[Serkevan]

At the moment, my problem isn't the mega pixel count. It's that I realized that the best light for landscape requires to carry a tripod, even a cheap tripod will make a huge difference, and carrying a tripod isn't necessarily an easy task on a hike or bike, more mega pixels won't help at all. Focusing attention on mega pixel count is a mistake, it overshadow other aspects that have a much bigger impact on photographs. I don't really like all that focus on camera models / specifications only. That's really a problem when so much is done on advertising cameras specifications and so little is done in other areas, it's is as if camera makers want to keep their customers at the very bottom level of graphical arts and keep them believing that higher camera specification is the thing to have.

So the next Pentax FF is coming with built-in hover engine 20cm tripod legs that extend down?

[reh321]

At the moment, my problem isn't the mega pixel count. It's that I realized that the best light for landscape requires to carry a tripod, even a cheap tripod will make a huge difference, and carrying a tripod isn't necessarily an easy task on a hike or bike, more mega pixels won't help at all. Focusing attention on mega pixel count is a mistake, it overshadow other aspects that have a much bigger impact on photographs. I don't really like all that focus on camera models / specifications only. That's really a problem when so much is done on advertising cameras specifications and so little is done in other areas, it's is as if camera makers want to keep their customers at the very bottom level of graphical arts and keep them believing that higher camera specification is the thing to have.

The 'accelerator' has alleviated my need for flash or tripod in most situations.

So the next Pentax FF is coming with built-in 20cm tripod legs that extend down?

I hope they provide something more sophisticated to meet @biz-engineer's needs also.

[swanlefitte]

I guess it is time to delete my photos, throw away my prints, sell my glass and start over. I thought I had some good stuff but if it's not over 60mp it must have been trash.🤔

[c.a.m]

I guess it is time to delete my photos, throw away my prints, sell my glass and start over. I thought I had some good stuff but if it's not over 60mp it must have been trash.

If the K-1 Mark II is the second worst camera, my K-3 II certainly must be the worst -- a paltry 24 megapixels, no human eyelash AF, no animal eye tracking AF, puny little limited lenses, and an 8 fps burst rate that's slower than a tortoise. No wonder my family and friends mock my pictures. Time to DEL *.* and return to film, I guess.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 07-17-2019 at 03:01 PM.

[Breakfastographer]

At the moment, my problem isn't the mega pixel count. It's that I realized that the best light for landscape requires to carry a tripod, even a cheap tripod will make a huge difference, and carrying a tripod isn't necessarily an easy task on a hike or bike, more mega pixels won't help at all. Focusing attention on mega pixel count is a mistake, it overshadow other aspects that have a much bigger impact on photographs. I don't really like all that focus on camera models / specifications only. That's really a problem when so much is done on advertising cameras specifications and so little is done in other areas, it's is as if camera makers want to keep their customers at the very bottom level of graphical arts and keep them believing that higher camera specification is the thing to have.

I'm surprised at your tripod woes. Looking at the tripod market, it seems it's all about making tripods very telescopable, light and nonetheless reasonably sturdy. But the really good ones are $600, or so I've been told (I have one that will do for now - not too expensive, not too telescopable and not too light or sturdy ).

Your other point is potentially interesting - would you expect camera makers to market and sell extension tubes, flashes, tripods, filters, etc. more aggressively? I'm still waiting for that to happen once we get tired of megapixels and/or new camera bodies start being priced out of most people's leagues. Hasn't happened yet.

Even Nikon with its supposed flash superiority hasn't stepped on that pedal. I guess the assumption (or experience?) is that many people wouldn't buy that sort of thing even if it were aggressively marketed to them - I mean, look how small that market really is in terms of third parties (not to mention heavily poached by Chinese clones). And that the ones that do realise they need/want it will do their own research and are hard to influence.

[biz-engineer]

I'm surprised at your tripod woes. Looking at the tripod market, it seems it's all about making tripods very telescopable, light and nonetheless reasonably sturdy.

Not really. I sometimes do bike tours , up to 1000 km range. The is not tripod that's compact enough yet sturdy enough. New pancake lenses would also be a dream. I used the DA40ltd, don't have it anymore. Even mirror-less cameras are huge with their kit zooms. The pancake lens make the camera system so much more compact even with a DSLR.

Your other point is potentially interesting - would you expect camera makers to market and sell extension tubes, flashes, tripods, filters, etc. more aggressively?

