[monochrome]

TLDR, but paragraph one is outrageously arrogant and condescending. By that standard, does anyone who doesn't make a full-time living driving cars need a BMW 5 series? An Accord or Camry sedan is more than good enough for amateur drivers.

Let's not bring into discussion the desire and concentrate on the needs. Is there any amateur photographer who really needs a camera like K1? I mean, if you're not making money from photography, do you actually need a K1? A K-S 2 or a K-70 is more than enough for an amateur photographer.



About marketing the camera as a professional one, let me ask you something else. Have you ever seen any camera from Pentax being advertised? Ricoh strategy when comes to marketing is beyond my understanding. I think is the worse photography company regarding marketing, globally speaking.

Yet, they seems to let the impression that the camera can be used professionally by professionals (which I agree with). Impressions | PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING



Does Sony or Fuji offer professional support for their customers? Not even close. Yet, there are a few well known professional photographers who use Sony and Fuji cameras. Long live the marketing department in the Sony and Fuji camp.

Shall I continue?

Bottom line, K1 is a professional camera in my opinion and it can handle and even beat the competition in many aspects. The system on the other hand needs another few years in order for professionals to consider Pentax as an alternative to Canon and Nikon.

[Barry Pearson]

A K-S 2 or a K-70 is more than enough for an amateur photographer.

Speak for yourself!

[Dan Rentea]

TLDR, but paragraph one is outrageously arrogant and condescending. By that standard, does anyone who doesn't make a full-time living driving cars need a BMW 5 series? An Accord or Camry sedan is more than good enough for amateur drivers.

Monochrome, sorry that you think in this manner about my first paragraph, but you somehow understood completely wrong what I wanted to say. By definition there are 3 types of persons/photographers and let me give you an example in this regard:

Type 1. You know you need a 1Dx Mark II or a D5 (let's say for the Olimpics), you also have the money to buy those cameras and you go for it

Type 2. You know you need a 1Dx Mark II or a D5 for the Olimpics, but you know you don't have the money to buy those cameras and you reorienting toward a D500 or to a 7D Mark II because they can do almost 70-80% of what you can do with the more expensive cameras (fast af, large buffer and fast fps)

Type 3. You go to the Olympics as an amateur photographer. You don't need a 1Dx/D5 for that. You can shoot all day long with a K-70 with good results. But you desire a 1Dx/D5 and you can afford to buy it, so you go and buy one.

It's the same when comes to K1. As an amateur photographer you don't need all the K1's power, because the new K-70 can do 70-80% of what a K1 can do, but if you want a K1 and you have the money, you go for it. It's nothing wrong about it.

The same with cars... you need a van because you have a family with 4 kids, but you can afford also to buy a BMW coupe. You go and buy one, but not because you need it (you don't, your family can fit in that car), but because you want one.

So, please tell me, what was so outrageously arrogant and condescending in my first paragraph?

---------- Post added 08-12-16 at 01:38 PM ----------

Speak for yourself!

Why do you need the K1 for? And please give me an answer from the perspective of an amateur photographer. I didn't need K-3 II and neither 6D, but I wanted them and I could afford them. But I can do pretty much the same thing with K-5 II which I use to own before K3 II.

[monochrome]

First, let's be clear that I agree the T-AF.C is adequate, not cutting edge.

For an amateur, using the Olympics as a case example is a Strawman argument. Amateurs don't go to Rio, get a Press Pass and shoot gymnastics from the floor. Amateurs shoot their high school or college daughters from the front row of the stands. Comparing a 1Dx to a K-1 for professionals is a valid argument. Extending that to an amateur then saying amateurs don't need a 36Mp FF K-1; a K-70 is good enough effectively says no one, then should buy a K-1. That's an arrogant, I know better, paternalistic, pat the poor amateur on the head attitude, saying, "You aren't competent to make the correct decision for your needs - in your best interests - without my help, so I'm going to help you - in fact, I'm going to make this decision on your behalf (and Tony Northrup saying Pentax should have made a full professional APSc camera instead). It's elitism and its most mean and insulting.

The K-1 is a generalist camera with strengths in areas and weakness in areas. At the price, an accomplished amateur who owns or buys AF K-mount lenses, shoots a combination of static subjects, documenting family or travel, and incidentally shoots average action such as youth sports and moving children and astrophotography, and wants higher image quality than APSC - will do just fine with K-1. AF.C is good enough if you use it the way people used cameras just a few years ago. Same story for video - good enough.

