Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-13-2018, 12:20 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,634
I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.

06-13-2018, 12:21 PM   #32
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,571
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.
Try top view.
Besides, such an insignificant difference could come from almost everything.
IBIS comes to mind (edit: as others have already said).
06-13-2018, 12:43 PM - 3 Likes   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 395
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.
Sorry, I completely disagree, and this is one of the reasons I don't like the Sonys. I prefer the bigger body/grip. It feels more stable when handheld, and balances much better with the larger modern lenses.
06-13-2018, 12:50 PM - 2 Likes   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 313
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
the impressive "Olympia" below, .... Apparently, it has a lump of lead in the base to make it feel even more substantial
Nah, it's to stop it blowing over.


Obviously the K-1 reviewers are real wusses who can scarcely lift a D850 the K-1's extra 5 grams was the straw that broke the reviewers' arms. Poor souls.

06-13-2018, 01:24 PM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MikeW's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 437
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
No, but we need to push the post count up to 40,000. We are lagging behind and must try harder.
Excellent reason!
06-13-2018, 02:01 PM   #36
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,616
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I always thought that it was a great pity the K-1/ K-1 II couldn't have been made MX or even LX sized, following a fine Pentax tradition of feature-filled miniaturization. That would have made the K-1 a sales sensation.
I would love one the size of my Super Program - but I don't expect that, not with the depth added by the IBIS and LCD.
06-13-2018, 02:06 PM   #37
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,516
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I would love one the size of my Super Program - but I don't expect that, not with the depth added by the IBIS and LCD.
When I look at my A7 MkII, that's pretty darned compact - maybe not quite as compact as the Super Program, but not far off. And it has five-axis "Steadyshot" IBIS, plus a tilting LCD. I realise it's mirrorless (obviously), but adding depth to the central part of the body for the mirror mechanism shouldn't increase the height or width... The OVF prism would add a little height, but not all that much.

Look at me... expert camera designer already Of course, Ricoh / Pentax has never researched all of this... it's down to me to break new ground

Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-13-2018 at 02:22 PM.
06-13-2018, 02:40 PM   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kiwi_jono's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,795
Mostly just increasing comment count but regarding DPRs Pentax K-1 II review, while I don't think its THAT biased, you have reminded me of a clear example of bias:
* If you look at the review of the D850 there are no cons around size or weight
* However for K-1 II it states a con of "Camera is quite heavy and bulky" - even though its smaller than D850 and about the same weight.

Not arguing with there being smaller lighter cameras available (but the size / weight can be a plus too in terms of handling too - as I'm sure they were thinking for the D850).

06-13-2018, 02:45 PM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,276
QuoteOriginally posted by DennisP Quote
I don't know why the D850 is lighter....
Because Nikon uses more engineered plastic in their cameras. Let's convert 5 grams of mass to weight = 0.049N. Not very much weight difference at all.
06-13-2018, 03:13 PM   #40
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,472
We can talk about those 5 grams but what about the 70-200?
Nikon with vr is 1540g.
Pentax without is 1755g.
You don't use a camera without a lens.
06-13-2018, 03:27 PM   #41
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,616
QuoteOriginally posted by swanlefitte Quote
We can talk about those 5 grams but what about the 70-200?
Nikon with vr is 1540g.
Pentax without is 1755g.
You don't use a camera without a lens.
My Canon lenses were also much lighter than my K-mount lenses. Several of them had plastic mounts, and I'm quite sure that all of them used more "space-age plastics" than Pentax does. The mostly-solid metal construction that Pentax uses is clearly what Pentax users want. Me - I don't care - I never had a Canon lens fail, even the kit lens with a plastic mount that I used for eleven years - but I'm willing to use what everyone else seems to want.
06-13-2018, 05:07 PM   #42
Moderator
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 6,431
Possibilities based purely on conjecture:
  • IBIS mechanism
  • Screen articulation mechanism
  • More robust chassis
06-13-2018, 05:26 PM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mallee Boy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,874
I understand that we are all trying to get to the 40,000+ posts, so we will talk about pretty well anything....but how heavy is 5 grams in real life (the first person that says 5 grams gets electronically & metaphorically punched ;-) )….is it the weight of a dime, a ten cent piece (Aussie), a dollar coin…. ? My point being it is a decimal point of not very much and I doubt any of us could determine it if we were to hold it in our hands. So, sure the mk2 is 5 or 10gms heavier than the ND850....woo hoo !! does it matter.... really ??
06-13-2018, 05:50 PM - 1 Like   #44
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Mallee Boy Quote
I understand that we are all trying to get to the 40,000+ posts, so we will talk about pretty well anything....but how heavy is 5 grams in real life (the first person that says 5 grams gets electronically & metaphorically punched ;-) )….is it the weight of a dime, a ten cent piece (Aussie), a dollar coin…. ? My point being it is a decimal point of not very much and I doubt any of us could determine it if we were to hold it in our hands. So, sure the mk2 is 5 or 10gms heavier than the ND850....woo hoo !! does it matter.... really ??
Right, but a reviewer, especially a biased reviewer, can put that in a table and has one more row for Nikon {or against Pentax}. He doesn't have to really feel it - it just needs to tabulate it.
06-13-2018, 05:56 PM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,315
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
but adding depth to the central part of the body for the mirror mechanism shouldn't increase the height or width...
Really there is no reason a digital camera (with or without a mirror) has to be wider than the rear LCD display or taller than the rear display plus a viewfinder (for APS-C DSLRs, at least). Squeezing all the camera parts into those two dimensions might require a deeper body than dictated by the registration distance, but regardless, any cameras larger than the rear display are designed that way for ergonomic reasons.
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 03:54 PM. | 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