[reh321]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

The comparable FF body in F mount is 1000 dollars more brand new (yet 3 years old design)... and cost more than that when it was launched. That alone would make some resistant to the idea of moving to FF.

If the K-1 was $2800 today, I'm sure a lot would be waiting years for it to become second hand and drop to it's current new price.

But my basic point is that FF doesn't deliver what some of us want, and we wouldn't get it at any price - in fact, if the two cameras were comparable apart from sensor, I'd purchase the APS-body instead of the FF-body even if they were priced the same. When you have bodies like the D500 out there, some Nikon users would also be resistant to moving "up" to FF.

[mee]

But my basic point is that FF doesn't deliver what some of us want, and we wouldn't get it at any price - in fact, if the two cameras were comparable apart from sensor, I'd purchase the APS-body instead of the FF-body even if they were priced the same. When you have bodies like the D500 out there, some Nikon users would also be resistant to moving "up" to FF.

You're saying if I offered to exchange your K-30 for a K-1 right now, with the agreement that you would not sell the K-1 for at least 3 years, that you would not accept the offer?

[monochrome]

But my basic point is that FF doesn't deliver what some of us want, and we wouldn't get it at any price - in fact, if the two cameras were comparable apart from sensor, I'd purchase the APS-body instead of the FF-body even if they were priced the same. When you have bodies like the D500 out there, some Nikon users would also be resistant to moving "up" to FF.

Some people's needs are perfectly met by a Subaru Outback. Others demand a Chevy Tahoe.

And some people buy an Escalade to go to the grocery store.

[bobmaxja]

Last week my friend and I were in spain and use quite a lot our camera.
I have a K-5 and he have a D810 FF. He complained about the weight of his FF all the time . Mine was on my Coton belt holder and I was happy to carry it everywere.
This is a big reason I will stay with the APSC, The KP could fill my need very welll.

[reh321]

You're saying if I offered to exchange your K-30 for a K-1 right now, with the agreement that you would not sell the K-1 for at least 3 years, that you would not accept the offer?

There is a big difference between a K-30 and a K70/KP. I would have to think about your "offer" in the sense that I suppose I could operate the K-1 in crop mode all the time with my current lenses and I'd essentially have a black (*) K-30 guaranteed not to succumb to the aperture block malady.

(*) when I'm out shooting street-like pictures {which depend on persons acting as though my camera and me aren't there}, I view black professional-looking cameras as a hindrance - the flippy screen would be nice to have, however.

[mee]

There is a big difference between a K-30 and a K70/KP. I would have to think about your "offer" in the sense that I suppose I could operate the K-1 in crop mode all the time with my current lenses and I'd essentially have a black (*) K-30 guaranteed not to succumb to the aperture block malady.

(*) when I'm out shooting street-like pictures {which depend on persons acting as though my camera and me aren't there}, I view black professional-looking cameras as a hindrance - the flippy screen would be nice to have, however.

You could always spray it hot pink or whatever color meets your needs. Just make sure to mask off the lens mount and lookie bits

[GeneV]

Last week my friend and I were in spain and use quite a lot our camera.
I have a K-5 and he have a D810 FF. He complained about the weight of his FF all the time . Mine was on my Coton belt holder and I was happy to carry it everywere.
This is a big reason I will stay with the APSC, The KP could fill my need very welll.

It is also a reason why companies wed to the DSLR will have trouble. Carry around a Sony E-mount with a 16-70/4 attached and compare it to a Pentax DSLR with DA 17-70/4. More and more enthusiasts like myself are questioning the need for a mirror on a high-quality travel camera. The DSLR is far from dead, but a segment of the DSLR market is headed for trouble.

[Rondec]

It is also a reason why companies wed to the DSLR will have trouble. Carry around a Sony E-mount with a 16-70/4 attached and compare it to a Pentax DSLR with DA 17-70/4. More and more enthusiasts like myself are questioning the need for a mirror on a high-quality travel camera. The DSLR is far from dead, but a segment of the DSLR market is headed for trouble.

Maybe. A K-S1 with an 18-135 attached is a very small package indeed and still has a 100 percent pentaprism viewfinder -- stick a DA 40mm and it is tiny.. In fact, I find it to be too small. K5 size works better in my opinion -- regardless of the whole EVF versus OVF discussion.

