[Serkevan]

The K-1 is small for a FF DSLR.

Can confirm, it's about the size of the Canon 6D (even a bit less in front width), but it's dense. One of the heaviest 24x36 cameras out there (I think the only one heavier is the D850 by a breadcrumb). Nikon's D8X0 series is *huge* in size.

The K-5 isn't particularly smaller:

Since you're invested in a lot of APS-C glass, and presumably don't want to have to go out and buy all new and more expensive FF lenses, I'd suggest you get a KP. The finer pixel pitch on its sensor makes it pretty much equal to the K-1 in image quality. It lacks a few features, such as the built-in GPS (it can do "astrotracer" if you buy the separate GPS module), but if you get the battery grip for it, which will accommodate the larger K-1 battery, you can take pictures for a really long time without thinking about the battery.

I feel like the K-1 is an industrial strength workhorse, but the KP is nimble, flexible, and easier to use. (Keep in mind this is an expression of "feeling", not analysis.)

[mikesbike]

Since you're invested in a lot of APS-C glass, and presumably don't want to have to go out and buy all new and more expensive FF lenses, I'd suggest you get a KP. The finer pixel pitch on its sensor makes it pretty much equal to the K-1 in image quality. It lacks a few features, such as the built-in GPS (it can do "astrotracer" if you buy the separate GPS module), but if you get the battery grip for it, which will accommodate the larger K-1 battery, you can take pictures for a really long time without thinking about the battery.

I feel like the K-1 is an industrial strength workhorse, but the KP is nimble, flexible, and easier to use. (Keep in mind this is an expression of "feeling", not analysis.)

This makes a lot of sense to me, and lately the price has been amazing for a premium-built beauty like the KP certainly is. It does not have a couple of the on-body controls of a flagship model like the K-5, but it atones for that by having programmable buttons, and also having a new, and very useful system of controls on top with new features. Because of this design and its compactness, no room for a top LCD, but the pull-out rear screen is sure nice when working from a low or high position. The camera's processing engine for out-of-camera JPEG images is exceptional- very fine imaging. I got mine in silver, and I love it.

---------- Post added 05-08-20 at 08:38 PM ----------

I have the SuperProgram which is awesome and super compact for a 35mm camer

Of course, there can be no DSLR as lightweight as most of the 35mm film bodies, even well-built metal bodied like the Super Program or the AF model, the MZ-S, but the KP comes the closest in its compact design with accompanying fine construction. As to the K-1, some comments allude to the K-1 being not much different to a K-5 or K-3, while in reality as shown in the illustration above, it is over 1/2 lb. heavier than a K-5, while the KP is about 2 oz. lighter. That is very substantial. I notice even that 2 oz. difference quite distinctly. Since you enjoy the feel, etc of your Super Program (I have one also, as well as the MZ-S and other AF bodies) you will probably appreciate the design concept of the KP! Its modular design with different grips and a battery grip, allows the user to change its design to accommodate various specific needs and situations. A very unique DSLR.

You will no doubt find its superior imaging to be quite a noticeable improvement, even over your very good K-5. This is yet more likely in view of your having some very fine DA glass, from what you have indicated.

[totsmuyco]

If I have the money and I'd like to buy a new camera, what would stop me from getting a K-1 is a beautiful and exotic KP. It's just a gorgeous piece of equipment.

---

Last edited by totsmuyco; 05-10-2020 at 02:13 AM.

[RICHARD L.]

You can't go wrong with a Pentax K1, particularly as a landscape tool (here paired with the DFA 28-105 mm) ! You could even read that it was 5h30 AM on the photographer's watch, my watch of course ... lol!

[pranza]

let's get back to the topic: what STOPPED me from getting a K1

well well. pentax has a nice legacy of lenses. however, no digital camera of theirs autofocus screw drive properly, it's a gamble. their film slrs actually perform better in this regard. no matter which pentax dslr you take, you're not getting proper autofocus unless it's a new lens with internal motor - then it works as it should on any camera! 500 оr 1500 money camera – it will be the same.
that leads to importance of a nice viewfinder. by nice i mean large enough, bright enough and HAVING A SPLIT SCREEN / MICROPRISM to make focusing decision obvious and fast... why? because of nice manual lenses legacy and screwdrive AF being a joke! guess if it's there on а K100D Super that i've been using since 2007. no it's not. what about K1 some ten years later? no it's not! money is not an issue.. it's just not there for you. the basic function is not there for any money.
what's there then for three times the price in ten years? oh, lots of things and none of them matter except a 36mm sensor. actually, other things got worse or stayed the same. what's that?
usb 2.0 - it's last of importance but come on!
general ugliness. it's a winner. i couldn't find any other dslr as ugly as K1. why oh why. does it make it cheaper to produce? but K100d was entry level and looked proper and balanced. and now this top dial like a tyre from a toy automobile, that stubborn lcd screen which looks like an aftermarket mod (at least it's there...)
terrible ergonomics. after ricoh taking over it seems that ergonomics had a redesign for one handed aliens. where's the left hand button row now? why is the left side chopped off like with an axe? how's that supposed to help you shoot? hmm, is that to facilitate flipping now-rotatable screen to make selfies? umm, no, it doesn't flip. why oh why. the buttons and dials are put out so that you're touching the wrong ones all the time and that's being a pentax user! take an old film pentax, a new nikon - whatever, fingers just sit intuitively at right positions. no, not the case with K-1... even that one handed approach is not done properly - you can't dive your fingers deep enough into the grip to hold it properly as it's made for... err... alien hand? come on, even z1p is proper in this regard although it's considered a weirdly designed camera.
i've already talked about focusing screen... although it's larger on K1 than on K100D, it's still not fit for proper manual focusing. sigh.
i reaaaaallly wanted a 36mm pentax for my lenses and to be an upgrade for K100D which has too little colour in shadows (yes, just that apart from difficult focusing and slow burst speed)... but with such option... i even refused a £800 offer on a new k1 mk2.. it's... a really robustly built machine to solve non existing problems with worst ergonomics ever. yes it's full frame but i don't like CMOS too much anyway. I must say that K1 colors are more off than K100D. K100D gets it right in good light and with K1 it's not so natural... i find many CMOS cameras to have so many colours yet wrongly mapped somewhat, it's not a K1-only thing.

