[Kunzite]

People (not you perhaps) do fall into market traps, which are everywhere like landmines. If Norm can be convinced to buy K-1, then traps are at times effective. Differences in picture qualities are minuscule as I have said. I would love to see blind testings being conducted. People are pressed to find the difference between K-3 II output and that of K-1. At best its subjective. Heck - under wrong conditions K10D output can fool you. Yet, we as consumers continue to buy new gears - that is because the traps work. Some traps are better than the other. One aspect of Canon Nikon Sony's success is that people fall into traps. You may not - but that doesn't mean that others don't either. That is why marketing continues to exist. I have no idea if K-new willl demolish K-1. I am not sure what that means, actually. K-1 output often do not demolish that of K3 II. Me personally I would rather to put my money on lenses that bodies. I just think it's a bad investment. That being said, I could see if you are an APS-C shooter K-new may appear really attractive. I am sure it is a heck of a camera.

What makes you say Norm's decision was marketing driven?

I know the difference between the K-3 II and the K-1 when I'm shooting with them. You're talking about blind tests of images by third parties, but we're the photographers, we're taking these images. We know our tools, and which ones makes a specific task easier.

Of course the K-new will absolutely demolish the K-1 - in performance, I said. It's obvious, knowing the K-1's limitations, and having some hints at what the K-new will bring.

[Serkevan]

If marketing traps didn't work they wouldn't get the ridiculous budgets they get.

[Fontan]

While I agree with many parts, I would like to emphasize another perspective. You can always take images with the larger sensor that are visually indiscernible from the smaller sensor. But you will not always be able to reproduce the output of the bigger format on the smaller one. It's about the less regular areas of photography. Go to high ISO and the differences will start to be visible. Go to fully opened fast lenses and you will see the limits of the crop sensor. Go for heavy cropping and you might have less possibilities in one format.
It's the broadness of the range of situations you can cover that you define with the size of the sensor you choose. As with everything, for most usecases the solid mid class (let's say APS-C) will suit you very well, probably indiscernible in the ootput. You pay for the additional cases, and here everyone has to conduct a personal needs analysis and decide if these are more dominant or even essential for one's shooting style.

Very well said. I am with you there. I say this because I print two copies of all of what I consider to be significant outputs. I use Epson 3800 (still) so I can print up to pretty large sizes as well. I can attest to what you are saying in that the when you print you begin to see what the big deals are. Depending on sensor sizes each file lends itself to different degree of manipulation or better put post processing. Needless to say one should hone his or her skills at various levels so that the least amount of manipulation is required at achieve personal satisfaction. This is not just limited to cropping. I shoot mainly in black and white, and how I deal with tonality sometimes hinges on which camera (or sensor) the files came out of.

But having said that, over the years I began to realize that sensor quality and characteristics, along with sizes are just one attribute amongst many. Somewhere along the way I realized that even the monitor you use, or the hood that you hang, where the lighting is in the room make a difference in what you see. I went through this stage where I tried out multiple monitors (finally settling on Eizo) and ended making my own hood for it because I just couldn't find the one that fit my needs of the room. There is then also lenses too. This was what drove me to Leica. Of all lenses in general that I have tried, Leica lenses gave me outputs that I required the least amount of adjustment. My latest obsession is the paper I print on. Printing on canvas as opposed to satin art paper requires different techniques and understanding, to get the style you want. t never ends.

I am finding out the most people do not print (nothing is wrong with that), but if the primary mode of viewing is on a monitor - then it gets harder to tell the difference between gears and set ups. But what you are saying is very true.

[deus ursus]

In fairness a lot of pros and prosumers seem very happy in the Fuji APS-C segment and not clamoring for FF.

A pro that I know of around here where I live, went from a Canon EOS 5D to a Fuji of some sort (APS-C).

[Fontan]

What makes you say Norm's decision was marketing driven?

I know the difference between the K-3 II and the K-1 when I'm shooting with them. You're talking about blind tests of images by third parties, but we're the photographers, we're taking these images. We know our tools, and which ones makes a specific task easier.

Of course the K-new will absolutely demolish the K-1 - in performance, I said. It's obvious, knowing the K-1's limitations, and having some hints at what the K-new will bring.

