[mikesbike]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

What Pentax really needs, is a $500 full frame starter camera, I think.

Its hard to offer even a new K-r type APS-C camera for that! I gave away my K-r after numerous years of use to fill my compact carrying needs, to take a closeout deal on the K-S2, a better lightweight DSLR in many ways over the K-r, and it was worth it for those improvements. I think the K-r sold for around $600 and that was way back when $600 was worth more than it is now.

---------- Post added 02-15-22 at 09:05 PM ----------

and another thousand for a new high end Pentax Fast Fifty the only step above that in image quality,,,

Can't blame you for drooling over the DFA 50mm f/1.4 which can deliver sharp images wide open! Even though it is a bit of a physical monster. As possible secondary considerations, since the 50mm FF FOV is something you enjoy, the "F" 50mm f/1.7 can perform quite well even wide open and very well even stopped own a little. If you don't need the wider aperture, the DFA 50mm 2.8 Macro is one sharp baby. For such reasonable costs, you can get both. They are light and small, and you also get macro capability.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 02-15-2022 at 09:10 PM.

[wadge22]

If this amount is all you can muster in your budget, than that's the way it is, better than not having it. However, there is always some risk in buying used when dealing with such a complex electronic monster as a modern DSLR. The K-1 is very well constructed, but one never knows even then what it has been through.At those prices, the cost of a new K-1 II represents one of the best bargains among pro-level FF DSLR cameras in the marketplace today. Its image quality and features, as well as design, are among the best available for still photography. A factory warranty might seem like some unnecessary item not worth much, and I've had many new Pentax camera bodies over the years which never required employing them. But I did have two Pentax DSLR bodies that failed some months after purchase, one of them being a very well-built flagship model. When it is needed, a warranty can be worth a lot of money.The K-1 II was developed with some advancements, especially in terms of better high ISO performance. It has been shown capable of cleaner, lower noise imaging at higher ISO settings. But maybe this is something you don't need, as you rarely shoot using higher ISO settings.It is much like the comparison between the K-3 II and the K-3 III. The K-3 III has been shown capable of cleaner, lower noise imaging at higher ISO settings, as well as its higher frame rate for burst shooting. But if you don't have need for these advancements, just go with a good used K-3 II, put your money towards the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM lens and you'll have super fast AF and everything else that suits your needs, at quite a savings.

It sure looks like our mileage absolutely does vary on a lot of these points.

- Purchasing a used body through, for instance, KEH like I did, gives you a return window should you find there's something wrong with the camera, and also the big savings (about %50 in my case).

- I went back an re-read the articles here comparing K1 and K1ii (I just got through referring to these pretty extensively last week, I'm really starting to get to know these articles!) and once again came to the conclusion that the difference in iso performance with the K1ii upgrade is real but not huge. The biggest aspect of the jump is specific to SOOC JPGs.
I only have a K1. If you have both cameras and disagree, I will defer to your opinion (I will anyhow; I'm not at all trying to start a kerfuffle/threadjack here). But you've come to a different conclusion than the staff reviewers here came to on that point.

- The K3ii to K3iii, on the other hand, seems plainly like a more drastic difference than you're portraying it. Everything I've seen/read shows that it does take much better shots at high ISO as you mention, but that's hardly the only important change. The interface is quite different (a third control wheel means a whole lot to me, at least, not to mention the joystick and touchscreen and new menus and more customization); the viewfinder is much improved and ballyhooed; the autofocus system is completely revamped, including new functionality such as eye tracking (of course AF speed does depend much on the lens, which you allude to); the burst rate is drastically faster (as you point out); new metering system; better SR; and on and on.
It sure doesn't seem like getting a K3ii plus a nice lens is anywhere near the same thing as getting the new model. I don't have either camera (I'm absolutely saving for a K3iii though), so I'll once again defer to you on that point from here on out. But I would caution OP about coming to his conclusions based on what you've written there. K3iii is plainly a whole new generation of camera compared to K3ii.

