[normhead]

for some of us the K-1 is perfect. The right combination of really high IQ with useable but not exciting functionality in other areas.In terms of other areas beside IQ, AF, buffer, frame rate etc. they've sort fo stuck to the minimums. How low can you go with something like this?

Personally I wouldn't have bought the K-1 without the back screen, I shot a lot of low angle and macro and I don't see it as frill. On my film cameras I had aright angle viewfinder attachment. I think almost everything Pentax has done has been with the idea of maximum value for the cost. If they could add feature for a few bucks, they did. If it was going to cost thousands, more Mb per second through put, bigger buffer, better AF, they didn't.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-05-2018 at 01:37 PM.

[monochrome]

C’mon. He didn’t know about AF and video.

.:

[Kunzite]

it would be nice if they dropped all the fast stuff and produced a more basic camera, but with utmost IQ possible and full weatherproofing. Then there would be no ambiguity.

I wonder where the market might have gone for a $1000/£750 K1 and no 'unnecessary' extras ?

What fast stuff?
The K-1, as they've made it, was perfect: they had a target price, and instead of trying a yet-another-entry-level-FF they packaged image quality in a nice body i.e. what they do best.

There's nothing to remove from the K-1 in order to halve the price. And there's no business case in trying to please those who'd only pay $1000 for a brand new Pentax FF.

[monochrome]

I mostly agree with the 'Filed Camera' angle. I've always had that little thought that it would be nice if they dropped all the fast stuff and produced a more basic camera, but with utmost IQ possible and full weatherproofing. Then there would be no ambiguity.

I wonder where the market might have gone for a $1000/£750 K1 and no 'unnecessary' extras ? I would have disturbed the market and brought a few to an exceptional, but slow 'Field Camera'. I'm guessing there's still a lot of photographers that take landscape shots as the vast majority of their photos.

There could still be the other variants, available of course.

Would this $1k K-1 w/ no frills have been the same physical size (or smaller!) than the K-5 or K-3 bodies? If so, yes! No Wi-Fi, no GPS, no articulating screen, shrink the screen, no programmable knob, the K-5's top-plate LCD, just one SD Card slot (I can hear torches being lit at this point...), maybe other things?

Anyone know how to wedge a full frame sensor into a K-01?

All those little things you would remove would save about $0.98 at the factory cost level, so $3.96 Retail. Development, the sensor, the frame, IBIS, CPU, any size back screen, peripheral connectors and assembly are where the factory cost is and they’re the same. Markup to Distributors is the same; further Markup to retailers is the same; further markup to retail selling price is the same. So you’d save $4. Not $1,000.

Your inhaling. Don’t inhale.

.:

[pres589]

Hey, I didn't suggest $1k, I just ran with someone *else's* suggestion. I'm more interested in reducing the physical size of the thing vs. the money. The buy-in price is short term, the heft you have to deal with for as long as you own it.

[RobA_Oz]

About the only things you could remove from the K-1 as it stands, to noticeably reduce its weight, would be the shake reduction platform, the pentaprism and the battery. So you’d have a 35FF DSLR with no SR, PS or astrotracer, a pentamirror and a low capacity battery. An alternative approach would be to redesign the body to be less robust, with no WR. The former would reduce the price, while the latter possibly would, but not by much. Both would probably have a hard time finding an economic market segment.

[boriscleto]

All I can say is that I am sorry I read the comments since most seem like dolts and trolls who seem to be reading about Pentax so they can spout FUD. Now my brain feels dirty!

You know what they say about getting involved in land wars in Asia...and Internet comment sections...

[Bophoto]

I mostly agree with the 'Filed Camera' angle. I've always had that little thought that it would be nice if they dropped all the fast stuff and produced a more basic camera, but with utmost IQ possible and full weatherproofing. Then there would be no ambiguity.

I wonder where the market might have gone for a $1000/£750 K1 and no 'unnecessary' extras ? I would have disturbed the market and brought a few to an exceptional, but slow 'Field Camera'. I'm guessing there's still a lot of photographers that take landscape shots as the vast majority of their photos.