Just say AF.C is adequate for most uses, but better gear is required for extreme action and this discussion is over.

But don't you dare presume to infer or instruct me I made a bad decision; that I would be better served with a K-3 or K-70. That isn't your decision to make.

Monochrome, sorry that you think in this manner about my first paragraph, but you somehow understood completely wrong what I wanted to say. By definition there are 3 types of persons/photographers and let me give you an example in this regard:

Type 1. You know you need a 1Dx Mark II or a D5 (let's say for the Olimpics), you also have the money to buy those cameras and you go for it

Type 2. You know you need a 1Dx Mark II or a D5 for the Olimpics, but you know you don't have the money to buy those cameras and you reorienting toward a D500 or to a 7D Mark II because they can do almost 70-80% of what you can do with the more expensive cameras (fast af, large buffer and fast fps)

Type 3. You go to the Olympics as an amateur photographer. You don't need a 1Dx/D5 for that. You can shoot all day long with a K-70 with good results. But you desire a 1Dx/D5 and you can afford to buy it, so you go and buy one.

It's the same when comes to K1. As an amateur photographer you don't need all the K1's power, because the new K-70 can do 70-80% of what a K1 can do, but if you want a K1 and you have the money, you go for it. It's nothing wrong about it.

The same with cars... you need a van because you have a family with 4 kids, but you can afford also to buy a BMW coupe. You go and buy one, but not because you need it (you don't, your family can fit in that car), but because you want one.

So, please tell me, what was so outrageously arrogant and condescending in my first paragraph?

---------- Post added 08-12-16 at 01:38 PM ----------



Why do you need the K1 for? And please give me an answer from the perspective of an amateur photographer. I didn't need K-3 II and neither 6D, but I wanted them and I could afford them. But I can do pretty much the same thing with K-5 II which I use to own before K3 II.

[Dan Rentea]

First, let's be clear that I agree the T-AF.C is adequate, not cutting edge.

For an amateur, using the Olympics as a case example is a Strawman argument. Amateurs don't go to Rio, get a Press Pass and shoot gymnastics from the floor. Amateurs shoot their high school or college daughters from the front row of the stands. Comparing a 1Dx to a K-1 for professionals is a valid argument. Extending that to an amateur then saying amateurs don't need a 36Mp FF K-1; a K-70 is good enough effectively says no one, then should buy a K-1. That's an arrogant, I know better, paternalistic, pat the poor amateur on the head attitude, saying, "You aren't competent to make the correct decision for your needs - in your best interests - without my help, so I'm going to help you - in fact, I'm going to make this decision on your behalf (and Tony Northrup saying Pentax should have made a full professional APSc camera instead). It's elitism and its most mean and insulting.

The K-1 is a generalist camera with strengths in areas and weakness in areas. At the price, an accomplished amateur who owns or buys AF K-mount lenses, shoots a combination of static subjects, documenting family or travel, and incidentally shoots average action such as youth sports and moving children and astrophotography, and wants higher image quality than APSC - will do just fine with K-1. AF.C is good enough if you use it the way people used cameras just a few years ago. Same story for video - good enough.

Just say AF.C is adequate for most uses, but better gear is required for extreme action and this discussion is over.

But don't you dare presume to infer or instruct me I made a bad decision; that I would be better served with a K-3 or K-70. That isn't your decision to make.

Man, you continue to understand completely different what I want to say. K1 is not an all around camera. It's a professional camera aimed to studio photographers or to landscape photographers. You don't need 36mp and pixel shift as an amateur, neither incredible fast af.

I mention the Olimpcs...bad example. Let me give you a different one. You don't need a K1 as an amateur photographer in order to go out to an air show and take really good images. Or let's use your example, amateurs shooting their high school or college daughters from the front row of the stands. A K-70 will do just fine. But this has nothing to do with the desire to have a camera that you want. I had a K-5 II and I bought K-3 II not because I need it, but because I wanted it. Is this an arrogant, I know better, paternalistic, pat the poor amateur on the head attitude from my behalf? Stop judging people if you are not certain about what they want to say.

