[clackers]

Yes, sure I know this. The K-1 has advantages, why need to refer to D800, expect for reassurance.

You know, people around here after the grim Hoya years are celebrating very important product releases, that in recent times have included the 645Z, the wonderfully priced K3-II, K-1 and the availability of excellent FF lenses (that you have dismissed as simply being Tamrons).

They've got party hats on, bouncing to the music, kissing the person next to them ... and you're sitting at home grumbling.

[TwoUptons]

I am! I am!

Wait, there's a hat and T-Shirt?

-Eric

[ColiNiloK]

The way I see it is: 1) Pentaxians feel threatened as soon as we consider competitor brands and 2) constantly need to reassure themselves that they made the right choice to invest in k mount, so, any bit of marketing info (not even anything technically specific), and the dynamic range is already beyond competition whithout even having measured it.

That could be true for anyone being defensive using the system they choose, it's everywhere not just Pentaxians, when you see many people on DP review comments saying Canon or Nikon's colours are the best, Leica makes the best cameras etc etc then you know what the conversation is heading towards.... having used a few system made me to check out multiple forums, there is no surprise to see defensive fanboys and people who are not as well informed making comments on what they know or feel... I guess some people might be afraid to loose due to K-1's late coming into the full frame game and not being better means it seems to make the K-1 feel obsolete from the beginning, but we all know so far the K-1 is excellent. However, to be sure of something is worth investing is not a bad thing. And it is always good to late in game catches up, it is competition that drives innovation.

I see Canon do not make so much hype about their cameras, they rolls out models one after the other and for instance, the 5D series are really work horse, no fluff, no gimmick, it just has been working for years.

Agreed. I have used 2 5D series camera, the 5D2 and 5D3 and had experience with the original 5D, can't comment on that, but the 5D2 and 5D3 are certainly reliable and just keeps on going, that said Canon had ample of time, money and recourse to refine things. We do not know how the K-1 will be reliability wise, but so far looking how Pentax builds cameras, it seems it will be pretty good too.

Regarding sensors, why is this such a problem to use the same sensor as the D800? I don't see the problem, the D800 deliver excellent images, so why Pentax feels the need to claim a change on the sensor.

I don't too, it still is one of the best sensor out there, the 42 MP BSI Sony sensor might be slightly better, but doesn't means the 36MP sensor is bad, in fact it has plenty of IQ for most of us already especially the MP count, more doesn't mean it will be defiantly better. I also remember reading somewhere in the forum maybe it's one of Adam's post on CP+ the 36MP sensor probably save Ricoh lots of money not adopting the 42MP BSI Sony sensor.

Let Pentaxian believe that they'll have a better than 5Ds or better than D810 machine... anyway, it's not needed to dig very far to know that's not true, other cameras have more advanced AF anyway.

Better in what ways? IBIS= yes, features= yes( Astrotracer, LED lights, Tilting screen, Super rez, 3 dial control, GPS+ WIFI, Tilt shift and compensation correction...) MP count= 5DS wins against both D810 and K-1, Build and WR= Most likely K-1 wins, High ISO= We shall see,assume it is as good as D810 for now DR= we shall see, assume it's as good as D810 for now, Lens choice= Canon Nikon has more, and more 3rd party lens support, Pentax has it's own unique lenses. AF= we shall see, but looking at the AF system and tech in all 3, it seems like the K-1 is behind 5DS and D810 on paper, no one know for sure until the production model with final firmware comes.

[biz-engineer]

You know, people around here after the grim Hoya years are celebrating very important product releases, that in recent times have included the 645Z, the wonderfully priced K3-II, K-1 and the availability of excellent FF lenses (that you have dismissed as simply being Tamrons). They've got party hats on, bouncing to the music, kissing the person next to them ... and you're sitting at home grumbling.

Apologize to disturb the party! Ouupppss, I did not know photography was essentially about supporting a brand name + buying and the pleasure of owning new cameras and lenses.

[rawr]

I'm happy Ricoh are using the D800 sensor as a base for the K-1. It's still a technically excellent sensor, and it probably came cheap, so it helps Ricoh offer a great camera to us at a decent price. Everyone wins.

[Rondec]

So let me see if I understand this correctly? The K1 is using a D800 4 yr old sensor and the D810 is using a 2 yr old sensor. So Pentax couldn't even force themselves to use a 2 yr old sensor, which isn't exactly new either. Not sure how one should feel about this but it is certainly nothing to brag about.

