[ogl]

Small and durable is APS.....

Which one so durable as old K1000?

[ogl]

Small and durable is APS.....

just a bit smaller than K-1 is already pretty good

[thibs]

Which one so durable as old K1000?

What does this have to do with anything ?

[ogl]

What does this have to do with anything ?

I don't understand what you mean

[Larrymc]

Pentax KP is 747 USD, K-1II is 1797 USD....The very good price gap to put 24 MP FF and new APS-C advanced model. The upgrade of K-1II could be 2000-2500 USD and I don't see any problem with it.

But you're not in the management of Ricoh/Pentax, where they may see a problem.

[surfar]

I would say that in 3 years Ricoh will be #1 in DSLR sales.

Try # 3

I don't see Canon or Nikon spending any money to develop DSLRs. They will all but abandon the segment.

So the 2 biggest camera producers "will" all but abandon the market segment where they sell 97% of that market?

[texandrews]

I am actually cool with the current size of K-1. It's plenty small enough for me. Fleshing out other features to make it smaller sounds good, but I wonder how much smaller it can get.

Not a ton smaller, I would say. Here are some specifics. Since 2010 I have owned a Sony A850, a Sony NEX7, A Sony A7R, the Pentax 645Z, and the Pentax K1, which I upgraded through the board replacement.

The largest of these is the 645Z, and the smallest was the NEX7. The A850 I am pretty sure was larger than the K1, and the A7R is smaller than the K1.

The NEX7 was a serious camera, impeded somewhat by some menu issues. I think it's as small as you can make a camera with its rich set of capabilities---that said, the physical size of the camera precluded a lot of button access, and meant diving into the menus. The A7R was an even more capable camera, and had a bit more physical real estate, but for a FF camera I definitely felt it was cramped compared to the A850, which I retained for some work.

When I purchased my 645Z I had to trade in a lot of my gear, and a couple of victims were the A850 and NEX7 cameras. But I retained the A7R. One would think that would be a good combo---a physically large camera with large lenses(generally) along with a very compact and capable one with "small" lenses. Well, I decided to let the A7R go and get the K1. Uniformity of system was a big part of that---especially flashes and triggers!---but the other part was that, although big and much heavier, the Z has been the most ergonomically sound camera I have owned, and it just made the cramped quality of the A7R, and very solid camera, btw, more obvious---and the lenses weren't actually so small. In those early days of Sony MILC's their fora on DPR were full of comments envious of Pentax's small, FF lenses. And the K1 is my number 2 best ergonomic camera. I just had to use one of my museum's 5DmkIV's today, and I just found it irritating. The K1 I believe is a very good tool from an ergonomic standpoint, and shrinking it would impact that negatively IMO.

I agree with you and I would rather that they spend their resources coming up with smaller AW FF lenses. My guess would be the easiest way to go is to make FA ltds AW. Those lenses are definitely small enough for me.

And I also think this could be a good way to move forward---including considering slower, yet still excellent, lenses (28-105 is a great example, so is the 100 macro).

---

Last edited by texandrews; 07-21-2020 at 12:59 PM.

[house]

The K-1 is perfect in hand. No beef with size or weight.

On a strap however its a nightmare. The K-3 II you can strap like a sling shift it to your back and its pretty much gone (with a prime). The thickness of the k-1 with the screen potruding makes it extremely awkward. It flaps around and juts out. It just doesn't work.

A simplified ff that got the profile down with a fixed screen and miniaturised (less effective) ibis would be great. Im often out doing other things in addition to photography. The K-1 is great when its only about photography. Still have that K-3 II though.

[RobA_Oz]

The K-1 is perfect in hand. No beef with size or weight.

On a strap however its a nightmare. The K-3 II you can strap like a sling shift it to your back and its pretty much gone (with a prime). The thickness of the k-1 with the screen potruding makes it extremely awkward. It flaps around and juts out. It just doesn't work.

A simplified ff that got the profile down with a fixed screen and miniaturised (less effective) ibis would be great. Im often out doing other things in addition to photography. The K-1 is great when its only about photography. Still have that K-3 II though.

I partly agree with you, in that the K-3 is a bit easier to carry on a sling, but I wouldn’t call the K-1 a nightmare, carried like that, but that possibly depends on where you attach the sling. Mine is on the neck-strap lugs, although others use the tripod attachment point. Then, of course, there’s the matter of which lens is mounted.

