[surfar]

I'm tempted to ask if you'd like to make a special guest appearance at our weekly stand-up comedy show.

No spots available, CameraDeVaudVILLE has that show booked out for months!

Oh Wait,Hes gone...PranzaNewFace can get a start.

[pranza]

well.. he's kind of gone... in a way... as i decided not to K1 once again.. was offered a new K1 ii last week for €900 and passed it on...
i've looked through a pile of raw material from different cameras and often preferred the look of canon 6d or even 5d, athough they look very _journalistic_.. somehow every camera manufacturer got their own way of pixel data processing and you can feel it in many occurences... i also tried doing "blind tests", that is guessing what camera was that picture taken with. glass of course also plays a big role but somehow even with zeiss canon tends to look canonish. anyway, i won't post anything here as it was not my material, that's someone's archives.
at the same time i have found a camera that i'd like to give a try, and it's also not perfect but it also should shine at least in one regard... and K1 shines in none regard. there are better cameras in every way - be it ergonomics, speed of operation, AF perfomance or sensor. the only desirable thing it has is a K mount... so i'd rather retrofit these K lenses to something else.
so far i have nothing more to say... once the 'new' camera is in my hands i would be able to say more - was that decision good or not... if i get it at all, sent some guy the money, risky stuff...

[Serkevan]

and K1 shines in none regard. there are better cameras in every way - be it ergonomics, speed of operation, AF perfomance or sensor.

Eh, I disagree. The K-1 is IME the most comfortable camera to use. As per the pixel data, sure, if you look at JPG images then you'll be able to spot the manufacturer's defaults. I said it before in the thread, it takes 2 minutes to go from the K-1 "look" to the K100D one in Lightroom, and this goes as well for different manufacturers. One just has to know what they are doing.


There is no camera that you can get for the money of a K-1 that has better IQ, ergonomics, features and overall performance. I even doubt that there's a camera that you can get that has better speed of operation, period. TAv and Av modes with third dial give you basically instantaneous control in any complicated light.

[Kevin B123]

well.. he's kind of gone... in a way... as i decided not to K1 once again.. was offered a new K1 ii last week for €900 and passed it on...
i've looked through a pile of raw material from different cameras and often preferred the look of canon 6d or even 5d, athough they look very _journalistic_.. somehow every camera manufacturer got their own way of pixel data processing and you can feel it in many occurences... i also tried doing "blind tests", that is guessing what camera was that picture taken with. glass of course also plays a big role but somehow even with zeiss canon tends to look canonish. anyway, i won't post anything here as it was not my material, that's someone's archives.
at the same time i have found a camera that i'd like to give a try, and it's also not perfect but it also should shine at least in one regard... and K1 shines in none regard. there are better cameras in every way - be it ergonomics, speed of operation, AF perfomance or sensor. the only desirable thing it has is a K mount... so i'd rather retrofit these K lenses to something else.
so far i have nothing more to say... once the 'new' camera is in my hands i would be able to say more - was that decision good or not... if i get it at all, sent some guy the money, risky stuff...

If you find a new K-1ii for 900 euro, please post it in the leads to deals section. The rest is nonsense, you are trolling.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/94-pentax-price-watch/

---

Last edited by Kevin B123; 06-20-2020 at 05:40 AM. Reason: Link added

[normhead]

well.. he's kind of gone... in a way... as i decided not to K1 once again.. was offered a new K1 ii last week for €900 and passed it on...
i've looked through a pile of raw material from different cameras and often preferred the look of canon 6d or even 5d, athough they look very _journalistic_.. somehow every camera manufacturer got their own way of pixel data processing and you can feel it in many occurences... i also tried doing "blind tests", that is guessing what camera was that picture taken with. glass of course also plays a big role but somehow even with zeiss canon tends to look canonish. anyway, i won't post anything here as it was not my material, that's someone's archives.
at the same time i have found a camera that i'd like to give a try, and it's also not perfect but it also should shine at least in one regard... and K1 shines in none regard. there are better cameras in every way - be it ergonomics, speed of operation, AF perfomance or sensor. the only desirable thing it has is a K mount... so i'd rather retrofit these K lenses to something else.
so far i have nothing more to say... once the 'new' camera is in my hands i would be able to say more - was that decision good or not... if i get it at all, sent some guy the money, risky stuff...