all in all i think ricoh has went out too far and will never return...

[Serkevan]

-Snip-

Wow, scathing. Also completely wrong. If you can't get AF to work well when people constantly show pinpoint-accurate images on the forum then there's a 99% chance of it being operator error .


Screwdrive works perfectly fine. Complaining about the third dial is a first, too. Also, the left hand is supposed to be holding the lens and - not so often - changing the AF settings and metering modes, not using 5 things that can be reached with a flick of a finger on the hand that is already operating the controls . The complaints about the screen and "general ugliness" is nonsensical. First, "ugliness" is completely subjective and, most importantly, a camera is a tool, not a fashion statement. This also applies to the screen, which is very practical for actual non-complainy use (and doesn't look like it's gonna break when you handle it wrong).


The focusing screen is the only thing you said that makes sense and I also wish that Ricoh shipped the camera with an alternative fast screen. Still, the standard one is sensitive to about f/2.4 so it's pretty decent for manual focus with f/2.8 lenses or slower. This is, however, not really different from everyone else.

---

Last edited by Serkevan; 05-10-2020 at 04:34 AM. Reason: I kinda left the last sentence halfway done (oops...)

[pschlute]

no digital camera of theirs autofocus screw drive properly, it's a gamble. their film slrs actually perform better in this regard. no matter which pentax dslr you take, you're not getting proper autofocus unless it's a new lens with internal motor

Nonsense. Any lens properly calibrated will focus perfectly with the K1.

I used a split prism screen on my K10 But the magnified LV of the K1 is much better than a new focus screen at nailing focus with a manual lens.

ps Lovely lens. Aquired a Hollywood myself last year. Great combo with the K1

[volley]

If you are buying a K1 you are likely taking FF photos and not cropping down to the cropped size of APS. Comparing 36 to 16 mp is not a comparison in FF printing. If one is purchasing a FF camera to use it in cropped mode with APS lenses....defeats the purpose and just stay with APS type cameras.
To me it is like buying a Doge Hellcat with 707 hp. You could use the 2nd key when you get in to always turn it to 500 hp. But that is not what you bought it for. If you wanted only 500hp then you would buy a different car.

Interesting analogy ... I think it is fair to assume the basically every Dodge Hellcat is used pretty much 100% of the time in "crop mode" and actually significantly cropped or what do you think can an average driver do with 700 hp? Not sure if the analogy is proving your point.

[normhead]

let's get back to the topic: what STOPPED me from getting a K1

well well. pentax has a nice legacy of lenses. however, no digital camera of theirs autofocus screw drive properly, it's a gamble. their film slrs actually perform better in this regard. no matter which pentax dslr you take, you're not getting proper autofocus unless it's a new lens with internal motor - then it works as it should on any camera! 500 оr 1500 money camera – it will be the same.
that leads to importance of a nice viewfinder. by nice i mean large enough, bright enough and HAVING A SPLIT SCREEN / MICROPRISM to make focusing decision obvious and fast... why? because of nice manual lenses legacy and screwdrive AF being a joke! guess if it's there on а K100D Super that i've been using since 2007. no it's not. what about K1 some ten years later? no it's not! money is not an issue.. it's just not there for you. the basic function is not there for any money.
what's there then for three times the price in ten years? oh, lots of things and none of them matter except a 36mm sensor. actually, other things got worse or stayed the same. what's that?
usb 2.0 - it's last of importance but come on!
general ugliness. it's a winner. i couldn't find any other dslr as ugly as K1. why oh why. does it make it cheaper to produce? but K100d was entry level and looked proper and balanced. and now this top dial like a tyre from a toy automobile, that stubborn lcd screen which looks like an aftermarket mod (at least it's there...)
terrible ergonomics. after ricoh taking over it seems that ergonomics had a redesign for one handed aliens. where's the left hand button row now? why is the left side chopped off like with an axe? how's that supposed to help you shoot? hmm, is that to facilitate flipping now-rotatable screen to make selfies? umm, no, it doesn't flip. why oh why. the buttons and dials are put out so that you're touching the wrong ones all the time and that's being a pentax user! take an old film pentax, a new nikon - whatever, fingers just sit intuitively at right positions. no, not the case with K-1... even that one handed approach is not done properly - you can't dive your fingers deep enough into the grip to hold it properly as it's made for... err... alien hand? come on, even z1p is proper in this regard although it's considered a weirdly designed camera.
i've already talked about focusing screen... although it's larger on K1 than on K100D, it's still not fit for proper manual focusing. sigh.
i reaaaaallly wanted a 36mm pentax for my lenses and to be an upgrade for K100D which has too little colour in shadows (yes, just that apart from difficult focusing and slow burst speed)... but with such option... i even refused a £800 offer on a new k1 mk2.. it's... a really robustly built machine to solve non existing problems with worst ergonomics ever. yes it's full frame but i don't like CMOS too much anyway. I must say that K1 colors are more off than K100D. K100D gets it right in good light and with K1 it's not so natural... i find many CMOS cameras to have so many colours yet wrongly mapped somewhat, it's not a K1-only thing.

