[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Doesn't matter, I can try it for free. Spending $400-$600 just isn't an option, and for my needs, it may be all I need. WIth Nikon, you have one choice, spend $400-$600. It's amazing how quick you are to start downplaying the significance of Pentax features.

Amazing how an individual will start to up playing a feature and that it will somehow persuade a user of another brand into pentax with this feature. When they look at the cost to include a camera body with such a feature its just much cheaper for them to stay with what they have and add a $300 tracker. Or even keep using my K5 and pickup a tracker is a much more cheaper than upgrading and in the end I have something that can be used with a much greater range of versatility.

[Rondec]

Amazing how an individual will start to up playing a feature and that it will somehow persuade a user of another brand into pentax with this feature. When they look at the cost to include a camera body with such a feature its just much cheaper for them to stay with what they have and add a $300 tracker. Or even keep using my K5 and pickup a tracker is a much more cheaper than upgrading and in the end I have something that can be used with a much greater range of versatility.

To be honest, the biggest feature that the K-1 and K-1 II bring to the table is that fact that they use the K mount, which happens to be the same mount that many of us here have lenses for. I do happen to think that Pentax is still a good deal and that if you aren't interested in video, the K-1 II provides about as good still image quality as you can get on the market, short of medium format. I do happen to like pixel shift a lot for landscapes, but I haven't used astro tracer more than a handful of times. It is still nice that Pentax offers these sorts of features.

At the same time, I don't know why this has to turn into "Pentax is awesome, Nikon is terrible" sort of situation (other than that we are in the internet and arguments just sort of spring up). Nikon has nice cameras and so does Pentax. I'm not an MILC fan, but I would have no trouble recommending a D850 or a D810 for that matter to someone who was interested in a full frame camera, but I would recommend a K-1 as well.

This sort of thread comes on the Forum when it has been awhile since the last K mount release. Of course, we did just get the HD FA 35 and the DA *11-16, but there hasn't been a new body for quite awhile. I think APS-C shooters, in particular, are ready for some sort of K3 II sequel.

[reh321]

I doubt a "high powered mover" would interested in Pentax, but if by some weird chance they were and they were following the prevailing winds the first two things they would do are (a) ditch the k mount for a new shorter registration distance mount and (b) move total focus away from APS-C development to full frame. That is basically what Canon, Sony, and Nikon are doing. The only companies that are actually working on APS-C products are Fuji and Pentax. Pentax just is slow about it.

I don't know what Canon and Nikon are working on, but they are still selling APS-C cameras; the best-selling Canon MILC at B&H is still the M-50, and the Rebel T6 is just ahead of it on the overall list {overall best sellers are Nikon D850 and Canon 6Dii}

I am glad Pentax is still working on APS-C - a lot of folk here are desperately waiting for the K-3ii replacement.

[normhead]

Amazing how an individual will start to up playing a feature and that it will somehow persuade a user of another brand into pentax with this feature. When they look at the cost to include a camera body with such a feature its just much cheaper for them to stay with what they have and add a $300 tracker. Or even keep using my K5 and pickup a tracker is a much more cheaper than upgrading and in the end I have something that can be used with a much greater range of versatility.

Amazing how some proselytizer is allowed to come to the Pentax forum and harass Pentax users for liking the features on their camera. You are still here for one reason my friend. I don't own the site. Your camera doesn't have it, Pentax does so there must be some reason it doesn't count. Like for $400-600 you can get a better solution. Really? You don't have the intellectual capacity to separate your self from being argumentative to be able to see that's not an argument that appeals to 95% of camera users? Why you're tolerated here is beyond me. You argue out of both sides of your mouth 'Nikon , Nikon, Nikon".

So tell me oh wise one, what percentage of camera owners own a tracking mount? What percentage of people are actually interested in taking your advice enough to pay $400-600 for something that will 363 days a year just take up space in their garage. To what percentage of the population is your tracking system meaningful? A very, very small percent.

Or even keep using my K5 and pickup a tracker is a much more cheaper than upgrading and in the end I have something that can be used with a much greater range of versatility.

You are apparently one of those users who doesn't know how to make use of the extra 21 MP of a K-1 or even the extra 8 of a K-P. Do you even know what cropping is or how to do it? Incredible that just for the sake of argument, you would ignore 8 years of progress in the camera industry. That's disappointing, but, there is nothing any one of us can do about your skill level or your opinion. You think you already know it all.

Why do you come here? Just too rub "Nikon. Nikon, Nikon " in everyone's face? We made our decision with our wallets. Not cheap talk telling everyone why they shouldn't appreciate the features of their gear.

Your posts insult the intelligence of everyone on this site.

Pentax has Pixel shift, astrotracer and IBIS. Nikon DSLR's don't. You may decide those things are irrelevant to you, but you don't get to tell even one other person they are irrelevant to them. That's not your call. And you certainly don't get to say cameras without the are "more versatile" for not having them. That's just lying out of the side of your mouth.

Maybe you should just be honest and admit you'd like to try some of those features instead of jealously trying to minimize their value. You only know one thing for sure. No camera you own has those features, and you don't know if you'd like them or not, because you've never tried them. Your opinion is the BS you have to make up because you can't admit to the inadequacy of your gear in those areas where it doesn't measure up to Pentax standards.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-08-2019 at 05:55 AM.

