[stevebrot]

I jumped directly from my K-1000 film to the DSLR K-20D, with a large gap of not having any DSLR, and the DSLRs always felt very heavy, though comfortable to use.

I felt the same way and actually added film back into the mix due to the simplicity and ease of use of the cameras. You might be pleasantly surprised by the K-50 in comparison to the K20D. It is a little larger than a K-2S, but weight and size are not too far off that of your old K1000 (film loaded). The WR feature and ergonomics are the big advantage.


Steve

[IchabodCrane]

If you mostly go from place to place by car, I guess the weight of a camera isn't a big deal, but if you mostly travel by public transport, enjoy hiking or do typical sightseeing, a light camera is often preferable. The stability of the camera is not an issue with smaller lenses. I tried the K-S1 with a DA 50mm f1.8 on it and you certainly don't need much weight in the body to counterbalance that lens. Pentax has a lot of similarly small lenses, which aren't WR, so that makes the weather sealing in the body redundant too.

Consider my typical kit. DA10-17, DA21, DA40, FA77. I really don't need a huge grip or much weight in the body for those lenses. WR would also be completely useless. On the other hand, they are quite good lenses, so I would benefit from more resolution on the sensor and the selectable AA filter. I think a user like me is the secondary target for this camera and I think it will gain a greater following from Pentaxians than the K-01.

I do think that the build quality is a step down from K-5/K-3/K-01 users, but it's no worse than the K-30/K-50. And I personally didn't like the changes they've made to the controls very much.

No question that a light weight body goes well with light weight primes. However, anyone owning a fine prime lens lineup (plus the fish eye zoom) like yours doesn't easily fall into the target audience for the K-S1, at least if that's how you process the comments from the Ricoh exec. I liken it to buying a new BMW and sticking those neon lights underneath it.

[JPT]

No question that a light weight body goes well with light weight primes. However, anyone owning a fine prime lens lineup (plus the fish eye zoom) like yours doesn't easily fall into the target audience for the K-S1, at least if that's how you process the comments from the Ricoh exec. I liken it to buying a new BMW and sticking those neon lights underneath it.

Right now I use them exclusively with the K-01 and I find it s good kit. In reality, my most likely purchase will be a K-5 IIs, because I have some zooms too and I think the K-5 and K-01 complement each other well. Same battery, similar sensor, etc.

But if I had to choose just one body to go with now, I would give the K-S1 some serous consideration, because there are certainly times when I'd find three K-5 too chunky to lug around all day. The main reservations I would have are the plastic build and the control changes, which I think would frustrate me. By that I mean the lack of the customizable red button and the video on the on/off switch, which I find too easy to engage accidentally. The mode dial is okay, but the recessed direction buttons inside are difficult to activate.

[clackers]

However, anyone owning a fine prime lens lineup (plus the fish eye zoom) like yours doesn't easily fall into the target audience for the K-S1, at least if that's how you process the comments from the Ricoh exec. I liken it to buying a new BMW and sticking those neon lights underneath it.

Such snobbery! Why would those lenses not make even better pictures on a camera with more pixels and less hardware softening than the K-50?

[JPT]

Why would those lenses not make even better pictures on a camera with more pixels and less hardware softening than the K-50?

I agree with this. The K-S1 would equal or outperform the K-50 in every way I care about. And for the full DSLR experience, the K-50 still lacks some features I value, like a big battery and top LCD. The K-5IIs, meanwhile, is down to about 60,000 yen now ($600ish). So it's a bit under the K-S1 at 70,000 yen. Having said that, the K-50 can be had for 35,000 yen if you know where to look, which is really cheap.

[IchabodCrane]

Such snobbery! Why would those lenses not make even better pictures on a camera with more pixels and less hardware softening than the K-50?

I'll be shocked if the K-50's successor has a non-defeatable AA filter so my guess is that distinction won't be around for long. We'll probably see 20 MP, too. But you're right, it is snobbery to think there's something incongruous about sticking a Limited lens on a camera with LED lights in the grip... regardless if they are both relatively light weight.