Why do you think we care what you get. You don't like Pentax colour values, you prefer 6D images to K-1 images.

According to DxO a K-1 is 12th on the current camera list. I'd tell you where a 6D and 5d rate but they are so far down I'd spend all day counting their position. You clearly aren't capable of understanding the work of real testers with real test equipment.

6D rated at 85 Pentax K-5 rated at 82. A 6D is comparable to 9 yer old Pentax gear.
Only the Canon 5D mk4 is rated within 5 points of the K-1, which is significant because in my experience 5 points on DxO is visible in prints and images.

No one reputable photographer anywhere on this planet agrees with you that 6D images are better than K-1 images, yet you continue to make a fool of yourself. The 6D falls 11 DxO points behind the K-1. That is double the amount for an experienced photographer to see a difference.

What you seem to have done here is come in with some very biased opinions and just ignored people who respond to you, carrying on with your own myopic search unchanging in the face of people who've tried to help you out.

I know of two working pros that within my vicinity who have switched from Canon to Nikon. And I'm supposed to listen to some rank amatueur promoting Canon colour values? Seriously?

Did you come here just to inform of us the results of probably the most biased search I've ever seen?

What is your expertise, why should we care what you pick? All I'm getting here is that someone who does a fraction the research I do when I look at camera gear, and has fraction the knowledge of various brands etc. most of us here do, is going to make a choice. Again, why do you think we should care? Do you actually think you are so advanced in photography that people should care what you shoot?

People get sucked in by the marketing of major corporations selling measurably inferior product every day. We certainly aren't hoping to keep a running tally of the insanity here on the forum.

You antipathy towards Pentax gear will be taken with a grain of salt. You don't know Pentax and you're not going to give them a fair shot. That's my only take away from this whole thread.

We love helping people. We hate having people who can't be helped waste our time.

Look at the camera charts at DxO
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/

Compare the images taken by the cameras you are interested in at Imagine Resources.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/reviews/

Stop wasting everyone's time.

[Rondec]

well.. he's kind of gone... in a way... as i decided not to K1 once again.. was offered a new K1 ii last week for €900 and passed it on...
i've looked through a pile of raw material from different cameras and often preferred the look of canon 6d or even 5d, athough they look very _journalistic_.. somehow every camera manufacturer got their own way of pixel data processing and you can feel it in many occurences... i also tried doing "blind tests", that is guessing what camera was that picture taken with. glass of course also plays a big role but somehow even with zeiss canon tends to look canonish. anyway, i won't post anything here as it was not my material, that's someone's archives.
at the same time i have found a camera that i'd like to give a try, and it's also not perfect but it also should shine at least in one regard... and K1 shines in none regard. there are better cameras in every way - be it ergonomics, speed of operation, AF perfomance or sensor. the only desirable thing it has is a K mount... so i'd rather retrofit these K lenses to something else.
so far i have nothing more to say... once the 'new' camera is in my hands i would be able to say more - was that decision good or not... if i get it at all, sent some guy the money, risky stuff...

I still am totally unclear as to the issues you see. If it is all colors then that is easy to fix in post. And if you are a jpeg shooter there are a lot of settings too, but I can't imagine spending that much on a camera to shoot jpeg.

It is pretty clear for landscape the K-1 is a better camera, particularly when you factor in pixel shift which really gives a medium format look to cheaper gear. But you should do what makes you happy, just don't expect a lot of the folks on Pentax Forums to agree with you...

[HDpotato]

well.. he's kind of gone... in a way... as i decided not to K1 once again.. was offered a new K1 ii last week for €900 and passed it on...
i've looked through a pile of raw material from different cameras and often preferred the look of canon 6d or even 5d, athough they look very _journalistic_.. somehow every camera manufacturer got their own way of pixel data processing and you can feel it in many occurences... i also tried doing "blind tests", that is guessing what camera was that picture taken with. glass of course also plays a big role but somehow even with zeiss canon tends to look canonish. anyway, i won't post anything here as it was not my material, that's someone's archives.
at the same time i have found a camera that i'd like to give a try, and it's also not perfect but it also should shine at least in one regard... and K1 shines in none regard. there are better cameras in every way - be it ergonomics, speed of operation, AF perfomance or sensor. the only desirable thing it has is a K mount... so i'd rather retrofit these K lenses to something else.
so far i have nothing more to say... once the 'new' camera is in my hands i would be able to say more - was that decision good or not... if i get it at all, sent some guy the money, risky stuff...