[MESuperian]

Last night I played around with a Zeiss Contaflex IV, a state of the art full frame camera from 1958, the year I was born.

It’s an ingenious gadget; where you set a dial to the EV scale you get from the meter, focus and shoot.

Only a K-1 with a 50mm lens could duplicate it’s performance.

Let’s not forget the advantage of the shallow depth of field a full frame provides.

All those old Pentax lenses were full frame.

[Jonathan Mac]

Pentax tried that game decades ago. It's why they are now a name on Ricoh's spread sheet rather than their own company.
It's not a mistake Ricoh is likely to repeat.

I agree entirely. No more cameras with brittle plastic cogs in the mirror mechanism please Pentax.

And the $500 full frame starter camera should take four AA batteries, and come with a cheap kit lens.

No way I'd go back to the unreliability of AA batteries in a DSLR, I had quite enough of that with the K200D.

[normhead]

My question looking at lenses like the FA*80-200 and 200 macro, 300 4.5 and others is why are they so expensive?

[MESuperian]

I agree entirely. No more cameras with brittle plastic cogs in the mirror mechanism please Pentax.



No way I'd go back to the unreliability of AA batteries in a DSLR, I had quite enough of that with the K200D.

Pentax gets $1,800 for the top of the line full frame.

Stick the same battery in the $500 model and you cannibalize sales of the big one.

My K-x was $500 with the kit lens in 2009.

Us shutterbugs get so jaded we forget $500 is a lot of money for somebody who doesn’t own a good, interchangeable lens camera and wants one, to shell out.

It’s a selling point for starter camera to take four AA batteries, and provide it with the best lithium rechargeable ones and a charger.

[mbukal]

My question looking at lenses like the FA*80-200 and 200 macro, 300 4.5 and others is why are they so expensive?

LOL

[reh321]

If this amount is all you can muster in your budget, than that's the way it is, better than not having it. However, there is always some risk in buying used when dealing with such a complex electronic monster as a modern DSLR. The K-1 is very well constructed, but one never knows even then what it has been through.

At those prices, the cost of a new K-1 II represents one of the best bargains among pro-level FF DSLR cameras in the marketplace today. Its image quality and features, as well as design, are among the best available for still photography. A factory warranty might seem like some unnecessary item not worth much, and I've had many new Pentax camera bodies over the years which never required employing them. But I did have two Pentax DSLR bodies that failed some months after purchase, one of them being a very well-built flagship model. When it is needed, a warranty can be worth a lot of money.

The K-1 II was developed with some advancements, especially in terms of better high ISO performance. It has been shown capable of cleaner, lower noise imaging at higher ISO settings. But maybe this is something you don't need, as you rarely shoot using higher ISO settings.

It is much like the comparison between the K-3 II and the K-3 III. The K-3 III has been shown capable of cleaner, lower noise imaging at higher ISO settings, as well as its higher frame rate for burst shooting. But if you don't have need for these advancements, just go with a good used K-3 II, put your money towards the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM lens and you'll have super fast AF and everything else that suits your needs, at quite a savings.

It takes two to tangle.
Even with my KP, I most likely would get better AF by getting a K-3iii than by upgrading my lens, at little savings.
I have no need for better burst rate or queue capacity.

[jslifoaw]

Pentax gets $1,800 for the top of the line full frame.

Stick the same battery in the $500 model and you cannibalize sales of the big one.

My K-x was $500 with the kit lens in 2009.

Us shutterbugs get so jaded we forget $500 is a lot of money for somebody who doesn’t own a good, interchangeable lens camera and wants one, to shell out.

It’s a selling point for starter camera to take four AA batteries, and provide it with the best lithium rechargeable ones and a charger.

But that helps Pentax keep the price low - by only including disposable AAs which I think was usually the case back in the day (and Pentax got panned for it on multiple occasions since competing entry level cameras came with a rechargeable Li-ion battery).