I am glad that you know the difference between the two. You must have the keen eyes, and that is great. But not everybody have the same degree of competence as you do. As I said in the earlier post, 2/3 of novice Leica shooters cannot tell the difference in outputs between $13,000 and $750 lenses (Noctilux 50/.95 vs TT Artisan 50/.95) on their perspective monitors. I have no way of knowing what is your primary purpose of shooting, but for me I do it so that people can see my work. What I feel about my work do not always reflect in what the viewers see and feel. When you encounter that enough times at least for me I began to realize that it is not so much about what I think I know about by my pictures and gears, but it is forever more about what others see of my work. Camera performance is important, but most skilled photographers have ways to overcome limitations of gears. That is why in the set of right hands point and shoot produces far more superior work than stellar gears in wrong hands. Just my 5 cents.

[awscreo]

Curious, anyone knows if GRIII's sensor is the same that is in K-3II, K70 or KP? I can definitely see difference working with K-1 files and GRIII files. Dynamic range, flexibility, lack of noise in the shadows with K-1. You can easily pull K-1 files to +3 if you need and don't see crazy amounts of grain in shadows. I prefer getting correct exposure values for the shots, but if I mess up there's more head room to fix it. GRIII files are amazing for such a small body, but I definitely see the difference. I mean the FF sensor is surface area is more than double of the APSC.

To me it doesn't really matter whether a third party can tell the difference. I take photos for me (selfish, i know!), and vast majority of people won't be able to tell difference between a good phone photo and a FF dslr. If you go by this logic, then why not a phone with those clip on lenses) Btw, i have nothing against phone photography, each to their own.

[Kunzite]

I am glad that you know the difference between the two. You must have the keen eyes, and that is great. But not everybody have the same degree of competence as you do. As I said in the earlier post, 2/3 of novice Leica shooters cannot tell the difference in outputs between $13,000 and $750 lenses (Noctilux 50/.95 vs TT Artisan 50/.95) on their perspective monitors. I have no way of knowing what is your primary purpose of shooting, but for me I do it so that people can see my work. What I feel about my work do not always reflect in what the viewers see and feel. When you encounter that enough times at least for me I began to realize that it is not so much about what I think I know about by my pictures and gears, but it is forever more about what others see of my work. Camera performance is important, but most skilled photographers have ways to overcome limitations of gears. That is why in the set of right hands point and shoot produces far more superior work than stellar gears in wrong hands. Just my 5 cents.

Sorry, but this is a nice collection of kettle logic so I'll have to end our discussion here - rather than trying to address all these disparate points.
Have a nice evening (or whatever's where you live).

[Belnan]

I wonder if I should laugh or cry for you in a couple months.
Not that it is my hope, it is not. But I really think you (and others, just that I'm replying to your post) are not realistic at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be surprised (if you were to be right). But I really can't see how they'd do it.

Just my opinion.

You may be right. The top Pentax models have always competed with the d7200's and 90d's maybe the K-new will be different. In any case it will interesting to see. My new camera buying days are over anyway.

[ThorSanchez]

I think you are probably right that Pentaxian in general, judging from many posts I read here, are a group of very rational and sensible consumers. That may well be the reason why Pentax appear to suck at marketing or that they don't appear to put much emphasis on marketing because it just may not make that much of a difference. Maybe and maybe that the only reason they put FF out was because we bugged them so much on this forum. I would like to think of myself as someone like you, who don't get swayed by sizes and gimmicks, but I cannot say that I am. Temptations are too strong, and I am weak. I am a sucker. I got sucked in 645D, and now Leica. I am guilty and guilty again over and over.

I think almost all of us with typical Western middle/upper-middle class resources are sometimes sucked in. I could have a smaller house without three acres. I could drive a Chevy Cruze instead of a (used) Audi. But I usually try to avoid extravagance for extravagance's sake, and it's hard to justify to myself a $5000 FF kit when my APS-C one does so well.

[gatorguy]

I think almost all of us with typical Western middle/upper-middle class resources are sometimes sucked in. I could have a smaller house without three acres. I could drive a Chevy Cruze instead of a (used) Audi. But I usually try to avoid extravagance for extravagance's sake, and it's hard to justify to myself a $5000 FF kit when my APS-C one does so well.

