[neagan]

"It seems that Ricoh's next SLR will be "PENTAX K - 1 Mark II". It is still unknown when it will be announced."

Damn'!!! Hope not, just bought my K1!

[ffking]

If you want cool features to add just look at the OMD EM1 II. Sync autofocus (in body+lens combined) how about handheld shots 2-5 seconds that are sharp? Kind of makes low ISO at night easy. Livecomp, livebulb, focus stacking, buffering shots before the shutters pressed to capture moments. Those are all really cool features that Pentax could look at.

Livebulb and Livecomp are killer features on that platform. Lightning is a piece of cake with livecomp.

Pentax is great at adding the kitchen sink of features but Olympus is on fire right now in that regard. If Pentax did that it would stand out for being Full Frame as well.

If not exponentially, I think that the difficulty of incorporating many of those features increases more than linearly with sensor size, nice as they might be to have - ( I'm no engineer, jusy stuff I've picked up round here)

[serothis]

oh contraire mon ami, if it would have offered faster burst + bigger buffer and better AF instead of the megapixel craze,
at least all the people who own a K-1 now, would have bought that camera also, (because it still would have been the only digital FF Pentax body)
--- despite the fact that it would have attracted many newbees also with just a little bit advertising here and there.
(YES even NEWBIES buy FF cameras. PERIOD. That is a fact. If you believe it or not some people just have the money)
Those youngsters that are otherwise often attracted and fall for Sony A7 bodies or Nikon D750

This is a very broad generalization. I do landscape photography. Megapixels means much more to me than AF or burst rate. Other things I considered were features like pixelshift and price. If it were a 24MP camera, it would have been a much harder sell.

Now, obviously, different styles of photography will have different technological priorities, but to claim that everyone who bought the K-1 would have bought one anyway at 24MP is NOT accurate. Or that high MP is a "craze" is extremely narrow minded.

READ >> Megapixels don't matter - Business Insider --- the article says pretty much everything there is to say, without touching the ground of pseudo-science.

An amusing but a very narrow minded article. "Digital zoom" is not a thing but cropping is. And if the author doesn't comprehend the prospective difference between physically getting closer, and staying further back then cropping, He needs to go back to the fundamentals of photography. And some times you don't have the luxury of moving closer.

Ironically the author complains about "low quality" when you crop. A higher MP sensor allows you to do cropping without losing detail when you enlarge it.

So yes, megapixels do matter.

EDIT:

On topic, I don't think there will be K-1 Mk2. from a product line up stand point it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The K-3III, GR III, 645Z successor are all much more dire need than a refresh/successor to the K-1. One of the big complaints about the K-1 are the lack of modern FF lenses.

Ricoh/Pentax have a laundry list of things they need to push out that are more important than a K-1 II.

[pres589]

This is a very broad generalization. I do landscape photography. Megapixels means much more to me than AF or burst rate. Other things I considered were features like pixelshift and price. If it were a 24MP camera, it would have been a much harder sell.

Now, obviously, different styles of photography will have different technological priorities, but to claim that everyone who bought the K-1 would have bought one anyway at 24MP is NOT accurate. Or that high MP is a "craze" is extremely narrow minded.



An amusing but a very narrow minded article. "Digital zoom" is not a thing but cropping is. And if the author doesn't comprehend the prospective difference between physically getting closer, and staying further back then cropping, He needs to go back to the fundamentals of photography. And some times you don't have the luxury of moving closer.

Ironically the author complains about "low quality" when you crop. A higher MP sensor allows you to do cropping without losing detail when you enlarge it.

So yes, megapixels do matter.

EDIT:

On topic, I don't think there will be K-1 Mk2. from a product line up stand point it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The K-3III, GR III, 645Z successor are all much more dire need than a refresh/successor to the K-1. One of the big complaints about the K-1 are the lack of modern FF lenses.

Ricoh/Pentax have a laundry list of things they need to push out that are more important than a K-1 II.

I think the only reason they'd do a mk2 K-1 at this point is to try and fix glaring flaws (shudder shock? I don't know what they are, just stating why) or to address a parts obsolescence issue that is out of their control. Maybe work in a few tweaks or improvements but they'd be small. Like when the K-5 became the K-5 II/IIs, it seems to mostly just be improvements to the AF system.

Pentax rarely makes frivolous changes to their products, in my estimation, so if they did this I can't see it being a bad thing.

[biz-engineer]

Ricoh/Pentax have a laundry list of things they need to push out that are more important than a K-1 II.

You may eventually see a K1-II as a product life cycle extension technique from the marketing folks to cover a lack of newly designed product. If offering a K1II is about unlocking / tweaking minor improvement easy to do, it's not the same time as designing a new product that's missing in the lineup if it requires more R&D spending.

