Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-13-2018, 09:38 AM - 1 Like   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,214
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Did you really expect people to know why one camera has an insignificant 5 grams of mass more than another?
No, but we need to push the post count up to 40,000. We are lagging behind and must try harder.

06-13-2018, 09:58 AM   #17
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
What adds the extra weight?
The SR hardware adds both weight and depth and is the most obvious suspect.

I own neither, but have had both cameras in hand and the D850 definitely feels like the larger/bulkier of the two while the K-1 come off as more petite, but dense. I prefer the K-1 balance.


Steve
06-13-2018, 10:01 AM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,235
Simple idea is IBIS - other threads are asking for a small if not the smallest FF camera to be made by Pentax. Size and weight of IBIS is likely to stop this idea. Pentax cameras are also quite deep if you neglect the grip. Canon and Nikon lenses with lens stabilization weigh less than Pentax equivalents, so the adavantage of Pentax IBIS is not weight, but constant availability. And although K1 is not exactly light, it is definetly not too heavy.
GNSS sensors are found in any cell phone these days. Forget the weight. Feel free to bash Nikon and DPR, but I think Nikon and Pentax are well aware of every additional gramm.
06-13-2018, 10:04 AM   #19
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 11,083
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
The SR hardware adds both weight and depth and is the most obvious suspect.

I own neither, but have had both cameras in hand and the D850 definitely feels like the larger/bulkier of the two while the K-1 come off as more petite, but dense. I prefer the K-1 balance.
What's interesting about the D850 is the extra depth in the lower section, below the mirror box... It's considerably deeper than the K-1. I wonder what's in there...

06-13-2018, 10:05 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,386
The AF system; something else besides that?
06-13-2018, 10:07 AM   #21
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
What's interesting about the D850 is the extra depth in the lower section, below the mirror box... It's considerably deeper than the K-1. I wonder what's in there...
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
The AF system; something else besides that?
More better AF system requires space to work.


Steve
06-13-2018, 10:10 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2017
Photos: Albums
Posts: 257
It's the vibranium used to give that extra special Pentax pixie dust.

Seriously, in the real world, no-one is going to be able to tell a difference of 5-10 grams in a 900 gram object. Plus I suspect even lenses that are the same for both, like the Sigma Art 35, probably weigh differently between the two mounts.
06-13-2018, 10:16 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,175
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
According to Google: an American Nickel weighs 5 Grams. I fail to see a problem here, perhaps the built in GPS adds the extra weight, perhaps the magnesium alloy the body is made from is denser than the D850* . FYI The Pentax K-1 is smaller than the APS-C Canon 7D MKII.... Hilarious.

Let's start a completely bogus rumor:



Pentax hides one of these in every K-1 in some Auric Goldfinger style plot to destabilize gold prices.


* which wouldn't surprise me, really.
Hi Digitalis. I am not starting a rumor but asking a legitimate question. The perceived size difference is great but the weight is very close. I am as far from a Pentax basher as you can get. I own two K-1s and the K-3ii right now and have used Pentax since the mid seventies. My question was about what appeared to me to be a mystery. The IBIS may be the explanation. But looking at the size difference on the comparison site I posted one has to wonder, as I did.

06-13-2018, 10:17 AM - 1 Like   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,065
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
What's interesting about the D850 is the extra depth in the lower section, below the mirror box... It's considerably deeper than the K-1. I wonder what's in there...
I am confident the AF Sensor module is Part of the answer.
Pentax explained their objective of keeping the Module small via lenses. And it Covers less.
06-13-2018, 10:47 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Shelton, CT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 565
A bigger camera a bigger you know what. :-)
06-13-2018, 11:03 AM   #26
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 11,083
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
The AF system; something else besides that?
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
More better AF system requires space to work.
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
I am confident the AF Sensor module is Part of the answer.
Pentax explained their objective of keeping the Module small via lenses. And it Covers less.
That makes sense. I did wonder if it was something to do with the PDAF module. It certainly takes up a bunch of additional space...
06-13-2018, 11:19 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jlstrawman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Midwest US
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 745
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
K-1 is noticeably smaller than D850 in most measures but it is 5 gms heavier. Compare camera dimensions side by side What adds the extra weight? It is clearly smaller in most visual measures.
Maybe: " including a sturdy magnesium-alloy body".......from the features paragraph on Ricoh Imaging.
06-13-2018, 11:25 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,175
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jlstrawman Quote
Maybe: " including a sturdy magnesium-alloy body".......from the features paragraph on Ricoh Imaging.
Maybe, but I think the D850 has that too. By the way I am in no way interested in the Nikon. I am just curious why it is significantly bulkier but a bit lighter than the K-1. Even the A7RIII has a magnesium body and IBIS too.
06-13-2018, 11:45 AM   #29
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 36
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Did you really expect people to know why one camera has an insignificant 5 grams of mass more than another?
I don't know why the D850 is lighter, but I like that the K-1 is substantially smaller than the D850 in most dimensions, especially height. This is great because if you use the K-1 with older MF primes, or basically any Pentax lens prior to the D-FA beasts, it's not much bigger than APS-C bodies and actually very manageable.

If you want to mount the DFA lenses like the 24-70, 70-200, or 15-30, you can certainly manage but the handling is FAR superior with the battery grip. I own the 24-70 and the old Tamron 70-200 and both lenses benefit tremendously from the battery grip...not required, but easier to hand hold for a longer period of time despite the additional weight of the grip itself.

When I want to "go small", I remove the grip and mount my 43 Limited and the K-1 II is a completely different camera. I like having the option and keeping the camera body smaller was a smart choice by Pentax.
06-13-2018, 12:18 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,386
I'd guess the answer is: because there are hundreds of components, different on each camera, which on the D850 sums up to 5g less. We shouldn't think too hard about it

Every single component's design is a compromise, between performance, weight and cost. A higher performing K-1 might've been heavier... or they could compensate about this by reducing weight in other areas.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
american, australia, caramel, drive, dslr, du, full frame, full-frame, grapes, k-1, k1, leaf, matter, peepers, pentax k-1, popcorn, post, restaurant, shields, trip, valley, vine, visit, wine
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DxOMark measures K-3II rawr Pentax News and Rumors 185 12-23-2015 05:48 PM
K-3 II noticeably slower than K-5 II shooting manual bursts flonix Pentax K-3 24 09-17-2015 10:38 PM
How much blur? Handy website "measures" bokeh EarlVonTapia Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 05-04-2015 09:54 AM
Have you found that K-7 Firmware 1.1 Improved AF Noticeably? Christopher M.W.T Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 08-08-2010 07:25 AM
Noticeably Reduced Tension In the Forums Ron Boggs General Talk 33 04-22-2009 06:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top