[btnapa]

Btw, Boris (and you, too, Gyroscope!), have you seen this?

Hi texandrews, yes I remember the gadget. It has been around for sometime.

I agree that Pentax should do more to emphasize the depth of its offerings. It might be partially cultural that they don't. They are known in Japan and used to be known worldwide and that might be just ok with them. The other guys are screaming a lot louder! (read advertise more) and as a result, they have grabbed a bigger share of the market.

As far as lenses, I have 645 A and FA lenses, one 67 lens, one or two off brand K-mount, a few M42, Pentax K-mount FA, M and F lenses. Talk about a smorgasbord of lens offerings... and the cool part is that they are all usable on my K1. Now tell me which other DSLR camera manufacturer can claim something like that, not withstanding the mirrorless bodies.

[normhead]

I had both the Z and K1. Sold the K1 and bought a Canon 5DmkIV.

Some may say I am crazy but I found the K1 to be lacking. I still have the Z and it's my main camera. The Z takes better images handheld than the K1 in my view, which is important for travel. Also, I felt the K1 was lacking the lenses that I wanted, such as a high quality 70-300 and 100-400.

Don't get me wrong, I wish every day that the 5D4 had the body and controls of the K1, with the guts of the 5D4.

I now use the Canon 16-35/4 in place of the 15-30 Pentax and it's much better. I found the AF to be unreliable on the K1 with the ultra wide and my testing proved it. In Australia you can't just test one camera after another like you can in the US, but my camera went in for eval at the distributor and they said it was fine.

If I didn't already have the Z, I would still have the K1 as my tripod camera for landscape, but have something else for handheld, like a 5D4 or even an A7rII or Fuji XT2.

All this being said, file quality from the K1 is outstanding and leaves little to want. If I had never owned a 645z then I wouldn't know how much better the files are and a K1 would do everything you need. It's a lot of extra money for a 10-15% better file.

Thanks for posting that.... confirms pretty much what I feel, not owning a z. If I didn't have a K-3 for high frame rate etc. and the K-1 didn't make use of the same lenses, I'm not sure I'd own mine either. In many ways, it's a hard camera to love. For me, I own a K-1 because the investment in owning a Z and weight and lens availability issues, so for me the K-1 is kind of like the poor man's Z. Although after laying out 5k$ on top of the thousands spent on my K-3 system, I'm using poor man in a very relative sense.

[btnapa]

Although after laying out 5k$ on top of the thousands spent on my K-3 system, I'm using poor man in a very relative sense.

You are right. There is nothing poor man about $5K. Body is only part of the equation. Pro class lenses will cost many times more than the body. I am sticking with K1 for now. I think Pentax is probably cooking up the next gen K1 which might go into 50MP or above world in the next few years. This way, there is no more lens cost just body upgrade. Try to go 645Z or Sony (42MP), Canon (50MP) or anyone else, the cost becomes prohibitive for a modest gain in resolution.

[texandrews]

You are right. There is nothing poor man about $5K. Body is only part of the equation. Pro class lenses will cost many times more than the body. I am sticking with K1 for now. I think Pentax is probably cooking up the next gen K1 which might go into 50MP or above world in the next few years. This way, there is no more lens cost just body upgrade. Try to go 645Z or Sony (42MP), Canon (50MP) or anyone else, the cost becomes prohibitive for a modest gain in resolution.

Boris, that isn't completely true. Yes, for the most contemporary, new lenses, you will be paying a big, big premium. But! And this is the good news, what we are seeing is that many of the lesser priced current lenses, and some of the older legacy ones are producing outstanding results, and some are not surpassed really, such as the 120 and the 35.

Let me put it this way: in July 2014 I got my Z. Those were the $8500.00 days. I was able to do this through a massive trade in of gear that got the price down to $5500.00, right at the extreme upper threshold of pain for me----I am REALLY not wealthy! But I also had a group of 645 lenses, and was willing to work with them regardless of them all being old glass. I was also able to snap up a few more at rock bottom prices. I am right now processing some orchid photos for work I did with the 120, and they are pretty astounding. My 45-85 FA shots have been great, as have my 35A shots, and my new but used 55 DFA. These are very, very good performers, and the others I have aren't chopped liver, and so say others here, as you know, better photographers than me.

So, yes, you pay a premium for that last 15% of goodness, but that premium isn't as high as you may think, and that last 15% of goodness is something I am certain you would immediately see in your photos. Just no question. So, I think it's like this: those who stay with the K1 will probably be satisfied, heck, I bought one too! It's great! But those who make the leap to the Z, when asked "was it worth it?", will almost always say "without a doubt." without regrets or looking back.

My Tarot cards predict you will eventually have one... ;-}

[btnapa]

Boris, that isn't completely true. Yes, for the most contemporary, new lenses, you will be paying a big, big premium. But! And this is the good news, what we are seeing is that many of the lesser priced current lenses, and some of the older legacy ones are producing outstanding results, and some are not surpassed really, such as the 120 and the 35.

Let me put it this way: in July 2014 I got my Z. Those were the $8500.00 days. I was able to do this through a massive trade in of gear that got the price down to $5500.00, right at the extreme upper threshold of pain for me----I am REALLY not wealthy! But I also had a group of 645 lenses, and was willing to work with them regardless of them all being old glass. I was also able to snap up a few more at rock bottom prices. I am right now processing some orchid photos for work I did with the 120, and they are pretty astounding. My 45-85 FA shots have been great, as have my 35A shots, and my new but used 55 DFA. These are very, very good performers, and the others I have aren't chopped liver, and so say others here, as you know, better photographers than me.

So, yes, you pay a premium for that last 15% of goodness, but that premium isn't as high as you may think, and that last 15% of goodness is something I am certain you would immediately see in your photos. Just no question. So, I think it's like this: those who stay with the K1 will probably be satisfied, heck, I bought one too! It's great! But those who make the leap to the Z, when asked "was it worth it?", will almost always say "without a doubt." without regrets or looking back.

My Tarot cards predict you will eventually have one... ;-}

My Tarot cards predict you will eventually have one... ;-}

For which let us pray.

The reference to the lenses being expensive was to the newer lenses. In anticipation of a 645 body, I did buy a few 645 A and FA legacy lenses for what I thought were more than reasonable prices. I would get the 645Z in a heart beat but my budget would not allow it. I have to sell everything on the DSLR side to make it happen but for now I am going to sit tight and see what is coming down the pike.

[normhead]

For me, I was looking or the same functionality with the K-1 Had with the K-3. After $5k I'm not even close. It looks to me, like the larger format means more lenses. Instead of K-3, DA 18-135 and 200 2.8. K-1, DFA 28-105, DA*60-250 and 300 ƒ2.8. An extra (very heavy) lens for the same reach and aperture.

I suspect with the 645z it would be even more lenses for the same range. Looking the other way, a Panasonic FZ1000 gives you 24mm to 400mm equivalent in one fixed lens as long as you can live with 100 ISO. But, right now I'm shoting at 3200 ISO so much with the K-1, and pushing the K-3 to 640 ISO, the thought of being confined to 100 ISO is just creepy.

Higher ISO means bigger sensor means bigger weight. There should be this slider bar that shows you how your weight goes up as your low light capacity increases. Everyone has thier comfort point, where they can handle the weight, and live with the lack of high ISO performance.

K-1 = great field camera.

645z = even greater field camera.