all in all i think ricoh has went out too far and will never return...

But what do you really think? We get it done. You don't. That's on you.
There are many tests that show how wrong you are, but your attitude is such, I don't believe you could change your mind.

Why Facts Don?t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker

There is only one way anyone here accepts your erroneous opinions. They think you're smarter than they are and take your word for everything. Most of us are a little smarter than that.

[ThorSanchez]

Why didn't I buy a K-1? Because it costs $1500 or $1700, and most of my lenses are designed for APS-C. And it's bigger and heavier than the K-3ii. And it's slower. And I shoot a lot of sports, so I'd be compromising on frame rate, reach, and resolution or buying a $1500-2000 70-200 or 150-450 to get the shots I now get with a $1000 K-3ii + PLM rig.

In short, I'd have to spend over $3000 right out of the gate to get marginal gains (and in a few cases steps backwards) in most of my photography.

Don't get me wrong, if someone gave me a K-1 I'd take it and love it for a handful of use cases. But it's just not worth thousands and thousands of dollars to me.

[normhead]

Why didn't I buy a K-1? Because it costs $1500 or $1700, and most of my lenses are designed for APS-C. And it's bigger and heavier than the K-3ii. And it's slower. And I shoot a lot of sports, so I'd be compromising on frame rate, reach, and resolution or buying a $1500-2000 70-200 or 150-450 to get the shots I now get with a $1000 K-3ii + PLM rig.

In short, I'd have to spend over $3000 right out of the gate to get marginal gains (and in a few cases steps backwards) in most of my photography.

Don't get me wrong, if someone gave me a K-1 I'd take it and love it for a handful of use cases. But it's just not worth thousands and thousands of dollars to me.

I doubt it's worth thousands more to anyone. But it does bring us a lot of joy. As my baseball, tennis, camping and a lot of other activities are going by the wayside, I'm 71 now, photography is a lot of what keeps me happy. I don't spend money on tennis rackets and balls or $400 baseball bats, tournament and league registration fees, or club memberships for tennis and court fees. My recreational opportunities are extremely limited. So spending money on camera gear is pretty much all I have left. (Although I still play rec volleyball.) A camera is a really good way to keep yourself busy and active in retirement. For young families with lots of bills and not so much money, well, in that situation I had one film camera and one lens and I could only afford film a few times a year. MY daughter ended up .03 seconds away from qualifying for the Olympics (in swimming) and I spent 20% of my income on my kids' swimming instruction, because that's what they loved. It's nice to be able to do what makes me happy now.

For some reason, all things being equal, my K-1 makes me happier than my K-3. Although by that criteria I'm sure a K-P would as well. I've always been a fan of bigger cameras is what it comes down to for me. Started at 8 years old with 120 film on a 6.25x6.25 camera. Even 35mm never felt like a "real" camera to me.

Sad, but true. You can criticize your own tastes, but you can't change them. They are what they are.

[Dartmoor Dave]

let's get back to the topic: what STOPPED me from getting a K1...

As my dear old Grandma Madge always used to say:
"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

[Serkevan]

As my dear old Grandma Madge always used to say:
"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

We have a similar saying in my home region of Spain that goes "There's no bad tool for a skilled workman".

[aslyfox]

I have quickly read through the thread here is my 2 cents worth

K - 1 and K -1 II reputedly are great cameras ( I say reputedly because I have been avoiding them - why - I might like them )

I have no reasons to doubt their supporters but as even their supporters will admit

they are not for everyone for various reasons

my " full frame sensor " camera bodies are some Pentax film bodies Z 1, Super Program and ME Super which I got in December and January

I like my K 3, K 3 II and KP for what they are and how I use them .

bottom line, the choice is for the individual photographer and I, for one, will never say to that person you made the wrong choice ( except as perhaps a clear joke )

and I have seen posted excellent photos taken using numerous types of Pentax Cameras and lenses which convince me that often it is the skill of the photographer regardless of the equipment being used