[H. Sapiens]

I did not suggest a KP sized camera, I suggested a KP styled camera. Compared to the K3, the KP is 100 g lighter. I don't see why something similar can't be done to the K1, bringing it down to 850-900 g. I understand few of the regulars here in "news" would want it, but that's a different matter.


I shoot with the K3ii, and had to choose between that and the KP. I just understood from the (Japanese) salesman that the KP was more successful. "News"-regulars might not be as representative as you like to think.

[reh321]

Fifth, a 24mp camera seems to be associated either with an entry level camera, either with a sport camera. Why no one is looking at it like a workhorse camera?

What is implied by "workhorse camera" that wouldn't work to use the camera also as "entry level camera"?

[Dan Rentea]

What is implied by "workhorse camera" that wouldn't work to use the camera also as "entry level camera"?

Take Canon 6D vs. 5D Mark III or D610 vs. D750 for example. Neither D750 or 5D Mark III excels at anything but both were used with confidence by pro photographers. I bought my 5D Mark IV because it's a workhorse. It's not a niche product like 5DsR or 1Dx or D850 or D5 and it has some features that are not as well implemented in entry level cameras. It's fast enough to shoot some sports, it's good enough at high ISO, it has the configuration and the placement of the buttons that help me shoot faster and so on. That's why D780 was requested also by a lot of people and it seems to have all it takes to be the new workhorse for Nikon. It's lighter than D850, it's fast enough at 7fps to shoot some action with it and it has 12fps in live view in case you need some extra speed, it uses SDXC memory cards instead of XQD cards, it's not overkill for the average user due to low mp, it's also cheaper... These are advantages in my opinion rather than disatvantages for the average user who wants a workhorse camera that doesn't break the bank when you buy it and after you buy it also.

Does the D780 compete with Canon or with Sony or with Pentax? Who cares? It's a solid camera in terms of specs. I would buy one if D850 would have cost 2300$? Yes, I would first pick a D780 to try it over a D850 if I were a Nikon shooter.

Should Ricoh go for a workhorse camera that doesn't have to compete or that doesn't have to be a clone of any other 24mp camera? That's what Ricoh can decide. Would I like to see a 2200$ Pentax workhorse rather than a higher mp more niche camera than K1? Of course I like that. Would lanscape photographers be mad about my opinion? Who cares? They already have a high resolution specialized camera that will remain competitive to them a few years from now.

[BruceBanner]

What a fun discussion. Here's my take.

No camera can do it all, because... maths/physics. Even if you could have a camera that does 61mp at 10fps with x buffer, you'd get better performance if the same camera takes 24mp and thus can do better fps and even longer buffer due to smaller file sizes. A camera is a tool for photography, and photography comes in many shapes and sizes and so you need to buy the right tool for the right job. I shoot Pentax professionally now, but it does struggle with certain high stress events where capturing that moment is expected and being paid for, all wedding photographers and sport togs understand that exploiting the buffer and fps can assist with succeeding in that endeavour. It's definitely playing to Pentax's weakness. However that would be my bad. I cannot recall the last time I saw Pentax marketed or advertised with wedding imagery or sports. It's unfair. Landscape however... now you're in pretty good hands

My one wish is that the cameras released across all brands can just be too similar at times. Too many duplication of features. Do we need pixelshift on every camera? Focus Peaking? Astro? Is there room for more variations so even the Pentaxian can choose a camera that meets their needs more than just a choice between crop and ff?

I have found the K-1 to being better suited to portrait work with the ff sensor and fast lenses, the DoF is more pronounced than what crop can manage. 36mp feels a lot however, I tend to seldom print larger than A3+. Arguably what matters more when photographing people is capturing that best look/moment, it can be a subtle shift in facial expression, but we're hampered with the fps and buffer. And then on the other side of the brand we have crop bodies, arguably better suited to landscape stuff (f8 etc) but they lack the mp we might want or appreciate for landscape work, and also have more fps/buffer. Seems to be they got things a little topsy turvy, I'd personally appreciate things the other way around, a 36mp crop body and a 24mp FF. But that's just me.

One thing that can be handy about high mp is the crop ability. I use centre AF Spot point for focus as its the most accurate for PDAF, and thus if I want a composition with subject off centre and am not so keen on focus recompose then you can take the shot further back and plan for a crop in PP. But really that's just working around Pentax's PDAF issues.