I now have a drawer full of NiMH AAs and chargers of varying reliability (pre Eneloop/Ladda days with my istD and K100D), and even a pair of RCR-V3s with charger. Now, everything I have uses the D-LI90 which is great, and I can even use the K3 III as a charger.

If anything, I think it helps pave a path to an upgrade, but would likely raise the price (but not the total cost of ownership).

Nowadays, $500 actually buys a lot of camera relatively speaking. Sure, brand new equipment is $1500-$2500 and higher, but good cameras from the early 2010s fall within that range. You can even get a K-1 for $1000ish as someone else pointed out.

Pentax won't spend money on a new, cheaper FF that will likely compete with used K-1s. Those who are price sensitive are less likely to see the value in brand new and would often opt to wait for others to buy and then sell used. Those who buy new are likely to be less price sensitive and so why sell a $500 camera when you could sell most of them a $1000, $1500, or $2000 camera given how well served the used market is for <$1000?

[MESuperian]

I have never had a class in photography.

There weren’t many photography classes close to Humansville, Missouri to take.

Where I think Pentax is leaving a niche market segment unsold is making a cheap, simple, full frame digital camera with a cheap, aperture adjustable on the lens, kit lens. When there were photography classes the K1000 was usually the recommended camera.

For example, I’m teaching myself how to shoot a 1958 Zeiss Contaflex. Top shutter speed is 1/500. There’s a gadget on the camera where you input ISO (max 800) and open a door for a light meter. The result I got was 13EV. Set the coupled aperture and shutter speed to 13EV, aperture to f8, focus to 20 feet and all photos from 12 feet to infinity at f8 are focused. The shutter speed on the Contaflex was 1/125.

I set my K-x to f8, ISO 200, and used autofocus.

Pretty close.

Pentax will never sell the most cameras. They need to sell full frame DSLRs to hobbyist photographers, and by the millions.

[Wheatfield]

Pentax gets $1,800 for the top of the line full frame.

Stick the same battery in the $500 model and you cannibalize sales of the big one.

My K-x was $500 with the kit lens in 2009.

Us shutterbugs get so jaded we forget $500 is a lot of money for somebody who doesn’t own a good, interchangeable lens camera and wants one, to shell out.

It’s a selling point for starter camera to take four AA batteries, and provide it with the best lithium rechargeable ones and a charger.

A $500.00 full frame camera, no matter how junkily built it was, would cost the manufacturer somewhere in the range of $1000.00 every time one sold.
The concept itself isn't viable.

---------- Post added Feb 16th, 2022 at 12:13 PM ----------

Pentax will never sell the most cameras. They need to sell full frame DSLRs to hobbyist photographers, and by the millions.

And this is where the whole thing falls apart.
Here's a history lesson for you:

Pentax tried the cheap and cheerful route from the mid 1980s until they went out of business.
The problem with cheap and cheerful is it doesn't work. There is no money left over for R&D of new products, the cameras will, by necessity, be built like junk to hit the price point, meaning warranty repairs will be murder.

The market has never been successful for those dealing in cheap cameras. Japanese players fell by the wayside in droves trying to out cheap each other in the 1960s and into the 1970s.

You may say that time is not now, and I would say those who do not learn from history will repeat it.

Tge question I have for anyone who thinks Pentax should be selling new gear at 1/3 of manufacturing cost is this: why do you hate Pentax so much that you want to see them fail completely and go out of business entirely?

[MESuperian]

A $500.00 full frame camera, no matter how junkily built it was, would cost the manufacturer somewhere in the range of $1000.00 every time one sold.
The concept itself isn't viable.

---------- Post added Feb 16th, 2022 at 12:13 PM ----------



And this is where the whole thing falls apart.
Here's a history lesson for you:

Pentax tried the cheap and cheerful route from the mid 1980s until they went out of business.
The problem with cheap and cheerful is it doesn't work. There is no money left over for R&D of new products, the cameras will, by necessity, be built like junk to hit the price point, meaning warranty repairs will be murder.

