[Bromberger]

if you fit in, you can't stand out

[normhead]

Pentax K-1... where oh where does it fit in ?

Wrong question, where oh where will all the other cameras fit in now

Exactly... would you consider a D810 now, no in body shake reduction for older glass, no pixel shift, for $1000 more? So where do the Nikon D00 series, D600 series, Canon 6D or Sony A7 series camera fit in?

There's place for the D750, and the many cameras from other manufacturers that feature faster frame rates and better auto focus. But the filed / studio cameras just got left in the dust.

[Rupert]

Sony A7 sewers camera fit in?

Gee Norm, I see you took the same course I did on "How to win friends and influence people!"

Some things have their own special and unique way of fitting in.......


Regards!

[funkathustra]

Exactly... would you consider a D810 now, no in body shake reduction for older glass, no pixel shift, for $1000 more?

I would if I cared about AF performance and access to fast primes. Pentax's AF has always been really weak, and while they've made an incremental improvement (yet again), it's still nowhere near Canon or Nikon's top-of-the-line offerings. Have you ever shot with one of these bodies? Their AF performance is insane compared to the Pentax K-1, K-3, or any other Pentax body I've ever owned.

As for lenses, Pentax has the holy trinity (15-30/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8), which is all that a lot of pros need. But where's the Pentax 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, and 600/4? These are standard offerings from Canon and Nikon, but they're totally nonexistent in the Pentax line-up. The closest thing we have are the three amigos (31, 43, 77), which:

• have slow AF
• aren't weather-sealed
• aren't particularly fast
• aren't particularly sharp wide-open across the frame

That's why you pay $1000 more.

If you shoot landscapes and still-life shots, I don't think you can beat the K-1. But there are a lot of shooting scenarios where other full-frame (or crop-sensor) bodies would make a lot more sense.

[Adam]

It doesn't really fit in... and that is not a problem, but a bonus. It is a D810 5dmkIII competitor at the price of a 6d/d750... that is where it fits in. It just made its own category.

Well stated

Thankfully the FF DSLR lineups are sparse enough to the point where every manufacturer can use unique features as a key selling point. The K-1 sure brings a lot of that to the table.

[Sandy Hancock]

It fits very nicely into my needs. I shot two live gigs (one musical theatre/cabaret, the other progressive metal) with it on Sunday and the keeper rate was higher than I have ever managed with the K-3. I shot an engagement party on Saturday with similar results.

The problem now is to decide where my K-S1, K-S2 and maybe even the K-3 fit in. I think I need another K-1

[btnapa]

I would if I cared about AF performance and access to fast primes. Pentax's AF has always been really weak, and while they've made an incremental improvement (yet again), it's still nowhere near Canon or Nikon's top-of-the-line offerings. Have you ever shot with one of these bodies? Their AF performance is insane compared to the Pentax K-1, K-3, or any other Pentax body I've ever owned.

As for lenses, Pentax has the holy trinity (15-30/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8), which is all that a lot of pros need. But where's the Pentax 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, and 600/4? These are standard offerings from Canon and Nikon, but they're totally nonexistent in the Pentax line-up. The closest thing we have are the three amigos (31, 43, 77), which:

• have slow AF
• aren't weather-sealed
• aren't particularly fast
• aren't particularly sharp wide-open across the frame

That's why you pay $1000 more.

If you shoot landscapes and still-life shots, I don't think you can beat the K-1. But there are a lot of shooting scenarios where other full-frame (or crop-sensor) bodies would make a lot more sense.

You have a lot of valid points regarding faster focus and faster primes. However, coming from 12 years of Canons up to the 5D Mark III and having shot the D810, currently, the only Nikon and Canon bodies that I know which have super fast autofocus or insane speeds as you called them are in the $6K range. All the other Canons I owned, had crappy focus, including the mighty and bargain 5D Mark III!

I tried the Nikon D500 and the D5. Specs say the focus systems are the same. In practice they are two different animals. D500 is lacking big time in speed and the D5, as promised is wicked fast but at a price tag of $6,500.

Granted, my K3 focus is just as bad even worst than any Canon bodies I have owned, the K1 goes a long way to solve that problem. I was always of the opinion that at least in the Canon world, they did not give you decent focus speed unless you spent at least $4k or as much as $8K in their high end bodies. Those kinds of dollars are not in the budget of most people, not even some pros or semi-pros making a living from photography. Remember, pros bring backup bodies. Now you are talking about $6K times two.

If I shot sports, Pentax would not be my choice of a system as the focus and lens selection are lacking. Can one get by if they had a Pentax system and had to shoot sports? Perhaps yes. But if I a made a living from sports photography, I would have to go with Canon or Nikon. However, sports is only one specialized area of photography. there are so many more areas that a Pentax will do just fine or even shine.

Is the K1 the perfect body? Perhaps not. But show me a Canon or Nikon or a Sony that for $1,800 can give you even half of what K1 can give you. So in the value department, and as it has been a Pentax tradition from the beginning, you get a lot more bang for your buck.

As for lenses, Pentax has plenty to serve most photography needs. Yes Pentax does not have f1.4 lenses but my experience says f1.8 will do just fine. The three Amigos are a different beasts on the K1.

[jatrax]

Pentax's AF has always been really weak, and while they've made an incremental improvement (yet again), it's still nowhere near Canon or Nikon's top-of-the-line offerings. Have you ever shot with one of these bodies?

