[zapp]

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.

If D-FA lenses do not show up soon, .... Canon is backing up their fullframe lineup with a couple of stabilzed lenses. Even some smaller lenses: f/2 and f/2.8 designs.
Sony is an option as well, but too small and flimpsy for me - but lighweight and still a great performer.

[loveisageless]

I frequently take pictures that I love with my iPhone. The reality though is that I cannot work with those files to any satisfying degree and to have a decent print from them is the exception and not the rule. I think what makes the K-1 work the best for me is the combination of the shake reduction and how the camera handles noise. Shake reduction only goes so far. In challenging light situations, I often need to bump up the ISO handheld in order to maintain a shutter speed that prevents a blurred image. With the APS-C cameras, doing so often resulted in noise and its attendant loss of detail, especially with cropping. As others have said, the K-1 at 1600 is the K-3 at 400. That is what impresses me and makes it a joy to use instead of a struggle with a hand tremor. Yes, MF can require more care to use, especially the 645Z (which I tried, but was too hard to handle with small hands) due to its size and weight, but I am currently using a Fuji GFX 50S which is a very DSLR like MF camera and very hand holdable. I haven't used film MF and cannot speak to its merit compared to 35mm film. What I can say is the difference in image resolution and tonal depth between the K-1 and the 645Z/Fuji GFX is quite apparent to me when I compare photos of the same subject taken with both cameras. YMMV. So, while I can take great pictures with even an 8 MP smartphone, I often wish I could have captured the same picture with the K-1 or the Fuji. Do I have an inflated sense of the value of my photos?l Maybe, but why should anyone else care? I work in a very emotionally intense profession. Photography is a mode of personal expression which requires mindfulness and restores me to go out and practice my profession. Whether it makes sense to anyone else that I choose to spend my money on equipment that helps me create the best image I am capable of, is really is of no consequence to me. I do however get a little annoyed by folks who trash a format they admit they have never used just because it requires a little more effort to work with. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[ivanvernon]

I frequently take pictures that I love with my iPhone. The reality though is that I cannot work with those files to any satisfying degree and to have a decent print from them is the exception and not the rule. I think what makes the K-1 work the best for me is the combination of the shake reduction and how the camera handles noise. Shake reduction only goes so far. In challenging light situations, I often need to bump up the ISO handheld in order to maintain a shutter speed that prevents a blurred image. With the APS-C cameras, doing so often resulted in noise and its attendant loss of detail, especially with cropping. As others have said, the K-1 at 1600 is the K-3 at 400. That is what impresses me and makes it a joy to use instead of a struggle with a hand tremor. Yes, MF can require more care to use, especially the 645Z (which I tried, but was too hard to handle with small hands) due to its size and weight, but I am currently using a Fuji GFX 50S which is a very DSLR like MF camera and very hand holdable. I haven't used film MF and cannot speak to its merit compared to 35mm film. What I can say is the difference in image resolution and tonal depth between the K-1 and the 645Z/Fuji GFX is quite apparent to me when I compare photos of the same subject taken with both cameras. YMMV. So, while I can take great pictures with even an 8 MP smartphone, I often wish I could have captured the same picture with the K-1 or the Fuji. Do I have an inflated sense of the value of my photos?l Maybe, but why should anyone else care? I work in a very emotionally intense profession. Photography is a mode of personal expression which requires mindfulness and restores me to go out and practice my profession. Whether it makes sense to anyone else that I choose to spend my money on equipment that helps me create the best image I am capable of, is really is of no consequence to me. I do however get a little annoyed by folks who trash a format they admit they have never used just because it requires a little more effort to work with. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

------------------

Agreed. The K-1 has definitely not been the answer to all my problems. I still need cataract surgery, and my athlete's foot problem is no better than before. Beyond that, it makes no difference in the world to anyone whether my flower photos are marginally better with the K-1 than with the K-3 or with the K-7 that I reserve for Takumar screw-in lenses. I can say the same about the 645D, and one of these days maybe I can say the same thing about the Z. My photography would probably improve more from additional knowledge and practice than from having the best available photographic equipment. However, I do enjoy using this equipment. I do enjoy seeing the small improvements in my work that result from using the equipment. Using the best equipment is a small part of what makes this an enjoyable retirement hobby for me . . . plus I have the pleasure of knowing that if I get the wild idea to pay $1,000 a month to lease an outside billboard to post some of my flower photo enlargements i will not be embarrassed by excessive noise. In addition, I am not on public dole and I can afford the money I spend on this hobby, and I can say that buying the Pentax-FA 77mm lens and letting my wife use it exclusively has improved her photography and perhaps marginally increased her affection for me.

