[Not a Number]

As to the lack of "rugged build", yeah it's not a magnesium alloy body or WR - I guess this makes the K-x a terrible camera, too, and it's still pretty popular. Or the K-500. Again, the build quality of the K-S1 is as good as any of their plastic bodies

So is every Canon or Nikon built with a magnesium alloy body? It does seem to me that then there are plenty candidates for "worst cameras" by that criteria.

Polycarbonates are rugged enough for crash helmets and Glock pistols but not camera bodies? My Minolta X-700 has a glass filled resin/polycarbonate body. That raised many a eyebrows in 1981-82 when it came out. It's been around the world with me and in use until about 5-6 years ago. Still sound and solid feeling as the day I bought it over 30 years ago.

---

Last edited by Not a Number; 12-14-2014 at 01:47 AM.

[Sandy Hancock]

This owner likes his K-S1 very much. The image quality is excellent and in Moon Silver it looks great with both black and silver lenses.

I quite like the handling; the grip is much better than I expected and the control layout, although quite different from my K-3 and K-5 IIs, works well.

I will probably move my K-01 on to another home, and the K-5 IIs is looking over its shoulder.

[Not a Number]

Another point TCSJordan cites for the opinion of "Worst Camera" is the "handling". Any unfamiliar interface is going to feel clumsy until you get used to it. Try using a trackball or scroll pad instead of a mouse for the first time. Or a Dvorak or split "ergonomic" keyboard. Yet people that use these devices regularly will often swear by them and prefer them to the others.

[kentishrev]

I've not got the K-S1, so cannot comment on picture quality - although it will undoubtably be perfectly adequate for anyone buying into this price range (and the images posted above seem to confirm this). I have however tested handling in a shop, and was very surprised to see how quickly I got used to the single wheel and back controls. The point that many seem to miss is that the wheel can be used for shutter or aperture, and the switch between is very quick. Given a large number of users will be in Av or Tv at best, this is probably fine. The camera felt very good in my hands.

A shame about lack of WR, but I don't see that makes it the worst camera of the year.

---

Last edited by kentishrev; 12-14-2014 at 07:11 AM.

[monochrome]

Pentax excels at producing controversial cameras.

I like that!

[RonHendriks1966]

I only hold the K-S1 at Photokina for a short moment. Looked like a nice camera to me (but way overprized at start).

Didn't got a chance to handle the camera on one of my trips. No intension to buy one any time soon.

[Clothears]

It's always going to be a matter of opinion.
Nothing changes here.
But I have to be honest, why Ricoh didn't add the tilting rear screen is nuts.

Complete and utter RUBBISH. There, how's that for a completely neutral opinion, finely argued and based entirely on evidence.

At the moment from time to time I use SWMBO's K100D Super which doesn't even have live view. I don't miss that at all, and won't miss a tilting screen either if I get a K-S1 (or, as it stands, any other Pentax DSLR).

[monochrome]

Complete and utter RUBBISH. There, how's that for a completely neutral opinion, finely argued and based entirely on evidence.

At the moment from time to time I use SWMBO's K100D Super which doesn't even have live view. I don't miss that at all, and won't miss a tilting screen either if I get a K-S1 (or, as it stands, any other Pentax DSLR).

I imagine I would actually need a hinged LCD about as often as I actually need a refconverter.

[geomez]

So is every Canon or Nikon built with a magnesium alloy body? It does seem to me that then there are plenty candidates for "worst cameras" by that criteria.

Polycarbonates are rugged enough for crash helmets and Glock pistols but not camera bodies? My Minolta X-700 has a glass filled resin/polycarbonate body. That raised many a eyebrows in 1981-82 when it came out. It's been around the world with me and in use until about 5-6 years ago. Still sound and solid feeling as the day I bought it over 30 years ago.

I dropped my plastic K-01 with a plastic hotshoe flash attached from three feet onto concrete. The flash's shoe mount broke and the K-01 now has two cracks in the body. I had a similar experience with a K-5 and a flash with a metal shoe mount a few years ago. Both survived. I know my experience is anecdotal, but I imagine there's a reason more expensive cameras and more expensive flashes have more metal parts.


Also, helmets are designed to protect your head from one crash or hit (at least the one's I've experienced). They're not made to survive.


I don't think there's anything wrong with making cameras out of polycarbonate or making only the more expensive, top-of-the-line models out of magnesium. You get what you're willing to pay for.

[Not a Number]

I don't think there's anything wrong with making cameras out of polycarbonate or making only the more expensive, top-of-the-line models out of magnesium. You get what you're willing to pay for.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/279442-magnesium...ml#post3030433

Certainly not indestructible either.

[Nicolas06]

Value: well, the K-S1 is now about the same price as the K-x at launch. The K-x had a bigger grip, but no AF focus points, and the K-S1 is superior in focusing speed, LiveView, IQ, video, FluCard support... Sure, you can get a K-30, K-50, or K-500 for less - so what? Two of those are discontinued, and the K-50 is at the end of its run. Older models are always cheaper. You can get a K100D or *istDS for a hundred bucks now. I doubt a K-50 successor will launch anywhere below $600. Some of us (not many, but some) are willing to pay a little more for a smaller body. If I'd wanted a K-50 or a K-3, I would have bought that. If I'd wanted to go mirrorless, I would have done that. I had been hoping for some time for something like a K-x successor, and Pentax made one, so I bought it, and I like it.

I agree the smaller body option to be a good reason... But I don't get the point of why in hell I should pay more for something new, all else being equal, just because it is new?

