Tony and Chelsea's "Worst Camera of the Year" the Kf

Jonathan Mac · 01-25-2023, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

A better lens is almost always the way to go. Neither is guaranteed to improve your photography, but the lens generally offers more potential.

Completely true.

The "weight" of the new-camera side of this gains with time, much more so than for lenses. If I buy a new camera in 2023 then there's unlikely to be any justification for replacing it in 2024, but by 2030 technical advances may have built up sufficiently to make that a better option than a new lens. My 2023 camera may have also deteriorated in some way that inhibits the way I can use it.

**Rondec** · 01-25-2023, 09:48 AM

I think the issue with new cameras is that we aren't seeing dramatic improvement in still camera image quality. Yes, there are more auto focus points and probably better AF-C performance, but dynamic range, high iso performance are pretty stagnant and even cameras from seven or eight years ago are pretty decent as long as you don't need 20 fps or high end video performance.

Racer X 69 · 01-25-2023, 09:53 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Rondec

. . . . . . as long as you don't need 20 fps or high end video performance.

I didn’t buy a DSLR for 20 fps or video, high end or otherwise.

The only time I’ve ever desired video is when I wanted video from inside my racecar. Then I borrowed a VHS camcorder and built a mount to fasten it to the roll cage.

And that was over 30 years ago.

normhead · 01-25-2023, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think the issue with new cameras is that we aren't seeing dramatic improvement in still camera image quality. Yes, there are more auto focus points and probably better AF-C performance, but dynamic range, high iso performance are pretty stagnant and even cameras from seven or eight years ago are pretty decent as long as you don't need 20 fps or high end video performance.

My wife's K-5 and K-5ii are still great cameras. When she was having trouble locking focus with my K-3 and DA 55-300 plz she put the lens on her K-5ii and it didn't miss an image.

Wheatfield · 01-25-2023, 04:06 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

Completely true.

The "weight" of the new-camera side of this gains with time, much more so than for lenses. If I buy a new camera in 2023 then there's unlikely to be any justification for replacing it in 2024, but by 2030 technical advances may have built up sufficiently to make that a better option than a new lens. My 2023 camera may have also deteriorated in some way that inhibits the way I can use it.

I was going to add that caveat in, but decided to try to be pithy rather than wordy. Depending on how many generations one jumps, one may well see an overall improvement in their photography because of some feature set that either didn't exist or because some other feature set has improved greatly. Shake reduction is a case in point, as is auto focus.
Having said that, a bad photographer can shoot bad photographs as easily at 8 frames per second as three, he or she will just get more of them.

KFMike · 01-25-2023, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Racer X 69

I'm stealing this for the real joke thread.

No kidding.

Sure thing! I didn't know we had a joke thread. Thanks for letting me know.

normhead · 01-26-2023, 12:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by KFMike

Sure thing! I didn't know we had a joke thread. Thanks for letting me know.

That seems like a serious oversight.

No funnies is not funny.

Edward Brock · 01-31-2023, 12:05 PM - **2 Likes**

Since I've just started getting back to photography after a Long hiatus
I've done probably just enought You-tube to be confusing to this old guy.
That said, I stumbled upon Chelsea & Tony. I like a lot of what I've seen
of them but my goodness, some of the cameras & such are SO expensive.
They seem to act like everyone & his brother has unlimited funds.
They appear to be knowledgeable enough. They also seem to have an
eversion to Pentax and an obsession with Canon & Nikon. To this day I'm
still not sure why I prefer Pentax but I do. Maybe because it's the Underdog
in the fight. I just think Pentax gets overlooked in favor of the Big Two.

normhead · 01-31-2023, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Edward Brock

Since I've just started getting back to photography after a Long hiatus
I've done probably just enought You-tube to be confusing to this old guy.
That said, I stumbled upon Chelsea & Tony. I like a lot of what I've seen
of them but my goodness, some of the cameras & such are SO expensive.
They seem to act like everyone & his brother has unlimited funds.
They appear to be knowledgeable enough. They also seem to have an
eversion to Pentax and an obsession with Canon & Nikon. To this day I'm
still not sure why I prefer Pentax but I do. Maybe because it's the Underdog
in the fight. I just think Pentax gets overlooked in favor of the Big Two.

