K-1 is noticeably smaller than D850 in most measures but ..

rawr · 06-13-2018, 12:20 PM

I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.

LensBeginner · 06-13-2018, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Mikesul

K-1 is noticeably smaller than D850 in most measures but it is 5 gms heavier. Compare camera dimensions side by side What adds the extra weight? It is clearly smaller in most visual measures.

Try top view.
Besides, such an insignificant difference could come from almost everything.
IBIS comes to mind (edit: as others have already said).

**SteveinSLC** · 06-13-2018, 12:43 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by rawr

I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.

Sorry, I completely disagree, and this is one of the reasons I don't like the Sonys. I prefer the bigger body/grip. It feels more stable when handheld, and balances much better with the larger modern lenses.

**StiffLegged** · 06-13-2018, 12:50 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

the impressive "Olympia" below, .... Apparently, it has a lump of lead in the base to make it feel even more substantial

Nah, it's to stop it blowing over.

Obviously the K-1 reviewers are real wusses who can scarcely lift a D850 – the K-1's extra 5 grams was the straw that broke the reviewers' arms. Poor souls.

MikeW · 06-13-2018, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by gaweidert

No, but we need to push the post count up to 40,000.

We are lagging behind and must try harder.

Excellent reason!

reh321 · 06-13-2018, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.

I would love one the size of my Super Program - but I don't expect that, not with the depth added by the IBIS and LCD.

**BigMackCam** · 06-13-2018, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I would love one the size of my Super Program - but I don't expect that, not with the depth added by the IBIS and LCD.

When I look at my A7 MkII, that's pretty darned compact - maybe not quite as compact as the Super Program, but not far off. And it has five-axis "Steadyshot" IBIS, plus a tilting LCD. I realise it's mirrorless (obviously), but adding depth to the central part of the body for the mirror mechanism shouldn't increase the height or width... The OVF prism would add a little height, but not all that much.

Look at me... expert camera designer already

Of course, Ricoh / Pentax has never researched all of this... it's down to me to break new ground

Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-13-2018 at 02:22 PM.

**kiwi_jono** · 06-13-2018, 02:40 PM

Mostly just increasing comment count but regarding DPRs Pentax K-1 II review, while I don't think its THAT biased, you have reminded me of a clear example of bias:
* If you look at the review of the D850 there are no cons around size or weight
* However for K-1 II it states a con of "Camera is quite heavy and bulky" - even though its smaller than D850 and about the same weight.

Not arguing with there being smaller lighter cameras available (but the size / weight can be a plus too in terms of handling too - as I'm sure they were thinking for the D850).

tuco · 06-13-2018, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by DennisP

I don't know why the D850 is lighter....

Because Nikon uses more engineered plastic in their cameras. Let's convert 5 grams of mass to weight = 0.049N. Not very much weight difference at all.

swanlefitte · 06-13-2018, 03:13 PM

We can talk about those 5 grams but what about the 70-200?
Nikon with vr is 1540g.
Pentax without is 1755g.
You don't use a camera without a lens.

reh321 · 06-13-2018, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by swanlefitte

We can talk about those 5 grams but what about the 70-200?
Nikon with vr is 1540g.
Pentax without is 1755g.
You don't use a camera without a lens.

My Canon lenses were also much lighter than my K-mount lenses. Several of them had plastic mounts, and I'm quite sure that all of them used more "space-age plastics" than Pentax does. The mostly-solid metal construction that Pentax uses is clearly what Pentax users want. Me - I don't care - I never had a Canon lens fail, even the kit lens with a plastic mount that I used for eleven years - but I'm willing to use what everyone else seems to want.

