[Kunzite]

Dan, I'm not responsible for how others are using this term. All I'm saying is that there must be a better answer than to attack Pentax.
You can repeat it as much as you want, but you were clearly offended - that's why the all-out attack on Pentax.

Since USB 3.0 made it into the K-3, a much less expensive camera, it's not the cost; but rather, the development time. You know they had to postpone the K-1, as it wasn't ready for 2015...
By the way, there's actually no room for a micro USB 3.0 port on the K-1 body. So it wasn't just about replacing the controller; and indeed the body development started a while ago.

I'm not joking; you are purposely ignoring the important transitions. The context is everything: the K-5II was an intermediary product, and the next year we had the K-3. The K-3 II is just an experiment, launched 2 years after the K-3, to see people's reaction about the lack of an on-board flash (the lesson being incorporated into the K-1). The next APS-C flagship is still to be announced, and it will have many improvements.
OTOH the original 6D was launched in 2012 - same year as the K-5II. The 6D Mark II is no intermediary product, no test - but a full fledged replacement.

---------- Post added 16-08-17 at 03:33 PM ----------

By the way, AFAIK the 5D Mk II is overall an improvement from the original 5D, so I'm not sure what Winder meant by that...

[Dan Rentea]

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).

My relationship with Pentax is complicated. I love Pentax cameras for many reasons and I hate Pentax system for a lot of reasons. I read a lot regarding Pentax and I use from time to time a K1 and a K-3 II.

The latest technology that they had on their hands at the time of the development? When was that, in 2013?

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.

It's like me trying to sell a chocolate from last year saying that it has the milk and nuts in it from this year. Marketing and developing teams are doing/saying what they are been told.

[Rondec]

The point is probably that Canon is not releasing the 6D II in a vacuum. When they released the 6D there were few, if any entry level full frame cameras. Maybe the A7 and soon thereafter came the D600 (which had a lot of problems of its own). At this point, entry level seems to encompass the D610, A7, A7r, and K-1. Every one of them has certain features they leave and certain things they do a little better than the competitors, but they all have better sensors than the 6D II.

[Dan Rentea]

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).

Canon and Nikon separate their cameras. Nikon lost clients due to their problems with D600, D610 and D750. Canon strategy seems to work very well giving the fact that Canon anounced delays in shipping 6D Mark II due to the number of preorders. Could be a strategy as Pentax did with what development people said regarding the latest technology available for K1? Who knows?

Could they have tweaked the sensor a little more? Sure. But they didn't and offered instead the articulated screen, dual pixel af and the 5D Mark IV level of weather sealing. Time will tell if this was a wise choice. 5D Mark IV can be bought for 2.650$. For a difference of 650$ I would also buy a 5D Mark IV. It's a total different beast.

---------- Post added 08-16-17 at 02:19 PM ----------

Dan, I'm not responsible for how others are using this term. All I'm saying is that there must be a better answer than to attack Pentax.
You can repeat it as much as you want, but you were clearly offended - that's why the all-out attack on Pentax.

I'm responisble for how I use the term cripple. If you don't agree with this term, it's not my problem.

Since USB 3.0 made it into the K-3, a much less expensive camera, it's not the cost; but rather, the development time. You know they had to postpone the K-1, as it wasn't ready for 2015...
By the way, there's actually no room for a micro USB 3.0 port on the K-1 body. So it wasn't just about replacing the controller; and indeed the body development started a while ago.

I'm not joking; you are purposely ignoring the important transitions. The context is everything: the K-5II was an intermediary product, and the next year we had the K-3. The K-3 II is just an experiment, launched 2 years after the K-3, to see people's reaction about the lack of an on-board flash (the lesson being incorporated into the K-1). The next APS-C flagship is still to be announced, and it will have many improvements.
OTOH the original 6D was launched in 2012 - same year as the K-5II. The 6D Mark II is no intermediary product, no test - but a full fledged replacement.[COLOR="Silver"]

All of your affirmations are assumptions. They couldn't do this, they couldn't do that because of the developing time... They could have done a lot of things, but they wanted to offer a very good camera in the aspects which count most for Pentax users (landscape mostly) and maintain a low price. Because with better af, USB 3.0, better video the camera would have cost 3.000 $ and it wouldn't stand a chance in the market. And not because it wouldn't have been competitive, but because the system is not mature and the lack of modern lenses and also the lack of a proper flash system would have had a negative impact on photographers if K1 would have been released with the above features, at 3.000$.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 08-16-2017 at 07:20 AM.

[rawr]

I believe USB 3 support doesn't reliably indicate whether one camera represents more 'advanced' tech than another, or whether USB 3 is something too expensive or complicated for a manufacturer to implement. All of the most recent Sony bodies (like the A9, A99 II, A6500, and A7RII) still use USB 2, for example, which calls into question many an assumption about USB 3. Maybe Sony (like Pentax?) are just being cheap .

