[normhead]

The wording of DPR is... hum, not so honest IMO. The way they presented the K1 II is kinda odd, they could have said the same thing of the GFX50R vs GFX50, and if they did so I don't know how Fuji would have reacted...

And we have proof that some don't see through the deviousness and let the DPR nonsense affect their purchasing decision.... proof of the error of those who claim Donkey Pee Review does no harm. Funny how I'm waiting for the same Accelerator chip and AF improvements to be released in a new APS_c flagship, while others claim they are detrimental, based solely on Donkey Pee Reporters reviews. Personally, I'm fine with the K-1 as a landscape camera without the Accelerator chip and improved AF, but i definitely want them in an APS-c. And if I wasn't expecting them to be released in an APS-c body and needed to put money aside for that body, I would have certainly upgraded my K-1.

[Class A]

Just look at that:

With all due respect, I'd recommend that people not look at that. The outcome will just be that they want their 2m 45s back. Nothing to see.

We all knew already that DPReview are infatuated with mirrorless cameras and the video just iterates that, wasting your time doing so.

[totsmuyco]

I'm happy for those who like mirrorless. But please, leave us DSLR lovers alone. I will always be a DSLR lover even if it won't be a Pentax.

[stub]

Its very loyal to stand by Pentax at this time. But in all the comments made, No one has offered up a suggestion of a camera that fairs more miseably than the K1II.. And though not particularly voting it in the worst of cameras catagory. It didnt fair too highly in Matt Granger's or Tony Northrop's review of cameras for 2018. But lets leave it at that. Because in my opinion 2019 will be a very big year for Pentax. Maybe the year that will make or break them. Certainly if they plan on being a front runner and play alongside the market leaders. The K1ii is not a good enough offering.. It could get away previously with having slow auto focus. Slow frame rate and lousy to useless video. Primarily only being half a camera. Because it could at least produce a decent still image. So got labelled a decent landscape camera.and was the cheapest DSLR in its class.

But now the Sony A7III is around that price and knocking spots off it in market place. More megapixels, better quality, better video. Smaller size less weight. Better lens range. So big decisions for Ricoh to make.. What direction do you plan on going in.. Because currently it just isnt good enough...|!!

---

Last edited by stub; 12-29-2018 at 10:02 AM.

[reh321]

But now the Sony A7III is around that price and knocking spots off it in market place. More megapixels, better quality, better video. Smaller size less weight. Better lens range. So big decisions for Ricoh to make.. What direction do you plan on going in.. Because currently it just isnt good enough...|!!

B&H lists Sony A7iii as 24mp.
Sony a7 III Alpha Mirrorless Digital Camera (a7III Body) ILCE-7M3

[stub]

B&H lists Sony A7iii as 24mp.
Sony a7 III Alpha Mirrorless Digital Camera (a7III Body) ILCE-7M3

My point still remains....

[normhead]

ts very loyal to stand by Pentax at this time. But in all the comments made, No one has offered up a suggestion of a camera that fairs more miseably than the K1II..

No one's offered up a suggestion that anything in it's price range performs better, either.

It is incredibly rude to brand Pentax users loyal. There are users of all brands that are loyal based on nothing. The term loyalty implies that the camera in some way doesn't suit your needs, and you are just buying the camera because of the name on it. I simply cannot think of a more disrespectful thing to say about fellow users.

It just so happens that there has never been time, now or in the past, when the advantages of other brands meant more to me than the money asked for them. Never before in the history of the Camera industry has so much money been asked for features that do not improve, or in the case of high FPS action camera with their less than 24 MP sensors, degrade image quality. Pentax is the one company that has stuck with the high IQ for the best price model. I don't have to be brand loyal to appreciate that. While others were developing touch screens and wifi, things that do not affect final image quality, Pentax was developing Pixel shift, something that actually improves you images.

What do I get for being the guy smart enough to on my own evaluate who makes the best product for me?

I get called "loyal."
A fanboy.
Pictured as some kind of caveman clinging to the past.
The disrespect shown towards Pentax users, when posts like this are allowed is hard to comprehend.

It's like there are those who believe no one could select Pentax in a head on competition with other camera makers. I have to ask, why is this kind of negative opinion towards Pentax users not against forum "respect" guidelines? It is about as condescending and disrespectful as it gets.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-29-2018 at 10:13 AM.

[reh321]

My point still remains....

No, your point was that Sony had a better camera at the same price.
You have to justify your statement that a 24mp camera is better than a 36mp camera.


In particular, you said {somehow thinking 24mp > 36mp}

Sony A7III .... More megapixels, better quality

[stub]

Last weekend I was shooting a wedding as a second shooter, with my K1's. Alongside a guy using the Sony A7III. Believe me its easier to use. The results are superior. I will say the Sony is a bit ugly in my opinion. But thats clutching at straws...