This is interesting, however I fail to understand the point of this? Do you post this information to get counter arguments?

I'm by no means a Pentax disciple, quite literally moved from another system a few months ago. Just to get that context in there.

Ergonomics. They are partly subjective. Some like a big honking DSLR, others a rangefinder body, some like dial and program layout like the fujis, others the pres-turn combo of Nikon etc. etc. - you can't determine succesful ergonomic quantiutively as you can't measure it. That that ergonomics of a Pentax don't suit your needs, fair enough. But unless your issues are idiosyncrasies, they can't really count as a real argument for others to follow.

Speed of Operation. Do you mean frames per second? Fair enough, the FPS of the K1/K1ii is low and the buffer is useless. If you shoot sports, fast action etc.

AF Performance. It's not brilliant, I'll give you that. Compared to a Sony A9 is absolute pants. But then again, the K1 isn't geared towards that segmet, if you look at the features that Pentax did invest in. Astrotracer, pixelshift, great illumination for night photography etc. - and remember the price point.

Sensor. Check DXOmark. It's a great sensor. It may share its sensor with some of the Nikon D8XX-series, but not the processing. A sensor is just a cluster of photosites, like a solar panel. How the readouts are interpreted, that's where the difference is.

-

That you prefer the look of the output of a certain camera is absolutely fair enough - I have my preferences also - with Fujifilm having some of the best colors I have seen, expecially the aging X-T1. However, the color reproduction is not all that important in my opinion - most photographers who invest time and money into a dedicated system will post-process to their liking anyway. Big question is whether the 'default' aligns a little or a lot with your wanted end-result.


So for some input, let me tell you why I did get a K1ii. Not trying to beat an old horse, but perhaps it could put some things into perspective.
-Great ergonomics. Thats subjective, but I like the button layouts, the wheel-combo and a big, honking DSLR (after shooting mirrorless for a few years, and DSLR and SLRs for years prior to switching)
-Good weatherresistance.

-Some interesting lenses to choose from, I love shooting vintage stuff, and the confirmation beep works great in the OVF.
-Dynamic range, which was an upgrade from my past Fuji and Nikon cameras.
-It was a steal, so price was also a factor
-Its suits my kind of photography. Landscape, street and general slow-moving stuff.

[Wheatfield]

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...

It’s hard to count how much wrong there is in this post there is so much of it.

[pranza]

hi guys,
yes i told the guy who was selling a k1 about this marketplace, but it went on local ads in three days here.
why didn't i mention nikon in my comparisons? well, because the raw material i was digging contained only some pentaxes and canons pictures. by the way, K5's colours were pretty nice and likable in many occasions, i'd say nicer than K1's.
as for nikons i feel that they have best ergonomics by far.. of any camera. d300 feels such a pro tool and sits in hand like no other.. but it got that early nasty cmos sensor and hard to tame colours and that's why i prefer nikon d200 to it... but d200 has quite a low rez and old ccd shortcomings just like a k100d.. yet k100d is more compact, but slower. what do i mean by 'slow camera'? that is reaction time between push of a button and "clack" making... pentax can be so moody and decide to wait a bit, especially if it had some shot done just moments ago... or even if the object seems out of focus to it, even if AF is turned off!
as for colour tweaking in post, well, i want it to be nice or true to life to start with... in that regard k100d or nikon d200 never upsets, all of 465D pics are also fine. i think that has to do with ccd technology. it seems that cmos can catch more nuances in colour but also misinterpret in a strange ways. with last generation cmos it's better - new ricoh gr or sigma fp images looks really fine be it a bright or twilight situation.

