[texandrews]

Just want to drop a little grenade into the conversation: we are all fast approaching what could be final (until something breaks) camera purchases.


Very, very few of us are going to need the improvements to cameras after our next purchase. If you have quite deep pockets you are excluded from this conversation---you can already buy anything you want as many times as you like. But for the majority of us who are on some kind of budget, I know I for one am weighing more carefully than ever before what the cost/benefit ratio is on all of my purchases---my only real hole is video, and that's still a sidebar for what I do for work (unless I decide to re-invent myself a bit....and that would mean developing new clients).

[house]

*all*

I'm young around here it seems.

[redrockcoulee]

Just want to drop a little grenade into the conversation: we are all fast approaching what could be final (until something breaks) camera purchases.


Very, very few of us are going to need the improvements to cameras after our next purchase. If you have quite deep pockets you are excluded from this conversation---you can already buy anything you want as many times as you like. But for the majority of us who are on some kind of budget, I know I for one am weighing more carefully than ever before what the cost/benefit ratio is on all of my purchases---my only real hole is video, and that's still a sidebar for what I do for work (unless I decide to re-invent myself a bit....and that would mean developing new clients).

I believe that this is an explanation for why camera sales have been declining for years.

[UncleVanya]

I tend to buy a few models back from the latest - but I buy the flagship models of that era. So I own the KP (bought just at the tail end of the lifespan on the clearance level deals), the K-3 (bought when the K-3ii came out), the A7RIII (purchased after the A1 hit the streets and the A7RIV hadn't been replaced yet with the A7RIVa.

So while I have deep enough pockets - I'm pretty careful with my money and unwilling to open the wallet to buy something like an A1 since $6K plus is obscene for my budget. Even the A7RIII would not have been purchased by me - it was a gift from my Dad (he took back the A7RII he had previously gifted me).

The value proposition of chasing upgrades is pretty weak. The systems we have are so good that features outside of just image quality tend to drive buyers. My dad's friend who sold the A7RIII to my dad indicated his desire for the A1 was irrational - but after buying it he not only sold the A7RIII but also the A7RIV and A9 he owned. His plan is to buy a second A1 at some point - it's that good to him. The features he speaks of (speed of focus, fast frame rate, etc.) are all of only limited value to me.

[biz-engineer]

Very, very few of us are going to need the improvements to cameras after our next purchase

That's exactly what I thought when I bought the K1, but at the time 36Mpixel was considered big and I don't know how I believed it to be far superior to 24Mpixels, because when I make the math now it's not. The only thing I remember that weighted a lot in my purchase decision of the K1 vs a 645z was how good it felt when I tried it, I already had two Kmount FF lenses and the K1 only price looked really good (especially compared to Nikon at the time). So I bought the K1, and more lenses came after , which is what led me to spend more than I initially imagined, I could have bought the 645z and lenses for even less money.

Now, that's true that if I had a camera with more than ~70Mpixels, I could hardly justify another upgrade for more, because I don't see much benefit of prints larger than A0. Framing larger than A0 under glass would require to live in a castle (especially when adding 10 inches of mat window), and drill solid holes in walls due to the thickness and weight of the glass, plus storage of the prints would also require more space. The castle is way more expensive than the camera.

[richandfleur]

There's that whole feature curve/plateau thing at play here, diminishing returns etc now that the technology has improved.
Back in the early days of digital cameras the improvements each cycle were massive, but the state of tech (well from about say 2015 onwards?) has been good enough for quite some time now.
Now it's a case of do you need the improvements to suit your own personal needs. In my case the ability to track moving subjects is of use to me, but a better lasting battery giving 100 shots more or another 20MP in sensor image size is not for example.

I think it's important to keep it real about what 'discontinued' means. Most significantly you just can't buy a new one anymore.
It doesn't mean it stops working suddenly or instantly doesn't fit your needs etc.

And just because it's a camera doesn't mean it's any different to other device purchases in your home.
By the time it fails you'll be in the market for a new one. All things fail eventually, when you're talking this level of electronics.
You'll just re evaluate the market offerings at that time and match those against your requirements.

[pinholecam]

I've had a many hand Canon 5D that was probably 10yrs old when I owned it for another 2yrs before selling it on.
So I think the K1 is going to last more than 10yrs.
I can only think of batteries needing to purchase before they are not made by manufacturers or 3rd party.
Other than that, the rubber stuff might become sticky and wear down, which usually does not affect the operation of the camera.

I am not at the point of considering backup for the K1 and Pentax.
When they ever announce they exit the business, I am sure there will be plenty of Pentax K1 v1/ii that dealers and owners want to get rid of.
Not to mention any K1 III or whatever that will be coming along.

After that, it will be any FF MILC that takes the lenses and I think by the time there are no such makers, its probably the time of retina 1,000,000 TB memory brain implant camera and camera+lens will be obsolete.

[biz-engineer]

Back in the early days of digital cameras the improvements each cycle were massive, but the state of tech (well from about say 2015 onwards?) has been good enough for quite some time now.

