[texandrews]

Do you hold the camera and lens with two hands?
"Imbalance" should not be a thing in that case.

Of course I do----I've been shooting since the '70's. And that doesn't help with cramped ergonomics. One would think you'd take my word for it that it didn't work as well for me, since I've owned the 3 cameras (plus the NEX7 and the Sony A850 before that...), but I guess not.

But I also don't have 3 hands, so holding a flash off axis is more difficult with a badly balanced camera lens combination (yes, I have a flash bracket, but I also like to use flash further off axis, and lightstands aren't always practical if you are moving around)


Ergonomics and imbalance are always "a thing". Little is perfectly balanced, but some combinations balance better then others.

---------- Post added 07-15-18 at 10:44 AM ----------

I agree. A lot of people talk about poor balance and I always assume they like to hold the camera up with one hand. Never a good practice. We hear this all the time about small cameras and big lenses. Weight and size matter but I can compensate for most imbalance problems . A significantly front heavy lens is a bit uncomfortable but can be managed.

please see above.

[Mikesul]

Of course I do----I've been shooting since the '70's. And that doesn't help with cramped ergonomics. One would think you'd take my word for it that it didn't work as well for me, since I've owned the 3 cameras (plus the NEX7 and the Sony A850 before that...), but I guess not.

But I also don't have 3 hands, so holding a flash off axis is more difficult with a badly balanced camera lens combination (yes, I have a flash bracket, but I also like to use flash further off axis, and lightstands aren't always practical if you are moving around)


Ergonomics and imbalance are always "a thing". Little is perfectly balanced, but some combinations balance better then others.

---------- Post added 07-15-18 at 10:44 AM ----------

please see above.

Ok, yes, that is a circumstance when you need to hold the camera with one hand. I Have not used a flash that way since film days (which go way back into the '60s) so I had not thought about that. However, my little MX was certainly less well balanced with, say, the M*300, than any modern DSLR or A series Sony with an equivalent size lens.

[Craig66]

K1Mk3. Better Af, frame rate, buffer. SD cards - USH-ll

Camera size of the K1 is OK. Stick with it.

Don't really care about video. But to keep pace with the competition it needs to improve.

[les3547]

The reason I switched to Pentax and the K1 was because it was selling itself as a phenomenal stills camera. Being a landscape photographer, I wasn't interested in video, fast auto focus, fast fps, lots of focus points etc which is why the K1 was so appealing, they invested their resources into making a camera aimed at stills photography, especially landscapes with the weather sealing, pixelshift/astrotracer/composition adjustment. . . . to summarise, stay on the image quality path, better quality sensor with a truly amazing dynamic range.

I feel the same way, although affordability and in-camera shake reduction were (and still are) my main reasons for choosing Pentax.

As for the K-1 (which I love) I like its extra weight because a bit of weight is easier to steady in the hand than lightweight bodies like the K-5, and also better balances weighty lenses. For the next generation FF the only improvements I'm interested in is to image quality and shake reduction, plus I wish they'd bring back a built-in flash.

[kooks]

I really really really hope that the next FF will have better AF, MUCH BETTER BUFFER, perhaps some higher fps (but i care more about the buffer than the fps).. but the buffer.. oh my, the K1 buffer is so damn small and slow to clear that sometimes it really pisses me off.. Love the image quality, DR, and all the other features, but buffer size is my key issue.

[Rico]

I really really really hope that the next FF will have better AF, MUCH BETTER BUFFER, perhaps some higher fps (but i care more about the buffer than the fps).. but the buffer.. oh my, the K1 buffer is so damn small and slow to clear that sometimes it really pisses me off.. Love the image quality, DR, and all the other features, but buffer size is my key issue.

Kooks the clearing of the buffer has nothing to do with the size. The buffer takes so long to clear because of the UHS-I SD card slots. The K-1 slow performance is entirely due to this. UHS-I can only read or write at one time. UHS-II can read and write simultaneously. This would speed up the way the camera handles. Plus the huge files created by the 36mb sensor would be able to clear the buffer 3x faster or more.

Pentax has waited so long on UHS-II they should just skip it and go to the UHS-III. The real game changer is SD-Express which brings PCIe bus interface to SD. The capacity size for SD-Express SD cards can top out at 128TB. With the cards becoming that large Ricoh/Pentax should be the first to move to MicroSD card slots across all their cameras. The benefits are plentiful. Helps reduce the size of the camera for larger battery in cameras like the GR and KP sized APS-C. FF size could be reduced as well or adding more than 2 slots.