I assume you are talking about tracking, not auto-focus? Maybe it is just me but the assumption that Pentax auto-focus is poor is (as of the k-3) nothing more than internet myth. On the k-5, yes I had trouble and usually took two or three shots to be sure of a good one. On the k-3, one is all it takes, anything else is a waste of time and electrons. So a little tired of hearing Canon and Nikon are better at this, how much better than 100% can you get?

If you are speaking of tracking, well I don't use that so I'll defer to those who do. But that is NOT auto-focus.

But where's the Pentax 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, and 600/4?

They might be standard 'offerings' but seriously who actually uses those? 1% of users? 2%? Sure if you need one of those, you really need one. But not having those lenses does not make Pentax a poor choice. I certainly have no use for any of those. Well, maybe the 600mm f/4 but honestly I had the opportunity and money to buy both a 250-600 and a 600 f/4 and passed on both because I would not want to carry them.

So would I consider a D810? No. I've shot with one and was rather disappointed. It's big, heavy, awkward and expensive. For my purposes the K-1 runs rings around it. If I was a sports shooter I would not buy a K-1, but then I would not buy a D810 either.

[KDAFA]

But where's the Pentax 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, and 600/4? These are standard offerings from Canon and Nikon, but they're totally nonexistent in the Pentax line-up.

I think that this has to be seen in perspective.

I was just talking to a friend of mine who is wanting to get a FF DSLR, and I was telling him about the K-1. On the issue of lens availability, I challenged him to think it through carefully: Of those lenses which exist in the Canon/Nikon lineup and which are absent in Pentax, which one do you:

A) actually need, and
B) can afford?

600mm/4 is certainly not for every user and application. It is also not affordable for most. And f1.4 is not required by everyone. I recommended him the FA31, 43, 77, he seemed fine with the fact that they're not f1.4. What did please him though, was the colour output and rendering character of the DA & FA Limiteds.

Or, to put this in another way, I ask people this: Is it TRUE that Pentax CANNOT offer you the lenses which you really do need, for your intended shooting?

And more often than not, when you really get down to thinking about it, for the majority of users, Pentax is fine. There will be exceptions of course, but in many cases, no issues.

[reh321]

If I was a sports shooter I would not buy a K-1, but then I would not buy a D810 either.

Yeah, you would probably buy a Nikon D500 or a Canon EOS-1Dxii. The big companies can afford to spread their volume over several niches. Apparently Pentax is currently pitching their products primarily to landscape photographers and others who can benefit from the same capabilities.

[stevebrot]

They might be standard 'offerings' but seriously who actually uses those?

Exactly...I don't shoot wide expecting limited DOF (24/1.4???). Fine focus would be essentially painful.


Steve

(...shoots the Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye on film, but on those cameras, there is an excellent high magnification viewfinder with focus aides and they are essential...even at 28mm f/2.8..)

[monochrome]

Yeah, you would probably buy a Nikon D500 or a Canon EOS-1Dxii. The big companies can afford to spread their volume over several niches. Apparently Pentax is currently pitching their products primarily to landscape photographers and others who can benefit from the same capabilities.

Yes, K-1 is pitched as a Field camera, but in reality it is a top-flight general use camera that can only be deemed unsatisfactory for a small number or specialized use cases. While we as a society want to measure and rank everything, K-1 isn't suited to such quantitative behaviors. It is a superb all-around still camera.

[Barry Pearson]

Yes, K-1 is pitched as a Field camera, but in reality it is a top-flight general use camera that can only be deemed unsatisfactory for a small number or specialized use cases. While we as a society want to measure and rank everything, K-1 isn't suited to such quantitative behaviors. It is a superb all-around still camera.

Spot on! It is really is "a superb all-around still camera".

Over the nearly four weeks that I've had one, I've shot birds in flight on two shoots, motor sports on two shoots (bikes and cars), aircraft in flight at an airshow. (I've also shot some landscapes and people and vintage vehicles).

I've been posting about this "elsewhere":

Barry Pearson's K-1

Photos showing some of the K-1's AF capability

Photos of airplanes in flight taken with a K-1

More photos of birds in flight taken with a K-1

For people with a K-3-series and wonder what the K-1 is like in comparison, this may be relevant:

K-1 versus K-3II viewfinder comparison in burst mode

The K-1 will be out-gunned by top-tier Canons and Nikons, which cost far more and really need top-tier lenses to go with them. I found it useful to change my photography style to cater for some of the lack of capability of the K-1, but it is important not to think of the K-1 as primarily a landscape or studio camera. Yes, of course it does those! But I'm off to another airshow this weekend, and I am confident I'll come back with some pretty impressive "aircraft in flight" photos, and probably no landscapes!

[cali92rs]

Yes, K-1 is pitched as a Field camera, but in reality it is a top-flight general use camera that can only be deemed unsatisfactory for a small number or specialized use cases. While we as a society want to measure and rank everything, K-1 isn't suited to such quantitative behaviors. It is a superb all-around still camera.

I think this is a good point.
If you don't need world class AF, in lens focus motors or specialized lenses (Tilt/shift, real long and fast telephoto), which is the majority of photographers, then the K-1 may be right for you.
Of course, this market is driven more by want than need.

[Barry Pearson]

If you don't need world class AF, in lens focus motors or specialized lenses (Tilt/shift, real long and fast telephoto), which is the majority of photographers, then the K-1 may be right for you.

The comments about lenses are not really about the K-1 itself. I use lenses with in-lens focus motors on the K-1. And I have a Samyang tilt/shift lens that works with the K-1.