Not a Number · 06-13-2018, 05:07 PM

Possibilities based purely on conjecture:

IBIS mechanism
Screen articulation mechanism
More robust chassis

**Mallee Boy** · 06-13-2018, 05:26 PM

I understand that we are all trying to get to the 40,000+ posts, so we will talk about pretty well anything....but how heavy is 5 grams in real life (the first person that says 5 grams gets electronically & metaphorically punched ;-) )….is it the weight of a dime, a ten cent piece (Aussie), a dollar coin…. ? My point being it is a decimal point of not very much and I doubt any of us could determine it if we were to hold it in our hands. So, sure the mk2 is 5 or 10gms heavier than the ND850....woo hoo !! does it matter.... really ??

reh321 · 06-13-2018, 05:50 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Mallee Boy

I understand that we are all trying to get to the 40,000+ posts, so we will talk about pretty well anything....but how heavy is 5 grams in real life (the first person that says 5 grams gets electronically & metaphorically punched ;-) )….is it the weight of a dime, a ten cent piece (Aussie), a dollar coin…. ? My point being it is a decimal point of not very much and I doubt any of us could determine it if we were to hold it in our hands. So, sure the mk2 is 5 or 10gms heavier than the ND850....woo hoo !! does it matter.... really ??

Right, but a reviewer, especially a biased reviewer, can put that in a table and has one more row for Nikon {or against Pentax}. He doesn't have to really feel it - it just needs to tabulate it.

**RGlasel** · 06-13-2018, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

but adding depth to the central part of the body for the mirror mechanism shouldn't increase the height or width...

Really there is no reason a digital camera (with or without a mirror) has to be wider than the rear LCD display or taller than the rear display plus a viewfinder (for APS-C DSLRs, at least). Squeezing all the camera parts into those two dimensions might require a deeper body than dictated by the registration distance, but regardless, any cameras larger than the rear display are designed that way for ergonomic reasons.

06-13-2018, 05:07 PM	#42
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	Possibilities based purely on conjecture: IBIS mechanism Screen articulation mechanism More robust chassis

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DxOMark measures K-3II	rawr	Pentax News and Rumors	185	12-23-2015 05:48 PM
K-3 II noticeably slower than K-5 II shooting manual bursts	flonix	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	24	09-17-2015 10:38 PM
How much blur? Handy website "measures" bokeh	EarlVonTapia	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	05-04-2015 09:54 AM
Have you found that K-7 Firmware 1.1 Improved AF Noticeably?	Christopher M.W.T	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	08-08-2010 07:25 AM
Noticeably Reduced Tension In the Forums	Ron Boggs	General Talk	33	04-22-2009 06:50 AM

06-13-2018, 12:20 PM	#31
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.

06-13-2018, 12:21 PM	#32
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Mikesul K-1 is noticeably smaller than D850 in most measures but it is 5 gms heavier. Compare camera dimensions side by side What adds the extra weight? It is clearly smaller in most visual measures. Try top view. Besides, such an insignificant difference could come from almost everything. IBIS comes to mind (edit: as others have already said).

06-13-2018, 12:43 PM - 3 Likes	#33
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	Originally posted by rawr I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation. Sorry, I completely disagree, and this is one of the reasons I don't like the Sonys. I prefer the bigger body/grip. It feels more stable when handheld, and balances much better with the larger modern lenses.

06-13-2018, 12:50 PM - 2 Likes	#34
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,619	Originally posted by BigMackCam the impressive "Olympia" below, .... Apparently, it has a lump of lead in the base to make it feel even more substantial Nah, it's to stop it blowing over. Obviously the K-1 reviewers are real wusses who can scarcely lift a D850 – the K-1's extra 5 grams was the straw that broke the reviewers' arms. Poor souls.

06-13-2018, 01:24 PM	#35
MikeW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 437	Originally posted by gaweidert No, but we need to push the post count up to 40,000. We are lagging behind and must try harder. Excellent reason!

06-13-2018, 02:01 PM	#36
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by rawr I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation. I would love one the size of my Super Program - but I don't expect that, not with the depth added by the IBIS and LCD.