Yes, exactly. Some accessories make a big difference on photographic output, much more than a new camera with more mega pixels, that those aren't necessarily high tech. So much R&D investment is spend in cameras and so little on accessories, usually the initiative is left to some Chinese companies, while camera makers could also offer nice accessories. Just look at L brackets, Ricoh doesn't even sell those in a K1 kit, we have to order separately and it isn't cheap.

[Serkevan]

I definitely see your point, if you are going on a 20 km hike at a reasonable pace, that extra kg of tele lens is gonna hurt. I know from experience...
For those situations, I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8, Pentax-M 135/3.5 and if I feel I want some portraits of my friends I might throw in the 200g of the M50/1.7.


It's probably for another topic, but I would seriously consider an "endgame" gear of 15/21Ltd (honestly no clue there), 40/43 Ltd and 55-300 as hike gear. It would be pretty damn light on, say, a KP, with good IQ and covering more or less everything.

[reh321]

If the K-1 Mark II is the second worst camera, my K-3 II certainly must be the worst -- a paltry 24 megapixels, no human eye AF, no animal eye AF, and an 8 fps burst rate that's slower than a tortoise. No wonder my family and friends mock my pictures. Time to DEL *.* and return to film, I guess.

- Craig

My experience shows that 35mm Kodachrome 25 was worse than 16mp, so don't go back to that.

[Breakfastographer]

Just look at L brackets, Ricoh doesn't even sell those in a K1 kit, we have to order separately and it isn't cheap.

Ricoh... makes those???

---------- Post added 07-17-19 at 02:07 PM ----------

It's probably for another topic, but I would seriously consider an "endgame" gear of 15/21Ltd (honestly no clue there), 40/43 Ltd and 55-300 as hike gear. It would be pretty damn light on, say, a KP, with good IQ and covering more or less everything.

For "more or less everything", I would take the 15mm. The truth is that I never really get around to stitching panoramas, so taking a wider lens to start with is more realistic in my case.

[C_Jones]

I have a K-1 II. It is an excellent camera.

[Wheatfield]

At the moment, my problem isn't the mega pixel count. It's that I realized that the best light for landscape requires to carry a tripod, even a cheap tripod will make a huge difference, and carrying a tripod isn't necessarily an easy task on a hike or bike, more mega pixels won't help at all. Focusing attention on mega pixel count is a mistake, it overshadow other aspects that have a much bigger impact on photographs. I don't really like all that focus on camera models / specifications only. That's really a problem when so much is done on advertising cameras specifications and so little is done in other areas, it's is as if camera makers want to keep their customers at the very bottom level of graphical arts and keep them believing that higher camera specification is the thing to have.

Megapixels were important when we only had six of them. Sony is still playing that game.

[surfar]

Sony is still playing that game.

That makes Sense(or)!

[Class A]

And today DPR put K1 mark II as a budget pick for best landscape camera 2019

One wonders what made them remove the Nikon D850 as a recommendation.

The existing text still partially reflects that the Nikon was once a second "winner" with phrases like "we couldn't pick just one winner" (it's not the K-1 II, they are referring to as a second "winner") and "even though we think the Nikon D850, Sony a7R III and Pentax K-1 are the best choices".

So many inconsistencies in that tiny page (e.g., did you notice the old reference to "K-1" instead of "K-1 II"?). At least they are consistently amateurish.

[Merv-O]

I guess it is time to delete my photos, throw away my prints, sell my glass and start over. I thought I had some good stuff but if it's not over 60mp it must have been trash.🤔

Hah: the old pixel peep argument. Yeah I saw a preview of the new Sony A7 R IV with 61 mp's….At some point, the megapixels, even built into a FF sensor have diminishing returns. The Pentax K-1/ii sensor of 36.4 mps is more than enough to print a 20 X 24 inch poster print with little loss of clarity (it equates to about 360 ppl which is excellent). The extra megapixels may capture more in proper lighting, but unless you are doing commercial size large prints (3' x 5', etc.), you won't miss the extra megapixels but you will double the price of the camera. Case in point: the K-1ii is about $1,800 U.S. and the Sony A7 R IV pixel monster is $3,500. Sure the A7 is mirrorless, but it's not Leica mirrorless small and on paper has extensive AF enhancement, but, I shoot manual prime lenses on my K-1 and just don't see the investment. SInce it will not be out until the Fall of 2019, I wonder what the boys at DP review will think of it

[fotofotofoto]

I bought the K1 because it was 500€ cheaper than the Mark II. I think for 1250€ for the K1 it should get an award for best old camera 2018 The new one is still a good deal but the upgrades are not worth 500€ I'd say. If it had better Video then may be.