I'd just like to see more varied camera bodies released;

- A Crop sensor wildlife/sports camera where 16-21mp is enough to give fast fps and better buffer limits, a camera/sensor that cares more about capturing the best moment rather than recovery of data.

- A Crop sensor for landscape, 36mp or more, buffer and fps not as important as ruggedness etc, perhaps tripod mounts on the sides as well as traditional base (like the 645Z). A sensor that is prioritised around shadow/highlight recovery ability bla bla.

- A FF camera based around capturing the (portrait) moment best, an event camera, fps, buffer are important etc, 24mp is likely enough.

- A specialised FF camera based around enhancing the manual focus glass experience. Imagine a digital camera that does away with AF, instead housing a fantastic focus screen bias towards a better manual focus experience. Heck! The camera might not even bother with a LCD on the back, just something really basic that optimises the shooting experience of using manual focus glass both past and present but digital files, disposable frames etc. Due to the very basic nature of the camera and lack of features the body could be had at a very attractive low price point.

If we had a more varied line up of camera bodies rather than a single flagship crop, flagship ff, flagship mf etc, I can't help feeling that would do better. The end user now chooses the camera that suits their needs better, rather than what we currently have that at times feels like a 'jack of all trades'.

Thoughts?

[Dan Rentea]

What a fun discussion. Here's my take.

No camera can do it all, because... maths/physics. Even if you could have a camera that does 61mp at 10fps with x buffer, you'd get better performance if the same camera takes 24mp and thus can do better fps and even longer buffer due to smaller file sizes. A camera is a tool for photography, and photography comes in many shapes and sizes and so you need to buy the right tool for the right job. I shoot Pentax professionally now, but it does struggle with certain high stress events where capturing that moment is expected and being paid for, all wedding photographers and sport togs understand that exploiting the buffer and fps can assist with succeeding in that endeavour. It's definitely playing to Pentax's weakness. However that would be my bad. I cannot recall the last time I saw Pentax marketed or advertised with wedding imagery or sports. It's unfair. Landscape however... now you're in pretty good hands

My one wish is that the cameras released across all brands can just be too similar at times. Too many duplication of features. Do we need pixelshift on every camera? Focus Peaking? Astro? Is there room for more variations so even the Pentaxian can choose a camera that meets their needs more than just a choice between crop and ff?

I have found the K-1 to being better suited to portrait work with the ff sensor and fast lenses, the DoF is more pronounced than what crop can manage. 36mp feels a lot however, I tend to seldom print larger than A3+. Arguably what matters more when photographing people is capturing that best look/moment, it can be a subtle shift in facial expression, but we're hampered with the fps and buffer. And then on the other side of the brand we have crop bodies, arguably better suited to landscape stuff (f8 etc) but they lack the mp we might want or appreciate for landscape work, and also have more fps/buffer. Seems to be they got things a little topsy turvy, I'd personally appreciate things the other way around, a 36mp crop body and a 24mp FF. But that's just me.

One thing that can be handy about high mp is the crop ability. I use centre AF Spot point for focus as its the most accurate for PDAF, and thus if I want a composition with subject off centre and am not so keen on focus recompose then you can take the shot further back and plan for a crop in PP. But really that's just working around Pentax's PDAF issues.

I'd just like to see more varied camera bodies released;

- A Crop sensor wildlife/sports camera where 16-21mp is enough to give fast fps and better buffer limits, a camera/sensor that cares more about capturing the best moment rather than recovery of data.

- A Crop sensor for landscape, 36mp or more, buffer and fps not as important as ruggedness etc, perhaps tripod mounts on the sides as well as traditional base (like the 645Z). A sensor that is prioritised around shadow/highlight recovery ability bla bla.

- A FF camera based around capturing the (portrait) moment best, an event camera, fps, buffer are important etc, 24mp is likely enough.

- A specialised FF camera based around enhancing the manual focus glass experience. Imagine a digital camera that does away with AF, instead housing a fantastic focus screen bias towards a better manual focus experience. Heck! The camera might not even bother with a LCD on the back, just something really basic that optimises the shooting experience of using manual focus glass both past and present but digital files, disposable frames etc. Due to the very basic nature of the camera and lack of features the body could be had at a very attractive low price point.

If we had a more varied line up of camera bodies rather than a single flagship crop, flagship ff, flagship mf etc, I can't help feeling that would do better. The end user now chooses the camera that suits their needs better, rather than what we currently have that at times feels like a 'jack of all trades'.

