[Nicolas06]

Careful not to mix up technology, format and product. There is something called technology adoption. There is also something called product life cycle (PLC). Format (24x36) and technology (DSLR) aren't new, but the product (Pentax K1 is new). As per Philip Kotler & co (Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2014). New-Product Development and Product Life-Cycle Strategies. In Principles of Marketing (15th ed., pp. 273-282). Upper Saddle, N.J: Pearson.), the concept of early adopter, and laggards.

For example, you could consider cars. Cars have been around well before you were born, that does not prevent that, if you buy a new model of car (with 4 wheels, a gearbox, engine and 5 doors), I can't say you are a laggard, you are an early adopter of this new model when you buy one the first produced prototypes of it.

The Pentax K1 is a new product. As we can see, the early adoption rate of the K1 indicates that Pentax FF to set to become a successful and viable product line. Of course there will always be the guys who are happy with a cameraphone, but they don't interfere with photography hobbyists, uploading real time pictures of anything passing by from an smartphone to facebook doesn't appear to replace the taste for nice glass and artful photographic creations. Or, it would mean that photography is in danger of disappearing, and if so, it's going to take more than a decade, so we're still safe.

Man that play well for your marketing model but it doesn't really matter outside of that model.

You know as well as me that manytime the new product is as similar as the previous one that people don't even realize they are new or there a difference. K70 vs K50 vs K30 are exactly the same product, many of the people that will buy the K70 will not even realize that the live view mode improved. as a market segment, it is the next Pentax entry level. It is still expensive and still go down fast in price because camera use a model of novelty like most technical products. So if you don't care of that LV feature you could as well buy a K50 for half the price.

It is not you are laggard, it is just you defeated the marketing propaganda. If it was you needed great AF and advanced model, you could settle on a D7200 if that's enough or a D500 or why not D5. This is about buying what you need, regardless of what the marketing need.

If you think FF camera is part of the value you are after, maybe you buy a K1, maybe you buy a D810, maybe you buy an used 5D, maybe you buy a D750.

You clearly have a need to take photo of jazz concert in dim light. You clearly value that capacity to get slightly better picture in such condition to be worth spending €1800 on the body, €3000 on lenses. That your choice.

But you shouldn't buy the K1 because it is new as a product or old as a product line (FF DSLR) but because basically you take lot of photo of jazz concert and other equivalent situations and you need the added quality . That's what make sense

I would not be surprized overall that if kenspo shooted some picture of that concert with his K3 (even through I know he has a K1) and your with you K1, that kenspo picture would look better overall than your, regardless of the gear used.

[biz-engineer]

Mass is a different problem.

Yes, it's a problem for walk around shooting. I don't find size / weight to be a problem when I go out shooting on purpose. But yeah, if I travel not for the sake of taking pictures, size and weight is a problem, but in that case I wouldn't even consider a DSLR, I'd consider a mirrorless apsc system such as Fuji X with a couple of primes. The situation has changed, mirrorless af has improved dramatically with hybrid sensor af. and now apsc dslrs seat in between two chairs, they aren't pocketable and they don't provide the IQ of full frames. Everytime I was out on vacation, traveling, with the K3, I still needed a separate camera bag, this hasn't changed with the K1, I still need to camera a separate camera bag, but now the burden of a separate bag comes with better IQ. If I get a compact mirrorless camera, I still get the same IQ as the K3 system, but I can carry it without needed any special bag. That's why I sold off most of my apsc gear to finance a K1, now I don't deal with a compromise, either I go out for the main purpose of taking photo, for example in a national park or a sport venue, and I carry all the gear needed, and the rest of the time, I'll have a pocket apsc camera.