[GeneV]

Maybe. A K-S1 with an 18-135 attached is a very small package indeed and still has a 100 percent pentaprism viewfinder -- stick a DA 40mm and it is tiny.. In fact, I find it to be too small. K5 size works better in my opinion -- regardless of the whole EVF versus OVF discussion.

I woud guess you would not be part of the market that they would be losing. For serious non-travel shooting, I might not be, either. For a lot of other people, the smaller the better, and the iPhone generation thinks cameras should only have an EVF/LCD.

I used to travel with the Kx wearing a DA 40 or other small prime, and that is about as small as a DSLR kit gets. However, an A6000 with its retractable kit zoom gets you a smaller size (especially in height) with a 16-50 zoom. As I have mentioned before, a high quality Zeiss 16-70 is less than half the size of a DA 17-70. I'm a big fan of the 18-135 (which is only a little larger than the Zeiss 16-70), but the absence of a mirror is the difference between a camera which stows in a waist pack or coat pocket, and one which does not.

I'm seeing more and more friends who like nice toys with mirrorless cameras. They did own or would have owned an SLR in the past. This is a significant piece of the consumer market that is sliding away.

[Rondec]

I woud guess you would not be part of the market that they would be losing. For serious non-travel shooting, I might not be, either. For a lot of other people, the smaller the better, and the iPhone generation thinks cameras should only have an EVF/LCD.

I used to travel with the Kx wearing a DA 40 or other small prime, and that is about as small as a DSLR kit gets. However, an A6000 with its retractable kit zoom gets you a smaller size (especially in height) with a 16-50 zoom. As I have mentioned before, a high quality Zeiss 16-70 is less than half the size of a DA 17-70. I'm a big fan of the 18-135 (which is only a little larger than the Zeiss 16-70), but the absence of a mirror is the difference between a camera which stows in a waist pack or coat pocket, and one which does not.

I'm seeing more and more friends who like nice toys with mirrorless cameras. They did own or would have owned an SLR in the past. This is a significant piece of the consumer market that is sliding away.

Seems as the 16-70 is a mixed bag. A lot of complaints of multiple decentered copies out there. Softness wide open. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. Probably to get maximal sharpness it would take a little more glass.

[GeneV]

Seems as the 16-70 is a mixed bag. A lot of complaints of multiple decentered copies out there. Softness wide open. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. Probably to get maximal sharpness it would take a little more glass.

Maybe they put more glass in my copy, because it is superb--better than my DA 17-70 wide open. It seems to me that some people who bought the lens on Amazon got some bad copies. (The DA 17-70 is rated worse with more complaints) There are fewer complaints about the Zeiss in the more numerous reviews on the camera store sites.

The biggest problem with this lens is the price at about 2 times the DA 17-70, and that prompts people to have even higher expectations.

[Rondec]

Maybe they put more glass in my copy, because it is superb--better than my DA 17-70 wide open. It seems to me that some people who bought the lens on Amazon got some bad copies. (The DA 17-70 is rated worse with more complaints) There are fewer complaints about the Zeiss in the more numerous reviews on the camera store sites.

The biggest problem with this lens is the price at about 2 times the DA 17-70, and that prompts people to have even higher expectations.

Sure. I think the DA 16-85 in general has better reviews and performance, but of course is a bigger lens too. Still cheaper than the Zeiss zoom.

[gatorguy]

I bought a new Canadian D500 for ~ US $1,600 as soon as they went on sale here since Janaury. It is very fast & acurrate, although he connectivity and pixel count are so-so at that price range.

This eBay offer seems legit, the seller having a 100% rating. Just under $1450 for their supposed sports flagship, and with free shipping tossed in.
Nikon D500 Digital SLR Camera 20.9MP DX-Format Body Brand New 18208015597 | eBay

[boriscleto]

This eBay offer seems legit, the seller having a 100% rating. Just under $1450 for their supposed sports flagship, and with free shipping tossed in.
Nikon D500 Digital SLR Camera 20.9MP DX-Format Body Brand New 18208015597 | eBay

It's a Brooklyn bandit...

[luftfluss]

It's a Brooklyn bandit...

Yup, terrible score at resellerratings.com, no manufacturer warranty.