[biz-engineer]

Are you forgetting that on Pentax you don't need VR for your Tamron 70-200?

he he, no I'm not forgetting. I think that's what I wrote or I was not clear. So, I write it again more straight forward: to match the cost of a K1 system with a Nikon D810, you need to get the non VR f4 lenses of Nikon; therefore you lose the image stabilization with Nikon, whereas you have IBIS for all your lenses with a Pentax K1. The only way to get a cheaper system is to buy Nikon body only ; and all lenses from Tamron or Sigma, then it's a bit cheaper and stabilized, but then you can use you k mount lenses.

I'm hoping the next APS-c will continue to push the frame rate to say 10 FPS, have a flippy screen, have pixels shift, and be 28 MP., and have improved tracking possibly using the K-1 AF system and GPS. IF it has all those things it's going to be a tough call on my next upgrade. It's a tough call with the K-3 at 24 MP. With a K-? at 28 MP, or 30 MP, I think the balance at least for me falls back in favour of the APS_c sensor.

Obviously, I don't know the future, neither the strategy of Ricoh. But if I was Ricoh, I'd do the following:
- make a high end K1 (36Mpixel) => ok already done
- outsource f2.8 zooms and some primes to another company (tamron or else) in order not to pay the NRE for low production volume lenses (no fix costs to pay) => DFA15-30; DFA24-70 => already done
- let the rich people buy the flag ship system (36Mp + f2.8 zooms)
- read the posts in this thread saying that full frame is too expensive
- use Ricoh lens design team to design f4 lenses covering ff image circle, smaller cheaper (DFA28-105 is one of them)
- make a low cost version of the K1 , with 24Mp sensor (easy to fit with K3 image processing plateform)

If you look at it, a DFA28-105 is priced about the same as apsc lenses, and in some cases the DFA28-105 is cheaper... of course it is not so fast, but if you consider the DoF issues with FF and high iso capability of FF sensor, slower lens is not a big deal. If you price the low cost FF frame 1299 euro or usb, customers saying ff is too expensive would resist for so long.

I don't think Pentax (Ricoh) waited for so long if it is not with the intention to have a strategy different from Canon and Nikon. You can't compare with Canon and Nikon; Canon and Nikon have sufficiently large share of the market to spread their resources over many segements. Ricoh have to put in their resources to address their user base vertically, that means convert most of their users to full frame and drop low margin product lines, as their did already with the compact cameras.

Likely scenario is that Ricoh are going to continue to invest in the full frame product line and slowly disangage from low margin cameras (i.e low cost apsc dslr). As I explained many times, the cost benefit of apsc on the sensor versus full frame is now very small.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-21-2016 at 09:38 AM.

[normhead]

he he, no I'm not forgetting. I think that's what I wrote or I was not clear. So, I write it again more straight forward: to match the cost of a K1 system with a Nikon D810, you need to get the non VR f4 lenses of Nikon; therefore you lose the image stabilization with Nikon, or you have to spend >30% more.


D750+Nik lens f4 D750+Nik lens D750+Tam lens D810+Tam lens D810+Nik lens D810+Nik lens f4 K1 top
Nikon D750 Nikon D750 Nikon D750 Nikon D810 Nikon D810 Nikon D810 Pentax K1 DSLR 1839 1839 1839 3000 3000 3000 2000 15-30 1180 1800 1000 1000 1800 1180 1700 24-70 1090 2500 900 900 2500 1090 1300 150-600 1500 1500 900 900 1500 1500 2000 70-200 1319 2200 1000 1000 2200 1319 2000
6928 9839 5639 6800 11000 8089 9000
No VR VR VC VC VR No VR IBIS

I'll try and read better next time.

[biz-engineer]

I'll try and read better next time.

Excel file does not copy well in a pf thread , so I removed it :-)
Summary: a full Nikon D810 system with lenses costs 11000 euros ! Pentax costs less, but much less if you already have full frame lenses.

---------- Post added 21-06-16 at 18:46 ----------

P.S : per Kg of glass, full frame lenses are cheaper that apsc limited primes.

[reh321]

As I explained many times, the cost benefit of apsc on the sensor versus full frame is now very small.

And as normhead and I have explained many times, even in this thread, the "magnification" {or whatever other word you want to use} advantage of APS-C means it will continue to be used by serious photographers of wildlife, sports, and other areas.

[Kunzite]

Are you talking about the "I'm going to crop the images anyway" advantage, or about the "no chance I could get a 900mm lens, so I'm sticking with 600mm and APS-C"? ;-)
And then, there's the "affordable speed" argument. APS-C continues to be required, and not only if it's cheap.

OTOH, I'm going K-1, and will build a collection of assorted lenses (besides the few I have). I'll have to pay for them, so please don't even try to tell me how cheap it would be...

[reh321]

Are you talking about the "I'm going to crop the images anyway" advantage, or about the "no chance I could get a 900mm lens, so I'm sticking with 600mm and APS-C"? ;-)

Mostly the latter - and not only is the lens more available, it is much more manageable.
What I expect {I know nothing}, now that the K-1 has been released, is that Pentax will steer K-3ii descendents more and more into the sports/wildlife territory, which would mean ever-improving AF, ever-improving burst rate, ever-improving queue capacity, and ever-improving higher-ISO performance {in fact, K-70 specs even hint they are thinking that way}

And then, there's the "affordable speed" argument. APS-C continues to be required, and not only if it's cheap.