---------- Post added 12-06-16 at 21:39 ----------

Man that play well for your marketing model but it doesn't really matter outside of that model. You know as well as me that manytime the new product is as similar as the previous one that people don't even realize they are new or there a difference. K70 vs K50 vs K30 are exactly the same product, many of the people that will buy the K70 will not even realize that the live view mode improved. as a market segment, it is the next Pentax entry level. It is still expensive and still go down fast in price because camera use a model of novelty like most technical products. So if you don't care of that LV feature you could as well buy a K50 for half the price. It is not you are laggard, it is just you defeated the marketing propaganda. If it was you needed great AF and advanced model, you could settle on a D7200 if that's enough or a D500 or why not D5. This is about buying what you need, regardless of what the marketing need. If you think FF camera is part of the value you are after, maybe you buy a K1, maybe you buy a D810, maybe you buy an used 5D, maybe you buy a D750. You clearly have a need to take photo of jazz concert in dim light. You clearly value that capacity to get slightly better picture in such condition to be worth spending €1800 on the body, €3000 on lenses. That your choice. But you shouldn't buy the K1 because it is new as a product or old as a product line (FF DSLR) but because basically you take lot of photo of jazz concert and other equivalent situations and you need the added quality . That's what make sense I would not be surprized overall that if kenspo shooted some picture of that concert with his K3 (even through I know he has a K1) and your with you K1, that kenspo picture would look better overall than your, regardless of the gear used.

So what? What do we do now? How do we move from there? More arguments?

You have to know what I did. I did not pre-order the K1, I wanted to see before I buy. After the K1 was delivered to shops, it happened that I was on vacation for three weeks, so I went to a local Pentax shop here in Austria, they had a K1 for demo, and I asked the shop if I could rent the K1 for a week, telling the sales guy that I already had K mount lenses and a K3. The sales guys said, yes (but I had to pay a deposit, in case I break it). I took the K1 on vacation (to a national park) and I used the K1 and the K3 with the DFA150-450, for about one week. I compared images side by side, and based on what I got, I returned to the shop and I decided to buy the K1. So I did not make a decision based on marketing hype. The K1 deliver better images, and every discussion here is unfounded because every person claiming that they don't see any significant difference in IQ are comparing photos posted at 800pixels wide. So, yeah, if you compare photos from PF, you'll never see the difference, and also, you'd not see the point of have a 645Z, because at 800 pixels wide 8bits JPEG, you eyes are absolutely incapable to see any difference between a u4/3 and MF. So, folks will say, "oh but there is no difference". If the main goal is taking photos to watch them on LCD display and post some of them on PF, and get excited by numerous discussion threads and arguing, NO, don't buy a K1, it would be a waste of money.

If people are skeptical , not sure about the usefulness of the K1, they can still try it an make their mind, to see if really it is worth :-) - :-)

[reh321]

Yes, it's a problem for walk around shooting. I don't find size / weight to be a problem when I go out shooting on purpose. But yeah, if I travel not for the sake of taking pictures, size and weight is a problem, but in that case I wouldn't even consider a DSLR, I'd consider a mirrorless apsc system such as Fuji X with a couple of primes ...

I have written myself a note not to ask you for advice when buying a camera. Your suggestion would cost more than a K-70, and not provide the capability I want. No suggestion in which lens selection has the words "couple of primes" could ever do that, regardless of which "couple" is chosen. My bag currently carries a Sigma 10-20mm, Pentax 18-135mm, and Pentax 55-300mm. Over the years, I have found that combination meets most of my wants, even when situations arise that I hadn't anticipated. Thank you for your suggestions, however.

[monochrome]

I have the money. I have the muscle. Neither cash nor weight is a limiting factor ~ because I want to. As a hobby, high-end SLR photography has always been too expensive for mass consumers. Then again, middle America types spend $75,000 on a pickup, bass boat and trailer, so maybe it isn't that expensive after all.

It's just a choice. People who can only afford an APSc camera and one lens actually can't afford it. For almost every kit buyer, the camera is a lower priority than something else they want, so they get an inexpensive, serviceable camera.

I sold a lot of expensive fishing gear and a lot of hi-tech camping / hiking gear and shotguns and a collection of Hardy Perfect reels and casting reels and I'm finished paying for college. I drive inexpensive cars and live in a modest home and skip Disney World; but I buy camera stuff. It's just a choice.

I carried K-1, the FA Limiteds, A20/2.8, FA24~90, AF540 and spare batteries in a Domke F3 all over historic Kansas City Friday - Sunday. I never wished it was lighter. Ever.