[Susinok]

And wouldn't you want to stick the nicer lenses on a better sensor? I am looking forward to seeing the K-S1 in the comparison feature on this site. I especially want to see feature by feature comparisons of the K-S1, K-5 and K-3 to see the progression.

[clackers]

regardless if they are both relatively light weight.

Nor will I hesitate to put my Bigma on it! Why shouldn't we?

[LFLee]

if you don't find it appealing..... its not for you.

for someone who looking at buying their first DSLR, they will look at the latest offering - and if Ricoh don't have a "2014 model", you think they will look at a "2013 model"?
"newer = better" for most people, especially newbie who didn't do much homework before they buy...

[filoxophy]

It's more expensive because it's newer. Ricoh will capture the revenue from those ready willing and able to pay full price now. The price will adjust lower as time goes on. Same as it was with the K-50. In 18 months someone will say "Why buy the new K-99 for $800 when you can get the K-S1 for $400?"

[Susinok]

It's more expensive because it's newer. Ricoh will capture the revenue from those ready willing and able to pay full price now. The price will adjust lower as time goes on. Same as it was with the K-50. In 18 months someone will say "Why buy the new K-99 for $800 when you can get the K-S1 for $400?"

Very true. My conundrum is, why buy a K-S1 when the price of the K-3 is finally closer to my budget? But I really LIKE the idea of the K-S1 and I DON'T need 24MP (and the associated file size) photos.

[RonHendriks1966]

Very true. My conundrum is, why buy a K-S1 when the price of the K-3 is finally closer to my budget? But I really LIKE the idea of the K-S1 and I DON'T need 24MP (and the associated file size) photos.

The files inside the K-S1 should be considdarable smaller then in the K-3. It is not only 20mp versus 24mp, but als 12-bit RAW against 14-bit RAW.

[Susinok]

The files inside the K-S1 should be considerable smaller then in the K-3. It is not only 20mp versus 24mp, but also 12-bit RAW against 14-bit RAW.

And here is where I stumble. Is that 2-bit RAW difference going to make a big differerence in the end product? I'm not pro, but I do want to print now and then.

I like the idea of a lighter weight camera, since I mostly use one while traveling and have the thing slung over my shoulder all day long. I tromped all over Seattle and environs with my K-5 and 18-300 Tamron over my shoulder and I would dearly have loved a bit less weight. I had my 15mm in my purse, but only used it once or twice on the entire trip.

I had packed my tripod and never used it. That's the second trip I've taken where I didn't use the tripod. I just don't think that type of photography is for me. (Carefully planned and set up stills on a tripod that is...)

[RonHendriks1966]

And here is where I stumble. Is that 2-bit RAW difference going to make a big differerence in the end product? I'm not pro, but I do want to print now and then.

I like the idea of a lighter weight camera, since I mostly use one while traveling and have the thing slung over my shoulder all day long. I tromped all over Seattle and environs with my K-5 and 18-300 Tamron over my shoulder and I would dearly have loved a bit less weight. I had my 15mm in my purse, but only used it once or twice on the entire trip.

I had packed my tripod and never used it. That's the second trip I've taken where I didn't use the tripod. I just don't think that type of photography is for me. (Carefully planned and set up stills on a tripod that is...)

I had last year an exhibition about womenssoccer. For that I used K-5, K-5 II and K-01 to collect the images. So there where 24 images in print at the exhibition made with the K-01. At all sizes I made, 30x40, A3, A3+ and 50x70cm.

I also did some printing of other images up to 150x75cm of images made with the K-01 (studio quality images).

So printing of a good quality image won't be a problem.

Just think of having a smaller lens next to the smaller camera and you'r set is a lot smaller.

[Susinok]

Just think of having a smaller lens next to the smaller camera and you'r set is a lot smaller.

Imagine putting my 40mm Pancake on that camera. Now that's a walk-around! I am going to look at all of the different focal lengths I used on my more recent trips and see what type of shorter, higher quality zoom would work for me. I suspect all I really need would be the lovely 16-50. I used my zoom simply because it was the most convenient, even though I probably use dit at the wider end more than any other. I love my primes but use them more locally when I can pack them in the car.