If you are a professional photographer, then I understand the need for a professional camera (either you will need 36mp if you have to crop an image, either you have to sell a large print to a client, etc.). Otherwise, why do you need the flagship camera from Pentax? Give me some valid points. I can not give you valid points for buying my K-3 II or my 6D, other than I wanted them. My first Pentax camera, a K-5 II would do the same thing as the others, but slower and with less keeper rate. But again, as an amateur I don't mind shooting 150 images instead of 100 to get 90 sharp images.

I did said more than one time that K1's AF.C is adequate for most uses, but you seems to read only between the lines or simply translate my words as you want, according to your your mood.

[Fenwoodian]

There are various types of "professional photographers". Some specialize in shooting static, or slow moving subjects. While others specialize in shooting fast action.

I don't know many full-time,professional photographers. Seems like there are fewer and fewer of them around these days. Most of them that I am aware of make their living shooting weddings and/or senior portraits. I also know a couple who have studios and they shoot stationary products and slow moving fashion subjects.

So, is the K1 a "professional camera" ( i.e. is it a good camera for: weddings, portraits, static product shoots, and fashion)? Having owned the K1 for a month or two and having shot a few thousand photos I'd say that yes, it would be a very good camera to use for any of these applications! So, I agree that the K1 would be a good choice for most of the professional photographers that I know who are shooting static (or slow moving subjects) such as weddings, portraits, products and fashion.

I do not know any professional photographers who shoot fast moving sports. But I'm certain that they are out there making a living shooting the Olympics, football, etc. Would the K1 be a good choice for these types of professional photographers? I'd say no, as there are certainly better choices out there for this type of pro photographer.

[Dan Rentea]

A "professional photographer" is one who makes most of their wages with their photography.

...

So, is the K1 a "professional camera" ( i.e. is it a good camera for: weddings, portraits, static product shoots, and fashion)? Having owned the K1 for a month or two and having shot a few thousand photos I'd say that yes, it would be a very good camera to use for any of these applications! So, I agree that the K1 would be a good choice for most of the professional photographers that I know who are shooting weddings, portraits, products and fashion.

Fortunately, your english is better than mine and you successfully managed to say in a few words what I was trying to say in the first place. I said the same thing, that K1 has a few features which are much better than the competition and it also has a decent af, decent enough for weedings and moderate action.

I don't know which is worse, my english or the fact that some people only read what they want. Probably is my english.

[monochrome]

Fortunately, your english is better than mine and you successfully managed to say in a few words what I was trying to say in the first place. I said the same thing, that K1 has a few features which are much better than the competition and it also has a decent af, decent enough for weedings and moderate action.

I don't know which is worse, my english or the fact that some people only read what they want. Probably is my english.

OK - this time you said what I say. Except amateurs and enthusiasts also crop and print large and want/need that sensor.

I sold my K-3 because I no longer need it.

[richmondthefish]

Just saw Benjamin Kanarek post a comment in the fstopper section


"Benjamin Kanarek - 3 hours ago [Edited]

I used to be an avid Pentax user and was at one time sponsored by them. In fact we still use the Pentax K3 for most of our video recordings as our Director Frederique Renaut loves the compactness. However, I left Pentax for their endemic AF issues. I was interested in the K1, but after seeing how cluttered the AF points are in the centre, it would be problematic to focus on an eye and reframing the subject, especially as I shoot more often than not at maximum aperture when shooting outdoors. The focus needs to be spot on and refocussing would render the accuracy rather useless. That is why I love the Nikon D800/810's, as I am able to set up the 5/4 crop ratio, which replicates 90% of all of the magazine formats I work for , i.e. VOGUE, BAZAAR, ELLE, etc and get very close to or spot on the part of the face I want to focus on, without having that pesky re-crop issue. I still get 30.2 megapixels with a framing that replicates Medium Format crop ratios."

[Dan Rentea]

OK - this time you said what I say. Except amateurs and enthusiasts also crop and print large and want/need that sensor.

I sold my K-3 because I no longer need it.

I would have probably done the same.

I know it's a long read, but from beginning I said the same thing. I also know how it must feel to shoot with a camera like K1. I had the opportunity to shoot with 5Ds and I really hope I can resist the temptation to buy one, although I know my 6D is more than enough for what I do.

[HopelessTogger]

Man, you continue to understand completely different what I want to say. K1 is not an all around camera. It's a professional camera aimed to studio photographers or to landscape photographers. You don't need 36mp and pixel shift as an amateur, neither incredible fast af.

100% correct.