You give them too much credit. They spout half truths that confuse the heck out of people when people try and build on it. A lot of time has been spent on this forum correcting their misconceptions.

Almost everything they show you works, often the problem is their explanation of why it works is off. Simply not enough technical understanding. But lots of reports of playing with gear I'll never buy.

Racer X 69 · 01-31-2023, 04:08 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Edward Brock

I just think Pentax gets overlooked in favor of the Big Two.

I think that the misguided masses think that a lower cost camera is a cheap camera.

Most people believe that if they spend premium dollars, they always get premium gear, even when premium gear can be had for less money.

normhead · 01-31-2023, 05:18 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Racer X 69

I think that the misguided masses think that a lower cost camera is a cheap camera.

Most people believe that if they spend premium dollars, they always get premium gear, even when premium gear can be had for less money.

Of all the time people spent raving about the frame rate of the 1dx, no one ever mentioned the pathetic 20 MB file size. People don't know what's good for them. For many, the price is something they understand, tech. specs isn't. they read them, but they don't understand what they mean. Unfortunately, many camera salesmen aren't a lot better.

**StiffLegged** · 02-02-2023, 12:36 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Edward Brock

Since I've just started getting back to photography after a Long hiatus
I've done probably just enought You-tube to be confusing to this old guy.
That said, I stumbled upon Chelsea & Tony. I like a lot of what I've seen
of them but my goodness, some of the cameras & such are SO expensive.
They seem to act like everyone & his brother has unlimited funds.

Indeed. I also stumbled across their channel when starting looking through YouTube, but like the heavy, shin-scraping engine block in the workshop’s dark corner, I prefer to avoid it. Too much gloss, too little actual photographs for my liking: it’s just another gear channel. Is it really necessary to change camera system more often than one’s underpants??

Wasp · 02-02-2023, 01:59 AM

Here is DPreview's take on the best and worst cameras and lenses of the year.

You Tube

The Pentax KF does get a (dis)honorable mention but the wooden spoon goes to the Nikon Z30. A vlogging camera without a headphone jack is just not good enough, according to them.

**mikesbike** · 02-12-2023, 08:18 PM

I just tuned in to this thread after seeing references, but still not bothering to watch such nonsense. I do agree that the way this "updated" model has been presented by Ricoh/Pentax is understandably viewed with skepticism, including my own. It really IS a K-70 but with some new parts and hopefully some refinements, which may surface once actual test reviews come in. Just as was the case with the K-5 II over the original K-5, and the updated model came in at an updated price. Same with the K-3 II, etc. The K-3 III came with many new parts and many new refinements, even a new controls layout, but it was still a K-3 style of camera design thus still in the K-3 series, but with a much higher price tag.

The "KF" name inferring that it is a replacement for the "KP"- well it is not in any sense a KP replacement, instead it IS a K-70 type of design. It SHOULD be a K-70 II. Maybe a K-80 at best! The name smacks of misleading expectations. With new parts and hopefully additional refinements and greater reliability, and being new, no doubt it would and should come in at a higher price level, as did the K-3 II, etc. And no doubt the price will drift down some in the foreseeable future. Unlike the "iffiness" of the K-70, I can recommend the "KF" without hesitation, making it clear it is in fact a refined K-70 with new parts, and updated for greater reliability. Ricoh/Pentax could not afford to upgrade too much in such a camera at this level, like an AF upgrade, etc. so as to intrude on the capabilities of the K-3 III, and at quite an expense.

---------- Post added 02-12-23 at 08:29 PM ----------

Originally posted by Aussie Matt

And we haven't even touched the weather sealing, tilt screen, etc that other manufactures simply don't offer at this end of the market.

Absolutely, and at this price point not having the AA filter, and most uniquely, also having a switchable filter substitute if needed! Also with other very useful design features special to Pentax.