[pres589]

Oh yeah, you know how Pentax is, always being hyper-focused on marketing.

[biz-engineer]

Oh yeah, you know how Pentax is, always being hyper-focused on marketing.

K1 II is easy to make: the GPS can be removed, a pop-up flash can be added back from the K5. Also the K1 can be converted into a 24Mpxiel camera by decimating the RAWs, do so would make the buffer look deeper and the SD cards write faster, all that without changing any camera hardware, but a lot of customers would believe it's a new model. One camera model could be designed to be declined into three models released at one or two years intervals. The same body can be use to output 36Mp, 24Mp or 12Mp, it only a matter of designing in a configurable digital filter on the mother board. Just look at the Sony A7, they all share 90% of the hardware and software but the high end model is priced 3 times more than the lower end model.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 02-02-2018 at 02:37 PM.

[pres589]

K1 II is easy to make: the GPS can be removed, a pop-up flash can be added back from the K5. Also the K1 can be converted into a 24Mpxiel camera by decimating the RAWs, do so would make the buffer look deeper and the SD cards write faster, all that without changing any camera hardware, but a lot of customers would believe it's a new model. One camera model could be designed to be declined into three models released at one or two years intervals. The same body can be use to output 36Mp, 24Mp or 12Mp, it only a matter of designing in a configurable digital filter on the mother board.

Who would buy such a camera? "Hey look everybody, we made it worse!"

[serothis]

I think the only reason they'd do a mk2 K-1 at this point is to try and fix glaring flaws (shudder shock? I don't know what they are, just stating why) or to address a parts obsolescence issue that is out of their control. Maybe work in a few tweaks or improvements but they'd be small. Like when the K-5 became the K-5 II/IIs, it seems to mostly just be improvements to the AF system.

Pentax rarely makes frivolous changes to their products, in my estimation, so if they did this I can't see it being a bad thing.

You may eventually see a K1-II as a product life cycle extension technique from the marketing folks to cover a lack of newly designed product. If offering a K1II is about unlocking / tweaking minor improvement easy to do, it's not the same time as designing a new product that's missing in the lineup if it requires more R&D spending.

There's not much many mechanical changes I would make to the K-1. Or at least not enough to make me want to buy a new one (unless it was mirrorless variant of a k-1)

If Ricoh/Pentax are listening (*hint**hint**wink**wink*) most of what I want could be added via software update.

Thread to collect easy firmware improvement suggestions (software feature requests) - PentaxForums.com

My preferred from that list are: photobracketing + pixel shift; manual set delay between pixelshift exposure + flash; manual modes allow shutter times longer than 30sec.

[biz-engineer]

Who would buy such a camera? "Hey look everybody, we made it worse!"

Some people buy a Sony A7 because it worse and cheaper than a Pentax K1. So there is a market for FF cameras at $1000. You just cripple it to avoid the $2000 payers to buy the $1000 model.

[Kunzite]

Except Sony put a lot of effort into making the A7 worse. The wobbly mount, for example, required significant R&D; same for slowing down the sensor so it's no faster than the higher resolution Pentax.
Ricoh Imaging just can't compete with Sony's expertise at making things worse.

[biz-engineer]

My preferred from that list are: photobracketing + pixel shift; manual set delay between pixelshift exposure + flash; manual modes allow shutter times longer than 30sec.

Yes, that's true. With changing any hardware the K1 could be an even better camera. For me, it could be adding a small delay for the shutter if the shutter speed is between 1/30 and 1/200 (enabled by user in C menu), and focus bracketing for macro (can focus first , and then spin a AF motor in and out a bit for a number of successive shots).

[BigMackCam]

Some people buy a Sony A7 because it worse and cheaper than a Pentax K1. So there is a market for FF cameras at $1000. You just cripple it to avoid the $2000 payers to buy the $1000 model.

No-one buys a camera because it's "worse" than another. That's absurd.

Then again, appraising something as "better" or "worse" depends entirely on what you want and need. Those who want a camera for easy, accurate manual focusing through the viewfinder, adapting a whole range of legacy lenses across virtually every known mount, that's lighter and more compact, and has an EVF (because that's their personal preference) might consider the K-1 worse than the A7. It's all relative

By the way, the K-1 is worse than the Q-7. Call me now, ask me how

That said, they might buy an A7 because it's cheaper, sure...

[biz-engineer]

No-one buys a camera because it's "worse" than another. That's absurd.

no one buys a more expensive camera if the more expensive model is no better than the cheaper model. It is like that for every product except luxury products were price plays itself of role in the perceived value.

[monochrome]

My son’s 7D is faster, has a deeper buffer, does better video and I think it is touch-screen. Pentax better get with the program on K-1 Super. And the new APSc flagship better be a complete new design (ending the K-7 platform) or I’m jumping ship.

Anybody want a complete lens collection?