The market has never been successful for those dealing in cheap cameras. Japanese players fell by the wayside in droves trying to out cheap each other in the 1960s and into the 1970s.

You may say that time is not now, and I would say those who do not learn from history will repeat it.

Tge question I have for anyone who thinks Pentax should be selling new gear at 1/3 of manufacturing cost is this: why do you hate Pentax so much that you want to see them fail completely and go out of business entirely?

Actually I’ve fallen head over heels in love with Pentax, because I bought a used $100 camera and kit lens that only cost $500 new.

On this day, I can buy a spanking brand new K-70 with kit lens for under $650 from Focus Camera, Brooklyn New York, USA.

Pentax K-70 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL WR Lens (Black) 27075297418 | eBay

But that K-70 is just a fancier version of my $100 K-x. It’s not full frame.

The engineering was done years ago on the K-1.

Full frame sensors are cheaper today, than they were a few years ago.

Making a cheap kit full frame lens wouldn’t cost much.

Someday Nikon or Canon will make a full frame starter mirrorless camera at the same price point as their starter APC DSLR cameras they sell today.

A Pentax starter full frame camera, even at $650, even with a standard Pentax battery, would shoot untold millions of old 35mm Pentax lenses and Canon and Nikon’s offerings never will.

What Pentax needs, is more Pentaxians.

[pschlute]

I have never had a class in photography.

Me neither.

Where I think Pentax is leaving a niche market segment unsold is making a cheap, simple, full frame digital camera with a cheap, aperture adjustable on the lens, kit lens

Cheap does not sell well. Do you realise it costs almost the same to make a K3III or K1 II as it does to make a K 70 ? Camera manufacturers have traditionally made most of their money selling their most expensive cameras and lenses. Suggesting Pentax make a cheap FF model is nonsense. Who will buy it ? ps not me.

---------- Post added 02-16-22 at 08:17 PM ----------

Full frame sensors are cheaper today, than they were a few years ago.

Making a cheap kit full frame lens wouldn’t cost much.

Very funny.

btw sensors of any description are scarce at the moment and likely to be for some time. Have you heard of something called Covid ?

[Wheatfield]

Actually I’ve fallen head over heels in love with Pentax, because I bought a used $100 camera and kit lens that only cost $500 new.

On this day, I can buy a spanking brand new K-70 with kit lens for under $650 from Focus Camera, Brooklyn New York, USA.

Pentax K-70 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL WR Lens (Black) 27075297418 | eBay

But that K-70 is just a fancier version of my $100 K-x. It’s not full frame.

The engineering was done years ago on the K-1.

Full frame sensors are cheaper today, than they were a few years ago.

Making a cheap kit full frame lens wouldn’t cost much.

Someday Nikon or Canon will make a full frame starter mirrorless camera at the same price point as their starter APC DSLR cameras they sell today.

A Pentax starter full frame camera, even at $650, even with a standard Pentax battery, would shoot untold millions of old 35mm Pentax lenses and Canon and Nikon’s offerings never will.

What Pentax needs, is more Pentaxians.

What Pentax doesn't need is unrealistic expectations.
The 500 dollar new camera market is dead or close to it. Cell phones have done that segment in.
Pentax is moving upscale. Cheap and cheerful is a thing of the past. You will still find new old stock from time to time being blown out below cost because the retailer has decided to cut his losses and you will still find some good deals on used gear, especially the entry level stuff.
If you want a hint at where Pentax is headed, look at the new K3iii, look at the DFA* 50mm and 85mm lenses. Look at the new 21mm Ltd lens.
These are pieces of gear that are at the very top of the quality heap.
Pentax isn't going to make the same mistake they made decades ago trying to bribe people to buy sub par gear at rock bottom prices. They tried that and they failed.
And they learned the hard way that it is a fools game.

[photogem]

Japanese players fell by the wayside in droves trying to out cheap each other in the 1960s and into the 1970s.

What do you mean with "Japanese Players"?