I don’t know that you could miniaturise the IBIS mechanism by significantly more than its present size. A weight reduction would be possible if the sensor assembly weight was reduced, since the two are pretty much linked as things stand. Before the K-1 was released, there was much speculation here as to whether or not the FF sensor could fit on the K-3’s IBIS platform. I haven’t seen a size comparison of the two, to find out who was right.

[MMVIII]

Small and durable is APS.....

Right. With the viewfinder magnification of K-new and high ISO capabilities of K-P as a start I can't see the benefit of FF if you want small and durable with 24 Mp.

[stevebrot]

My main argument against the OVF is bad manual focus calibration and fickle AF calibration of the PDAF system. What you see in focus in the OVF is not in focus in the image. For AF and CIF you need to calibrate every time you use a lens because apparently it depends on conditions how much it is out of wack. So what Pentax needs to do is properly calibrate the focussing screen so that is correct out of the box and create a lens calibration feature using live view. I don't think they will do it so my next camera will be mirrorless.

I know it has been several days since you left this comment, but think there may be little harm in adding my two bits. I do probably 90% of my serious work using manual focus. My K-3 is equipped with a KatzEye screen and I use live view for critical focus even though the split image is properly dialed in with factory shims. The question might be asked why I just don't use the stock focus screen. The answer is simple and has nothing to do with calibration.

Q: Why is the stock focus screen usually inappropriate for fine focus?
A: Because the brightening treatment increases the apparent depth of field and by doing so decreases the focus sensitivity (the ability to detect OOF). The result is poor precision and significant incidence of missed focus despite the proper calibration. This is best demonstrated by using a fast manual aperture lens and noting that the relative brightness does not change between f/1.4 and f/4. The same is true for the ability to detect OOF.

Q: Why is the screen treated to enhance brightness?
A: Because they would be quite dim without it at slower maximum apertures, courtesy of the half-silvered mirror needed for PDAF autofocus. FWIW, this is an historic issue for auto-focus SLRs across brands.

Q: Given the stated Pentax dedication to the optical viewfinder, is there a ready solution to provide performance similar to that found on 80s era film SLRs?
A: They might follow Canon's lead by offering high quality accessory focus screens with better focus sensitivity. Alternative, they might consider offering a manual focus dSLR.

In regards to your difficulties with PDAF fine adjustment, I am unfamiliar with what you describe.* That said, I would be pleased as punch should Pentax offer automated fine adjust similar to that offered by Nikon on its higher model dSLRs.


Steve

* I should probably note that fine adjust can be unreliable if using other than the center point for calibration and adjusting based on a small number of focus attempts. There are also huge issues of precision with using PDAF (CIF included) at higher magnifications for close focus or macro work.

[stevebrot]

So the 2 biggest camera producers "will" all but abandon the market segment where they sell 97% of that market?

Canon has already stated that as their intent.


Steve

[Serkevan]

Canon has already stated that as their intent.


Steve

They stated that they are focused in developing RF but will develop EF lenses "as the customers demand". While I also believe that development of EF mount lenses is more less over and out, it doesn't mean that they will stop producing the gear just yet. Mid-term, sure, but I don't think EF users are gonna be out of newly-manufactured gear for some years.

They might add a refresh of best-selling lenses here and there as well, but I wouldn't count on that.
In any case, even if they just maintain production of a couple models (5D and 90D) plus a handful of the staple lenses most users will be set for a good decade. Lots of people are "still" on the 5Diii after all.

[stevebrot]

As a long time Pentax user, I'm getting pretty frustrated.

Pentax needs to get off their ass and:
- improve their video and stabilization to equal my Samsung 3 year old cell phone
- incorporate AI into their chip like Google and Apple so night pics, etc. look awesome. Why do DSLRs, with the better and larger sensors, not using AI?????????? Utter stupidity IMO.

You lost me there, but I am often a little slow on the uptake in regards to understanding utter stupidity. My night photos look pretty good using techniques from the '60s and I don't use stabilization when shooting video.


Steve

[house]

I don’t know that you could miniaturise the IBIS mechanism by significantly more than its present size.

I don't know if it's possible, was thinking about potential lessons from the GRIII. Perhaps other targets are better. I imagine the lcd can come in different build ups and thicknesses, you could probably lose at least 6mm compared to the K-1. If you sacrifice a bit of spec perhaps it can get even thinner.

I skimmed something about Leica not using the same sensor in the M10-r as in the Q2 becase the former sensor was thinner and could fit inside the M10 body whilst the latter couldn't. Sounds like a few mm depending on sensor as well.