[RICHARD L.]

Guys, I understand your irony but most people who own and use a Pentax K1 love the resulting pictures. I look at the pictures it produces, not at the wheels or whatever is on top of the camera body. If someone doesn't like it, they just have to choose something else that suits their tastes and their needs, be it another model, another format or another make ...

[Serkevan]

Emphasis mine

So at least for me the whole argument is meaningless. You don't get bonus marks for producing an image the exact same as the original scene, you get bonus marks for creating images people like to look at. I would have bought the K-1, just for the PP time it saves me, all other things being equal.

And if you are shooting jpeg with filters, lets not even discuss colour accuracy. That's not what filters design for specific effects are about. Shoot with your sepia filter... are you really going to discuss colour accuracy?

Wholeheartedly agreed with the conclusion. Since Craig said that the files were exported from Adobe Camera Raw (I mean, I managed to get pretty close with just some adjustments to the Red channel and no touching up of the exposure itself, or the tone curve, so I still think the conditions were pretty similar) I think we won't know exactly what was going on... and it doesn't matter anyway. Maybe OP dodged and burned. Maybe they bounced flash on the ceiling or the light directly above was a cluster of LEDs and one of them was broken for one of the pictures, decreasing the intensity. It's all irrelevant, because processing fixes any grievances. Thus, their comment about the sensor and color accuracy is wrong at best and dishonest at worst.

And here we are, three perfectly grown people over-analyzing an image just to arrive at the obvious conclusion

[normhead]

Emphasis mine

Wholeheartedly agreed with the conclusion. Since Craig said that the files were exported from Adobe Camera Raw (I mean, I managed to get pretty close with just some adjustments to the Red channel and no touching up of the exposure itself, or the tone curve, so I still think the conditions were pretty similar) I think we won't know exactly what was going on... and it doesn't matter anyway. Maybe OP dodged and burned. Maybe they bounced flash on the ceiling or the light directly above was a cluster of LEDs and one of them was broken for one of the pictures, decreasing the intensity. It's all irrelevant, because processing fixes any grievances. Thus, their comment about the sensor and color accuracy is wrong at best and dishonest.

And here we are, three perfectly grown people over-analyzing an image just to arrive at the obvious conclusion

It was that little light the goes off in your head and thinks (like jack Bauer) "there's something wrong here", some of us can't let it go. Until you start actually investigating, and you realize, no matter what you do you can't know anything 100%. Then you can let it go.

---------- Post added 05-12-20 at 10:17 AM ----------

Guys, I understand your irony but most people who own and use a Pentax K1 love the resulting pictures. I look at the pictures it produces, not at the wheels or whatever is on top of the camera body. If someone doesn't like it, they just have to choose something else that suits their tastes and their needs, be it another model, another format or another make ...

The dynamic range is to die for.

[gatorguy]

I think that if I bought one, I’d be content with the two of the three amigos (31 and 77) my FA 50 1.4 and the legacy glass I have covering the wider and longer ends.[COLOR="Silver"]

Ditto, except using the HD FA50 1.4. I've not felt any need for the 43.

On the short my12-24 should cover what I need and on the long end my *200 and *300 should do. I'm lucky in that nearly all of my existing lenses were already FF-compatible.

After renting it twice in the past three years yet resisting the purchase of my own I've finally succumbed. My K1 will be here Friday. The worst that happens is I sell it in a few months for what I paid for it. The best would be it's all that those K1 fans here say it is.

EDIT: Bonus! Tamron 70-200 for $410 shipped. I really hope it's as flawless as the seller says, but he does offer a 14 day no-questions return window so that's reassuring. I do believe my camera gear is complete, at least until K-New.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 05-12-2020 at 03:30 PM.

[monochrome]

I bought a K-1. I have no complaints. I sold my K-5lls and I’m not keeping my DA Limited lenses. I won’t need the K-new at all except as a me too toy.

I can manually focus any lens in my extensive collection handheld through the OVF and nail focus consistently. My only downside is 4fps when casually shooting grandchildren, so I will keep the KP and use FA Limiteds.