Thoughts?

Very good comment with arguments also. I don't know why some people avoid straight answers regarding what they actually want and move the discussion to "I don't think Ricoh will release a lower mp camera" or "I don't think Ricoh will be able to compete with x or y brand" or "I don't think Pentax will be able to make a 1000$ camera" and so on. Reagardless of how many full frame cameras will Ricoh release in 2020, they won't please everyone. That's a fact. Same for all the other camera manufacturers. This should have been a simple answer: I shoot ... and for what I shoot a camera with ... features and with .... number of mp would have ... advantages because ... You gave an answer that covers all these points. Thank you!

[cartesio]

Nobody is even considering they might make KP FF? Take away a little bulk and make more of a street camera for the limiteds. Off load GPS, astro and stuff to the smartphone via app link. Style it to look less like the typical gear head camera. .

That would be an extremely interesting offer to me. I am not so much interested in high MP count, sometimes I even think that upgrading from my K10D would not be convenient, multiplying file size by 2.5. Than I remember that there a lot of other improvements that will make it convenient.
We customers are a wide audience, it is not easy to cope with us.

[biz-engineer]

Camera models a la carte would be nice, although you'd need to buy three models if you'd do three types of photography, and each model would be priced 3 times as much due to lower production quantities of each custom model. That why all brands of cameras tend to make all rounder cameras and photographers have to deal with performance compromises. If each brand would specialize in only one type of photography, Pentax does landscape only, Canon camera can only do wedding but not landscape etc, if user wants to take landscape photos and wedding he must carry two cameras and two sets of lenses and two camera bags. It'd be like restaurants with some restaurants specialize in green Salad, other restaurant serve beef only, and other restaurant serve only tiramisu, you'd have to go through 3 different restaurants for completing dinner.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-11-2020 at 09:10 PM.

[BruceBanner]

Camera models a la carte would be nice, although you'd need to buy three models if you'd do three types of photography, and each model would be priced 3 times as much due to lower production quantities of each custom model. That why all brands of cameras tend to make all rounder cameras and photographers have to deal with performance compromises.

But that's exactly the situation we're in now by having an 'all rounder'. I think the K-1 is primarily a landscape camera due to the AW/WR, ruggedness, pixelshift, 36mp and built in astro+gps. But it doesn't stop it being a camera that you can use at a wedding, or for wildlife or even on the racing track. I know of many wedding shooters that more than just dual wield they will also dual brand, they love their pentax for some things but feel Nikon comes to the rescue in other areas. I feel as though 'a la carte' camera models might actually resolve some of these people leaving Pentax and investing in another brand + lenses if we just had a little more versatility going on.

Tbh that's why I am really quite excited for teh new crop camera, the fact it doesn't have a flip out screen actually (hopefully) suggests to me they are trying to work on that gap in their line up by focusing their attention on an awesome ovf/evf af fps buffer glory camera experience

People are already moaning about their not being a flip out screen, but if they are providing the buffers we need, the fps we need, the af tracking we need then right there we have a gap filled. Wildlife and event shooters will be overjoyed and you know if landscape is more your thing and you must have a flip out screen then the KP and K-1 are still out there to purchase. I look at the non flip out screen as a GOOD thing (as long as it of course does substantially improve in the aforementioned areas). And as for delays... I'm happy to wait another season or two if it produces a worthy camera, no big deal to me.

[biz-engineer]

Specialised cameras would work with rent model, because the wants of photographers can change over time. At the beginning of my photography journey I might want travel only camera, then later I want to do a lot of macro, then later I want to do wildlife, then landscape, then people portraits. Or have a 1dxiii and either lug around that big camera around neck on travel or be locked into taking only sport and weddings and never take any photo when travelling.

[repaap]

I like my allarounder K-1, how ever ’they’ could make it more good allarounder, I would not mind. We will see how that K-New changes things. There is a huge possibility for new AF system. And perhaps even new processor? More power? Who knows all of that might lift next K-1 to a new level. If there is still 36 MP sensor, -new- I would not mind. If it is going to be 42 MP. I’d hope for smaller sensor, but might end up tring it out. (My K-1 needs to be replaced as my main camera soon(Pentax, soon) I can feel it becoming older

Still, there are multiple aps-c cameras. They could cut down to just 2? And do 2 FF? It should be possible.

I would not see any problem of photographer having 2 different kind of cameras. Some do have already, as we know. Why not 2 from same brand? High performance/workhorse and allarounderwith all things you like, like astro, pixelsift... I’d like that.