as for dxo tests.. they're like all synthetic tests - it can say you almost nothing about overall experience. my raid card shows gigabyte per second performance with mechanical drives if test data size is not large enough... all get cached buffered optimized and outsmarted by raid processor.. in reality it's around 20 to 100 megs
same goes for amplifiers - you can find a [potty mouth word deleted by mod] and cheap one with little measured distortion (depends on how it's measured...), and a good one for ton of money that looks mediocre on paper yet sings!
same goes for my leica 3f - it's a fifties design, "window" glass (no shmancy coatings), it's even not in calibration and still i make my best film shots with it, it has that! it's not just a matter of human-machine interaction i think... and way beyond reach of dxo tests if you measured k28 f2 lens it's not a great nor sharp lens but it has sweet spots where nothing touches it. the new k zeiss is not that, no matter that it's sharper... it's very subtle and all art is subtle, devil is in the details. theoretically everything is possible to make in post and some people are good at it, but even in post they often are after some look that was already achieved someway naturally in the past...

[normhead]

hi guys,
yes i told the guy who was selling a k1 about this marketplace, but it went on local ads in three days here.
why didn't i mention nikon in my comparisons? well, because the raw material i was digging contained only some pentaxes and canons pictures. by the way, K5's colours were pretty nice and likable in many occasions, i'd say nicer than K1's.
as for nikons i feel that they have best ergonomics by far.. of any camera. d300 feels such a pro tool and sits in hand like no other.. but it got that early nasty cmos sensor and hard to tame colours and that's why i prefer nikon d200 to it... but d200 has quite a low rez and old ccd shortcomings just like a k100d.. yet k100d is more compact, but slower. what do i mean by 'slow camera'? that is reaction time between push of a button and "clack" making... pentax can be so moody and decide to wait a bit, especially if it had some shot done just moments ago... or even if the object seems out of focus to it, even if AF is turned off!
as for colour tweaking in post, well, i want it to be nice or true to life to start with... in that regard k100d or nikon d200 never upsets, all of 465D pics are also fine. i think that has to do with ccd technology. it seems that cmos can catch more nuances in colour but also misinterpret in a strange ways. with last generation cmos it's better - new ricoh gr or sigma fp images looks really fine be it a bright or twilight situation.

as for dxo tests.. they're like all synthetic tests - it can say you almost nothing about overall experience. my raid card shows gigabyte per second performance with mechanical drives if test data size is not large enough... all get cached buffered optimized and outsmarted by raid processor.. in reality it's around 20 to 100 megs
same goes for amplifiers - you can find a [potty mouth word deleted by mod] and cheap one with little measured distortion (depends on how it's measured...), and a good one for ton of money that looks mediocre on paper yet sings!
same goes for my leica 3f - it's a fifties design, "window" glass (no shmancy coatings), it's even not in calibration and still i make my best film shots with it, it has that! it's not just a matter of human-machine interaction i think... and way beyond reach of dxo tests if you measured k28 f2 lens it's not a great nor sharp lens but it has sweet spots where nothing touches it. the new k zeiss is not that, no matter that it's sharper... it's very subtle and all art is subtle, devil is in the details. theoretically everything is possible to make in post and some people are good at it, but even in post they often are after some look that was already achieved someway naturally in the past...

You're hilarious, you spout all kinds of meaningless technical gobbledygook, dismiss anyone who does standardized repeatable testing. Insist on using tests for reference that you can't even share. Imagine Reousrces and DXO have built their credibility over years. You criticize them, every one does. But I can be critical without saying they mean nothing. They do have applications, there is meaning there you can tease for valuable information.

And you continue to embarrass yourself with your lack of understanding of anything photographic.

I'm willing to bet if you actually posted some pictures you claim represent your data points we could find all kinds of errors and deficiencies in your testing methods. But you're clearly dodging that, probably because you've actually got nothing.. Only by declaring yourself the chief judge of everything with bogus knowledge you claim to not be able to share, do you even try and claim credibility.

Do you not understand how unintelligent it makes you look, and how unintelligent we'd have to be to accept your unpublished, unrepeatable, and untestable findings?

I have seen no evidence, either in posted images or in your comments that suggest you know anything about photography, yet you continue to blather on as if you might convince someone other wise. The odds are extremely against you given the quality of your observations so far. No one even knows what you're talking about, and it appears you don't either.