[c.a.m]

And here we are, three perfectly grown people over-analyzing an image just to arrive at the obvious conclusion

And I don't even own a K-1.

- Craig

[normhead]

And I don't even own a K-1.

- Craig

It's the principle of the thing.

[VSTAR]

You have to know, if you drive a Vet, some people will be in awe, some people will think it's pretentious. No sense in getting worked up about it. You take the good with the bad. Pretty much the same as Pentax. I would have thought any experienced Vet owner would be over it by now.

Never owned a vet! This had nothing to do with vets..,it had to do with not bashing Pentax products and instead ask what are the positives you like about, I.e. the k1. This “snob” has been over it a longtime ago. If not I would not own Pentax brand camera equipment.

[noelpolar]

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 .......

All so true for a lot of us I'd say. In my case.... from about the K5 on.... a photo that is good for "me" that I got right would be prettly well much camera idependent. Most of my stuff now is for enjoyment.... not better photo outcomes that matter really.

[MarkJerling]

.. AF is fine in Pentax terms! Pentax-fine means you'd never want to go with that camera to shoot wedding or sports......

That is, of course, absolute nonsense. As I have gone from a K-5 to a K-1II I can tell you that it's not only a big step up, but also the critisism of the K-1II's focussing ability is completely unfounded.

What I also discovered that K1 uses the same dreadful sensor as a Nikon D800. Why dreadful? Well, because the colours are off. Once one guy came to my place and did a shooting with a D800 when it was just released. Zeiss glass and all that. I was so excited, asked to leave some files to me to check. And heck, The colours of a sofa were wrong! The green LED of one of my devices in the photo was so weirdly green... "fresh leaves green" and completely not the colour of that LED.

More nonsense. I have not seen any colour issues with the K-1II's sensor. To suggest that it would be the same as that experienced by another photograper with a Nikon D800 is bizarre.

I suggest you try a K-1II and then try to talk the talk you're talking.

[stevebrot]

I suggest you try a K-1II and then try to talk the talk you're talking.

They did, but felt the color rendering sucked. User is enamored with their K100D.


Steve

[normhead]

They did, but felt the color rendering sucked. User is enamored with their K100D.


Steve

He didn't even say he liked it. He believed it was technically more accurate.
Which of course was a non-testable theory.

[mikesbike]

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

Well, in the original topic, the concerns and the circumstances of the OP are given, and I believe appropriately responded to. But here, this poster, aside from the size and weight issue, brings up their own reasons for rejecting the K-1 or K-1II, which are far removed from the OP's concerns. The OP is seeking a next effective step for an upgrade from the OP's current K-5, and finds reservations regarding the K-1II as an option. Since the OP already owns an extensive arsenal of fine DA lenses, and prefers relatively compact camera bodies, the overall responses have offered logical alternative suggestions to the K-1II idea, in the form of a more advanced APS-C body.

This poster brings up a host of other objections to the K-1, none of which are pertinent to the interests of the OP, so not really getting back to the topic at all. It seems he has had difficulty adapting to changes in ergonomics and controls designed to function with advancements this poster dismisses as worthless. The K100D is offered as the best-ever Pentax DSLR, and a fondness is expressed for the older MF Pentax 35mm film SLR bodies, along with their larger, brighter viewfinders, which sport a split image (emphasized in bold letters) design for "proper" focusing. In his opinion, the VF of the K-1 is utter crap.

I used Pentax 35mm film MF SLR bodies for many years. Yes many had a large, bright VF of the type he prefers. But some were actually a bit too large, especially for glasses-wearers, because it was often difficult to see the info display at the border. AF or automatic anything is not guaranteed to be accurate 100% of the time, regardless of brand. The idea one cannot get fine results with a Pentax DSLR just shooting photos at a wedding is utter nonsense. We're not talking fast-action sports here, using long-range tele lenses doing burst shooting with multiple-point AF tracking!