I fully agree on that, and the fact that Pentax is almost there but not quite there, is the reason why it's difficult to make clear cut decisions.
I have nine D-FA lenses, 6 of them are recent , state of the art lens models. On the other hand, Ricoh seems to have come to a halt with camera developments, what if they do to Pentax K1 what they've done to Pentax Q or Pentax 645 (keep silent for many years without telling if they stopped or not)? That would be a pain in the neck for customers having invested in full frame lenses. Although the K-1 is a good cameras, there is a performance and feature gap with what other brands now offer, and also Ricoh offer only one FF model currently, there's no other choice, we're stuck with one only choice right now.

If I project / visualize how things evolve in the future for Pentax, either Ricoh comes up with a significant FF camera upgrade, it'll cost a kidney but I bet I'll be fully satisfied for a long time. But if Ricoh doesn't come up with a significant K1 II upgrade both in terms of speed and sensor resolution, I'd have to sell all those good lenses, and I'd prefer not to do it.

Originally, I decide to stick with the K1, but something changed my mind. I realized that I could cover my lens needs with much less than 9 lenses with other brands , and spending the money on a new body would very significantly improve my camera system capability.
As example, I have 9 Pentax lenses , and 2 Pentax K1 (1 original K1 and 1 K1 mk II). For the same money (or less), I could get a Z9 , a 20mm prime (<1000 euro), 24-120 f4 (~1200 euro) zoom and 100-400 zoom, and that Nikon system would perform way better in terms of speed and resolution.
In other words, I used to believe that lenses gave me capability, but now my assumption isn't not true anymore, the camera body with only two lenses seems to provide much more capability than having a lot of Pentax products. In addition Nikon and Canon lens filter threads are 77mm, one filter kit can be used on all lenses, whereas with Pentax none of the lenses share the same filter threads, I have to carry two filter systems, that's a mess. And having less lenses to cover the same focal length range also bring more convenience (smaller camera bag): simplified system+increase performance. Easier to carry around, more performance, same cost.

[gatorguy]

I fully agree on that, and the fact that Pentax is almost there but not quite there, is the reason why it's difficult to make clear cut decisions.
I have nine D-FA lenses, 6 of them are recent , state of the art lens models. On the other hand, Ricoh seems to have come to a halt with camera developments, what if they do to Pentax K1 what they've done to Pentax Q or Pentax 645...

Originally, I decide to stick with the K1, but something changed my mind. I realized that I could cover my lens needs with much less than 9 lenses with other brands , and spending the money on a new body would very significantly improve my camera system capability.
As example, I have 9 Pentax lenses , and 2 Pentax K1 (1 original K1 and 1 K1 mk II). For the same money (or less), I could get a Z9 (Approx 4900 euro), a 20mm prime (<1000 euro), 24-120 f4 (~1200 euro) zoom and 100-400 zoom (~2400 euro) and that Nikon system would perform way better in terms of speed and resolution.
And having less lenses to cover the same focal length range also bring more convenience (smaller camera bag): simplified system+increase performance. Easier to carry around, more performance, same cost

What if they do to the Pentax K1 what they did with the K3III? FWIW you can also cover all your needs with fewer than nine Pentax lenses if you only have one camera.

Bottom line: If you honestly believe you would be happier with the Z9 just spend the $10,337 plus taxes/VAT (significant in the EU) for the Nikon kit you just mentioned., which by the way should be far more money than your single K1 kit. Then you can stop worrying about Pentax and their plans going forward.

As my myself I'm happy with the capabilities and costs of my camera gear, don't find it lacking at all, and have just as much faith in the long-term viability of Pentax as I do Nikon camera, or even Sony camera for that matter. I don't think I'm alone.

[BigMackCam]

Ricoh seems to have come to a halt with camera developments, what if they do to Pentax K1 what they've done to Pentax Q or Pentax 645 (keep silent for many years without telling if they stopped or not)?

Ricoh is currently developing and releasing lenses for its full frame Pentax camera line. Why on earth would it stop developing the very cameras they're designed for? With respect, that's an odd suggestion and a quite unfounded concern, IMHO. The Q-series and 645Z were and are much more niche products, while full-frame and APS-C DSLRs account for the vast majority of Pentax camera sales. Of all the product lines Ricoh might shelve, these are by far the least likely. A replacement for the K-1II will come, but probably not for another year or two. However, I see that's no longer relevant to you, because:

Originally, I decide to stick with the K1, but something changed my mind. I realized that I could cover my lens needs with much less than 9 lenses with other brands , and spending the money on a new body would very significantly improve my camera system capability.
As example, I have 9 Pentax lenses , and 2 Pentax K1 (1 original K1 and 1 K1 mk II). For the same money (or less), I could get a Z9 , a 20mm prime (<1000 euro), 24-120 f4 (~1200 euro) zoom and 100-400 zoom, and that Nikon system would perform way better in terms of speed and resolution.
In other words, I used to believe that lenses gave me capability, but now my assumption isn't not true anymore, the camera body with only two lenses seems to provide much more capability than having a lot of Pentax products. In addition Nikon and Canon lens filter threads are 77mm, one filter kit can be used on all lenses, whereas with Pentax none of the lenses share the same filter threads, I have to carry two filter systems, that's a mess. And having less lenses to cover the same focal length range also bring more convenience (smaller camera bag): simplified system+increase performance. Easier to carry around, more performance, same cost.