The only reason I added a FF (K1) is because I got it so inexpensively, no more than a new KP. Now that I have it I really like the controls and handling. I very much enjoy certain old glass, more so than on my crop cameras, and the FA's seem to perform better. For example I was ready to sell off my FA31, very meh on crop IMHO. On the K1 it shines much brighter. Oh and the extra dynamic range and crop-happy pixels have helped.

BUT...
In general are the images noticeably less noisey, or have smoother bokeh, or otherwise recognizably superior to what my entry-level K70's give me with good glass? Nope, not really. At this point in my photo journey I would not choose a FF over a crop simply for "better photos".

For me it's far more about the glass and the technique than the camera in between them. Cheap camera with great glass will give you far better images than an expensive camera with kit lenses. And those nicer photos will encourage you to shoot more and work on technique rather than put it on a shelf somewhere or on Ebay.

So from where I stand the APS-C is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and supported by lots of really nice meant-for-digital lenses with modern coatings that help with various light issues. I won't be selling my K1. I really like it. A lot. But not because I see a big difference in the photos it produces. I don't. I'm equally as happy with those K-70's (not so much the KP but that's simply ergonomics. Try it before buy it IMO) even if for different reasons.

[Serkevan]

The only reason I added a FF (K1) is because I got it so inexpensively, no more than a new KP. Now that I have it I really like the controls and handling. I very much enjoy certain old glass, more so than on my crop cameras, and the FA's seem to perform better. For example I was ready to sell off my FA31, very meh on crop IMHO. On the K1 it shines much brighter. Oh and the extra dynamic range and crop-happy pixels have helped.

BUT...
In general are the images noticeably less noisey, or have smoother bokeh, or otherwise recognizably superior to what my entry-level K70's give me with good glass? Nope, not really. At this point in my photo journey I would not choose a FF over a crop simply for "better photos".

For me it's far more about the glass and the technique than the camera in between them. Cheap camera with great glass will give you far better images than an expensive camera with kit lenses. And those nicer photos will encourage you to shoot more and work on technique rather than put it on a shelf somewhere or on Ebay.

So from where I stand the APS-C is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and supported by lots of really nice meant-for-digital lenses with modern coatings that help with various light issues. I won't be selling my K1. I really like it. A lot. But not because I see a big difference in the photos it produces. I don't. I'm equally as happy with those K-70's (not so much the KP but that's simply ergonomics. Try it before buy it IMO) even if for different reasons.

I'm exactly in the same camp... I got a K-1 under 2000 clicks for about a hundred more than a similarly used KP... it was certainly an incredible upgrade over the K-7, but I had the feeling I'd still be happy with the KP and maybe should have gone with that one... until I got the D FA 28-105, the M20/4 and now the FA 77 has me enthralled. I'm not "going back" simply because I like my lenses too much now

[Fontan]

it's hard to justify to myself a $5000 FF kit when my APS-C one does so well.

Especially in this day and age of COVID crisis, frugality is something that I really should take it to heart. I am ashamed to say that I am not as discipline as you are! The last portion of your statement was what I was referring to. I agree that when there is that great of a price difference ($5,000 vs $2,000), putting aside the issue of whether if you really need it or not, the decision is utterly clear. Most recent and updated technology for less than half the cost of FF. Depending on your lens inventory, this really can be no brainer. I think there are lots of Pentaxians in that predicament who have slew of DA ltds. But when the outgoing FF, outdated it maybe, is costing less than upcoming APSC, it suddenly becomes a consideration, even if you may not have as many FF lenses.

---------- Post added 07-16-20 at 11:21 PM ----------

The only reason I added a FF (K1) is because I got it so inexpensively, no more than a new KP. Now that I have it I really like the controls and handling. I very much enjoy certain old glass, more so than on my crop cameras, and the FA's seem to perform better. For example I was ready to sell off my FA31, very meh on crop IMHO. On the K1 it shines much brighter. Oh and the extra dynamic range and crop-happy pixels have helped.

BUT...
In general are the images noticeably less noisey, or have smoother bokeh, or otherwise recognizably superior to what my entry-level K70's give me with good glass? Nope, not really. At this point in my photo journey I would not choose a FF over a crop simply for "better photos".