---------- Post added 02-12-23 at 08:42 PM ----------

Originally posted by Aussie Matt

Do we see pro baseball photographers, with crystal clear and sharp batters mid swing with perfectly blurred backgrounds using Pentax's??? No, not really: Can it be done, hell yeah: but it's just that other brands deliver, easier.

Oh, many of us here could do that with the greatest of ease, even with older Pentax camera models. The real reason one does not see pro photographers at pro baseball games shooting these shots with Pentax, is protocol. Protocol dictates, if you want to be a pro sports photographer for baseball, just get Nikon or Canon equipment. Might be different with other sports where it is common to shoot with a need for player movement AF tracking and/or much use of burst shooting. But now with the K-3 III, even this is plenty doable with Pentax. Yet the habitual protocol continues.

Edward Brock · 02-14-2023, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Racer X 69

I think that the misguided masses think that a lower cost camera is a cheap camera.

Most people believe that if they spend premium dollars, they always get premium gear, even when premium gear can be had for less money.

I have to admit that I've kinda fallen into that category to an extent.
It's been many years since I've done much in the photography arena.
And so, I'm a bit infatuated {almost lustfully} with the K3iii. But if
I just take time to Not work from an emotion point only I realize the K70,
or for that matter the KF, will work absolutely perfectly for (My Type) of
photography. I Don't do "Action" photography. All my shots are of the
landscape variety. Heck, if I am totally honest about it my antiquated Kx
does a pretty good job since I am by no means a Pro-Photog.
I still think I'm going to get a new camera sometime fairly soon.
After all the confusion settles I feel like saving some money by
getting the K70. I think the picture quality of the K70 is a step up
enough from my Kx that I can justify it.
While I kinda enjoy Chelsea & Tony, I'm not putting too much confidence
in their opinions of the Pentax label.
OK, I'm stubborn. There, I said it.

02-12-2023, 08:18 PM	#179
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,550	I just tuned in to this thread after seeing references, but still not bothering to watch such nonsense. I do agree that the way this "updated" model has been presented by Ricoh/Pentax is understandably viewed with skepticism, including my own. It really IS a K-70 but with some new parts and hopefully some refinements, which may surface once actual test reviews come in. Just as was the case with the K-5 II over the original K-5, and the updated model came in at an updated price. Same with the K-3 II, etc. The K-3 III came with many new parts and many new refinements, even a new controls layout, but it was still a K-3 style of camera design thus still in the K-3 series, but with a much higher price tag. The "KF" name inferring that it is a replacement for the "KP"- well it is not in any sense a KP replacement, instead it IS a K-70 type of design. It SHOULD be a K-70 II. Maybe a K-80 at best! The name smacks of misleading expectations. With new parts and hopefully additional refinements and greater reliability, and being new, no doubt it would and should come in at a higher price level, as did the K-3 II, etc. And no doubt the price will drift down some in the foreseeable future. Unlike the "iffiness" of the K-70, I can recommend the "KF" without hesitation, making it clear it is in fact a refined K-70 with new parts, and updated for greater reliability. Ricoh/Pentax could not afford to upgrade too much in such a camera at this level, like an AF upgrade, etc. so as to intrude on the capabilities of the K-3 III, and at quite an expense. ---------- Post added 02-12-23 at 08:29 PM ---------- Originally posted by Aussie Matt And we haven't even touched the weather sealing, tilt screen, etc that other manufactures simply don't offer at this end of the market. Absolutely, and at this price point not having the AA filter, and most uniquely, also having a switchable filter substitute if needed! Also with other very useful design features special to Pentax. ---------- Post added 02-12-23 at 08:42 PM ---------- Originally posted by Aussie Matt Do we see pro baseball photographers, with crystal clear and sharp batters mid swing with perfectly blurred backgrounds using Pentax's??? No, not really: Can it be done, hell yeah: but it's just that other brands deliver, easier. Oh, many of us here could do that with the greatest of ease, even with older Pentax camera models. The real reason one does not see pro photographers at pro baseball games shooting these shots with Pentax, is protocol. Protocol dictates, if you want to be a pro sports photographer for baseball, just get Nikon or Canon equipment. Might be different with other sports where it is common to shoot with a need for player movement AF tracking and/or much use of burst shooting. But now with the K-3 III, even this is plenty doable with Pentax. Yet the habitual protocol continues. Last edited by mikesbike; 02-12-2023 at 08:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tony and Chelsea do it again...	microlight	Photographic Industry and Professionals	55	10-31-2019 07:47 PM
Probably posted before, but just in case: Tony & Chelsea Northrup - History of Pentax	Zephos	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	03-28-2019 05:51 AM
Tony and Chelsea Northrup Pentax History	ShaunW	Pentax News and Rumors	66	08-31-2018 01:59 PM
K-S1 the worst camera of the year!	k5astro	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	79	03-21-2015 11:43 AM
K-mount Experts: How to convert a "KAF2" lens to "KF"?	panoguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	07-08-2010 05:20 PM