[D1N0]

It's like me trying to sell a chocolate from last year saying that it has the milk and nuts in it from this year. Marketing and developing teams are doing/saying what they are been told.

it is an insignificant point as it does not cripple the camera in any way. It is just a spec.USB-2 gets things done just as usb-3 does. It may be a bit faster to transfer your pics with usb-3 if you use a fast sd-card but I doubt it. Lightroom is generally sluggish when importing photo's. Transferring a lot of photo's will probably always be faster when you use a good usb-3 card reader.

[Kunzite]

All of your affirmations are assumptions

Now, now, don't reject relevant information just because it doesn't fit your prejudices
In this site's CP+ 2016 interview - I think it was Mr. Takashi Arai - we were told specifically that USB 2.0 was a very common standard when the development started.
It is also a fact that the K-1 launch was postponed from the intended end of 2015 date (as announced at CP+ 2015) to the beginning of 2016. That means they were indeed time constrained.
It is also a fact that there is no room on the K-1 body for a micro USB 3.0 connector.

Misusing the term "cripple" to attack Pentax is your problem. Stop being so sensitive about Canon, and so obsessed with putting Pentax into whatever you think it's its place.

[Dan Rentea]

it is an insignificant point as it does not cripple the camera in any way. It is just a spec.USB-2 gets things done just as usb-3 does. It may be a bit faster to transfer your pics with usb-3 if you use a fast sd-card but I doubt it. Lightroom is generally sluggish when importing photo's. Transferring a lot of photo's will probably always be faster when you use a good usb-3 card reader.

Shoot tethered and you will notice the difference.

---------- Post added 08-16-17 at 03:30 PM ----------

Now, now, don't reject useful information just because it doesn't fit your prejudices
In this site's CP+ 2016 interview - I think it was Mr. Takashi Arai - we were told specifically that USB 2.0 was a very common standard when the development started.
It is also a fact that the K-1 launch was postponed from the intended end of 2015 date (as announced at CP+ 2015) to the beginning of 2016. That means they were indeed time constrained.
It is also a fact that there is no room on the K-1 body for a micro USB 3.0 connector.

Misusing the term "cripple" to attack Pentax is your problem. Stop being so sensitive about Canon, and so obsessed with putting Pentax into whatever you think it's its place.

)))) I said that 6D is crippled. I also said that all manufacturers cripples their cameras in some way or another. I also said that I rather invest at this point in the new lens (85mm f1.4L IS USM) rather than upgrading from 6D to 6D Mark II. As also said that K1 is not in the same league with 6D Mark II. And yet, you call me sensitive about Canon. ))))))) As I said, the sensitive one has always been you in these kind of conversations.

Later edit. I also readed the article in which a manager from Sony said at the launch of A6500 that the af is on par with the best crop cameras from competition. We had on our 5 days trip on the Danube Delta a Sony A6500. It is at the D7200 level, at best. Not even close to D500. So don't believe what every manager say, even if the manager is from Ricoh.

[Kunzite]

I know what you said:

Do you think that Canon made 5D Mark IV worse (crippled) than 5D Mark II? Do you think that Pentax doesn't crippling their cameras? Then why they put USB 2.0 on K1? Why do they use SD memory cards on a 36mp camera? Why do they use an 2012 af system on K1? Why do they have video at the level of an entry level camera from competition?

And I answered those points.

I told you quite a few times already, you're much more obvious than you think.

Answer to your later edit. And who should I believe instead, you?
Pentax is not Sony, by the way.

[Rondec]

Maybe rather than talking about "crippling" it would be better to talk about product separation. Canon needs to make sure there is a clear separation between the 6D, 5D, and 1D line of cameras (other than price). If they basically sold a 5D IV for the 6D II price, who would buy the 5D?

Pentax has K-1 and K3 II (hopefully something to follow that). Clearly, the separation there is on sensor size and body style. USB 2 isn't really here or there. Tethering is available for the K-1 but the reviews are somewhat mixed. Certainly Pentax is making decision to protect the APS-C (or 645D) cameras from the K-1 or vice versa. In point of fact, I feel as though Pentax includes an awful lot of features for the price point. But if you own a bunch of white lenses with "Canon" written on them, it may not be a good choice for you.

[Dan Rentea]

Maybe rather than talking about "crippling" it would be better to talk about product separation. Canon needs to make sure there is a clear separation between the 6D, 5D, and 1D line of cameras (other than price). If they basically sold a 5D IV for the 6D II price, who would buy the 5D?

Pentax has K-1 and K3 II (hopefully something to follow that). Clearly, the separation there is on sensor size and body style. USB 2 isn't really here or there. Tethering is available for the K-1 but the reviews are somewhat mixed. Certainly Pentax is making decision to protect the APS-C (or 645D) cameras from the K-1 or vice versa. In point of fact, I feel as though Pentax includes an awful lot of features for the price point. But if you own a bunch of white lenses with "Canon" written on them, it may not be a good choice for you.