Beyond this, I have no quarrel with anything Mr. Normhead has to say, although the tone if not the content of his remarks seemed a little more abrupt than we have grown to expect from this kind gentleman.

[Lord Lucan]

I'm enjoying this thread. People seem to be asking and answering the question (for or against) "Why FF rather than APS-C". I would put it the other way round - "Why APS-C rather tha FF?".

When DSLRs first came out I was disappointed that they were not FF. It was like, if digital had not been invented, the next generation of Pentax film cameras had all been APS (it started as a film format remember?). Never mind, I thought, with the rate at which digital tech progresses, DSLRs with 36x24 digital sensors would soon come along so we can all use our K-mount lens collections to their full advantage again and for the purposes they were meant for. APS-C was surely a transitional step I thought, on APS-C my 100mm macro intended for 135 film would act like a 150mm macro on APS-C, and my 20mm super-wide angle act like a moderate 30mm - who wants that? In a few months, year at most, a long time in digital tech, a FF Pentax would be launched.

But it didn't happen, except with Nikon and Canon. While we watched computer memory go from 16 Megabytes to 16 Gigabytes, and digital TV screens go from 18" to 60", with price drops too, almost all DSL sensors stuck at 24x16 mm with only modest increases in pixel count. I waited years before I gave in and bought an APS-C Pentax K-10. Then a further 10 years passed until Pentax got the message that they needed to keep up and produced a FF DSLR at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight, so let's hope they will produce a cheaper FF too. It does seem that the effort has gone into some expensive bells and whistles rather than the basic form of the camera.

To me, a 36x24 sensor is just the natural format that a walk-about DSLR should be built around. Technically, it more easily allows the space for the megapixels than 24x16. If that allows the tech to reach the limit of human eye resolution at the viewing distance appropriate to the image size, even after some typical cropping, if we have not reached it already, then perhaps we will have reached a kind of end point of DSLR evolution in that respect.

[reh321]

I'm enjoying this thread. People seem to be asking and answering the question (for or against) "Why FF rather than APS-C". I would put it the other way round - "Why APS-C rather tha FF?".

When DSLRs first came out I was disappointed that they were not FF. It was like, if digital had not been invented, the next generation of Pentax film cameras had all been APS (it started as a film format remember?). Never mind, I thought, with the rate at which digital tech progresses, DSLRs with 36x24 digital sensors would soon come along so we can all use our K-mount lens collections to their full advantage again and for the purposes they were meant for. APS-C was surely a transitional step I thought, on APS-C my 100mm macro intended for 135 film would act like a 150mm macro on APS-C, and my 20mm super-wide angle act like a moderate 30mm - who wants that? In a few months, year at most, a long time in digital tech, a FF Pentax would be launched.

But it didn't happen, except with Nikon and Canon. While we watched computer memory go from 16 Megabytes to 16 Gigabytes, and digital TV screens go from 18" to 60", with price drops too, almost all DSL sensors stuck at 24x16 mm with only modest increases in pixel count. I waited years before I gave in and bought an APS-C Pentax K-10. Then a further 10 years passed until Pentax got the message that they needed to keep up and produced a FF DSLR at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight, so let's hope they will produce a cheaper FF too. It does seem that the effort has gone into some expensive bells and whistles rather than the basic form of the camera.

To me, a 36x24 sensor is just the natural format that a walk-about DSLR should be built around. Technically, it more easily allows the space for the megapixels than 24x16. If that allows the tech to reach the limit of human eye resolution at the viewing distance appropriate to the image size, even after some typical cropping, if we have not reached it already, then perhaps we will have reached a kind of end point of DSLR evolution in that respect.

But going back in the evolution of film, if 35mm had not been adapted from movie to still use, are you then saying that some medium format, say 2-1/4 x 2-1/4, would reign as the natural image size??

[Lord Lucan]

if 35mm had not been adapted from movie to still use, are you then saying that some medium format, say 2-1/4 x 2-1/4, would reign as the natural image size??

