[tabl10s]

what would you buy? After this morning, it would probably be the Sony A9. It was the most expensive camera I have ever held and fit my large hands well with the grip attached plus the sound of 20FPS was intoxicating as was the almost utter silence of the shutter. I'd love to see a Pentax mirrorless option. I also realized that the body cost $3k less than two of my road bikes and just under a few hundred less than two of my guitars.

[pinholecam]

I went with Canon 5D, then Sony A7 (thin filter modded).

Still using the A7 for manual lenses and the K1 mostly AF lenses unless its for slow stuff where I can use the LV.

[LennyBloke]

..... I'm sure I would be happily plodding along with my K5iis

[Wild Mark]

Very good question. With K1 experience under my belt I must say the step up was substantial.

What else would I be shooting if forced? Probably a Sony because I would want to use my Pentax glass without too much fuss

[D1N0]

If there never had been question of a full frame Pentax I would probably have gotten a Sony A7 II because I can adapt my manual glass to it. When I got into digital I was looking at Nikon (never liked Canon) but found Pentax offered so much more. If I had gone down that route I would probably have gone D70-D7000-D750.

[pathdoc]

what would you buy?

A Pentax film camera with 28mm, 50mm and 135mm prime lenses (or a 70-210 class zoom in place of the 135), a thorough CLA from Eric Hendrickson, and all the kit needed to develop and scan my pics at home. And even when I was finished with that, I'd still likely have plenty left over from US$1800 with which to buy film, developer (though look up "Caffenol" online) and fixer.

[Derek Zeanah]

I would have bought a used Hasselblad H3DII-39, or would have looked seriously at a D810.

[SteveD]

I would have them create it.

[ivanvernon]

Sorry to have to contemplate that possibility . . . but I guess I will have to settle for more CCD magic and use my 645 lens on the 645D instead of using the adapter on K-1 . . . and start wondering when I should start shooting medium-frame C-MOS and get the ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then when I feel myself in an APS-C kind of mood, back to the K-3 along with lots of endless and senseless discussions about whether Pentax is ever going to go full-frame and whether the company is doomed if it does not get a full-frame this year and which lenses might work on the full-frame and whether the DA 35 and DA 50 will vignette.

[jlstrawman]

Two bodies I already have, the Sony a6000 and Sony a7.

[normhead]

Given that there is a K-1, and I'm considering leaving it home on my next trip, I wouldn't buy anything. Even though I own a K-1 and it's avery nice camera, I'm not convinced I wouldn't be happier with a K-P instead of a K-1. So my answer would be a K-P. As pointed out in another thread, our most appreciated image for our craft show days was taken with a 12 MP point and shoot. My opinion would be that folks who think they have to have a full frame or 36 MP to accomplish their goals are somewhat delusional, infatuated with the value of their photography and conceited in thinking anyone even wants huge copies of their prints.

There are maybe 5 guys on the forum, who do work good enough to consider for large scale printing and two of them have already bypassed the K-1 for 645 gear. SO my second answer would be, if I didn't think the k-1 was overkill, or I wanted more overkill, I'd be looking for a good price on a second hand 645D to compliment my APS-c gear. Same as before the K-1 came out. There are still a lot of folks who will brag they have to have something better than APS-c. I can't find any photographic evidence to explain why they think that however. It's all about posturing and attitude as far as I can tell.

For those, I point out I'd prefer to have an 8x10 film camera, and that's about as big is it gets. Who wants one of those snivelling little 35mm cameras. Be a man, at least go 4x5 5x7 or 6x7.

A 35mm sensor? pffft... that's not a desirable camera, that's a camera you use because you can't do better.

I will never understand people getting all snobby about 35mm, which has never been top of the heap.

[jatrax]

K-3II. Don't get me wrong I love the K-1 and use it 90% of the time. But for most of my work the K-3II is still just fine. If I moved more into landscapes I would consider a 645D and manual lenses. That would be a reach financially but not impossible.

[innivus]

a7R II with adapted lens and a Franken-focus system. K mount adapted to M mount, put on a Techart Autofocus M-FE adapter. Gives FF autofocus ability to older K mount lenses (and some newer ones).

AF legacy glass on a 42MP beast of a camera.

[leekil]

There are maybe 5 guys on the forum, who do work good enough to consider for large scale printing

How big to you consider "large scale"? 13x19 is a reasonable large size, not particularly huge to display in a home, but it wasn't until the K-3 that we got a 300 dpi capability at that size. Definitely you can go with lower resolution 13x19s, even 6 mp looks ok, but it isn't exactly overkill to want to have a nice-looking 300dpi 13x19 final print.

[K5_Ltd_User]

Not to be a party pooper, and not to be the eye of true beauty, but looking at some of the pictures taken with the K1 (some in this thread, some in another one) , all I can say is that it sure as hell missed the `professional market` .

Without Pentax (let' s strip it down to the basis) ?
Without ergonomics, and good value/ money. Would have been richer (that' s for sure) . Far less frustrated about the AF (which I find it total BS for moving subjects) .
K1 is not appealing because I realized is not the tool that counts at the core. The tool counts only when you are at a certain level. And to invest minimum 3 500 Euro' s for a hobby (for me it' s still that) , I have to be very self indulgent with myself.