[kooks]

Kooks the clearing of the buffer has nothing to do with the size.

Well as far as i know the buffer works as a temporary holder of the information capture by the sensor while it is writen to the SD card.. the camera might write slow, but if the buffer size is ok the camera can keep working/shooting and hold the info in this temporary memory, so yes, it have to be with the size too and not just how quick it writes to the SD card ( that helps a lot too ofcourse )

[valimyr]

Maybe a KP /K1 hybrid. Slimmer - they would obviously have to strip out some features and maybe put a 24mp sensor in it. I think though like a lot of people here. Better AF and third party support would be great. An alternative to the DFA 15-30 would be nice.

[Rico]

Well as far as i know the buffer works as a temporary holder of the information capture by the sensor while it is writen to the SD card.. the camera might write slow, but if the buffer size is ok the camera can keep working/shooting and hold the info in this temporary memory, so yes, it have to be with the size too and not just how quick it writes to the SD card ( that helps a lot too ofcourse )

kooks the amount of time it takes for the buffer to clear is completely dependent on the SD bus interface speed which has nothing to do with the size of the buffer. If it takes 12 seconds for the buffer to clear using UHS-I if they move to UHS-II the buffer will clear in 4 seconds or less.

[Lucho T.]

I would love to see a touchscreen and better af. The camera is great already!

[kooks]

kooks the amount of time it takes for the buffer to clear is completely dependent on the SD bus interface speed which has nothing to do with the size of the buffer. If it takes 12 seconds for the buffer to clear using UHS-I if they move to UHS-II the buffer will clear in 4 seconds or less.

You are right.. if you want the buffer to be completly clear.. but the thing is not to get the buffer completly clear, the point is to get a buffer big enough to hold more pictures and not lock down so fast.. so you might see the buffer thing in another perspective as im seeing it.. I dont care if the buffer is complettly clear, that in that case ofcourse that it goes hand by hand with the card speed to write, Im talking about the camera not to lock because teh buffer fills fast, and if it fills fast is because the buffer size is not big enough to temporary hold the large raw files.. make that temporary memory bigger and end of the problem.. That is the actual purpose of a buffer, to hold info temporary until the final process is completed.

[Rico]

You are right.. if you want the buffer to be completly clear.. but the thing is not to get the buffer completly clear, the point is to get a buffer big enough to hold more pictures and not lock down so fast.. so you might see the buffer thing in another perspective as im seeing it.. I dont care if the buffer is complettly clear, that in that case ofcourse that it goes hand by hand with the card speed to write, Im talking about the camera not to lock because teh buffer fills fast, and if it fills fast is because the buffer size is not big enough to temporary hold the large raw files.. make that temporary memory bigger and end of the problem.. That is the actual purpose of a buffer, to hold info temporary until the final process is completed.

kooks the problem with the K-1 and K-1II has nothing to do with buffer size. You wouldn't be complaining about buffer size if Ricoh/Pentax had used UHS-II bus interface for the SD card slots. The UHS-I bus interface can not accommodate the large files from the 36mp sensor. It is the whole reason the cameras are not very responsive.

[sylvainp]

The K1 is already close to be perfect for my use so incremental update would be good for me. I would like faster writing, bigger buffer, faster shutter spee, touchscreen integration but without removing the actual dials so we are not forced in. I personally don't need more resolution but a bsi sensor could be interesting. I've never understood the complaints about the AF since I favour reliability and low light acquisition over super fast af that miss half the time and the K1 is very reliable for low light use.

Getting some new prime lenses would be more useful for me since the K1 as it is answer to all my needs. A 85mm, 135mm a new 35mm maybe.

[kooks]

The K1 is already close to be perfect for my use so incremental update would be good for me. I would like faster writing, bigger buffer, faster shutter spee, touchscreen integration but without removing the actual dials so we are not forced in. I personally don't need more resolution but a bsi sensor could be interesting. I've never understood the complaints about the AF since I favour reliability and low light acquisition over super fast af that miss half the time and the K1 is very reliable for low light use.

Well i guess that was what everybody was hoping to get with the Mk2, insted, they came out with some nonsense cooked RAW file. But we were hoping for some usefull and incremental upgrades that actually makes some difference, using the experince gain with the original K1.

[Rico]

Well i guess that was what everybody was hoping to get with the Mk2, insted, they came out with some nonsense cooked RAW file. But we were hoping for some usefull and incremental upgrades that actually makes some difference, using the experince gain with the original K1.

kooks nothing you just said is true.