You've revised your decision, and whether I agree with your opinions and reasoning or not is unimportant. The main things is, you can finally move forward

I'm curious, though... Are you saying you can sell your K-1, K-1II and 9 lenses at the kind of used pricing you previously described (you suggested between 50 - 70% of retail price depending on age and level of use) and buy a Z9, 20mm prime, 24-120 f/4 and 100-400 with those funds alone? If so, that's one heck of a deal. Go for it. Or, are you saying that the Z9 kit mentioned costs the same or less than you've already sunk into your Pentax gear? If the latter (as I assume) then your cost justifications don't really stack up, as your Pentax gear has (obviously) dropped in value since you bought it. You're going to end up spending more buying your new Z9 kit, as you have to account for the losses when liquidating your Pentax gear. However you spin it to convince yourself and us of the financial justification, you'll need to get your credit card out

Regardless, congratulations on coming to a new decision, and - assuming you stick to that - best of luck with the Nikon Z9 and your chosen lenses. I'll look out for you in the Non-Pentax section of the forums

[ThorSanchez]

Originally, I decide to stick with the K1, but something changed my mind. I realized that I could cover my lens needs with much less than 9 lenses with other brands , and spending the money on a new body would very significantly improve my camera system capability.
As example, I have 9 Pentax lenses , and 2 Pentax K1 (1 original K1 and 1 K1 mk II). For the same money (or less), I could get a Z9 , a 20mm prime (<1000 euro), 24-120 f4 (~1200 euro) zoom and 100-400 zoom, and that Nikon system would perform way better in terms of speed and resolution.

You previously said that 36 Mp wasn't significantly better than 24, so why is 45 significantly better than 36?

[cls]

You previously said that 36 Mp wasn't significantly better than 24, so why is 45 significantly better than 36?

For my recent whirlwind research project regarding what move to make with my camera gear, part of the consideration was resolution - and greater than 36 got a red flag in my file, the consequences of dealing with that file size at high fps seemed overwhelming for my current hardware. I actually costed out the purchase of a several different new systems with minimal lenses, and, it's true, in either case, it costs me, but the price tag was less staying with Pentax than any other option (so I bought an extra lens!). The frustration was I felt like I was make a compromise - my "unicorn" camera actually didn't exist - but was much closer in another system, not Pentax, but the cost of moving was too steep both monetarily and risk of unpredictable factors like ergonomics and menu system that I could not test as I have no rental options here. But I made a decision that if the fast FF Pentax doesn't appear in a couple of years, I am going to have to revisit the decision. Maybe Pentax/Ricoh has something REALLY exciting in the works ... a ~840g fast FF body!!!

[HoundFrog]

~840g fast FF body!!!

I would be happy with just any one of those. Either 840g OR fast. Currently it's both heavy and slow.

[biz-engineer]

I'm curious, though... Are you saying you can sell your K-1, K-1II and 9 lenses at the kind of used pricing you previously described (you suggested between 50 - 70% of retail price depending on age and level of use) and buy a Z9, 20mm prime, 24-120 f/4 and 100-400 with those funds alone?

Well, it's better to sell at 50% of list price than sell lenses for 10% of the price because there is no new Pentax camera worth buying lenses for it. To keep lens prices up, it is even more important that Ricoh keep releasing cameras that are competitive, because if they don't the market for K mount lenses will drop very low. Of course, I can always be convinced to keep all my Pentax gear by folks who didn't buy new Pentax gear for the last 10 years (and even sold some of it), but it's unlikely to happen. Keeping or selling is a bet, if Ricoh manage to release another full frame camera before they go bust, then keeping the Pentax lenses bet will pay off. Now if Ricoh aren't able to make another FF camera , selling now is better financial move.

[BigMackCam]

Well, it's better to sell at 50% of list price than sell lenses for 10% of the price because there is no new Pentax camera worth buying lenses for it. To keep lens prices up, it is even more important that Ricoh keep releasing cameras that are competitive, because if they don't the market for K mount lenses will drop very low.

That's madness, biz. Firstly, regarding the value of Pentax lenses if Ricoh stops manufacturing the full frame line, let's compare to Sony A-mount that quietly disappeared years ago. The better, later Sony A-mount glass is still fetching good money... around 30 - 50% of original retail, in some cases more. Secondly, as I already said in my previous post, you're worrying that Ricoh will stop developing one of its two best-selling camera lines... one that it's currently developing and releasing lenses for. That's just not happening any time soon. You'll see lens development dry up long before they stop developing the cameras. Thirdly, Pentax hasn't been trying to compete with other brands for some time now. It's on its own path, in a similar manner to Leica.

Stop being a miserable worry whale, biz. Either enjoy your Pentax gear, or switch to whatever you prefer... but please stop with the seeds of doubt about Pentax full-frame development. Along-side the APS-C platform, it's in rude health... as the lens roll-out more-or-less proves.