There have been extensive discussions over the last six months about whether the K1 should use the sensor that is in the D800/810 or the one that Sony uses in the A7r II. The resolution is basically equivalent, the difference is in the read out speed and therefore the quality of video you get from the two sensors. Additionally, the 36 megapixel sensor has more dynamic range at base iso and the 42 megapixel sensor is a little better in high iso situations.

My feeling has been that either sensor is fine, but that if Pentax isn't going to bump the quality of video in this camera (seemed unlikely), then they would be better going with the 36 megapixel sensor, as it is somewhat cheaper and is actually probably a little better for landscape photographers.

The way I see it is: 1) Pentaxians feel threatened as soon as we consider competitor brands and 2) constantly need to reassure themselves that they made the right choice to invest in k mount, so, any bit of marketing info (not even anything technically specific), and the dynamic range is already beyond competition whithout even having measured it. I also do have exclusively Pentax gear. But I see things differently... I see Canon do not make so much hype about their cameras, they rolls out models one after the other and for instance, the 5D series are really work horse, no fluff, no gimmick, it just has been working for years. Regarding sensors, why is this such a problem to use the same sensor as the D800? I don't see the problem, the D800 deliver excellent images, so why Pentax feels the need to claim a change on the sensor. Let Pentaxian believe that they'll have a better than 5Ds or better than D810 machine... anyway, it's not needed to dig very far to know that's not true, other cameras have more advanced AF anyway.

---------- Post added 10-03-16 at 06:12 ----------


Of course is was adapted for the SR mechanism, so it is absolutely certain that Ricoh defined a specific sensor package and interconnect to fit with SR.

All camera companies claim to have tweaked the sensors they use. Nikon is extremely close mouthed about who they source their sensors from and act like theirs are the best (maybe they are). As to Canon not talking a lot about their sensors, it is because, while they are adequate, they certainly haven't performed as well as Sony and Toshiba sensors in certain respects in recent years. Canon would rather talk about their L glass and the other features that their cameras bring to the table.

I don't see Pentaxians being threatened by Canon or Nikon or Sony. Those companies make good gear and so does Pentax. I think they are just excited by a new camera, with an exceptional price and trying to figure out how it stacks up against current full frame cameras on the market. To me, it is a D810-lite, but with pixel shift, astro tracer, in body stabilization, and swivel screen (and probably some other features I've left out). Maybe it won't have quite as good dynamic range at base iso as the D810, but in most other respects it will measure up quite well.

[ffking]

I'm happy Ricoh are using the D800 sensor as a base for the K-1. It's still a technically excellent sensor, and it probably came cheap, so it helps Ricoh offer a great camera to us at a decent price. Everyone wins.

I'm sure it's just future-proofing of what is still quite a big investment that people are worried about - but as you say, great IQ is great IQ, and people have been saying for some time that we don't need it to be better - we can already out-resolve our lenses!

[Kunzite]

Yes, sure I know this. The K-1 has advantages, why need to refer to D800, expect for reassurance.

Just because you cannot imagine other reasons, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or rather, it's your contempt for us speaking.
One word: baseline. I could compare specifications, look at diagrams and so on - yet it took one good look through a D800's viewfinder to know exactly the difference between the K-1's and K-5II's, and that it is significant to me.
In many regards, the D8x00 - despite being Nikon - makes for a better baseline than a Pentax APS-C camera (though comparisons with the latter also make sense).

P.S. Without the K-1, I would've seriously considered a jump to Nikon's D8x00 series. Imagine that - Nikon is not a threat but an alternative!

[awaldram]

If you know about silicon chip manufacturing, how can the sensor be adapted to Ricoh specifications without involving a change of photo-litho mask layers? If the masks aren't changed, the sensor is physically exactly the same. There's one way to alter a design by non volatile programming, if the sensor contains any NVM block, but due to the surface that it would occupy, I doubt there is much after process customization such as for instance DR adjust, it is much easier to do this in firmware. Therefore, it can't be that the sensor is the same as D800 if was adapted to Ricoh's spec. unless it is pure marketing talk. The sensor of the K-1 "is" or "is not" the same as the D800 but can't be both.

Mm? maybe you haven't heard of computers they can be identical processors but deliver different functions non the less .... Its called 'programming'

If you knew about modern ASICs you'd know that customization is built in you can define (adapt) many parameters of the chips behaviour prior to ordering.