There could still be the other variants, available of course.

Pentax has 3 APS cameras, so it's not entirely impossible that Pentax comes with a second FF.
But then it will be a more expensive camera with the same body, more Mp and larger buffer, etc.
With a new K3 in a year or so, a new 645 could be developed at the same time, but Pentax says nothing now because of the sale.
What I think is more interesting now is if K1 gets new firmware now when K1II is here and what happens with the warranty if you upgrade to K1II.

[lsimpkins]

While for us westerners, "it's basically done" means the engineers weren't told about it yet

Sounds like the old IBM sales mantra.

---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 06:57 PM ----------

What camera isn't limited in some way? Where is this perfect camera that doesn't need a disclaimer according to that logic?

Personally I'm really happy to have a better than D810 for landscape camera for a fraction the cost. I didn't have to pay for what I don't need. You sound like you're upset that you got what you paid for. I paid for a K-3 with twice the sensor size at less than twice the cost. That's what I wanted, that's what i got. To me it's a bargain.

It is however disappointing that others thought they were getting something else. I'm definitely not convinced that's Pentax's fault, or that there is something they should have done better.

There's little more irritating than people imposing saying Pentax should do things no one else in the marketing world does.

I can see the Canon 1DX ad, "pay thousands of dollars more than you need to for AF speed and throughput, you are unlikey ever to have the skill or need to take full advantage of."

Or maybe a Sony A9 add.."You won't get better keepers than you would with a 15 FPS camera, but you'll love deleting an extra 7 frames per second from your hard drive.for every second you shoot."

It would be like medications, all harmful side effects of their unique implementation of a "camera" should be listed on the label.

"Warning, all high FPS fast AF cameras suffer from limited MP values to increase image throughput speed. Use only if maximum IQ is not required."

We'll just have to agree to differ.

This whole "My mistake is Pentax's fault" thing gets really annoying. Own up to your mistakes, quit blaming Pentax.

Thanks Norm. I get really tired sifting through all the complaints about Pentax just to ferret out some morsels of truth in these threads. Your post hit the nail on the head. We shouldn't expect Pentax to be top dog in each photography niche, as Canikony seem to try to do. Assess what you need, assess the performance of the options available, and make your choice.

I don't need full frame, but I would really be happy if the next camera in the K-3 lineage had some of its IQ and ISO enhancing features of the K-1. But I am content to wait and see what is released and continue appreciating what I am able to do with my K-3.

[lytrytyr]

I love his point any Pentax body can lock the mirror up and use live view, becoming a mirrorless camera.

That's not the way it works.

"Mirror Lock-up Shooting cannot be selected when shooting with Live View"
(p. 60 in the K-1 manual).

There's a world of difference between "click" and "flop-click-flop",
especially when the Q system "click" is completely balanced,
or the K-01 "click" is in a very solid body.

[monochrome]

That's not the way it works.

"Mirror Lock-up Shooting cannot be selected when shooting with Live View"
(p. 60 in the K-1 manual).

There's a world of difference between "click" and "flop-click-flop",
especially when the Q system "click" is completely balanced,
or the K-01 "click" is in a very solid body.

Actually, I THINK in Live View the mirror does stay up. What you hear is the shutter dual action. It starts OPEN so the sensor can capture the ‘live view’. The shooting action is shutter CLOSE | OPEN >> CLOSE | OPEN. The mirror stays up throughout. Live View post K-7 is the groundbreaking K-01 subroutine in a traditional dSLR (K-30/K50 is essentially a K-01 with an OVF system added).

[Topsy]

Actually, I THINK in Live View the mirror does stay up. What you hear is the shutter dual action. It starts OPEN so the sensor can capture the ‘live view’. The shooting action is shutter CLOSE | OPEN >> CLOSE | OPEN. The mirror stays up throughout. Live View post K-7 is the groundbreaking K-01 subroutine in a traditional dSLR (K-30/K50 is essentially a K-01 with an OVF system added).

Just had a look, you're right. the mirror does stay up, it's the shutter.

