[Erictator]

I am expecting Pentax to release a 24mb FF camera. That would be slightly lower-priced than the K-1ii but wouldn't compete much with it, while increasing the market for DFA lenses

I dunno, call me crazy, but it seems to me it would be more efficient for a company with a smallish production facility to make their flagship more affordable than to make a lesser spec camera that prolly costs nearly as much to make... which is what they have already done, you could always buy the K-1 cheaper than or nearly the same cost as say a D750... no? So why bother? I'd personally rather see them work on the K-1-III, with a 42MP BSI or something a step up, and leave the K-1 II in production, discounted as your lesser model, than to go back and purpose build a mid range FF.

I mean, if production facility is limited, then my suggestion for Ricoh is to continue to emulate the late Charles Emerson Winchester the 3rd:
"I do one thing at a time, I do it very well, and then I move on..."
Eric

[ThorSanchez]

I am expecting Pentax to release a 24mb FF camera. That would be slightly lower-priced than the K-1ii but wouldn't compete much with it, while increasing the market for DFA lenses

It would compete more-or-less directly with the K-1, but also the new APS-C flagship. What advantages are there to a 24mpixel FF camera? Low-light, I guess, and faster frame rate. Maybe a little cheaper. it would be more of a sports and action camera. But it would have the disadvantages of a FF camera - less reach with moderately sized/priced lenses. It doesn't really matter if it is $200 cheaper and has better frame rate for action if you need to use a $1700, four-pound 150-450 lens to take pictures of football players and birds. And you're not using it in crop mode, since crop mode would be what, 10 Mpixels?

You could take basically the same or better photos with a $1300 K-3 replacement and a $360 55-300PLM.

[clackers]

There are probably some people (not me) who'd like a camera that just has a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring on the lens, and a switch on the back for 100/400/800 ISO. And the inflation-adjusted cost of an SLR from 1985, which means something like $300-700 dollars. I guess you can get lower spec Canon Rebels for that. Or even a K-70. But as you mention, the very simplistic feature set will make it an ultra-niche product which will almost certainly drive the cost well beyond entry level.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 01:40 PM ----------



Or save yourself $600 and 2/3rds of a pound with a KP and those lenses, and you'd have to hold a pixel peeping contest to tell the difference. At least after you'd removed the vignetting of the APS-C lenses on FF in post.

Those two are pretty good, Thor. The DA35 possibly vignettes less than the FA31 Limited, the DA50 possibly less than the FA50.

Just saying, somebody looking to upgrade their K-3 should consider the K-1 as well as the KP.

Both fine bodies.

[PDL]

If you're okay with a 15MP crop and APS-C lenses to keep your size and cost in check for things like sports, birds, and wildlife. Otherwise you're looking at massive $1700 lenses as the only FF equivalents of the 55-300s and similar on APS-C.[COLOR="Silver"]

This is why I did not purchase a K-1 when I got my K-3II. Why choose to gain only 1MP when shooting in crop mode over my K-20D. I was waiting in 2016 for the next APS-C so I could get the camera and use it on my trip to Europe in 2017. I gave up on the "next APS-C flagship" when the K-70 was announced. It did not meet my desires as in two SD cards and most importantly built in GPS. I have four speed lights so I do not need built in flash and I used the 7+fps at the Highland games - much better than 3 or 4. Also, while it was raining at the games, the camera automatically switched to the 2nd SD card, meaning I did not have to change SD's while in the rain.

Since I shoot for non-profits and heavily crop my images in some cases, the 24MP gives me that little bit of data I need to produce better images. Why downgrade to the equivalent of 1 more MP over my K-20D. In some instances I was pushing the K-20D pretty hard and at the same venue now, I am getting improved images. More data means greater possibilities.

---

Last edited by PDL; 03-22-2019 at 04:09 PM.

[Wheatfield]

I'm wondering if they are taking out the fact that they were shown by the Pentax base over there to be absolutely incompetent regarding how to test a camera.

[PDL]

I'm wondering if they are taking out the fact that they were shown by the Pentax base over there to be absolutely incompetent regarding how to test a camera.

Who is "they" and where is "over there"?