01-25-2023, 08:55 AM	#166
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	Originally posted by Wheatfield A better lens is almost always the way to go. Neither is guaranteed to improve your photography, but the lens generally offers more potential. Completely true. The "weight" of the new-camera side of this gains with time, much more so than for lenses. If I buy a new camera in 2023 then there's unlikely to be any justification for replacing it in 2024, but by 2030 technical advances may have built up sufficiently to make that a better option than a new lens. My 2023 camera may have also deteriorated in some way that inhibits the way I can use it.

01-25-2023, 09:48 AM	#167
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I think the issue with new cameras is that we aren't seeing dramatic improvement in still camera image quality. Yes, there are more auto focus points and probably better AF-C performance, but dynamic range, high iso performance are pretty stagnant and even cameras from seven or eight years ago are pretty decent as long as you don't need 20 fps or high end video performance.

01-25-2023, 09:53 AM - 2 Likes	#168
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,068	Originally posted by Rondec . . . . . . as long as you don't need 20 fps or high end video performance. I didn’t buy a DSLR for 20 fps or video, high end or otherwise. The only time I’ve ever desired video is when I wanted video from inside my racecar. Then I borrowed a VHS camcorder and built a mount to fasten it to the roll cage. And that was over 30 years ago.

01-25-2023, 10:02 AM	#169
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec I think the issue with new cameras is that we aren't seeing dramatic improvement in still camera image quality. Yes, there are more auto focus points and probably better AF-C performance, but dynamic range, high iso performance are pretty stagnant and even cameras from seven or eight years ago are pretty decent as long as you don't need 20 fps or high end video performance. My wife's K-5 and K-5ii are still great cameras. When she was having trouble locking focus with my K-3 and DA 55-300 plz she put the lens on her K-5ii and it didn't miss an image.

01-25-2023, 04:06 PM - 3 Likes	#170
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac Completely true. The "weight" of the new-camera side of this gains with time, much more so than for lenses. If I buy a new camera in 2023 then there's unlikely to be any justification for replacing it in 2024, but by 2030 technical advances may have built up sufficiently to make that a better option than a new lens. My 2023 camera may have also deteriorated in some way that inhibits the way I can use it. I was going to add that caveat in, but decided to try to be pithy rather than wordy. Depending on how many generations one jumps, one may well see an overall improvement in their photography because of some feature set that either didn't exist or because some other feature set has improved greatly. Shake reduction is a case in point, as is auto focus. Having said that, a bad photographer can shoot bad photographs as easily at 8 frames per second as three, he or she will just get more of them.

01-25-2023, 07:11 PM	#171
KFMike Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2022 Posts: 43	Originally posted by Racer X 69 I'm stealing this for the real joke thread. No kidding. Sure thing! I didn't know we had a joke thread. Thanks for letting me know.

01-26-2023, 12:27 PM - 1 Like	#172
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by KFMike Sure thing! I didn't know we had a joke thread. Thanks for letting me know. That seems like a serious oversight. No funnies is not funny.