[totsmuyco]

I like my allarounder K-1, how ever ’they’ could make it more good allarounder, I would not mind. We will see how that K-New changes things. There is a huge possibility for new AF system. And perhaps even new processor? More power? Who knows all of that might lift next K-1 to a new level. If there is still 36 MP sensor, -new- I would not mind. If it is going to be 42 MP. I’d hope for smaller sensor, but might end up tring it out. (My K-1 needs to be replaced as my main camera soon(Pentax, soon) I can feel it becoming older

Still, there are multiple aps-c cameras. They could cut down to just 2? And do 2 FF? It should be possible.

I would not see any problem of photographer having 2 different kind of cameras. Some do have already, as we know. Why not 2 from same brand? High performance/workhorse and allarounderwith all things you like, like astro, pixelsift... I’d like that.

2 of the same brand I believe is ideal. Photography is quite an expensive hobby. I grow into the system accumulating my arsenal little by little. 1 mount serving several cameras. That way, I get a standardized system and minimizing expenses.

[Rondec]

What a fun discussion. Here's my take.

No camera can do it all, because... maths/physics. Even if you could have a camera that does 61mp at 10fps with x buffer, you'd get better performance if the same camera takes 24mp and thus can do better fps and even longer buffer due to smaller file sizes. A camera is a tool for photography, and photography comes in many shapes and sizes and so you need to buy the right tool for the right job. I shoot Pentax professionally now, but it does struggle with certain high stress events where capturing that moment is expected and being paid for, all wedding photographers and sport togs understand that exploiting the buffer and fps can assist with succeeding in that endeavour. It's definitely playing to Pentax's weakness. However that would be my bad. I cannot recall the last time I saw Pentax marketed or advertised with wedding imagery or sports. It's unfair. Landscape however... now you're in pretty good hands

My one wish is that the cameras released across all brands can just be too similar at times. Too many duplication of features. Do we need pixelshift on every camera? Focus Peaking? Astro? Is there room for more variations so even the Pentaxian can choose a camera that meets their needs more than just a choice between crop and ff?

I have found the K-1 to being better suited to portrait work with the ff sensor and fast lenses, the DoF is more pronounced than what crop can manage. 36mp feels a lot however, I tend to seldom print larger than A3+. Arguably what matters more when photographing people is capturing that best look/moment, it can be a subtle shift in facial expression, but we're hampered with the fps and buffer. And then on the other side of the brand we have crop bodies, arguably better suited to landscape stuff (f8 etc) but they lack the mp we might want or appreciate for landscape work, and also have more fps/buffer. Seems to be they got things a little topsy turvy, I'd personally appreciate things the other way around, a 36mp crop body and a 24mp FF. But that's just me.

One thing that can be handy about high mp is the crop ability. I use centre AF Spot point for focus as its the most accurate for PDAF, and thus if I want a composition with subject off centre and am not so keen on focus recompose then you can take the shot further back and plan for a crop in PP. But really that's just working around Pentax's PDAF issues.

I'd just like to see more varied camera bodies released;

- A Crop sensor wildlife/sports camera where 16-21mp is enough to give fast fps and better buffer limits, a camera/sensor that cares more about capturing the best moment rather than recovery of data.

- A Crop sensor for landscape, 36mp or more, buffer and fps not as important as ruggedness etc, perhaps tripod mounts on the sides as well as traditional base (like the 645Z). A sensor that is prioritised around shadow/highlight recovery ability bla bla.

- A FF camera based around capturing the (portrait) moment best, an event camera, fps, buffer are important etc, 24mp is likely enough.

- A specialised FF camera based around enhancing the manual focus glass experience. Imagine a digital camera that does away with AF, instead housing a fantastic focus screen bias towards a better manual focus experience. Heck! The camera might not even bother with a LCD on the back, just something really basic that optimises the shooting experience of using manual focus glass both past and present but digital files, disposable frames etc. Due to the very basic nature of the camera and lack of features the body could be had at a very attractive low price point.

If we had a more varied line up of camera bodies rather than a single flagship crop, flagship ff, flagship mf etc, I can't help feeling that would do better. The end user now chooses the camera that suits their needs better, rather than what we currently have that at times feels like a 'jack of all trades'.

Thoughts?