No. There is a significant and worthwhile reduction in size and weight from 2-1/4 to 35mm for an equivalent camera. For example (as we have mentioned history) I have both a 35mm LX and a 120 film Pentax 6x7, so don't I know it

OTOH there is no significant reduction in the size of cameras (that are functionally equivalent) once you go below 35 mm. If, hypothetically, you were to make a DSLR with all the pro features of the K-1 or Nikon 850, but with a sensor half the size of a little finger nail, the body would still be around the same size just for the handling and to accomodate the screen and controls. Of course tiny point-and-shoot cameras and phones are made with such sensors, and if you want one there are plenty for sale out there, but they are not an equivalent. My 35mm LX, APS-C K-10 and the FF K-1 are all equivalent cameras, and all fall into the same size and weight bracket IMHO. The weight of my shoulder bag is really dominated by how many extra lenses and stuff that I carry with me at a time.

PS - Two days later, Just noticed and corrected a typo. I had typed a "110 film Pentax 6x7" instead of "120 film"

[texandrews]

I'm enjoying this thread. People seem to be asking and answering the question (for or against) "Why FF rather than APS-C". I would put it the other way round - "Why APS-C rather tha FF?".

My question as well in 2017. Prior to the Sony A900/A850 cameras, pretty much all FF cameras were "eye watering-ly" expensive (see below) due to sensor manufacturing costs. Now there has been a radical shift downwards in price.

on APS-C my 100mm macro intended for 135 film would act like a 150mm macro on APS-C, and my 20mm super-wide angle act like a moderate 30mm - who wants that?

Well, the birders seem to love crop cameras. Generally, smaller tele lenses can be used---so, that 150 in Oly is a 300. Now, we know that's not exactly "true", because cropping a FF image down serves the same purpose, but....you can manufacture a smaller lens for field use----Oly has done it, so have others. So, I think there is a place for crop frame cameras. Certainly I am not complaining about my crop frame 645Z ;-}

---------- Post added 09-17-17 at 01:16 PM ----------

No. There is a significant and worthwhile reduction in size and weight from 2-1/4 to 35mm for an equivalent camera. For example (as we have mentioned history) I have both a 35mm LX and a 110 film Pentax 6x7, so don't I know it

OTOH there is no significant reduction in the size of cameras (that are functionally equivalent) once you go below 35 mm. If, hypothetically, you were to make a DSLR with all the pro features of the K-1 or Nikon 850, but with a sensor half the size of a little finger nail, the body would still be around the same size just for the handling and to accomodate the screen and controls.

Agree completely. And, in those cases where efforts have been made to make the size reduction significant, the controls spacing gets cramped pretty quick. I know, as a former NEX7, A7R and A850 owner, and current 645Z and K1 owner. The Z is the most comfortable of all of these in terms of controls spacing (not weight...)

My 35mm LX, APS-C K-10 and the FF K-1 are all equivalent cameras, and all fall into the same size and weight bracket IMHO. The weight of my shoulder bag is really dominated by how many extra lenses and stuff that I carry with me at a time.

Yes.

---------- Post added 09-17-17 at 01:28 PM ----------

Pentax got the message that they needed to keep up and produced a FF DSLR at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight, so let's hope they will produce a cheaper FF too. It does seem that the effort has gone into some expensive bells and whistles rather than the basic form of the camera.

Well, the beloved LX would cost around $1,200/$1,300 usd in 2017 dollars, so maybe not so "eye watering" ? Some of those expensive bells an whistles are ones I find excellent features, well worth the extra money, and I think some are hitchhikers along for the ride that don't actually add much cost to the camera. Considering the price difference between an inflation adjusted LX and its feature set, and then a K1 and its feature set, I think the roughly $500usd upcharge is a whopping bargain! Really, the K1 is the best value proposition camera out there, given its specs. As far as the weight is concerned, you point out y0urself what really makes a difference in one's bag....

---

Last edited by texandrews; 09-17-2017 at 10:30 AM.

[normhead]

Well, the beloved LX would cost around $1,200/$1,300 usd in 2017 dollars, so maybe not so "eye watering" ? Some of those expensive bells an whistles are ones I find excellent features, well worth the extra money, and I think some are hitchhikers along for the ride that don't actually add much cost to the camera. Considering the price difference between an inflation adjusted LX and its feature set, and then a K1 and its feature set, I think the roughly $500usd upcharge is a whopping bargain! Really, the K1 is the best value proposition camera out there, given its specs. As far as the weight is concerned, you point out y0urself what really makes a difference in one's bag....