However with the electronic shutter, after taking the photo the regular shutter closes on mine. I'm assuming this is normal, but I don't quite understand why it does that!

[monochrome]

Just had a look, you're right. the mirror does stay up, it's the shutter.

However with the electronic shutter, after taking the photo the regular shutter closes on mine. I'm assuming this is normal, but I don't quite understand why it does that!

The electronic shutter doesn’t need the first and second curtains to pass in front of the sensor to ‘expose’ the image because it is . . . . . well, electronic

[str8talk83]

Oh come on, they did, they called it a "Field Camera" right from day one.

Should Canon say in their 1DX marketing material "it's not that great a landscape camera" Should Nikon say the D850 "is not that great an action camera". Learn to read and interpret market speak. No one pays to publish a bunch of negatives, no matter how true, in their marketing material, unless the government passes legislation forcing them too.

What camera isn't limited in some way? Where is this perfect camera that doesn't need a disclaimer according to that logic?

Personally I'm really happy to have a better than D810 for landscape camera for a fraction the cost. I didn't have to pay for what I don't need. You sound like you're upset that you got what you paid for. I paid for a K-3 with twice the sensor size at less than twice the cost. That's what I wanted, that's what i got. To me it's a bargain.

It is however disappointing that others thought they were getting something else. I'm definitely not convinced that's Pentax's fault, or that there is something they should have done better.

There's little more irritating than people imposing saying Pentax should do things no one else in the marketing world does.

I can see the Canon 1DX ad, "pay thousands of dollars more than you need to for AF speed and throughput, you are unlikey ever to have the skill or need to take full advantage of."

Or maybe a Sony A9 add.."You won't get better keepers than you would with a 15 FPS camera, but you'll love deleting an extra 7 frames per second from your hard drive.for every second you shoot."

It would be like medications, all harmful side effects of their unique implementation of a "camera" should be listed on the label.

"Warning, all high FPS fast AF cameras suffer from limited MP values to increase image throughput speed. Use only if maximum IQ is not required."

We'll just have to agree to differ.

This whole "My mistake is Pentax's fault" thing gets really annoying. Own up to your mistakes, quit blaming Pentax.

You make some good points here. A person can argue that the K-1 isn't the perfect "do everything" camera, but these are rare, no matter the brand. I would say that the Nikon D850 is probably the only DSLR camera that fits the bill as a "do everything" camera. It has great autofocus, high resolution and a good buffer so it can substitute for having to also own an APS-C camera for action and wildlife, and it is also great for landscapes, portraits etc. since it's a Full-Frame camera. That being said, it would have been a very bad idea (in my opinion) for Pentax to release a similar camera right now. They couldn't have made it nearly as affordable and I believe that the general Pentax community isn't looking for a D850. The K-1 is really amazing at it's price point and is perfect for what most people really want a Full-Frame camera for.

I think a lot of us enthusiasts get caught up in gear and the availability of amazing gear that we will never actually use. I started out with Canon and frequented a popular Canon forum for a lot of years. I always found it interesting how many Canon users basically liked the fact that Canon had amazing super-telephoto lenses, tilt shift lenses and pro 1D series cameras. The irony, to me, was that about 10% of them would ever be able to own any of that gear. People really seem to like to be the "cool kids" sometimes...

[reh321]

I love his point any Pentax body can lock the mirror up and use live view, becoming a mirrorless camera. A mirrorless camera can't become optical.
.....................
Mirrorless is not in the plans, with Live View Pentax already has an in camera mirrorless option.
.

So, now we know Pentax is totally oblivious to the value of EVF. Anyone making plans waiting for EVF should quietly make their way to the door.

---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 11:35 PM ----------

That's not the way it works.

"Mirror Lock-up Shooting cannot be selected when shooting with Live View"
(p. 60 in the K-1 manual).

There's a world of difference between "click" and "flop-click-flop",
especially when the Q system "click" is completely balanced,
or the K-01 "click" is in a very solid body.

You should have used a smaller font for the whisper made by the leaf shutter on a "Q".