[Rondec]

Till now, I think Nikon's strategy is just to get as many folks into full frame bodies as possible. Part of that meant making the lower end full frame bodies as cheap as possible. If Sony can sell the original A7 for 1000 dollars, Nikon has to have their lower end full frame camera be around 1500. When you build to a price, you end up limiting your specs based on the hardware you can stick in. But I don't see the D750 being able to be sold for that low price.

[Kunzite]

Sony can very easily make life difficult for competitors by not selling them their most current sophisticated sensor but a rung or two down, thereby forcing them to faffle around developing AF and read-out systems maybe on custom sensors of their own, not to mention scene recognition, face-tracking down to individuals and all the rest.

Sony's G lenses are predicated on resolutions into three figures, apparently. It's fairly obvious they won't mess around when they introduce a high-res model to replace the A7R, for example. I would see that happening before all that long, ditto with the vanilla A7. The G lenses and the A9 suggest that Sony is keen to up their game as far as they can take it.

I doubt camera companies follow the response to A response to B ding dong. They each follow their own paths charted long in advance. The 'response' and 'fight' stuff is largely in the mind of observers.

And why would they do that?
Sony gladly made sensors for the D5 and D500; pay them and they'll work for you.

Here's one of those G lenses:
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM ( SEL2470GM ) - Review / Lab Test - Analysis
Optical rating? 3 stars.
And another:
Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS (SEL70300G) - Review / Test Report
Hmm... Photozone missed testing all the good G lenses

[mecrox]

And why would they do that?
Sony gladly made sensors for the D5 and D500; pay them and they'll work for you.

Here's one of those G lenses:
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM ( SEL2470GM ) - Review / Lab Test - Analysis
Optical rating? 3 stars.
And another:
Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS (SEL70300G) - Review / Test Report
Hmm... Photozone missed testing all the good G lenses

I don't see Sony licensng the sensor _and associated electronics_ in the A9 any time soon. Does anyone? I am sure the same will apply to whatever they next release, too. For as long that happens, Sony retain an edge. When the stuff becomes more run of the mill then sure they may start licensing it. The sensor alone is only half the story.

Lol, it's all such an obvious ploy. Accepting that Sony have some highly advanced and increasingly popular things is too risky because it's admitting that FF DSLRs have a powerful new challenger on the block. I can't stand Sony stuff myself but it's obvious they have assembled a very powerful portfolio now used by an awful lot of ex-DSLR people. There's bags of room for both kinds of camera at least for now but perhaps not forever ...

In the meantime it does look as if Sony are closing in on Nikon for the #2 spot after Canon. Fact of life, I'm afraid. The world's changing. Maybe Nikon will be able to see them off but if so they have their work cut out.

[Kunzite]

Did anyone try to license it and failed? By "anyone", I really mean Nikon - as they're the only candidate who makes such expensive FF monsters and don't have their own sensors. But Nikon won't replace their D5 so soon - what you say it's only supposition.

What is not supposition is that Nikon had the D5 more than a year before Sony's A9. Sure, it can "only" do 14fps (with the mirror locked up); with the optical viewfinder, it has a "pedestrian" 12fps. But then, you'd have to read the amazingly long footnote section for the A9, and you find out it switches to 12-bit RAW in continuous mode. And to 12fps if you don't want lossy compression (unfortunately, that means no compression at all in Sony-land).
As a marketing tool, the A9 is quite amazing; how about IRL?

[mecrox]

Did anyone try to license it and failed? By "anyone", I really mean Nikon - as they're the only candidate who makes such expensive FF monsters and don't have their own sensors. But Nikon won't replace their D5 so soon - what you say it's only supposition.

What is not supposition is that Nikon had the D5 more than a year before Sony's A9. Sure, it can "only" do 14fps (with the mirror locked up); with the optical viewfinder, it has a "pedestrian" 12fps. But then, you'd have to read the amazingly long footnote section for the A9, and you find out it switches to 12-bit RAW in continuous mode. And to 12fps if you don't want lossy compression (unfortunately, that means no compression at all in Sony-land).
As a marketing tool, the A9 is quite amazing; how about IRL?

As I said in my previous post, it's so obvious what you're up to. I am leaving it there. Bye.

[Kunzite]

Being obvious to you doesn't make it true.

[D1N0]

There is no Sony in a Canon. This thread is derailed.

[Dan Rentea]

Yes, Pentax is not crippling their cameras. To call the K-1 crippled is outrageous - since it's basically a D8x0-level camera with a less competent AF and some Pentax extras, but at 2200 euro.

Yet, D810 was released in 2014 and used a new sensor at that time. 2 years later the same sensor (used on K1) is cheaper. D850 is just around the corner and on paper it looks very good.

No, Pentax doesn't have to be inferior from every point of view than Canon

It doesn't and it isn't. It's a compromise with a lot of features and excelent image quality, but with some lacking features that would made the camera competitive to a lot more photographers.

