and D810 (I suspect for about double the K-1 price), but as I've said provided that Pentax goes on strong the K-1 successor will be another wonderful camera and the K-1 covers my needs. So I'm happy with my choices!

[Dan Rentea]

No, because if Canon was selling a K1 named with a Canon logo on the front and rounded shape of the outer plastic shell, there is no question that Canon would sell more "Canon K1" than Canon 6DII. Do you realize that the only lesser feature of the K1 is the AF module, every other spec being higher than the Canon 6DII. The big advantage of Canon is how large they retail, no the products. Although, I fully understand that if you own a Canon, you don't feel good to realize that features/price is not as good with Canon. You said it yourself, you went for Canon in Romania because Canon offer a much wide presence, availability and service, and I agree with that. If you are not splitting hairs on camera specs and are satisfied with all rounder (but not the best) camera that takes good photos and come with a reliable after sales services and selection of lenses and third party lenses, Canon is a good choice. However, Canon have products that are inferior to others, especially, their entry level products are really built cheap, cheaper than Pentax. Pentax tries to differentiate on product features only to compensate for the lack of global system approach, lack of good sales and lack of brand recognition.

Forget for a second the brand named Canon. If there were only 2 cameras in this world, a Pentax K1 and another camera with the specs and cost of 5D Mark IV, which one do you think it will sell better? I think Canon, by far because of it's versatility.

If we replace the camera with the 5D Mark IV specs with one with 6D Mark II specs and price, then I think K1 will be the camera with a lot more sales.

But as you say, Canon has a lot of cameras with cheap build quality, 6D included. For me Pentax has very good cameras, always had, but they need to improve their presence, especially now, with the mirrorless invasion.

[Kunzite]

If we eliminate every other difference - brand recognition, available lenses*, support, etc - so the decision is somehow made only based on the camera, it's likely the K-1 that would sell better. Just because it's a less than $2000 camera, compared to a $3500 one.
The price is an important factor, I remember reading how the planned production for the Nikon D4 was lower than that for the K-1. Despite Nikon keeping those advantages.

* Of course, you'd also eliminate the slow focusing SDM and imprecise screw drive lenses vs. USM ring-type ones

[Winder]

Plus, for some, 36 MP is too much. You can actually have too much resolution simply due to workflow.

Yes. For people who shoot events and are working with 1,000 images from an event the added size adds up. But I love the 36MP sensor. It might be time for a new computer. The 36MP Sony sensor is one of the best they have ever made. Its old and its slow so it doesn't support all the new video or have fast CDAF for live-view, but the image quality is excellent.

I don't see the Canon 6DII is being a direct competitor to the K-1. The K-1 is a more specialized camera for people who know what they want. The Canon 6DII is a good entry level FF camera for someone who is into general photography or starting out with the Canon FF system. The only advantages the 6D offers is AF and lens options. Those are two nice advantages, but they are still just two. It probably has better HD video, but I don't know.

[mee]

Yes. For people who shoot events and are working with 1,000 images from an event the added size adds up. But I love the 36MP sensor. It might be time for a new computer. The 36MP Sony sensor is one of the best they have ever made. Its old and its slow so it doesn't support all the new video or have fast CDAF for live-view, but the image quality is excellent.

I equate it with the 16 MP Sony sensor in the K-5 / K-5 II. That's also a top quality sensor.

I hope the information Pentax get from the questionnaire really sinks in. It seems most of us want better autofocus and more lenses, judging from comments. Though I won't hold my breath. They had a questionnaire a year or two ago asking specifically which lenses we wanted.. not sure we got anything out of that effort.

But at least they seem curious.