[SSGGeezer]

Do we have someone with both lenses to confirm that?

Or some kind of test somewhere?

I shot with both on my K-1 yesterday. The PLM focuses a bit faster. The D-FA is a bit sharper at the long end and has no vignette. The PLM from 55 to 170ish mm puts your artistic rounded vignette pre-formed on your image. Still lots of use and a heck of a lot lighter.
here is the same dragonfly after some rain when I brought out the PLM. 1st image is with the 150-450. Others from the PLM, usually at <300mm.
Mr Metalnose - PentaxForums.com

And if the K-New is $2K USD, If I want one I will get one. It isn't that much when you look at what many things cost these days! (Like Divorce lawyers! )

[normhead]

I shot with both on my K-1 yesterday. The PLM focuses a bit faster. The D-FA is a bit sharper at the long end and has no vignette. The PLM from 55 to 170ish mm puts your artistic rounded vignette pre-formed on your image. Still lots of use and a heck of a lot lighter.
here is the same dragonfly after some rain when I brought out the PLM. 1st image is with the 150-450. Others from the PLM, usually at <300mm.
Mr Metalnose - PentaxForums.com

And if the K-New is $2K USD, If I want one I will get one. It isn't that much when you look at what many things cost these days! (Like Divorce lawyers! )

I'm making the sign to ward off evil.

[Fontan]

K-1 II is $1,800 at BH. I get APS-C is a different market, and yes K-1 II is relatively speaking outdated. But - when the new APS-C comes out costing near $2,000, I would think that some prospective buyers of the new APS-C will stop in their tracks and ponder maybe for a fleeting moment. When I look at my files shot with my K-1, not K-1 II, I see zero need to upgrade, at all. I also get that these folks with DA lenses only without having no FF lenses and their needs - but pricing the flagship APS-C higher than the market price of existing FF model seems very counterintuitive and counterproductive.

[thibs]

When I look at my files shot with my K-1, not K-1 II, I see zero need to upgrade, at all. I also get that these folks with DA lenses only without having no FF lenses and their needs - but pricing the flagship APS-C higher than the market price of existing FF model seems very counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Mmmm what? Why not price it lower than an old Canon 5D'1' while you're at it? It is FF after all.

[Fontan]

Mmmm what? Why not price it lower than an old Canon 5D'1' while you're at it? It is FF after all.

Yeah, but then now you will have to factor in the cost of changing the platform ie having to buy in by purchasing lenses etc, which would make no sense at all to those with a bunch of DA lenses.

I am just imagining that at this stage of the game, if you are putting a "flagship" APS-C, this is a gesture to cater to the existing users who have invested in those wonderful DA ltd lenses. I seriously doubt that this is not their attempt to get non Pentax user to buy into the smaller sensor format. That is in my view delusional.

I am not disputing at all the usefulness of APS-C format, especially if you already own cool lenses like DA 35/ macro ltd or DA 70 ltd, and not still wanting to move over to FF. But, what worries me is what happened to Olympus no matter how much one claims to know this was coming to them. The argument for the usefulness of small sensor format is the same. Pentax should do everything possible make users NOT feel like they are again having to invest in a system that may well be becoming outdated. I am sorry m4/3 has had that feel for a while now, and it is practically dead. I don't think that leaps in technology alone, no matter how cool, ain't gonna do it for many buyers. In some way or form the value has to be there. Speaking of values though - I have seen some awesome deals for Olympus lately. It is a very capable set up, and it is more than adequate for most amateur users for years to come, even though it may be approaching the dead end in the market.

If Pentax chooses to charge what many consider "high," then you are looking at next FF approaching $3,500 - $4,000 range, perhaps. Again, looking at what I get out of my K-1, that is not going to be convincing for me.

[Kunzite]

K-1 II is $1,800 at BH. I get APS-C is a different market, and yes K-1 II is relatively speaking outdated. But - when the new APS-C comes out costing near $2,000, I would think that some prospective buyers of the new APS-C will stop in their tracks and ponder maybe for a fleeting moment. When I look at my files shot with my K-1, not K-1 II, I see zero need to upgrade, at all. I also get that these folks with DA lenses only without having no FF lenses and their needs - but pricing the flagship APS-C higher than the market price of existing FF model seems very counterintuitive and counterproductive.

It doesn't always work like that.
While the K-1 has and will continue to have an image quality advantage, there's the question if you are able to obtain it in practice. Say, for fast moving subjects like birds in flight... the faster camera might easily win here, and the higher pixel density might matter more than more-pixels-over-the-entire-frame.
The new APS-C flagship will do precisely what the K-1 doesn't.

[Kunzite]

Pentax should do everything possible make users NOT feel like they are again having to invest in a system that may well be becoming outdated.

Wait... what?
What system "may well be becoming outdated"? Pentax K? That would be weird, because Pentax should do everything possible to make us buy more Pentax K products! APS-C? That's not a system, and it won't become outdated - as we're not becoming richer.

But what Pentax/Ricoh is doing is to make the K-mount system more capable, more useful to us. And yes, the K-new's improvements will be incorporated in a FF camera.

[pres589]

I don't see a direct correlation between Knew costing $2000 USD driving cost of the next FF Pentax camera to $3500 or more. It perhaps becomes slightly more plausible but it seems like Ricoh generally understands how to price Pentax products. I don't think the Knew should cost $2000 out of the gate; $1500 USD seems about right to me, with prices settling to $1000 or so at retailers six or nine months later. But that's just a shot from the hip and shouldn't be taken as an educated guess.

[boriscleto]

Do we have someone with both lenses to confirm that?

Or some kind of test somewhere?