Many of us have brought home our K-1 and thought, "I'm never going to need another camera." Maybe 10 years form now that won't be true, but it sure is hard to imagine how this could be improved for every day shooting. This isn't an opening for the sport shooters, wildlife shooters etc. You need another camera for that. The K-1 is the everything but "that" camera, and honestly, even though my K-3 is my wildlife/action camera, I haven't picked it up in a month. It's great to have more action features when I need it, but in actual fact, I don't need those features very often.

---------- Post added 09-17-17 at 01:40 PM ----------

Well, the beloved LX would cost around $1,200/$1,300 usd in 2017 dollars, so maybe not so "eye watering" ? Some of those expensive bells an whistles are ones I find excellent features, well worth the extra money, and I think some are hitchhikers along for the ride that don't actually add much cost to the camera. Considering the price difference between an inflation adjusted LX and its feature set, and then a K1 and its feature set, I think the roughly $500usd upcharge is a whopping bargain! Really, the K1 is the best value proposition camera out there, given its specs. As far as the weight is concerned, you point out y0urself what really makes a difference in one's bag....

Many of us have brought home our K-1 and thought, "I'm never going to need another camera." Maybe 10 years form now that won't be true, but it sure is hard to imagine how this could be improved for every day shooting. This isn't an opening for the sport shooters, wildlife shooters etc. You need another camera for that. The K-1 is the everything but "that" camera, and honestly, even though my K-3 is my wildlife/action camera, I haven't picked it up in a month. It's great to have more action features when I need it, but in actual fact, I don't need those features very often.

APS-c is still my favourite one camera compromise, but the K-1 is my most used camera.

[Lord Lucan]

Well, the beloved LX would cost around $1,200/$1,300 usd in 2017 dollars, so [the K-1 is] maybe not so "eye watering" ?

Yes, the K-1 is today's equivalent of the 1980 LX : a professional level camera at a professional price. But what I was suggesting/hoping was that FF should get out of the "professional only" mould - by Pentax (and other makers) producing today's equivalent of say the Pentax ME Super or the Canon AE-1, both nice contemporaries of the LX but aimed at amateurs at a third of the LX price. As you say, the price of the sensors themselves should have fallen a lot by now (everything else digital has done), and the cost of the other stuff (body, electronics, software, shutter) should not be much different between a FF and an APS-C, other things being equal.

[reh321]

Many of us have brought home our K-1 and thought, "I'm never going to need another camera." Maybe 10 years form now that won't be true, but it sure is hard to imagine how this could be improved for every day shooting.

Meanwhile Nikon users are dancing in the street proclaiming the D850 to be perfect for every purpose; better than any other FF, and in crop mode better than the D500 {D850's sensor is said to not be Sony}

---------- Post added 09-17-17 at 10:37 PM ----------

Yes, the K-1 is today's equivalent of the 1980 LX : a professional level camera at a professional price. But what I was suggesting/hoping was that FF should get out of the "professional only" mould - by Pentax (and other makers) producing today's equivalent of say the Pentax ME Super or the Canon AE-1, both nice contemporaries of the LX but aimed at amateurs at a third of the LX price.

I hate to be the continual wet blanket at this party - but Pentax is not the market presence it was in 1980. In fact, if I mention "Pentax K-1" at other photo discussion boards, the most likely response I'll get will be something like "Pentax was a great brand once; whatever happened to them?"

The K-1 is not top of the industry heap. Canon and Sony partisans may argue about position of the Nikon D850, but no one outside this group is going to claim the K-1 belongs in that fight. The K-1 may not be at the bottom of the FF list, but it certainly is not at the top! Although many people will recognize the K-1 as a great value, people here repeatedly want to create something cheaper. If Pentax is really going to go after "premium" as they say, they're more likely to put something in above the K-1, perhaps allowing the K-1 to droop a tad in price.

In addition, Pentax may have only so much resources to put into FF bodies right now, because other developments are probably putting pressure on the 645Z, so it may need refreshing.

[normhead]

Meanwhile Nikon users are dancing in the street proclaiming the D850 to be perfect for every purpose; better than any other FF, and in crop mode better than the D500 {D850's sensor is said to not be Sony}

---------- Post added 09-17-17 at 10:37 PM ----------


I hate to be the continual wet blanket at this party - but Pentax is not the market presence it was in 1980. In fact, if I mention "Pentax K-1" at other photo discussion boards, the most likely response I'll get will be something like "Pentax was a great brand once; whatever happened to them?"