Why not prove your a photographer? At this point I find it hard to believe anyone who's actually taken a picture could hold such opinions.

But here's my advice for everyone on the subject of art and photography.

Don't take advice from anyone if you don't admire their images. Learn from those who do what you want to do, not the theoretical BSers.

The reason for that being there are many styles and subjects in photography each with their own demands. What's relevant to the wildlife shooter is not relevant to the macro shooter. The gear you select must be appropriate for the subjects you shoot. There is no "one camera is the best for everything", as you seem to be implying.

That leaves you out in the cold. You're too much of a coward to back up your opinions with images that would tell us you know what you're talking about, or even which individuals (if any) might benefit from your advice. At least to date, that's the case.

I have no idea why you think you're qualified to tell anyone anything about anything.

Your approach just won't cut it here.

Aren't you wondering why people haven't come in droves to interact with your advice and learn more? Smarter people than me probably put your thread on ignore after your first post.

[hjoseph7]

DXO consistently grades Nikon cameras on top. However, Canon cameras still command a large percentage of the Market. It can't be all marketing or
Mass hysteria...

[normhead]

DXO consistently grades Nikon cameras on top. However, Canon cameras still command a large percentage of the Market. It can't be all marketing or
Mass hysteria...

As with any repeatable testing there are reasons for that.

Camera companies do different levels of internal processing.

I have my Lumix ZS100 images which I shoot in raw. Even the raw images come in over sharpened and need to have sharpening turned off completely and contrast reduced t be to my liking, Canon consistently come in at noise levels I find unacceptable. Canon gets the same resolution out of 30 MP sensor Pentax does out of a 36 MP sensor.

Once DxO is done with the images, it turns out the the Canon image is where you would think it would be for 30 MP sensor. 5 Points behind the K-1, which in my expereince is significant, if just barely.

So what does DxO do for you? It standardizes the noise levels and give you the actual MP after noise reduction and when the noise reduction is applied with constant effect across various systems.

Folks like our antagonist here, because they lack processing skills go for the hi res, hi noise look. Many people do. It's a common thing. Pentax, with their image processor do noise reduction in camera. That lowers the resolution of the output image, but if you don't like noise, it does a more efficient job of bringing the image to the standard you hope for. Those of us who have processing skills just want a blank canvas we can work with. No Panasonic sharpening artifacts that I can't get rid of because they are right in the raw file. Nothing else added. Just bit of noise reduction you'd need to do anyway. For my own work, I prefer using micro contrast to sharpening and I'm finding the Canon/Panasonic model not at all to my liking.

Or as Pentax used to say "images for the way people take pictures not for the test charts."

SO even though some companies may test out well on test charts, that doesn't mean you'll like the images, or that that test chart resolution will be maintained when noise reduction is applied.
It's odd that our OP isn't aware of that.

DxO on the other hand levels the playing field and tells you what you'll have when you're done with it, not what the all over the map starting point is. Some people want to fiddle with their own noise reduction and sharpening, and don't want to do what I do with micro-contrast. They like those cameras more. But for a lot of us , we want to be hands on, we want the negative to be a negative, not the finished product. There's no right way here, just different ways of doing things. The only problem being when some thinks that because his/her way is right for him/her, it should be right for every body.

And the levels of expertise in those shooting point and shoots etc. they know one system. They think everything should be like their point and shoot. Contrasted to the point of blasting highlights and blackening shadows, oversharpend to the point of creating sharpening artifacts.. The Canon low DR look high contrast look.

It's just not for everyone.

DxO tells you what you get with good consistent noise reduction. Not every one cares or even understands noise reduction. They think that noisey high contrast image they just posted with sharpening artifacts is the cats meow. More power to them, it's no sweat off my back. If that's what you like go for it, just don't be telling everyone it's the "right way" or the way it should be.

It should have been of interest to the OP that Pentax lens design has favoured "images people like" for a very long time, and if you enjoy the philosophy of Pentax lens design, you might want to experience the philosophy that goes with it in Pentax sensor design. The two things are a matched pair.