Don't get me wrong. Pentax has a lot of strenghts and I mentioned them on various occasions. I like very much Pentax K1, I kind of like K-3 II for its current price. But when some people think that Ricoh doesn't cripple their cameras... I don't know or care if they are crippling their cameras because:
- they don't want to invest in developing the af or video
- they don't think will be competitive at a price point above 3000$
- they don't have enginiers capable of developing af and video

but they cripples their cameras like other companies does. If some of people from this forum prefer other terms like "playing safe", "compromises", etc. fine by me.

Kunzite, I don't want you to belive me but don't try "to sell" me something using a declaration from someone inside Ricoh. Those guys can say anything they want in order to sell their products. Even Volkswagen said for 5-10 years that their cars have less emissions than competition and it turned out that they faked the results. So why do I have to believe the guy from Ricoh when he says he used the latest technology available at that time for K1?

[Kunzite]

Dan, why are you insisting so much in using an offensive term regarding Pentax? Why is it so important for you to call Pentax products "crippled", a derogatory term? This is nothing more than flaming, please stop it, it's so unsightly.

You're also doing a series of subjective and completely unfounded assumptions (while challenging facts); "they don't want to", "they don't have". How on Earth could you possibly know? Well, of course you don't; you're just attacking Pentax. Why?
And you're attacking even the price point, which - again, a fact - was one of the correct decisions they've made for the K-1?

In the first place, you should be more honest with yourself, and ask why do you feel such a strong urge to defend Canon, here, by attacking Pentax. Only then you should talk about Mr. Takashi Arai's supposed dishonesty.
Or about the idea that I'm trying "to sell" you something, when it's you with the "Pentax is crippled!" all over.

[Rondec]

Don't get me wrong. Pentax has a lot of strenghts and I mentioned them on various occasions. I like very much Pentax K1, I kind of like K-3 II for its current price. But when some people think that Ricoh doesn't cripple their cameras... I don't know or care if they are crippling their cameras because:
- they don't want to invest in developing the af or video
- they don't think will be competitive at a price point above 3000$
- they don't have enginiers capable of developing af and video

but they cripples their cameras like other companies does. If some of people from this forum prefer other terms like "playing safe", "compromises", etc. fine by me.

Kunzite, I don't want you to belive me but don't try "to sell" me something using a declaration from someone inside Ricoh. Those guys can say anything they want in order to sell their products. Even Volkswagen said for 5-10 years that their cars have less emissions than competition and it turned out that they faked the results. So why do I have to believe the guy from Ricoh when he says he used the latest technology available at that time for K1?

We are arguing about terms. What is crippling versus a compromise when it comes to camera design? Pentax has chosen not release a camera to compete with the 1Dx/A9/5D cameras of this world. They also don't have 4K video on any of their current cameras. Not having a sports camera isn't an example of crippling, it is just a choice -- clearly they believe that such a camera wouldn't sell enough to be worth their while. The whole 4K thing is a different question as it depends on whether or not the sensors they chose are 4K compatible. If the sensor in the K-1 isn't capable of 4K, then it isn't crippling not to have it, it is just the result of that choice. You can't add it later if the sensor and processing engine can't handle it. End of story.

But going forward, you could certainly make an attempt to get sensors that can handle it and get processors, engine that will handle 4K without a problem.

Not sure how all that effects the 6D II, but I guess Canon has made those choices and there it is.

Edit: The goal posts move constantly. A year and a half ago when the K-1 was announced there were, what, three full frame cameras capable of 4K video? A7s, A7r II, and probably the Canon 1Dx II or something like that. Today there are a lot more and we judge cameras a little differently. If Nikon releases a D610 sequel, it would probably be expected that they would try to do 4K video with it based on where we are now. That doesn't mean that 4 years ago it was even mentioned in its reviews.

[Kunzite]

Indeed; the only 4K-capable option was the 42MP sensor also used in the A7R II - the A7S' low resolution wouldn't cut it (and neither a custom designed sensor). Then you need a capable processing engine, fast saving on storage media, better cooling, video-oriented lenses...
Food for thought: with the price difference between a K-1 and the A7R II one could get a 4K capable Panasonic. How many are consciously willing to pay for 4K and not use it?

L.E. It goes without saying, but I'll say it nevertheless: I don't see the lack of 4K on the 6D Mark II as an issue. The low dynamic range, though...

[Rondec]

Indeed; the only 4K-capable option was the 42MP sensor also used in the A7R II - the A7S' low resolution wouldn't cut it (and neither a custom designed sensor). Then you need a capable processing engine, fast saving on storage media, better cooling, video-oriented lenses...
Food for thought: with the price difference between a K-1 and the A7R II one could get a 4K capable Panasonic. How many are consciously willing to pay for 4K and not use it?

L.E. It goes without saying, but I'll say it nevertheless: I don't see the lack of 4K on the 6D Mark II as an issue. The low dynamic range, though...

I agree. I'm a still photographer first and foremost. I do use a lot of dynamic range in my images though...