[c.a.m]

But now the Sony A7III is around that price and knocking spots off it in market place. More megapixels, better quality, better video. Smaller size less weight. Better lens range.

I took a quick look at the Canadian prices.

Let's say we want a 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens -- not an unreasonable requirement or assumption.

Sony
A-7 III (24 MP): mass 650 g; CAD $2600
FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS: 1480 g; CAD $3300
Total: 2130 g; CAD $5900

Pentax
K-1 II (36 MP): 1010 g; CAD $2500
D FA* 70-200: 1755 g; CAD $1900
Total: 2760 g; CAD $4400

The Sony kit is about 25% lighter and costs 35% more than the Pentax kit.

From what I understand, the Sony video is "better" than the Pentax, and the camera+70-200 lens is certainly lighter. As for the other qualifiers, it would be useful to see your analysis.

- Craig

[reh321]

Last weekend I was shooting a wedding as a second shooter, with my K1's. Alongside a guy using the Sony A7III. Believe me its easier to use. The results are superior. I will say the Sony is a bit ugly in my opinion. But thats clutching at straws...

That is one use case with two different shooters with two different levels of experience; one subjective individual declaring "superior". Not much to believe here .... definitely clutching at straws. Still doesn't prove "More megapixels, better quality"


added: even in a normal situation, "better quality" needs some kind of supporting justification - all the more so when it is immediately preceded by the clearly false statement "more megapixels".

[stub]

I took a quick look at the Canadian prices.

Let's say we want a 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens -- not an unreasonable requirement or assumption.

Sony
A-7 III (24 MP): mass 650 g; CAD $2600
FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS: 1480 g; CAD $3300
Total: 2130 g; CAD $5900

Pentax
K-1 II (36 MP): 1010 g; CAD $2500
D FA* 70-200: 1755 g; CAD $1900
Total: 2760 g; CAD $4400

The Sony kit is about 25% lighter and costs 35% more than the Pentax kit.

From what I understand, the Sony video is "better" than the Pentax, and the camera+70-200 lens is certainly lighter. As for the other qualifiers, it would be useful to see your analysis.

- Craig

Im in the Uk so not checked Canadian prices. But if price in the dominating factor in Sony you could choose the f4 version of the lens. Or if you need f2.8 look at the Sigma or Tamron versions.. All of which are not available to the K1II..

[normhead]

Last weekend I was shooting a wedding as a second shooter, with my K1's. Alongside a guy using the Sony A7III. Believe me its easier to use. The results are superior. I will say the Sony is a bit ugly in my opinion. But thats clutching at straws...

Most of us aren't wedding photographers. One of the big reasons most of us use Pentax? We aren't wedding photographers and that feature set is not helpful to us. You say this as if you don't understand, the features that make a good wedding tog camera are not the same feature set as for what makes for good landscape or wildlife camera.

For the number of weddings I do, exactly one in the last 25 years, I wouldn't buy a camera for that. I'd happily rent an A9 though, not an A7iii. A7iii compared to K-1ii with accelerator chip, the A7iii is barely better than my K-3 and probably not any better than a K-P at all. I have shot wildlife and landscape beside Sony, Nikon, and Canon, and the results are not superior for the "name Brands"., and in some cases considerably worse. Your commentary on superior results may reflect the skill of the operator more than the gear, although I will happily concede I don't think the K-1ii is the camera for the job, for weddings. But it is for many other jobs. And for over all IQ, with a competent photographer, it should leave the A7ii in the dust in terms of IQ. It may be harder to get the images, but what you get should be better. And in many circumstances, it won't even be harder to get the image.

It is amazing how many beginners think Pentax users are locked in the dark ages, and shoot Pentax only because having read a few magazine articles or shot one wedding as second, they now know more than we do.

[biz-engineer]

But in all the comments made, No one has offered up a suggestion of a camera that fairs more miseably than the K1II..

Per DPR criteria, GFX50R (no difference with GFX50 but cheaper body) fails more than Pentax K1 II. If you already have a GFX50, you have zero reason to get a GFX50R, even less than to get a Pentax K1 II if you have a K1.

[stub]

That is one use case with two different shooters with two different levels of experience; one subjective individual declaring "superior". Not much to believe here .... definitely clutching at straws. Still doesn't prove "More megapixels, better quality"


added: even in a normal situation, "better quality" needs some kind of supporting justification - all the more so when it is immediately preceded by the clearly false statement "more megapixels".

But Megapixels isnt the only factor... All the cameras reviewers are stating that the Sony A7II is in the best two cameras of the year...