OTOH, I'm going K-1, and will build a collection of assorted lenses (besides the few I have). I'll have to pay for them, so please don't even try to tell me how cheap it would be...

I strongly disagree with the "one DSLR" mindset. I strongly believe that different persons will prefer different cameras simply because their photography and other habits differ. I am quite willing to believe that you are part of the sub-community of Pentax users for whom the K-1 is just right.

[Kunzite]

I don't know if it's "right" for me, all I know is that I want one Probably the rational choice is to go with the more affordable APS-C (since I have all DA Limiteds I wanted except one). Sure, the larger viewfinder is nicer to use...
So I'm not going to force one format or another on anyone.

[Nicolas06]

P.S : per Kg of glass, full frame lenses are cheaper that apsc limited primes.

Ahaha Next time I'll buy potatoes. That should beat it

[repaap]

I bought K-1 when it hit the shops. Still really happy with it. Don't really know if it did change anything in the way of my shooting. What I do like is that almost instant crop if you want longer reach, and the fact that almost all of my lenses works in FF mode, with this I mean some of my APS-C dedicated ones.

A400 does not look so much 'wider' than I thought and is much easier to focus too. And I like my FA 43, 77 much more in FF, my Tokina 20-35 and FA 28, A 24/2.8...so All in all I'm happy, what I'm not happy is my FA 35/2 which is now almost as my A 24/2.8 was in FoV vise, which I don't really like. DA*55 is good on FF, but FoV is little too different on FF. Have to get used to that. Just saying, I have also enjoyed my DA 55-300 WR on FF and will be using it untill can afford 70-200/one in my pricerange...

(I'll continue to find more use on my K-3 with my K-1, but have been so addicted to try this new beast that I haven't got the time) Have fun and take pictures!

[Rondec]

Are you talking about the "I'm going to crop the images anyway" advantage, or about the "no chance I could get a 900mm lens, so I'm sticking with 600mm and APS-C"? ;-)
And then, there's the "affordable speed" argument. APS-C continues to be required, and not only if it's cheap.

OTOH, I'm going K-1, and will build a collection of assorted lenses (besides the few I have). I'll have to pay for them, so please don't even try to tell me how cheap it would be...

The K-1 is just not a good sports/wildlife camera. Frame rate is too slow and it is really hard to fill up the frame unless you have really have some long glass or, you can figure out how to get closer. My longest lens is the DA 55-300 which has really dark borders on a K-1, even stopped down. I don't really have funds or the desire to upgrade to a Sigma that will go to 500mm or the Pentax 150-450mm. It seems as though those who do a lot of birding/wildlife shooting tend to use crop mode a lot, but then that begs the question, why not just get a K5 II?

I know you know all this, but for those who are mostly cropping down to APS-C or below, they might as well just buy an APS-C camera. The real benefit of full frame is in the wide to normal angle lenses where faster apertures are available than are available for APS-C.

[Kunzite]

I don't know. I don't have my K-1 yet (soon, I hope...), and I'm not a good sports/wildlife shooter anyway. Ask Barry.
But some people are getting good sports/wildlife results with it, despite the slow frame rate (I think some said they're getting better results even compared with the K-3). It will definitely be better than my K-5IIs, and in crop mode it even shoots at about the same fps. At the very least it has a more advanced AF. So you say it's not a good sports/wildlife camera... compared with what?

Of course, I'm not recommending the K-1 if an APS-C camera would be better suited. There will be an upgraded APS-C flagship, if you can afford to wait a bit.

P.S. The 55-300 is not a good sports/wildlife lens IMHO Either we're talking about good (thus, expensive) equipment or we're not.

[repaap]

55-300 is basic level lens and while it is not ment for FF it is still quite useable with it. I think that it is not really good on K-3 either, but I can take a picture with it and have fun, untill I get better gear.

---------- Post added 06-22-16 at 13:49 ----------

Here is couple shots from my K-1

FA 43


FA 77


DA 55-300 WR(unusable lens)
FF mode






and crop mode, yet little cropped

[biz-engineer]

DA 55-300 WR(unusable lens) FF mode

From a cheapo lens not usable on FF, photos are very nice.

I have the feeling that any glass that cover the FF image circle, even the cheap plastic DA, F or FA , or old manual lenses, all render better on a K1 than they do on a K3 (or whatever else apsc).

[repaap]

From a cheapo lens not usable on FF, photos are very nice.

I have the feeling that any glass that cover the FF image circle, even the cheap plastic DA, F or FA , or old manual lenses, all render better on a K1 than they do on a K3 (or whatever else apsc).

Thanks! I do feel that K-1 really adds some on these cheap new and old lenses too. And HQ lenses like Limiteds and not to forget most recent zooms(which I don't own yet) are even better. K-3 is still really good happy to own those both..

[MarkJerling]

It was quite funny really. I could see she did not have a clue how to respond to my statement. She had this real angry look on her face and for a moment it looked like she was getting ready to argue with me as to whether they were my kids or not. Luckily she turned and marched off. Any further words from me, if the conversation had continued, would not be repeatable on this forum.