[Nicolas06]

You have to know what I did. I did not pre-order the K1, I wanted to see before I buy. After the K1 was delivered to shops, it happened that I was on vacation for three weeks, so I went to a local Pentax shop here in Austria, they had a K1 for demo, and I asked the shop if I could rent the K1 for a week, telling the sales guy that I already had K mount lenses and a K3. The sales guys said, yes (but I had to pay a deposit, in case I break it). I took the K1 on vacation (to a national park) and I used the K1 and the K3 with the DFA150-450, for about one week. I compared images side by side, and based on what I got, I returned to the shop and I decided to buy the K1. So I did not make a decision based on marketing hype. The K1 deliver better images, and every discussion here is unfounded because every person claiming that they don't see any significant difference in IQ are comparing photos posted at 800pixels wide. So, yeah, if you compare photos from PF, you'll never see the difference, and also, you'd not see the point of have a 645Z, because at 800 pixels wide 8bits JPEG, you eyes are absolutely incapable to see any difference between a u4/3 and MF. So, folks will say, "oh but there is no difference". If the main goal is taking photos to watch them on LCD display and post some of them on PF, and get excited by numerous discussion threads and arguing, NO, don't buy a K1, it would be a waste of money.

If people are skeptical , not sure about the usefulness of the K1, they can still try it an make their mind, to see if really it is worth :-) - :-)

I am not skeptical the K1 is better. I mean hopefully. Imagine if you did all that an many other and discovered in the long run you got worse photo from it. Would be funny for me, quite sad for you. No, I hope it will serve you well and that was what you wanted.

What I am skeptical of is that this matter to me; And many other. I mean, I do not take enough photos of Jazz concert to care...

I don't feel like a rushed picture when attending to a concert, not being even part of the authorized photographers for the event is worth to spend €6000 as you explained... Or just even €1800 so my FA77 would frame like a 50mm on APSC instead of like a 77mm. I'd have to close it down to get some dof anyway and might still decide a flash in one hand and the camera in the other might still get me the best results if that was my priority. But yes if I had to shoot concert all the time, I would consider an FF. That's not the case. That might not be the case of many people here neither.

[Nicolas06]

I have the money. I have the muscle. Neither cash nor weight is a limiting factor ~ because I want to. As a hobby, high-end SLR photography has always been too expensive for mass consumers. Then again, middle America types spend $75,000 on a pickup, bass boat and trailer, so maybe it isn't that expensive after all.

It's just a choice. People who can only afford an APSc camera and one lens actually can't afford it. For almost every kit buyer, the camera is a lower priority than something else they want, so they get an inexpensive, serviceable camera.

I sold a lot of expensive fishing gear and a lot of hi-tech camping / hiking gear and shotguns and a collection of Hardy Perfect reels and casting reels and I'm finished paying for college. I drive inexpensive cars and live in a modest home and skip Disney World; but I buy camera stuff. It's just a choice.

I carried K-1, the FA Limiteds, A20/2.8, FA24~90, AF540 and spare batteries in a Domke F3 all over historic Kansas City Friday - Sunday. I never wished it was lighter. Ever.

Sure everycase is different. No issue with that. Enjoy it

[biz-engineer]

I have the money. I have the muscle. Neither cash nor weight is a limiting factor ~ because I want to. As a hobby, high-end SLR photography has always been too expensive for mass consumers. Then again, middle America types spend $75,000 on a pickup, bass boat and trailer, so maybe it isn't that expensive after all. It's just a choice. People who can only afford an APSc camera and one lens actually can't afford it. For almost every kit buyer, the camera is a lower priority than something else they want, so they get an inexpensive, serviceable camera.

The good thing about APSC is that you can buy two bodies and leave one at home, whereas full frame, you buy only one body and three lenses and use them. Some people have 2 or 3 apsc bodies, which cost about the same as to have purchased a Pentax K1 (then they argue that FF is so expensive...).

