[texandrews]

Picked up a Sony A7 for my Pentax lenses before. Getting ready to upgrade to K1 shortly!

You will be happy when you do.

[jbranch040597]

Pentax 645z.

Consider this, with the annua releases of the new Can-Niks, all of which are chasing each other's Mpix / ISO and charging upwards of $2500-$4000 and beyond per release, and still not getting the medium format look, just pony up a little more (or buy a used) medium format Pentax.

[jbranch040597]

Which professional market did it miss exactly?
Wedding, Products, Stock Image, Portraits, all of which are done with a K1.
Ohhh, you are probably thinking sports, but lets face it, the Nikon D810 or the Sony's, don't do well either, as a matter of fact, you probably won't see any 36+ Megapixal camera doing pro sports anytime soon because the FPS is too slow.
The fact the Pentax K1 has only been out since 2016, it is no wonder why people think this. But you should look at the attrition rate of Can-Nik users switching to Pentax. Pentax will never beat Can-Nik in volume, they were too late to the full frame market, but what they offer beats the competitors in the DSLR arena.

[texandrews]

Pentax 645z.

Consider this, with the annua releases of the new Can-Niks, all of which are chasing each other's Mpix / ISO and charging upwards of $2500-$4000 and beyond per release, and still not getting the medium format look, just pony up a little more (or buy a used) medium format Pentax.

Well, I have both, and the Z is hefty---not to be taken "lightly". I definitely use it for my most serious work (except UWA and maybe some macro), but the K1 is very capable. I am pretty comfortable with it as a backup camera.

[kjphilippona]

I have a K3 and like it better! probably purchased another SIG Sauer

[mattb123]

Maybe a 645Z. I have the 645D but the K-1 beats it for high iso or anything fast paced. The Z closes that gap somewhat.

[jbranch040597]

Lol, I like the alternative, and you are still shooting something.

[reh321]

If the K-1 didn't exist, I would be trying to scrape enough pennies together to purchase a K-70, or even a KP - in other words, exactly what I am doing.

[preime]

I would have stayed with Sony and gone for the a99ii

[K5_Ltd_User]

Which professional market did it miss exactly?
Wedding, Products, Stock Image, Portraits, all of which are done with a K1.
Ohhh, you are probably thinking sports, but lets face it, the Nikon D810 or the Sony's, don't do well either, as a matter of fact, you probably won't see any 36+ Megapixal camera doing pro sports anytime soon because the FPS is too slow.
The fact the Pentax K1 has only been out since 2016, it is no wonder why people think this. But you should look at the attrition rate of Can-Nik users switching to Pentax. Pentax will never beat Can-Nik in volume, they were too late to the full frame market, but what they offer beats the competitors in the DSLR arena.

If you search for professional grade photos (not just snaps, but art- wise; sorry, this is what I look for in a photo) , you can see that K1 is not on the `radar` of the professional photographs.
That doesn' t tell anything about the quality of the camera, as it' s a known fact that it can take good pictures.
But, what resulted in the minds of the potential buyers (not dreamers of Pentax, not die hard fans, or even extreme fanboys) : Pentax is just as good, sometimes worst, in some aspects marginally better than the competition (in a well settled market, where the `best` are already imprinted in people' s minds)

* That - xx EV AF, ain' t of a big interest to many photographers (that earn money) , cause not so many shoot in the dark. This leads to the AF, which some have tested it for Wedding, and said is not up to the necessity.
* Overall, K1 for me is just a camera that has potential, does what it should do. But it\ s so late at a party that has started so long ago. It' s doesn' t bring anything new to the table, anything drastically improved (and useful) . It' s just the dream of the die hard fans.
Which is fine, seeing that the market is shrinking. But seriously, Theta? That' s what they push and develop?

You said they beat the major players. Tell me one useful feature/ property they have that would make anyone switch brand? 30+ MPx? Yes, cause we all print billboards (with 3+ years of RnD to improve a sensor, whilst others switched to much larger ones) . AF in low light? Yes, cause they all go in the woods to shoot the nightlife. AF Speed? Let' s not get into details why it' s just `sufficient` (being stated that it' s mostly for static photo) . Lens selection? Which one? The old ones? What about a UWA, WA, Sreet, Portrait lineup? Primes. 70- 200 for weddings. No, they are just there, at the party, but have nothing to stand out with (except Theta) .

Don' t get me wrong, I like the underdogs, I think the strive the most to create something unique, to come in front with something. Don' t see it in the k1, I didn' t feel it in the time I had to test it and replicate some scenarios that bugged me in the k3 (because the issues were still there) .


If you are content with it, good for you! Glad! Keep it up! We just want different things.