The 150-450 is a bit slow in the focus department on the K-3, I can't speak for how it performs on the Kp or K-1 Better than the Sigma 150-500...I have hopes that the K-xx will improve it. The PLM seems to lock into focus almost instantly. Haven't really tried tracking focus with the PLM, again K-xx should be better...

[Belnan]

I don't see a direct correlation between Knew costing $2000 USD driving cost of the next FF Pentax camera to $3500 or more. It perhaps becomes slightly more plausible but it seems like Ricoh generally understands how to price Pentax products. I don't think the Knew should cost $2000 out of the gate; $1500 USD seems about right to me, with prices settling to $1000 or so at retailers six or nine months later. But that's just a shot from the hip and shouldn't be taken as an educated guess.

I think 1500 seems a bit high but not unreasonable if it has d500 level autofocus and fps. If not perhaps a little bit less ~1300.

[ThorSanchez]

It doesn't always work like that.
While the K-1 has and will continue to have an image quality advantage, there's the question if you are able to obtain it in practice. Say, for fast moving subjects like birds in flight... the faster camera might easily win here, and the higher pixel density might matter more than more-pixels-over-the-entire-frame.
The new APS-C flagship will do precisely what the K-1 doesn't.

Not to mention that your bird is going to be much harder to swing your 3 kg K-1 and 150-450 setup to find it. A K-3 + 55-300PLM is about 1/3rd the weight. You can take the APS-C setup on a five mile hike and not think too much about it. The FF option involves some kind of a mule.

---------- Post added 07-14-20 at 03:08 PM ----------

I am not disputing at all the usefulness of APS-C format, especially if you already own cool lenses like DA 35/ macro ltd or DA 70 ltd, and not still wanting to move over to FF. But, what worries me is what happened to Olympus no matter how much one claims to know this was coming to them. The argument for the usefulness of small sensor format is the same. Pentax should do everything possible make users NOT feel like they are again having to invest in a system that may well be becoming outdated.

The only reason APS-C would feel outdated is if manufacturers market it that way to push people into buying gear with higher profit margins. It's like cars, many or most people think cars are uncool and SUVs cool because the profit margin on SUVs is greater so all the marketing pushes that direction.

[Fontan]

Wait... what?
What system "may well be becoming outdated"? Pentax K? That would be weird, because Pentax should do everything possible to make us buy more Pentax K products! APS-C? That's not a system, and it won't become outdated - as we're not becoming richer.

But what Pentax/Ricoh is doing is to make the K-mount system more capable, more useful to us. And yes, the K-new's improvements will be incorporated in a FF camera.

What I was referring to is not the mount but APS-C format. You are right it is not a system is it. Yet my point remains the same. I think that APS-C can appear to be outdated to some. Just an opinion.

[Serkevan]

Not to mention that your bird is going to be much harder to swing your 3 kg K-1 and 150-450 setup to find it. A K-3 + 55-300PLM is about 1/3rd the weight. You can take the APS-C setup on a five mile hike and not think too much about it. The FF option involves some kind of a mule.

The only reason APS-C would feel outdated is if manufacturers market it that way to push people into buying gear with higher profit margins. It's like cars, many or most people think cars are uncool and SUVs cool because the profit margin on SUVs is greater so all the marketing pushes that direction.

APS-C is perfectly fine in terms of IQ, typically better in terms of fps/buffer and certainly allows for smaller lenses. Regarding long teles, the issue is more with the lens than it is with the body anyway - the K-1 with PLM, M20/4 and 28-105 is lighter than the 150-450 all by itself* . Still, if I were into wildlife I would be looking at either an APS-C or M43 system because higher pixel density means you get more effective reach after you factor in cropping... although that might come with the disadvantage of increased aberrations if you keep magnifying.



*Okay with the hood and tripod foot, but you get the point

---------- Post added 07-14-20 at 12:24 PM ----------

What I was referring to is not the mount but APS-C format. You are right it is not a system is it. Yet my point remains the same. I think that APS-C can appear to be outdated to some. Just an opinion.

It's mostly marketing, like Thor said... Pentax and Fuji have the APS-C advantages down pat: small, compact primes with great IQ that one cannot really get in FF systems. In that regard the KP is the perfect travel and street camera IMO, it was made for the Limiteds.


The K-New looks very much like it's made for Star lenses instead.

[luftfluss]

When Nikon released the D500, its price was actually a bit higher than the full-frame D610.

[Fontan]

Not to mention that your bird is going to be much harder to swing your 3 kg K-1 and 150-450 setup to find it. A K-3 + 55-300PLM is about 1/3rd the weight. You can take the APS-C setup on a five mile hike and not think too much about it. The FF option involves some kind of a mule.

---------- Post added 07-14-20 at 03:08 PM ----------



The only reason APS-C would feel outdated is if manufacturers market it that way to push people into buying gear with higher profit margins. It's like cars, many or most people think cars are uncool and SUVs cool because the profit margin on SUVs is greater so all the marketing pushes that direction.

Well, if the "only" advantages of APS-C is bird shooting (well I know there are few others), then you know targeted segmented is rather small. Like I said, I realize there are other advantages I imagine, but the trend of the market has become skewed towards FF, from what I can see although I don't know the exact numbers.

As for the margin - me thinks that more FF sensors you sell, the margin gets larger and that is just supply and demand stuff. As the market moves towards FF, APS-C margins will fall.

I think that APS-C will feel updated if everybody else around you is shooting FF.

I would be curious what percentage of "bird" shooters are using APS-C. Would it be better to, perhaps, to shoot with faster and more accurate AF despite having a bigger sensor? I dunno.