[revelstoked]

Doesn't seem like an unfair assessment to me. K1-II is for the most part like an old bike with a new kickstand. Calling it a new model is borderline false representation.

[BigMackCam]

Doesn't seem like an unfair assessment to me. K1-II is for the most part like an old bike with a new kickstand. Calling it a new model is borderline false representation.

It was never marketed as an entirely new model. It was released as a "Mark II" model (the clue being in the name ), with upgrades / changes to an existing and established model - just like the K-5II and K-3II before it.

If Ricoh had claimed the K-1II was an all-new camera, that would be false representation. But I've never seen anything mentioned by them to suggest it was anything other than an updated K-1...

[Wheatfield]

I'm wondering if they are taking out the fact that they were shown by the Pentax base over there to be absolutely incompetent regarding how to test a camera.

Sorry, I thought the thread was about DPReview.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 06:34 PM ----------

Doesn't seem like an unfair assessment to me. K1-II is for the most part like an old bike with a new kickstand. Calling it a new model is borderline false representation.

Ricoh did not market it as a new model. Sadly they cannot control who outside of their company misrepresents stuff.

[reh321]

Doesn't seem like an unfair assessment to me. K1-II is for the most part like an old bike with a new kickstand. Calling it a new model is borderline false representation.

The 'accelerator' was much more than a new kickstand. Those who called it "just a facelift" showed a serious misunderstanding of what was going on there.

[Merv-O]

It was never marketed as an entirely new model. It was released as a "Mark II" model (the clue being in the name ), with upgrades / changes to an existing and established model - just like the K-5II and K-3II before it.

If Ricoh had claimed the K-1II was an all-new camera, that would be false representation. But I've never seen anything mentioned by them to suggest it was anything other than an updated K-1...

Game. Set. Match. !!!!!

[revelstoked]

Marginally better/worse image quality depending on the situation, and some software updates that most likely could run on the k1. That is pretty soft for even an incremental change. I am not by any means saying that this is a bad camera. It is just pretty much the same great camera it was 2 years ago.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 10:52 PM ----------

[MMVIII]

Marginally better/worse image quality depending on the situation, and some software updates that most likely could run on the k1. That is pretty soft for even an incremental change. I am not by any means saying that this is a bad camera. It is just pretty much the same great camera it was 2 years ago.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 10:52 PM ----------

I don't understand why a debate about the semantics of MarkII and its correlation to a some month old comment in a (literally) drunk christmas video is still of any interest. I assume it all has been said on one of the previous 51 pages.

Way more interesting, DXO puts the sensor in the new 2300€$ Canon somewhere in the category of the (how old?) 5D MarkIV, with 89 points not do hot. Seems really that IQ of K1 is not getting old so fast...

[Dan Rentea]

Someone very cash and weight conscious could travel the world with the K-1 and just the DA35mm and DA50mm 'Plastic Fantastics'.

If I would have to start again the investment in gear, I would pick the best lens/lenses I can afford and then I would look at cameras available. I hate everything about film lenses and I won't shoot with those lenses even if someone will give them to me for free. I understand the people that are used with the rendition of those lenses from the film era but I rather buy a KP at 800$ from B&H rather than K1 Mark II at 1800$ and with the difference I would buy a 50mm f1.4 lens or a 15-30mm f2.8 lens (depending on my needs).

Later edit: or, I would buy the new 11-18mm f2.8 lens for KP.

---------- Post added 03-23-19 at 06:38 AM ----------

Way more interesting, DXO puts the sensor in the new 2300€$ Canon somewhere in the category of the (how old?) 5D MarkIV, with 89 points not do hot. Seems really that IQ of K1 is not getting old so fast...

IQ is already very good in all cameras released in the last couple of years. My clients could not see the difference between files when I shot with 6D and 5D Mark IV side by side. I have the EOS R in my hands and it will be fun to compare it with my 5D Mark IV. Too bad that the firmware update on EOS R hasn't been released yet because I wanted to test the eye af in af-c.

[edri]

It's not at all a wise choice to buy an APS-C camera and new FF lenses.
About film era lenses, if Ricoh thinks that 35/2 is still up to date, it means there are still enough lenses from the era to handle today's digital cameras.