I don't feel like a rushed picture when attending to a concert, not being even part of the authorized photographers for the event is worth to spend €6000 as you explained... Or just even €1800 so my FA77 would frame like a 50mm on APSC instead of like a 77mm. I'd have to close it down to get some dof anyway and might still decide a flash in one hand and the camera in the other might still get me the best results if that was my priority. But yes if I had to shoot concert all the time, I would consider an FF. That's not the case. That might not be the case of many people here neither.

You are spot on, for me, FF cost a bunch of money, I like zooms because of the flexibility, so upgrading to full frame is rather costly. I could do like you, limit to a set of nice high quality primes. Unfortunately I don't have the 77 limited. But hey , I just realize that you have this marvel ! The 77ltd is very good and very small, well finished product. The 77 ltd is equivalent to about 50mm on apsc. The DFA100 macro is small, sharp wide open (49mm filter thread) equivalent to about 70mm f2 on apsc and cost only $400 + give you 1:1 macro. The K1 is 200gr heavier than a K3. Do you realize that for 200gr more (not a problem for you) and $1400, you get to FF quality level instead of upgrading to the next apsc body for $1000 that will eventually (but not sure) get you 0.2ev improvement of DR, while you could get 1.5ev more DR with a K1 straight out of the box (I'm referring to your long discussions with Falconeye about DR of digital cameras)? You'd just have to resell your K3, your 15ltd which has field curvature, and the 21ltd , and buy a 31 ltd for about the same money (would cost you nothing), so you'd have 3 tiny fast primes on FF 36Mpxiels + macro capability free of charge. It would only cost you $400 to get access to the 36Mpixels FF and 1.5ev additional DR right out of the box. As you are smart and successful software engineer, $400 to access FF awesome quality is peanuts for you. Oh well, now that I wrote that, I'm sure you'll say "But, but but but..." (because if it's not an idea from you, you'll reject it, because you want to be right, I know you). And I forgot that you already have the F135 designed for full frame, so you don't even need to buy a 100 macro. You sell your 15ltd and 21ltd, get a 31ltd and a K1 and don't get any new apsc body, would actually cost you only a few hundred euros, spread over 5 years (FF camera bodies have longer life cycles), really cheap indeed.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-12-2016 at 06:48 PM.

[starbase218]

You are spot on, for me, FF cost a bunch of money, I like zooms because of the flexibility, so upgrading to full frame is rather costly. I could do like you, limit to a set of nice high quality primes. Unfortunately I don't have the 77 limited. But hey , I just realize that you have this marvel ! The 77ltd is very good and very small, well finished product. The 77 ltd is equivalent to about 50mm on apsc. The DFA100 macro is small, sharp wide open (49mm filter thread) equivalent to about 70mm f2 on apsc and cost only $400 + give you 1:1 macro. The K1 is 200gr heavier than a K3. Do you realize that for 200gr more (not a problem for you) and $1400, you get to FF quality level instead of upgrading to the next apsc body for $1000 that will eventually (but not sure) get you 0.2ev improvement of DR, while you could get 1.5ev more DR with a K1 straight out of the box (I'm referring to your long discussions with Falconeye about DR of digital cameras)? You'd just have to resell your K3, your 15ltd which has field curvature, and the 21ltd , and buy a 31 ltd for about the same money (would cost you nothing), so you'd have 3 tiny fast primes on FF 36Mpxiels + macro capability free of charge. It would only cost you $400 to get access to the 36Mpixels FF and 1.5ev additional DR right out of the box. As you are smart and successful software engineer, $400 to access FF awesome quality is peanuts for you. Oh well, now that I wrote that, I'm sure you'll say "But, but but but..." (because if it's not an idea from you, you'll reject it, because you want to be right, I know you). And I forgot that you already have the F135 designed for full frame, so you don't even need to buy a 100 macro. You sell your 15ltd and 21ltd, get a 31ltd and a K1 and don't get any new apsc body, would actually cost you only a few hundred euros, spread over 5 years (FF camera bodies have longer life cycles), really cheap indeed.

In that case, he could sell his 15 Ltd very cheaply to me.

[biz-engineer]

In that case, he could sell his 15 Ltd very cheaply to me.

The 15ltd sells for $400 second hand. That's neither cheap not expensive, just about the value for what it really is.