[ffking]

If you search for professional grade photos (not just snaps, but art- wise; sorry, this is what I look for in a photo) , you can see that K1 is not on the `radar` of the professional photographs.
That doesn' t tell anything about the quality of the camera, as it' s a known fact that it can take good pictures.
But, what resulted in the minds of the potential buyers (not dreamers of Pentax, not die hard fans, or even extreme fanboys) : Pentax is just as good, sometimes worst, in some aspects marginally better than the competition (in a well settled market, where the `best` are already imprinted in people' s minds)

* That - xx EV AF, ain' t of a big interest to many photographers (that earn money) , cause not so many shoot in the dark. This leads to the AF, which some have tested it for Wedding, and said is not up to the necessity.
* Overall, K1 for me is just a camera that has potential, does what it should do. But it\ s so late at a party that has started so long ago. It' s doesn' t bring anything new to the table, anything drastically improved (and useful) . It' s just the dream of the die hard fans.
Which is fine, seeing that the market is shrinking. But seriously, Theta? That' s what they push and develop?

You said they beat the major players. Tell me one useful feature/ property they have that would make anyone switch brand? 30+ MPx? Yes, cause we all print billboards (with 3+ years of RnD to improve a sensor, whilst others switched to much larger ones) . AF in low light? Yes, cause they all go in the woods to shoot the nightlife. AF Speed? Let' s not get into details why it' s just `sufficient` (being stated that it' s mostly for static photo) . Lens selection? Which one? The old ones? What about a UWA, WA, Sreet, Portrait lineup? Primes. 70- 200 for weddings. No, they are just there, at the party, but have nothing to stand out with (except Theta) .

Don' t get me wrong, I like the underdogs, I think the strive the most to create something unique, to come in front with something. Don' t see it in the k1, I didn' t feel it in the time I had to test it and replicate some scenarios that bugged me in the k3 (because the issues were still there) .


If you are content with it, good for you! Glad! Keep it up! We just want different things.

There are two different things here, aren't there - (1) whether it's good enough to compete and (2) whether it's used to compete. In my view, if Nikon or Canon had released it (especially Canon) - landscape pros using those systems might well have bought it -it's as good as or better than their offerings in that area. Very few will, because most are locked into another system - but that doesn't make it less good - and it does offer PS, which they don't.

[K5_Ltd_User]

There are two different things here, aren't there - (1) whether it's good enough to compete and (2) whether it's used to compete. In my view, if Nikon or Canon had released it (especially Canon) - landscape pros using those systems might well have bought it -it's as good as or better than their offerings in that area. Very few will, because most are locked into another system - but that doesn't make it less good - and it does offer PS, which they don't.

Hello,


Do you consider this a wise move?
Should we get into details about income, re- investment, and what makes people spend and give you income?
Let' s face it, they polished an already good sensor, and re- polished some good features. In some areas they don' t shine. For their price, for landscapes, bang on the buck. But some would be interested in more.


Best regards!

[ffking]

Do you consider this a wise move?

As far as I know, the main objective was always to give the Pentax faithful a FF camera and put a toe in that stream. There are no best cameras any more - the things that make a camera good for sports (other than fast AF) make it less good for landscape. Pentax recognise their weaknesses and their strengths - there would be no point in investing vast amounts of money in a tracking AF system to push up the price of a camera that could only shoot 4.5fps (in FF mode) - Nikon already had great AF - it wasn't an issue for them. So Pentax concentrated on IQ, and delivered (certainly with PS) probably the best IQ available in FF at the time of release.I suspect it has made Ricoh a profit, though I have no way of being certain.

[K5_Ltd_User]

As far as I know, the main objective was always to give the Pentax faithful a FF camera and put a toe in that stream. There are no best cameras any more - the things that make a camera good for sports (other than fast AF) make it less good for landscape. Pentax recognise their weaknesses and their strengths - there would be no point in investing vast amounts of money in a tracking AF system to push up the price of a camera that could only shoot 4.5fps (in FF mode) - Nikon already had great AF - it wasn't an issue for them. So Pentax concentrated on IQ, and delivered (certainly with PS) probably the best IQ available in FF at the time of release.I suspect it has made Ricoh a profit, though I have no way of being certain.

Hello,


We are talking about marginally better. When people give 95 to Canon/ Nikon/ Sony and 96 to Pentax, mathematically they are better. But come on, what could you seriously expect from 3 extra years of polishing the sensor (or technology of it) ? They already had the know- how behind them (the sensor engineers) ; thus making it a carry- over.
A dream for die- hard fans. And they postpone a successor (and maybe a true competition destroyer) for the fans not to suffer the loss taken on the k1?
Maybe that' s all they can (the k1) ; I' m stopping here, not to come off as ranting, but Pentax really has a disappointing way of doing business (for me at least) .


All the best!

[ffking]

A dream for die- hard fans. And they postpone a successor (and maybe a true competition destroyer) for the fans not to suffer the loss taken on the k1?
Maybe that' s all they can (the k1) ; I' m stopping here, not to come off as ranting, but Pentax really has a disappointing way of doing business (for me at least)

I lot of us wish they would invest a little more and up their pace of new lens production - because we want to see Pentax succeed and take the market share that their products warrant - but we stay because they produce the cameras we want. Perhaps that's a self-defining market with limited potential for expansion, but even a company the size of Sony has difficulty breaking the Canikon duopoly and most markets only have room for two big players. I'd love to see Pentax really smashing it, but the technology is mature enough for huge investment to be needed for small incremental changes, so we have to live with cameras that do no more than take great images. Tough one