Cost is the big issue with having a different camera for each application. Most of us would probably rather have one camera that does most things decently and get by with that. And from Pentax's standpoint, they can't manage that many models anyway. Three to four SLRs is about all they can turn out and keep updated with their current revenue stream/staffing levels. Sony does seem to have a million different models right now but I don't even really know that there is much differentiation other than slight differences with regard to frame rates and megapixels. And my experience is that most Sony photographers just get one camera based on what they shoot and what they can afford. So hopefully that camera is good enough to capture everything they want to shoot, even if, say, their main application is portraiture, they could still in a pinch take a landscape image with it.

The whole megapixel thing is a red herring. Low megapixel cameras do not necessarily shoot that much faster frame rates (unless you pay a bunch for a sensor with a fast read out speed). The D850 (with the grip) can do 9 fps at 46 megapixels with buffer of 50-ish RAW images. That's better than the D780 is going to be able to do. And extra megapixels don't actually add noise or decrease dynamic range, as long as you compare images at the same viewing/printing size. In point of fact, a camera like the A9 has less dynamic range below iso 12K than the K-1 II.

I understand that you don't need "extra' megapixels for all applications, but resizing is actually very simple and memory is super-cheap. To me it is like when people complain that a lens is "too sharp." If a lens is too sharp apparently you can't shoot portraits with it. But you can. You just do a bit of softening in post. But sometimes people act like it is the end of the world to do something like that when it is way easier than trying to add in details that are missing because your lens isn't sharp enough.

[BruceBanner]

Cost is the big issue with having a different camera for each application. Most of us would probably rather have one camera that does most things decently and get by with that. And from Pentax's standpoint, they can't manage that many models anyway. Three to four SLRs is about all they can turn out and keep updated with their current revenue stream/staffing levels. Sony does seem to have a million different models right now but I don't even really know that there is much differentiation other than slight differences with regard to frame rates and megapixels. And my experience is that most Sony photographers just get one camera based on what they shoot and what they can afford. So hopefully that camera is good enough to capture everything they want to shoot, even if, say, their main application is portraiture, they could still in a pinch take a landscape image with it.

The whole megapixel thing is a red herring. Low megapixel cameras do not necessarily shoot that much faster frame rates (unless you pay a bunch for a sensor with a fast read out speed). The D850 (with the grip) can do 9 fps at 46 megapixels with buffer of 50-ish RAW images. That's better than the D780 is going to be able to do. And extra megapixels don't actually add noise or decrease dynamic range, as long as you compare images at the same viewing/printing size. In point of fact, a camera like the A9 has less dynamic range below iso 12K than the K-1 II.

I understand that you don't need "extra' megapixels for all applications, but resizing is actually very simple and memory is super-cheap. To me it is like when people complain that a lens is "too sharp." If a lens is too sharp apparently you can't shoot portraits with it. But you can. You just do a bit of softening in post. But sometimes people act like it is the end of the world to do something like that when it is way easier than trying to add in details that are missing because your lens isn't sharp enough.

People that say too sharp lenses are not good for portraits imo don't understand portrait work. You want the sharpness, it's just about where you want it. Lips, hair, eyelashing, iris etc, you want that sharp, clothing even. If you have a soft lens then perhaps its true that less work is needed on skin but you can't sharpen those things without bringing additional noise into those areas. I'd rather have sharp and then smooth where I want that the other way around.

One thing about megapixels (though I am not sure about this), but I think you also need additional power to process large RAW files, at least I do on my potato of a machine. I notice a significant difference when processing even a 20mb jpg vs a 40mb DNG, so with more meagpixels = more stress on the hardware of the machine, so you're also spending more $$ to cope with the megapixels (true or false? it feels like that).

And I dunno about memory being cheap. I can't use the cloud storage so I carry my backups with me everywhere, currently using a 2TB Extreme Sandisk portable SSD, that thing ain't cheap! So yeah I do understand some memory is cheap, but not all is...

[WorksAsIntended]

I am running dual Xeon 6252 and 192gb ram pared with the AMD WX9100. It still stays true what you wrote. The k3ii files are processed quicker than the k1 ii, both not fast though.
I do not expect many people to be running more powerful pcs for doing raw processing.

[noelpolar]

I run a 2008 iMac and notice the difference between image size.... K3 is a short black coffee.... whilst a K1 opens up latte or capachino possibilities. When using DXO prime noise reduction I can knock out a bowl of pasta. A faster machine like Xeon 6252 and I'd likely starve.... or at least dehydrate.