[Nicolas06]

The good thing about APSC is that you can buy two bodies and leave one at home, whereas full frame, you buy only one body and three lenses and use them. Some people have 2 or 3 apsc bodies, which cost about the same as to have purchased a Pentax K1 (then they argue that FF is so expensive...).

I don't see how from a money point of view it is better to have 1-2 ASPC and 1 FF and in a few years 2-3 FF bodies than just 2-3 APSC body. What count for that aspect is basically how much you spent on it and the benefit it give you. I resold my K5 when I upgraded to K3 and so in time my K3 cost me 600€. In the end I spent 1400€ on APSC bodies over 5 years. And of course 5 years ago you could not get an FF body like the K1 for 1800€, more like, 3000€. It also made no sense as a beginer that didn't new photography at all to buy something at €3000 for the first try.

You are spot on, for me, FF cost a bunch of money, I like zooms because of the flexibility, so upgrading to full frame is rather costly. I could do like you, limit to a set of nice high quality primes. Unfortunately I don't have the 77 limited. But hey , I just realize that you have this marvel ! The 77ltd is very good and very small, well finished product. The 77 ltd is equivalent to about 50mm on apsc. The DFA100 macro is small, sharp wide open (49mm filter thread) equivalent to about 70mm f2 on apsc and cost only $400 + give you 1:1 macro. The K1 is 200gr heavier than a K3. Do you realize that for 200gr more (not a problem for you) and $1400, you get to FF quality level instead of upgrading to the next apsc body for $1000 that will eventually (but not sure) get you 0.2ev improvement of DR, while you could get 1.5ev more DR with a K1 straight out of the box (I'm referring to your long discussions with Falconeye about DR of digital cameras)? You'd just have to resell your K3, your 15ltd which has field curvature, and the 21ltd , and buy a 31 ltd for about the same money (would cost you nothing), so you'd have 3 tiny fast primes on FF 36Mpxiels + macro capability free of charge. It would only cost you $400 to get access to the 36Mpixels FF and 1.5ev additional DR right out of the box. As you are smart and successful software engineer, $400 to access FF awesome quality is peanuts for you. Oh well, now that I wrote that, I'm sure you'll say "But, but but but..." (because if it's not an idea from you, you'll reject it, because you want to be right, I know you). And I forgot that you already have the F135 designed for full frame, so you don't even need to buy a 100 macro. You sell your 15ltd and 21ltd, get a 31ltd and a K1 and don't get any new apsc body, would actually cost you only a few hundred euros, spread over 5 years (FF camera bodies have longer life cycles), really cheap indeed.

I am quite aware.

Problem is that FA77 is small and I like the framing. I don't like much 50mm framing on APSC, while I like 77 (could be 70 or 85 I guess). maybe because I didn't like at all that FA50 f/1.4 that I sold. DFA100 macro is bigger and while is insanely sharp it isn't the rendering of that FA77 and is would be a bit short. In term of light gathering it is the same, only the lens is bigger so you are more visible to your subjects. FA31 would be nice, and yes I throught about it too. That insanely expensive to finally get a decent WA, it is not that small but that would do it to replace the 21 (that I use less and less these days), maybe I would get the FA43 instead in that case. But that mean I don't get any UWA. Nothing extreme but there no nice/sharp/small 20-22mm FF equivalent lens available. I tried the FA*24, it need f/8 to be sharp and is quite heavy. So I resold it for the price I got it.

The F135 is nice for portraiture, but is nowhere as good as the FA77 for other applications. It is bigger so I would need to get it with me in more occasion. And it give 200mm equivalent framing on FF, so I'd need some 200mm FF lens for the occasions I use the F135. This is not going to be small.

So it would not save my problem to get a sharp/small UWA, it would increase the problem of getting a small setup because I would add the DA*200 to the setup to keep the same reach and get a bigger body. And even selling everything to get that I would be in for €2000. Yes it would be nice to have better high iso, for 1% of the shots that I do at theses settings. That's quite expensive to solve that issue and create others I don't have today.