It seems odd to me that a person would use K-mount glass, on a system not designed for it. I suspect what happens is the Pentax lens design with it's focus on smooth out of focus areas etc. tempers that harshness of other systems and makes the images more enjoyable. Again "images for the way people take pictures not for the test charts." And maybe a Pentax lens on a Sony or Canon or whatever is the amount of Pentax magic they want. But you'd think they'd go with the sensor built for the lenses, as opposed to sensors built around a completely different philosophy.

[Wasp]

To answer the question - a K1 II is just too expensive in South Africa! The asking price is USD2900 and that is way, way more than I can afford. It is available on pre-order only, BTW.

Edit: to put that into context, the price for a Canon EOS RP body is USD1030. Yes, I know that is a very different thing, but it will scratch my full frame itch for a whole lot less. I can buy a lot of lenses for the difference. A more comparable camera, the Nikon D780, is USD 2570.

[Dartmoor Dave]

hi guys,
yes i told the guy who was selling a k1 about this marketplace, but it went on local ads in three days here.
why didn't i mention nikon in my comparisons? well, because the raw material i was digging contained only some pentaxes and canons pictures. by the way, K5's colours were pretty nice and likable in many occasions, i'd say nicer than K1's.
as for nikons i feel that they have best ergonomics by far.. of any camera. d300 feels such a pro tool and sits in hand like no other.. but it got that early nasty cmos sensor and hard to tame colours and that's why i prefer nikon d200 to it... but d200 has quite a low rez and old ccd shortcomings just like a k100d.. yet k100d is more compact, but slower. what do i mean by 'slow camera'? that is reaction time between push of a button and "clack" making... pentax can be so moody and decide to wait a bit, especially if it had some shot done just moments ago... or even if the object seems out of focus to it, even if AF is turned off!
as for colour tweaking in post, well, i want it to be nice or true to life to start with... in that regard k100d or nikon d200 never upsets, all of 465D pics are also fine. i think that has to do with ccd technology. it seems that cmos can catch more nuances in colour but also misinterpret in a strange ways. with last generation cmos it's better - new ricoh gr or sigma fp images looks really fine be it a bright or twilight situation.

as for dxo tests.. they're like all synthetic tests - it can say you almost nothing about overall experience. my raid card shows gigabyte per second performance with mechanical drives if test data size is not large enough... all get cached buffered optimized and outsmarted by raid processor.. in reality it's around 20 to 100 megs
same goes for amplifiers - you can find a [potty mouth word deleted by mod] and cheap one with little measured distortion (depends on how it's measured...), and a good one for ton of money that looks mediocre on paper yet sings!
same goes for my leica 3f - it's a fifties design, "window" glass (no shmancy coatings), it's even not in calibration and still i make my best film shots with it, it has that! it's not just a matter of human-machine interaction i think... and way beyond reach of dxo tests if you measured k28 f2 lens it's not a great nor sharp lens but it has sweet spots where nothing touches it. the new k zeiss is not that, no matter that it's sharper... it's very subtle and all art is subtle, devil is in the details. theoretically everything is possible to make in post and some people are good at it, but even in post they often are after some look that was already achieved someway naturally in the past...

Well. . . first of all, congratulations on the most successful trolling of this forum without getting banned (yet) that I think I've ever seen.

But then you had to bring amplifiers into it.

My head tells me that if they measure the same, they should sound the same. Everything I believe on the most fundamental level tells me that they should sound the same. But they don't. I heard an Audio Note Ongaku once, and it was a damn near religious experience.

So hey, let's talk about amps instead of the utter nonsense of the rest of this thread. . . at least until you get banned.

[normhead]

To answer the question - a K1 II is just too expensive in South Africa! The asking price is USD2900 and that is way, way more than I can afford. It is available on pre-order only, BTW.

Edit: to put that into context, the price for a Canon EOS RP body is USD1030. Yes, I know that is a very different thing, but it will scratch my full frame itch for a whole lot less. I can buy a lot of lenses for the difference. A more comparable camera, the Nikon D780, is USD 2570.

A lot of people went down the Nikon / Sony road before Pentax had an FF, and a lot of them are back. A used K-1 might be a better choice if you favour Pentax output values, which are different than Canon values.

My guess is you won't see a lot of difference between an RP and a K-3 or K-P. Not enough to move into a completely new lens environment.