[Barry Pearson]

Why do you need the K1 for? And please give me an answer from the perspective of an amateur photographer. I didn't need K-3 II and neither 6D, but I wanted them and I could afford them. But I can do pretty much the same thing with K-5 II which I use to own before K3 II.

I'm an amateur photographer. I don't need to do photography at all!

I do photography because I enjoy doing at as a hobby. And fortunately I don't need to justify that to anyone else on the planet. Having chosen to pursue this hobby, I do so in a way that I will enjoy the most.

When I ordered the K-1, I assumed that I would use the K-3II for action photography, and the K-1 for the rest. In the field, I quickly realised that the K-1 was better than the K-3II for the action photography I do. Mostly airshows and motorsports, but also some wildlife, including birds-in-flight. So my K-3II is now just my back-up camera in case my K-1 breaks.

(For interest: most of the people I know who use a Canon 1D-series camera are amateurs. And why not?)

[Dan Rentea]

I'm an amateur photographer. I don't need to do photography at all!

I do photography because I enjoy doing at as a hobby. And fortunately I don't need to justify that to anyone else on the planet. Having chosen to pursue this hobby, I do so in a way that I will enjoy the most.

Who said anything about justifying to someone about your choices?

When I ordered the K-1, I assumed that I would use the K-3II for action photography, and the K-1 for the rest. In the field, I quickly realised that the K-1 was better than the K-3II for the action photography I do. Mostly airshows and motorsports, but also some wildlife, including birds-in-flight. So my K-3II is now just my back-up camera in case my K-1 breaks.

It took a while, but you came to my conclusion. You didn't actually needed the K1, but you wanted one and bought it hoping/assuming it will be better than K-3 II. Fortunatelly, your assumptions came true. I also think that K1 is better than K-3 II at everything, except maybe the fps. And for the last time (I think I wrote this more than 6 time already) I do think that the K1's af-c is decent enough in order to be used at weedings and at moderate action photography.

(For interest: most of the people I know who use a Canon 1D-series camera are amateurs. And why not?)

Exactly, why not? I don't need 5Ds at all, but if 6D Mark II or 5D Mark IV which it will be released in 2 weeks will not be love at first sight, I will most certain go and buy 5Ds because shooting portraits of my nephews with that camera and looking at the files on a large monitor will definitely put a bigger smile on my face.

[C_Jones]

Obviously there are persons that use the K-1 for advanced level photography. A professional or non-professional user still has the opportunity to utilize the K-1. Professional does not necessarily have to be the most advanced user. If a K-1 is available to an advanced user, the user is most likely going to utilize it in its best manner, meaning excellent results in satisfactory conditions a majority of the time, including the use of the K-1 AF system. To say that the K-1 is meant for only landscape or slow moving subjects, or not usable for a simple wedding shoot is ridiculous, and advanced users utilizing it for action photography have already proved it to perform for non-extreme and extreme speeds.

I am aiming this comment at no one specifically. Of course, you do not have to agree or disagree with what I have expressed.

The K-1 is covering a lot of ground, and many users are able to utilize it with their shooting abilities as an all around performer with a majority of great results. I wish all of you K-1 users well, and please note that I also know that performance is easy enough to come by using the proper shooting techniques. I am not negative about K-1 features, and that includes very efficient AF function.

Happy shooting Pentax users!! Have a wonderful day.

[RonHendriks1966]

Monochrome, sorry that you think in this manner about my first paragraph, but you somehow understood completely wrong what I wanted to say. By definition there are 3 types of persons/photographers and let me give you an example in this regard:

Type 1. You know you need a 1Dx Mark II or a D5 (let's say for the Olimpics), you also have the money to buy those cameras and you go for it

Type 2. You know you need a 1Dx Mark II or a D5 for the Olimpics, but you know you don't have the money to buy those cameras and you reorienting toward a D500 or to a 7D Mark II because they can do almost 70-80% of what you can do with the more expensive cameras (fast af, large buffer and fast fps)

Type 3. You go to the Olympics as an amateur photographer. You don't need a 1Dx/D5 for that. You can shoot all day long with a K-70 with good results. But you desire a 1Dx/D5 and you can afford to buy it, so you go and buy one.

You don't get into the Olympics. It isn't that easy in 2016. I don't think there is anyone with a K-1 in Rio.

All other argument are fine. Just replace Olympics with your local college team. If you did as a toerist, it probably would have been stolen by now.