As to the split-image VF for focus accuracy, there is no guarantee here either. Such screens actually provide 3 focus aids- the outer matte area, then a small area around the center- kind of a prism-type that will glitter when focus is off and be smooth and clear as focus is achieved, then the split-image type in the center. The split image type needs some subject matter having clear edges to line up (not always there or in the right place), that is why the other focus aids are present as well. I eventually trained my eye to do a better job just using the matte screen, as newer models appeared only having this installed. But not everyone's vision is the same. Since newer models had developed more features, etc. especially when the AF technology arrived, more info was added into the border of the VF, making a reduction in size necessary so this info could be seen.

I used a Pentax K100D Super for a number of years. I was still shooting film when I wanted better quality, as I did not find the digital technology to be quite as good yet at this point. But I eventually got the K200D, which I found to definitely be more satisfactory (still CCD). It was a game-changer. Noticeably improved resolution, more control over factors like dynamic range, highlight protection, etc, good ergonomics in the hand, and much better WR construction. It tends to under-expose some, which can be easily compensated for. It served me well for a number of years. Since then I've come a long way, in my own evaluation. I have appreciated and taken advantage of the advancements that have come forth.

Then there's color accuracy, this poster finds seriously wanting. Lab tests, even from some time back, revealed that even the least accurate DSLR had much better color accuracy than does the most accurate color film! Also, there was a recent posting here of a camera reviewer doing test shots with the K-1 compared to a Nikon, I believe, showing the K-1 having superior color accuracy. In terms of right out of the camera, Pentax might be the only brand to offer a variety of color palettes according to subject types, and in-camera adjustability of color palettes. Otherwise, the color palette is largely dependent on post processing, as is so with many factors.

As to AF, it is possible this poster has never discovered how best to employ AF for best results.

As stated, the VF of APS-C DSLR bodies is of necessity smaller than that of a FF DSLR body. That taken into account, if this poster cannot distinguish a very useful advantage between the even smaller and dimmer pentamirror VF of the K100D (and K200D), and the larger, brighter pro-style glass pentaprism VF of the K-5, K-3, and certainly the KP's improvement from 92x to 95x magnification, all with 100% frame coverage, let alone that of the K-1, then it is no surprise that a split-image screen is needed by this person. In some models one of these can be installed.

This poster should be advised, the K-1's out-of-camera JPEG images are not optimized at default. Sharpening is conservative to give laterality for post but can be optimized with in-camera adjustments. Perhaps this was not done, and a false impression has resulted. Otherwise, if this poster can see no substantial difference in resolution between the K100D and the K-1, or for that matter the K-5, K-3, or KP- then by all means the best advice is to keep on shooting with the K100D and those old MF 35mm film cameras!!

[Serkevan]

He didn't even say he liked it. He believed it was technically more accurate.
Which of course was a non-testable theory.

Nah, it's easily tested and proven wrong. If three clicks in LR make the images between the cameras look the same, then what is the point of going on about the accuracy?

[pranza]

Thanks for the input, y'all!
You made me realise the K1 is not as bad as it seemed. Pics of birds are absolutely nice colour wise and indeed put together side to side with fifteen years old technology it's apparent that never mind the shortcomings the progress is there and it's to the better

As for my mannequin comparison files - I remember going to a camera store with my K100D Super and K28 f2... they had K1 mk2 and I made a shot with my lens on it, and then on K100 with same lens, minute apart. K1 must have had a date set wrong as now I found the original files. It's here for the curious: http://audiomastering.lt/k100k1.zip
I don't remember if some lights went on or off during that time - maybe more likely that some reflection from a door or something might have caused something, yet even if so, both cameras still differ by a good amount which couldn't be mimicked with single camera in different light situation. I shoot raw and then deal with the stuff in photoshop / camera raw. Not sure why one K1's file was DNG.. for that reason i put some PEF from that same trial in the zip as well.

Anyway, I just had a job restoring some data from a photo archive disks and there happened to be some K1 files. Well, I preferred them to a Canon 5D MK3 in several occasions. So yes, the K1 is not a disaster, it is indeed keeping up with other cameras of its time. Although now it's perhaps a bit too late to think about one, as prices are still the same and new better cameras come out and K2 should appear soon and maybe it will be um.. a little nicer?