[biz-engineer]

I don't see how from a money point of view it is better to have 1-2 ASPC and 1 FF and in a few years 2-3 FF bodies than just 2-3 APSC body. What count for that aspect is basically how much you spent on it and the benefit it give you.

It's simple. If one apsc dslr costs $900, two apsc camera cost $1800, about the same has buying one K1 body. And the larger the format the long the life time of the product. If you bought a D800E 5 years ago, you don't need to upgrade because it still is as good as any current models, so even if it costed $3K upfront, it was no more expensive than getting a D7000,D7100 and D7200 to get up to 24Mpixels, and the D800E still beats the D7200.

Problem is that FA77 is small and I like the framing. I don't like much 50mm framing on APSC, while I like 77 (could be 70 or 85 I guess). maybe because I didn't like at all that FA50 f/1.4 that I sold.

I had the same experience as you, on this point.

DFA100 macro is bigger and while is insanely sharp it isn't the rendering of that FA77 and is would be a bit short.

Ok, a bit of confusion. I'm not sure I understand. If you like the rendering of the FA77, it's more like more of what you get when moving from apsc to ff, at least some of it.

In term of light gathering it is the same, only the lens is bigger so you are more visible to your subjects.

Well, the K1 is 1.5 cm higher than a K3, and about the same width. What are enormous are the new DFA zoom , but when mounting primes on the K1, is about the same as a K3, I fit K1 with prime the same way in the same camera bag. DFA zooms have totally jumped in size, seems like Ricoh did not care about size anymore.

[kh1234567890]

DFA zooms have totally jumped in size, seems like Ricoh did not care about size anymore.

That's why I'm sticking with my battered K-5ii body and a pocketful of DA Limiteds for time being.

[redrockcoulee]

That's why I'm sticking with my battered K-5ii body and a pocketful of DA Limiteds for time being.

I am with you although my K5IIs body is still like new. I added the 18-50 RE just to have a WR lens and it takes up no more room than a DA Limited. I put two lenses in a compact camera bag that I can attach to my belt and the third lens on the camera. The bag was bought for a trip I took with the Fuji X10 and it barely fits into the bag but two DA lenses do with room for a battery and a memory card. But I am not big on having to have the latest and greatest and hence will not replace it until either it no longer functions or a new camera does something I really need. In addition my wife has the K5 and she is not one to upgrade at all it seems, she would still be using her K10D if she had not dropped it and the screwdrive AF stopped working.

I think the quality of the images one gets from just about all formats is the main reason that sales are down, there is much less reason to upgrade each time a new model comes out. When I first started using digital cameras the move from a Nikon D1X to D2X or D200 was huge. Those were the top of the line cameras when I shot with them but even my K-r runs circles around them in most aspects and it is how many generations old. I am sure that for some peoples photography a feature or two in the new camera are very important but to many of us the K5 or K3 series of cameras do what we need them to do.

I also do not doubt that those who moved up from a K5 to either the K3 or the K1 are happy that they did. That is how it should be however I am satisfied with what I have now and for me it is less expensive using the gear I currently own compared to buying a new camera a couple of lenses. Five years from now when I am in my 70s I may reconsider my gear, some of my friends have gone completely m 4/3rds and are very happy with their decision.

[monochrome]

@Nicholas06 @biz-engineer

You're sort of missing the point. Making generalizations about Value for Money is always a mistake. As Nicholas said about me, every decision is individual. Unless there is some kind of pathological disorder (actual destructive buying addiction), every purchase is correct and optimal value for the individual buyer at the moment in time.

You all don't know better than the individual buyer.

[reh321]

DFA zooms have totally jumped in size, seems like Ricoh did not care about size anymore.

I pulled several lenses from my collection:

Super Tak 300mm: 19cm long, 1000g

AdaptAll #23A 60-300mm: 17cm long; 896g

Ricoh 75-300mm: 17cm long; 732g

DA 55-300mm ED WR: 13cm; 466g

B&H reports a weight of 442 for the new PLM version of the DA 55-300,
so they reduced the weight by another 24g even though they added a "motor".

From a historical viewpoint, current lenses look good.