There is a huge difference between crippling, compromising and choice.
Crippling is something you don't see in the K-1.
Compromising, that's unavoidable in any product. You cannot say, "why aren't they using the latest sensor in this entry level priced, but mid-level featured camera?"; yet you're doing it nevertheless (hint: video)
Choice, that would be the SD card which they're using in all their IL cameras, 645Z including. It's amusing that you're consider it as "crippling"... because Canon is using SD in their lower level camera?

Ok, then:
- 6D Mark II can be called a compromise instead of a crippled camera because 4k, state of the art af, and other stuff costs money and including them in this camera would have added some costs and would have been to close to 5D Mark IV.
- K1 is also a compromise because Ricoh left out 4k, a competitive af, a better processor to deal with big files, etc. in order to maintain an affordable price
- K3 Mark II is a huge compromise because it is basically a K3 with Pixel Shift and GPS, but without internal flash

[Kunzite]

Canon has a good advocate, but isn't this the wrong place for that? Especially as you're trying to feel better about the 6D Mark II by claiming the K-1 is "crippled"?

Yes, we all know the K-1 is using the 36MP Sony sensor. It was necessary in order to keep the price in check, and probably also the development time.
The difference is, this sensor is excellent for stills - high resolution, high DR; what is missing is 4K video and faster readout. And the only camera using a newer high resolution Sony sensor was the 3200$ A7RII.
So no, the camera is not crippled (nor compromised) because of that.

I never said the 6D Mark II is crippled because it lacks 4K. I don't think I said the 6D Mark II is crippled... but one can wonder, if Pentax can make the K-1 for the same (launch) price...

The K-3 II isn't "a huge compromise"; it's just a very minor refresh of the K-3. You're using "compromise" like a synonym for "crippled"; you're defending Canon by attacking Pentax.

[Dan Rentea]

Canon has a good advocate, but isn't this the wrong place for that? Especially as you're trying to feel better about the 6D Mark II by claiming the K-1 is "crippled"?

Yes, we all know the K-1 is using the 36MP Sony sensor. It was necessary in order to keep the price in check, and probably also the development time.

Why is the wrong place? It's a non Pentax topic... Canon is developing its own sensors and this costs money. Good or bad, those sensors costs money. Nikon also is paying a lot of money to Sony in order to give them new sensors. On Pentax K1 you call them compromises the lack of a new sensor (yes, it offers a very good image quality, as D810 does), the lack of a performant processor, the lack of USB 3.0, the lack of a modern af, the lack of video. If you're shooting tethered you will use the term cripple when you describe the lack of USB 3.0. If you're the kind of photographer who also do some video, you will use the term cripple regarding video capabilities of K1. If you preffer the term compromise, that's fine.

I never said the 6D Mark II is crippled because it lacks 4K. I don't think I said the 6D Mark II is crippled... but one can wonder, if Pentax can make the K-1 for the same (launch) price...

No wonders as far as I'm concerned. I invested in a system, not in a camera. I played with 6D Mark II for 20 minutes when it was available in the store and at ISO 400-1600 (the ISO I use for portaits) it delivered very good results. I have to do more testing, but I admit that I'm more tempted to buy the upcoming 85mm f1.4L IS USM lens than 6D Mark II and wait a year or so to buy 5D Mark IV at the price of 6D Mark II.

The K-3 II isn't "a huge compromise"; it's just a very minor refresh of the K-3. You're using "compromise" like a synonym for "crippled"; you're defending Canon by attacking Pentax.

But you see, 6D Mark II it's not a minor update over 6D, but a huge update in terms of af, mettering, ISO capabilities, articulated screen, fps and buffer, dual pixel af, anti flickering, etc. 7D Mark II wasn't a minor update over 7D, but a much improved camera. 5D Mark IV is not a minor update over 5D Mark III... With Pentax we're talking about minor updates... K5 vs K-5 II, K3 vs K-3 II, K-S1 vs K-S2.

I'm not attacking Pentax at all. I had K-5 II, I didn't bought K3 because I didn't need it and I bought K-3 II (I was the first owner in Romania) thinking that it will be improved over K3. To me K-3 II was a huge compromise, if you preffer this term, althrough the right term compared to K3 was crippled (the same af, the same image quality, the same everything).

[Kunzite]

Even though it's the "Non-Pentax cameras" section, a Canon user saying the K-1 is crippled, on Pentaxforums?
That's nothing, compared to other stuff I've read here, and on the other forum; but how is it anything other than an attack?

No, I would not use the term cripple no matter how much I would be interested in video. Because cripple is offensive, and the K-1 is an amazing photographic tool. It would be like saying "this screwdriver is crippled for driving nails".
"Crippled" should be used only for some features which were deliberately made worse than they could be, or even disabled - e.g. in order to protect some upper level line. Not for making a 2000$ product instead of a 3300$ one.

I'm not sure the 6D Mark II is "a huge update" in terms of ISO capabilities, at least. I'm not seeing it on DPReview's review. I can't help but notice that a Canon articulated screen is "a huge update", but the same thing on a Pentax is... ignored.

"K5 vs K-5 II, K3 vs K-3 II, K-S1 vs K-S2" - wait, what?
Are you doing it on purpose? Are you deliberately grouping the cameras this way, to ignore the improvements from the K-5-series to the K-3-series? Let's see... a new sensor, processor, AF system, metering system, camera body, 2 SD cards, USB 3 and how many other things?