It is pretty common out there and for me it live in the principe that we assume that newer = better. But K50 is same as K30 for example and the whole K5 familly has arround the same performance.

I'd expect one to buy K-S1 because he like the idea, the ergonomics, the size... The improved resolution.

Not because it is newer and more expensive. This would be pretty silly.

[Clothears]

I agree the smaller body option to be a good reason... But I don't get the point of why in hell I should pay more for something new, all else being equal, just because it is new?

Because it's new. In a year or two it will cost a small amount to buy and people will be complaining about the cost of buying its replacement.

I'd expect one to buy K-S1 because he likes the idea, the ergonomics, the size... The improved resolution.

Exactly.

Not because it is newer and more expensive. This would be pretty silly.

I agree with you.

[THoog]

I agree the smaller body option to be a good reason... But I don't get the point of why in hell I should pay more for something new, all else being equal, just because it is new?

Was that my point? I sure didn't mean it that way.

Older models are always cheaper because they are being marked down to clear out inventory. All else being equal, why would you buy an old model unless it was cheaper than the new?

The previous plastic bodies had comparable launch prices, and each one was a poor value compared to previous model(s) on mark-down. Each also had unique features, and I think that should factor into 'value'. I think the K-S1 has comparable value to its predecessors when new. (Some photographers might put more value on WR, some on small size, some on two dials, some on megapixels. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. I object to a unique feature which I want, being dismissed as worthless.) If the K-50ii is launched at $800 (it could happen) - will that make it the worst camera of 2015?

Previous launch prices:
K-m/K2000: $700
K-x: $650*
K-r: $800
K-30: $850
K-50: $700
K-S1: $750

So I think my point is (I don't even know any more): if I could have any of these cameras new at what I consider a fair price ($650), I would probably go with the K-S1, because it has the features I want most.

*the K-x launched at $650, and that was considered a very good price, but that was Hoya, and while prices were good, Pentax was producing fewer and fewer new products. I don't they could have survived much longer under that system.

[Nicolas06]

Was that my point? I sure didn't mean it that way.

Older models are always cheaper because they are being marked down to clear out inventory. All else being equal, why would you buy an old model unless it was cheaper than the new?

The previous plastic bodies had comparable launch prices, and each one was a poor value compared to previous model(s) on mark-down. Each also had unique features, and I think that should factor into 'value'. I think the K-S1 has comparable value to its predecessors when new. (Some photographers might put more value on WR, some on small size, some on two dials, some on megapixels. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. I object to a unique feature which I want, being dismissed as worthless.) If the K-50ii is launched at $800 (it could happen) - will that make it the worst camera of 2015?

Previous launch prices:
K-m/K2000: $700
K-x: $650*
K-r: $800
K-30: $850
K-50: $700
K-S1: $750

So I think my point is (I don't even know any more): if I could have any of these cameras new at what I consider a fair price ($650), I would probably go with the K-S1, because it has the features I want most.

*the K-x launched at $650, and that was considered a very good price, but that was Hoya, and while prices were good, Pentax was producing fewer and fewer new products. I don't they could have survived much longer under that system.

That's nice but it doesn't change anything in fact to me. if at one point in time something is more expensive because it is new as opposed to old... This by far not a reason to buy. That's was my point.

Today, K3 is 800$, K-S1 600$ and K50 350$ all at B&H... K3 is older than K-S1... I didn't check other seller because well I'am not living in US anyway... But if I'am going to buy one camera from Pentax now in the states, this is kind of indicator I would check. Even through the K50 launch price was near to K-S1 this isn't relevant anymore.

To me, the biggest bargains now are on K3 & K50, to choose K-S1 one really need to value its specifities as overall its price is not so good compared to the other 2. You even said the ergonomics were so-so. When reading that to me the only reason is it being lighter. Performance wise K3 win by far and price wise K50 win by far. This fully apply compared to K3 for weight factor... Compared to K50 there not that big of a difference. Both need batteries to work and then the numbers are not so impressive. So the lightness factor as to be really key to decide for K-S1 as current price.

At $450 it would more justify the buy to me and will be much better placed compared to K50 & K3 prices.

In France on Amazon both K50 & K-S1 have same price of 450€, including in both case some lense (DA50 for K-S1 & 18-55 for K50). Here I see much more reasons to go the K-S1 route. Just the DA50 cost 140€ alone and the offering the price is same as K50, making K-S1 overall better value than K50.

[THoog]

That's nice but it doesn't change anything in fact to me. if at one point in time something is more expensive because it is new as opposed to old... This by far not a reason to buy. That's was my point.

I completely agree that it is silly to pay more just because something is new. It's also foolish to give up the features you really want, just because an older model is cheaper.

The specific feature I want is small size. The K-S1 fits easily in my work bag. The K-50 doesn't. The K-S1 fits in my small camera bag. The K-50 doesn't (not without carrying less lenses). The K-S1 is light enough to comfortably use with just a wrist cord. The K-50 isn't. The K-S1 is closer in weight to the film SLRs I used for 20 years, than it is to the K-50.

Going back to my original rant, the TCSTV guys said that Pentax is known for value, and the K-S1 doesn't have that. TCSTV also compares the K-S1's value to the marked-down K-50. The K-50 was also considered a poor value at launch because of the marked-down K-30. The K-5IIs was under $800 when the K-3 was $1300. If Pentax is known only for the value of older models, how does that make the K-S1 especially bad?