The k5 had the same 'chip' as the d7000 but had ISO 80 due to customizing Amp gain based on testing production samples linear zones Vs DR. It also implemented on chip RAW NR that Nikon decided not to engage (probably scared of public backlash)

The D800,D810 and K1 can have identical sensors but different image outcomes based on programming of the sensors parameters and quality of ancillary support chips.

Never the less all will results in similar broad IQ as well depth is constant.

The idea they are 'different hardware' is the marketing trick not the fact they behave differently, it appears your the one whose a pawn of market speel here.!

Its also normal for identical hardware to have different product numbers based on enabled functions/parameters.

Being a tight wad I have been known to modify Intel and AMD Cpu's so they become higher grade processors (till they got smart and removed the customization lands off the top of the CPU ) (not a good idea if reliability is a concern as they have often failed the higher rating)

[joergens.mi]

As far as I know, are the analog digital converters and the analog amplifiers part of the sensor chip. In modern designs these parameters can be altered by configuration, by using different contacts on the chip (bonding process) or selecting different amplifications on the chip using some configuration pins, or loading some configurationsinformation by JTAG. By this way both companies can us the same chip and get different results - this is a question of processing in the camera. As an example one company will select a higher base amplification with some more noise - but higher ISO , the other a lower amplification getting less noise.

[sunny16]

Apologize to disturb the party! Ouupppss, I did not know photography was essentially about supporting a brand name + buying and the pleasure of owning new cameras and lenses.

I think it is safe to say that at this point in time, with all the options in cameras that are out there, most of the people that are here with Pentax are here because they want to be. I've seen a lot of forum-member avitars ride off into the sunset to other brands the last few years (and plenty have stayed too) but the point isn't that most of us are just sitting around mindlessly drooling over a camera in pure fandom. We are simply where we want to be.

The K-1 is announced, like it or not it will be what it is. Future models will be whatever comes in the future. So I would assume that those that like it will stick around and those that are unhappy will go find what will make them happy.

I mean no offense, but it is hard for me (and probably some others) to understand what is gained by staying and being negative when nothing can possibly be gained from it. What is the purpose of telling people that are happy with the camera that they shouldn't be? We are all allowed our opinion but at a certain point, people don't just change their minds (on either side) because someone on a forum has a different opinion. Seems like wasted time and energy (it is not lost on me that this very post might also fit into that category.)

Anyways, I hope you (and everyone else) will soon find what you are looking for and that you can move forward being happy in your photography.

[monochrome]

mmmm...... quite a disappointing post (or ...... quite telling?)

@sunny16 We're not supposed to be happy with Pentax. Others know better than we what we should be happy with, and they're nudging us to make a better decision. It is really quite generous and other-centered of them to take the time to correct us.

We finally got a punch bowl but we shouldn't drink the punch. We just don't know how to handle these consumer preference problems. So he's going to educate us, whether we want it or not.

[nomadkng]

Stumbled across this thread this am and it proved to be a deciding factor.

Since my path of photography forks with the K-1, I was going to make a decision after I found out more about the new FF.

It came down to getting a K-1 or jumping ship for a D810.

Since I am 90% a landscape shooter, I've decided I can live with Pentax AF if I'm getting basically the same sensor and output as the D810.

I just ordered my "D810-lite"...lol.. aka Pentax K-1. I think I'm happy... I just spent 3k to save myself about 10k.

BTW, I'm of the belief, a lot of people aren't referring to the D800/810 for reassurance, but rather because in many people's opinion, mine included, it is the benchmark of FF bodies, especially for landscape shooters. If the K-1 plays in that same league for a price point of $1000 less, then it will indeed continue the legacy of Pentax, and why I purchased my K10 almost 10 years ago: It was the most "bang for the buck."

I was even looking at the D750, because $2700 was really stretching the budget, but the D750 is not the D810 and I was not real thrilled with the idea of "settling" for a lesser camera. Apparently the K-1 has solved that dilemma for me. Now I don't have to buy all new glass for a different system AND I can still get the D810 IQ I need. The comparisons have nothing at all to do with bragging rights or reassurance, but everything to do with practical implementation.

[stevebrot]

If you know about silicon chip manufacturing, how can the sensor be adapted to Ricoh specifications without involving a change of photo-litho mask layers?

The sensor itself is only part of the chip "package". How it is addressed at a low level is one of the services offered by sensor makers that allow them to be all things to all customers.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I've known plenty of engineers, none as joyless as you.

I don't think he is that sort of engineer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_engineering

Still, though, we all have our opinions and very few of us have domain experience or knowledge of many of the things we discuss, regardless of our job titles or the array of abbreviations after our names.


Steve