06-13-2018, 02:06 PM	#37
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,673	Originally posted by reh321 I would love one the size of my Super Program - but I don't expect that, not with the depth added by the IBIS and LCD. When I look at my A7 MkII, that's pretty darned compact - maybe not quite as compact as the Super Program, but not far off. And it has five-axis "Steadyshot" IBIS, plus a tilting LCD. I realise it's mirrorless (obviously), but adding depth to the central part of the body for the mirror mechanism shouldn't increase the height or width... The OVF prism would add a little height, but not all that much. Look at me... expert camera designer already Of course, Ricoh / Pentax has never researched all of this... it's down to me to break new ground Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-13-2018 at 02:22 PM.

06-13-2018, 02:40 PM	#38
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	Mostly just increasing comment count but regarding DPRs Pentax K-1 II review, while I don't think its THAT biased, you have reminded me of a clear example of bias: * If you look at the review of the D850 there are no cons around size or weight * However for K-1 II it states a con of "Camera is quite heavy and bulky" - even though its smaller than D850 and about the same weight. Not arguing with there being smaller lighter cameras available (but the size / weight can be a plus too in terms of handling too - as I'm sure they were thinking for the D850).

06-13-2018, 02:45 PM	#39
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by DennisP I don't know why the D850 is lighter.... Because Nikon uses more engineered plastic in their cameras. Let's convert 5 grams of mass to weight = 0.049N. Not very much weight difference at all.

06-13-2018, 03:13 PM	#40
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	We can talk about those 5 grams but what about the 70-200? Nikon with vr is 1540g. Pentax without is 1755g. You don't use a camera without a lens.

06-13-2018, 03:27 PM	#41
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by swanlefitte We can talk about those 5 grams but what about the 70-200? Nikon with vr is 1540g. Pentax without is 1755g. You don't use a camera without a lens. My Canon lenses were also much lighter than my K-mount lenses. Several of them had plastic mounts, and I'm quite sure that all of them used more "space-age plastics" than Pentax does. The mostly-solid metal construction that Pentax uses is clearly what Pentax users want. Me - I don't care - I never had a Canon lens fail, even the kit lens with a plastic mount that I used for eleven years - but I'm willing to use what everyone else seems to want.

06-13-2018, 05:26 PM	#43
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	I understand that we are all trying to get to the 40,000+ posts, so we will talk about pretty well anything....but how heavy is 5 grams in real life (the first person that says 5 grams gets electronically & metaphorically punched ;-) )….is it the weight of a dime, a ten cent piece (Aussie), a dollar coin…. ? My point being it is a decimal point of not very much and I doubt any of us could determine it if we were to hold it in our hands. So, sure the mk2 is 5 or 10gms heavier than the ND850....woo hoo !! does it matter.... really ??

06-13-2018, 05:50 PM - 1 Like	#44
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Mallee Boy I understand that we are all trying to get to the 40,000+ posts, so we will talk about pretty well anything....but how heavy is 5 grams in real life (the first person that says 5 grams gets electronically & metaphorically punched ;-) )….is it the weight of a dime, a ten cent piece (Aussie), a dollar coin…. ? My point being it is a decimal point of not very much and I doubt any of us could determine it if we were to hold it in our hands. So, sure the mk2 is 5 or 10gms heavier than the ND850....woo hoo !! does it matter.... really ?? Right, but a reviewer, especially a biased reviewer, can put that in a table and has one more row for Nikon {or against Pentax}. He doesn't have to really feel it - it just needs to tabulate it.

06-13-2018, 05:56 PM	#45
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by BigMackCam but adding depth to the central part of the body for the mirror mechanism shouldn't increase the height or width... Really there is no reason a digital camera (with or without a mirror) has to be wider than the rear LCD display or taller than the rear display plus a viewfinder (for APS-C DSLRs, at least). Squeezing all the camera parts into those two dimensions might require a deeper body than dictated by the registration distance, but regardless, any cameras larger than the rear display are designed that way for ergonomic reasons.