For me it's far more about the glass and the technique than the camera in between them. Cheap camera with great glass will give you far better images than an expensive camera with kit lenses. And those nicer photos will encourage you to shoot more and work on technique rather than put it on a shelf somewhere or on Ebay.

So from where I stand the APS-C is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and supported by lots of really nice meant-for-digital lenses with modern coatings that help with various light issues. I won't be selling my K1. I really like it. A lot. But not because I see a big difference in the photos it produces. I don't. I'm equally as happy with those K-70's (not so much the KP but that's simply ergonomics. Try it before buy it IMO) even if for different reasons.

My "excuse" for jumping on K-1 was exactly that. I have waited years so that I could try my FA ltds on FF. I was just dying to try out the three amigos on FF to see what the output would look like, at their intended focal lengths. I had to say it didn't disappoint. It's a side note, but my opinion on them has changed because of K-1. I was of the impression before K-1 came out that FA 31 was the best of the three. Now my opinion is that 77 is the best, 43 next, while 31 being last place, it is still ridiculously outstanding. My point is that because of FF I could see more of what these lenses could offer. I am utterly satisfied with K-1, even after 4 years, and when new bodies come out, APS-C or FF, I have no plan to upgrade.

Again, when a secondhand K-1 in excellent shape can be had for close to $1500 or less, spending $2,000 (if that is indeed the pricing) on K-new would be a tough sell for me.

---------- Post added 07-16-20 at 11:24 PM ----------

I'm exactly in the same camp... I got a K-1 under 2000 clicks for about a hundred more than a similarly used KP... it was certainly an incredible upgrade over the K-7, but I had the feeling I'd still be happy with the KP and maybe should have gone with that one... until I got the D FA 28-105, the M20/4 and now the FA 77 has me enthralled. I'm not "going back" simply because I like my lenses too much now

Yea those of us who have invested in FA ltds - there really is no going back now. I agree. Even compared against Leica lenses, the ltds more than hold their own for sure. K-1 for $100 less than brand new KP is another example that illustrates my point. I mean, why not, right?

[gatorguy]

Especially in this day and age of COVID crisis, frugality is something that I really should take it to heart. I am ashamed to say that I am not as discipline as you are! The last portion of your statement was what I was referring to. I agree that when there is that great of a price difference ($5,000 vs $2,000), putting aside the issue of whether if you really need it or not, the decision is utterly clear. Most recent and updated technology for less than half the cost of FF. Depending on your lens inventory, this really can be no brainer. I think there are lots of Pentaxians in that predicament who have slew of DA ltds. But when the outgoing FF, outdated it maybe, is costing less than upcoming APSC, it suddenly becomes a consideration, even if you may not have as many FF lenses.

---------- Post added 07-16-20 at 11:21 PM ----------



My "excuse" for jumping on K-1 was exactly that. I have waited years so that I could try my FA ltds on FF. I was just dying to try out the three amigos on FF to see what the output would look like, at their intended focal lengths. I had to say it didn't disappoint. It's a side note, but my opinion on them has changed because of K-1. I was of the impression before K-1 came out that FA 31 was the best of the three. Now my opinion is that 77 is the best, 43 next, while 31 being last place, it is still ridiculously outstanding. My point is that because of FF I could see more of what these lenses could offer. I am utterly satisfied with K-1, even after 4 years, and when new bodies come out, APS-C or FF, I have no plan to upgrade.

Again, when a secondhand K-1 in excellent shape can be had for close to $1500 or less, spending $2,000 (if that is indeed the pricing) on K-new would be a tough sell for me.[COLOR="Silver"]

A lot will depend on what it brings to the table. Much improved AF, faster SD cards accommodated, improved viewfinder for those doing manual focus, size and weight, sensor....
It may well be worth it.

And of course it shouldn't be an easy sell if Pentax has been doing their job up until now. It would only be "easy" if the K1, KP and K70 were sub-par cameras, which they plainly are not IMO. Pentax needs to bring their game with the K-new and I am expecting they will.

[jerryleejr]

Ive been clinging to my K5iis waiting patiently so Honestly no matter what is released I am ready for an upgrade...

JJ

[normhead]

I'd still be happy with the KP and maybe should have gone with that one... until I got the D FA 28-105, the M20/4 and now the FA 77 has me enthralled.

Ya, the 28-105 changed everything.