Every time you're misusing the term "crippled" you are attacking Pentax. You are very liberal at misusing this term for Pentax, yet so easily offended when it was used for the Canon... it's more obvious than you think.

[Dan Rentea]

Even though it's the "Non-Pentax cameras" section, a Canon user saying the K-1 is crippled?
That's nothing, compared to other stuff I've read here, and on the other forum; but how is it anything other than an attack?

No, I would not use the term cripple no matter how much I would be interested in video. Because cripple is offensive, and the K-1 is an amazing photographic tool. It would be like saying "this screwdriver is crippled for driving nails".
"Crippled" should be used only for some features which were deliberately made worse than they could be, or even disabled - e.g. in order to protect some upper level line. Not for making a 2000$ product instead of a 3300$ one.

Cripple is a term often use here when someone else is reffering to Sony, Nikon or Canon cameras, but is offensive when is mentioned regarding Pentax cameras. Yes, putting a USB 2.0 on k1 it's called crippling the camera to reduce costs and it's the right word to describe the lack of USB 3.0 despite the fact that you like it or not.

I'm not sure the 6D Mark II is "a huge update" in terms of ISO capabilities, at least. I'm not seeing it on DPReview's review. I can't help but notice that a Canon articulated screen is "a huge update", but the same thing on a Pentax is... ignored.

DPReview? The same website who wrote that piece of junk regarding K1? Pfff... Canon articulated screen is a huge update compared to 6D and also with cameras from competition. Have you seen me saying that K1 is Canon's 6D Mark II competition? I don't think so. That being said, the screen from 6D Mark II may be more usefull than the one from K1 due to the fact that it's fully articulated and it has also touchscreen capabilities.

"K5 vs K-5 II, K3 vs K-3 II, K-S1 vs K-S2" - wait, what?
Are you doing it on purpose? Are you deliberately grouping the cameras this way, to ignore the improvements from the K-5-series to the K-3-series? Let's see... a new sensor, processor, AF system, metering system, camera body, 2 SD cards, USB 3 and how many other things?

You're joking, right? How would you group Pentax cameras? The successor of K-7 was K5. K-5 was replaced by K-5 II and K-5 IIs. These 2 has been replaced by K-3. Later, K-3 had a successor, K-3 II. Yes, from K-5 II to K3 there were improvements. But K3 Mark II which was the successor of K3 was basically the same camera.

Every time you're misusing the term "crippled" you are attacking Pentax. You are very liberal at misusing this term for Pentax, yet so easily offended when it was used for the Canon... it's more obvious than you think.

I'm not offended at all. I know 6D Mark II may be considered crippled if you compare it with 5D Mark IV or with D750 (despite that D750 is not the Nikon's competition to 6D, the D610 is), but I also notice the improvements over the original 6D, which are a lot. Between you and me, the only one offended is you.

[D1N0]

, putting a USB 2.0 on k1 it's called crippling the camera

Nope it's called long development time. If they wanted to reduce cost they could have done so much more.

[redpit]

Dan although I can't understand the reason of someone ex user getting in a different brand forum and commenting on his new toys and the ones he used to have (I can't imagine myself doing so in Nikon forums, although I was using Nikon equipment for some years in the past) since I have suscribed and read your posts I have to comment on your sayings. The K-1 is not crippled because Pentax put in it all the latest technology that had in her hands at the time of her development. Surely it lags behind the competition in some sectors (like AF), but the case is not that there was a more advanced AF system at that point which was intentionally not installed to the K-1, like Canon does with her models to differentiate them. As far as K-3 and K-3II models the K-3II was a complementary model primarely aimed at nature and astro photographers that would prefer the GPS-astrotracker module over an on board flash (I have read this in an interview from Ricoh officials).

Cripple is a term often use here when someone else is reffering to Sony, Nikon or Canon cameras, but is offensive when is mentioned regarding Pentax cameras. Yes, putting a USB 2.0 on k1 it's called crippling the camera to reduce costs and it's the right word to describe the lack of USB 3.0 despite the fact that you like it or not.

You're wrong, as @D1N0 said and it has been answered by the development team, that was the most advanced version when they started making the camera.

PS: Nikon used the same strategy as Canon with their camera bodies too. Now that they are in danger due to the Sony uprising they seem to change strategy and with/inside the D850 they offer a complete D500 and most of the D5 features! Let's see how it goes and whether other companies will follow thiis "Pentax like" strategy.

[Rondec]

It is clear that Nikon with the D610 and Canon with the 6D II have made certain that there are certain things available on upper end cameras that aren't available on them. How much could they actually add and keep the price the same isn't clear. I think people were just sort of hoping that the 6D II would do a little bit more in the sensor department -- particularly when you consider that Canon has improved some of their other sensors quite a bit. Could they have tweaked the 6D sensor a little more to add performance? I have no idea.

I do think that if I were a Canon user and wasn't satisfied with the 6D, I don't know that adding an articulating screen and auto focus points would push me to get a 6D II and I would probably end up getting a 5D IV (for a lot more money).