The K-1 is not top of the industry heap. Canon and Sony partisans may argue about position of the Nikon D850, but no one outside this group is going to claim the K-1 belongs in that fight. The K-1 may not be at the bottom of the FF list, but it certainly is not at the top! Although many people will recognize the K-1 as a great value, people here repeatedly want to create something cheaper. If Pentax is really going to go after "premium" as they say, they're more likely to put something in above the K-1, perhaps allowing the K-1 to droop a tad in price.

In addition, Pentax may have only so much resources to put into FF bodies right now, because other developments are probably putting pressure on the 645Z, so it may need refreshing.

And the thing you don't seem to understand is, no one gives a rat poop about what Canon and Nikon users think. And your lack of knowledge of who might read this is pretty astounding.

I personally am on record as saying the D850 is probably the best camera I'll never buy. However, the 42MP file means the crop is still. smaller than a K-3. YOu still get more magnification out of an APS-c crop sensor camera meaning even if you're Nikon shooter you probably still want your D500 for wild life and birding, at least I would. So really, you're not telling anyone anything. Canon, Nikon fanboys are all over the net. Do you think we needed some clown to come on the Pentax forum and shove it in our face?

No one here said the K-1 was the consensus overall the top of the industry heap.

But, the way I rate the industry, the K-1, is the top of my rating of the industry heap with the caveat coupled with a fast APS_C camera with a big buffer. And I'd still want that even with a D850 although some won't. If that's a problem for you, your on the wrong forum.

Some of us are confident enough in our skills we don't have to hop on every new camera body that come along, and believe it's the thing that will save our photography. I bought my K-1 because I got some un-expected money, and I'd sell it tomorrow if I needed money, it's the first thing to go on the emergency go list, but I'm not counting on it to be my photographic happiness forever like these D850 guys. I just happen to really enjoy using the camera. So shoot me.

Next time you try and impress us with your "knowledge" of how inadequate our gear is, maybe take it to people who might care.

There is nothing as useless on this forum as people who appoint themselves the prophet who needs to come and tell us what everybody else thinks.

And it gets really insulting when they come here and assume you are happy with your K-1 because you don't know what's going on in the rest of the camera world and just need to be slapped down a bit to come back to reality.

There are a few people where grumpy enough to slap back.

[leekil]

at last, the K-1. But at an eye-watering price amd weight

OTOH there is no significant reduction in the size of cameras (that are functionally equivalent) once you go below 35 mm.

Those two statements seem to be in conflict with each other. The K-3 is certainly smaller than the K-1.

[reh321]

And the thing you don't seem to understand is, no one gives a rat poop about what Canon and Nikon users think. And your lack of knowledge of who might read this is pretty astounding.

There are a few people where grumpy enough to slap back.

Pentax has two choices. They can produce cameras for the users they already have, or they can attempt to enlarge their market. I have no idea whether their current market is sufficiently large, nor do I have any idea which way they will steer their company. If they are going to attract other users they need to release more lenses and they need to produce a FF that current Nikon, Canon, and Sony users will notice. It is their company, and what they do in this regard doesn't really affect me anyway, because the most expensive camera kit I've ever purchased was $700, and I don't see myself stretching my budget to include any FF camera.

And, from their comments, I know exactly who might read this. Pentax has said that their future is in "premium"; I believe that knowing what other companies are doing gives hints at what "premium" might consist of; I am quite certain that looking for more costs to cut is not "premium". The KP may also be a guide to new Pentax thinking.

[MarkJerling]

Keep it friendly Norm.

[reh321]

.Some of us are confident enough in our skills we don't have to hop on every new camera body that come along, and believe it's the thing that will save our photography. I bought my K-1 because I got some un-expected money, and I'd sell it tomorrow if I needed money, it's the first thing to go on the emergency go list, but I'm not counting on it to be my photographic happiness forever like these D850 guys. I just happen to really enjoy using the camera. So shoot me.

And it gets really insulting when they come here and assume you are happy with your K-1 because you don't know what's going on in the rest of the camera world and just need to be slapped down a bit to come back to reality.

There are a few people where grumpy enough to slap back.

Norm, I am sorry you feel attacked. It is great that you are happy with your K-1! ... but my words had nothing to do with your usage and everything to do with the continued discussion {in multiple threads} about where Pentax goes from here.