01-31-2023, 12:05 PM - 2 Likes	#173
Edward Brock Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2023 Location: South Central Texas Posts: 40	Since I've just started getting back to photography after a Long hiatus I've done probably just enought You-tube to be confusing to this old guy. That said, I stumbled upon Chelsea & Tony. I like a lot of what I've seen of them but my goodness, some of the cameras & such are SO expensive. They seem to act like everyone & his brother has unlimited funds. They appear to be knowledgeable enough. They also seem to have an eversion to Pentax and an obsession with Canon & Nikon. To this day I'm still not sure why I prefer Pentax but I do. Maybe because it's the Underdog in the fight. I just think Pentax gets overlooked in favor of the Big Two.

01-31-2023, 12:39 PM	#174
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Edward Brock Since I've just started getting back to photography after a Long hiatus I've done probably just enought You-tube to be confusing to this old guy. That said, I stumbled upon Chelsea & Tony. I like a lot of what I've seen of them but my goodness, some of the cameras & such are SO expensive. They seem to act like everyone & his brother has unlimited funds. They appear to be knowledgeable enough. They also seem to have an eversion to Pentax and an obsession with Canon & Nikon. To this day I'm still not sure why I prefer Pentax but I do. Maybe because it's the Underdog in the fight. I just think Pentax gets overlooked in favor of the Big Two. You give them too much credit. They spout half truths that confuse the heck out of people when people try and build on it. A lot of time has been spent on this forum correcting their misconceptions. Almost everything they show you works, often the problem is their explanation of why it works is off. Simply not enough technical understanding. But lots of reports of playing with gear I'll never buy.

01-31-2023, 04:08 PM - 1 Like	#175
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,068	Originally posted by Edward Brock I just think Pentax gets overlooked in favor of the Big Two. I think that the misguided masses think that a lower cost camera is a cheap camera. Most people believe that if they spend premium dollars, they always get premium gear, even when premium gear can be had for less money.

01-31-2023, 05:18 PM - 2 Likes	#176
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Racer X 69 I think that the misguided masses think that a lower cost camera is a cheap camera. Most people believe that if they spend premium dollars, they always get premium gear, even when premium gear can be had for less money. Of all the time people spent raving about the frame rate of the 1dx, no one ever mentioned the pathetic 20 MB file size. People don't know what's good for them. For many, the price is something they understand, tech. specs isn't. they read them, but they don't understand what they mean. Unfortunately, many camera salesmen aren't a lot better.

02-02-2023, 12:36 AM - 1 Like	#177
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,620	Originally posted by Edward Brock Since I've just started getting back to photography after a Long hiatus I've done probably just enought You-tube to be confusing to this old guy. That said, I stumbled upon Chelsea & Tony. I like a lot of what I've seen of them but my goodness, some of the cameras & such are SO expensive. They seem to act like everyone & his brother has unlimited funds. Indeed. I also stumbled across their channel when starting looking through YouTube, but like the heavy, shin-scraping engine block in the workshop’s dark corner, I prefer to avoid it. Too much gloss, too little actual photographs for my liking: it’s just another gear channel. Is it really necessary to change camera system more often than one’s underpants??

02-14-2023, 08:36 AM	#180
Edward Brock Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2023 Location: South Central Texas Posts: 40	Originally posted by Racer X 69 I think that the misguided masses think that a lower cost camera is a cheap camera. Most people believe that if they spend premium dollars, they always get premium gear, even when premium gear can be had for less money. I have to admit that I've kinda fallen into that category to an extent. It's been many years since I've done much in the photography arena. And so, I'm a bit infatuated {almost lustfully} with the K3iii. But if I just take time to Not work from an emotion point only I realize the K70, or for that matter the KF, will work absolutely perfectly for (My Type) of photography. I Don't do "Action" photography. All my shots are of the landscape variety. Heck, if I am totally honest about it my antiquated Kx does a pretty good job since I am by no means a Pro-Photog. I still think I'm going to get a new camera sometime fairly soon. After all the confusion settles I feel like saving some money by getting the K70. I think the picture quality of the K70 is a step up enough from my Kx that I can justify it. While I kinda enjoy Chelsea & Tony, I'm not putting too much confidence in their opinions of the Pentax label. OK, I'm stubborn. There, I said it.