[Rondec]

I don't know what Canon and Nikon are working on, but they are still selling APS-C cameras; the best-selling Canon MILC at B&H is still the M-50, and the Rebel T6 is just ahead of it on the overall list {overall best sellers are Nikon D850 and Canon 6Dii}

I am glad Pentax is still working on APS-C - a lot of folk here are desperately waiting for the K-3ii replacement.

Consumers want smaller and cheaper packages and that typically means APS-C. At the same time, Canon and Nikon would really like shift more photographers into full frame cameras. Clearly there is a disconnect there and we'll just have to see how it plays out.

I am sure there will still be APS-C cameras released, but I just don't see many new crop lenses from these companies and even the rate of release of crop bodies has slowed considerably at the same time that they are powering into full frame MILCs.

[Winder]

Pentax provides the best bang for the buck!!.

That depends on what you need. If Pentax provided the most bang for the buck for most people, then they wouldn't be in low single digit market share territory. They provide the most bang for the buck for a very small group of people. There are quite a few former Pentax users who have bit the bullet and switched brands. They were willing to spend that money because they were getting more bang for their buck with another brand.

[reh321]

Consumers want smaller and cheaper packages and that typically means APS-C. At the same time, Canon and Nikon would really like shift more photographers into full frame cameras. Clearly there is a disconnect there and we'll just have to see how it plays out.

I am sure there will still be APS-C cameras released, but I just don't see many new crop lenses from these companies and even the rate of release of crop bodies has slowed considerably at the same time that they are powering into full frame MILCs.

I wonder how much the APS-C users care. Ten years ago, when I was using a Canon Rebel, I had all the lenses I wanted, and Canon EF/USM lenses completely pleased me from the moment I bought into their system in 1995; I was basically pleased with the Rebel body I was using .... yes, there were other cameras out there with more MP, but I didn't slobber over them. If I had gotten seven or eight years reliable service from each body, I would have happily purchased body after body as each one died. I switched to Pentax only because I had two Rebels die in 7-1/2 years. The Pentax K-30 system I purchased was not quite as pleasing to me, but Pentax has made serious progress in the past four years. I am completely pleased with my KP as long as it lasts a while; at age 71, I may not purchase another body, but if I outlive the KP, I would be satisfied purchasing another one as long as I have received a good service life from this one. At one time Henry Ford focused on producing Model T's better and better - GM convinced people that they needed to see regular change .... read "improvement" .... each year. We may be reaching the same point in ILC's - where the customers are happily using their cameras, and the companies are struggling to find some way to encourage them to 'upgrade'.

[normhead]

That depends on what you need. If Pentax provided the most bang for the buck for most people, then they wouldn't be in low single digit market share territory. They provide the most bang for the buck for a very small group of people. There are quite a few former Pentax users who have bit the bullet and switched brands. They were willing to spend that money because they were getting more bang for their buck with another brand.

People switch brands all the time. Some come some go.
But if there i something else out there that will give us the same IQ as a K-1 (for landscape) for less money, do tell.
Just int eh last week we've had several people either switch to or switch back to Pentax. But again, if you have information that pentax is losing market share, we'd love to here it.
I you're asking us to endorse your unconfirmed beliefs, that's not going to happen. I don't adopt anyone's unconfirmed beliefs.
You have to show me something.

[Fenwoodian]

Let's hope the gang at Pentax introduce something more tangible than a software upgrade in the next 12 months!

.
.
A software upgrade would be my dream come true!

I'm extremely happy with the performance of my Pentax K-1 cameras! Pentax's biggest shortcoming recently has been releasing great cameras that have limited (or no) post processing software support!

1. Only RAW Therapee can properly and completly process Pentax pixel shift files. Sorry, I have no interest in learning another photo editing software - like the majority of serious photographers out there, I only use "Adobe" post processing software (Photoshop, Lightroom, ACR, Premiere, Elements).
2. There is absolutely no RAW software support for the "dynamic" pixel shift files generated by the Pentax K-1ii camera.

Rather than coming up with a new and improved camera, how about Pentax getting Adobe to update their photo editing software to properly handle all of their current RAW files?

I love pixel shift, it's a game changer for my photography, however I'm currently only shooting jpg's in pixel shift mode because of inadequate RAW support.


.

[photoptimist]

I love pixel shift, it's a game changer for my photography, however I'm currently only shooting jpg's in pixel shift mode because of inadequate RAW support.

Have you tried the using the in-camera RAW development feature in the K-1's Playback menu to convert dynamic PS files to TIFF instead of JPG? I've no idea if it works but if it does you'd get a somewhat higher-quality Adobe-compatible file.

[normhead]

I've always shot Pixel Shift in raw, and exported tiffs from SIlkypix then loaded them into Aperture. It takes a little longer, but it's far from impossible.

[reh321]

Rather than coming up with a new and improved camera, how about Pentax getting Adobe to update their photo editing software to properly handle all of their current RAW files?

I'm not quite sure how Pentax would "get Adobe to" do anything.

I suppose they could release the needed routines as "Open Software" - that way the routines might at least be available to those of us who use Open Software such as 'gimp' and 'darktable', but if you insist on using Adobe, you are giving Adobe control of what functionality you receive.

[Rondec]

Have you tried the using the in-camera RAW development feature in the K-1's Playback menu to convert dynamic PS files to TIFF instead of JPG? I've no idea if it works but if it does you'd get a somewhat higher-quality Adobe-compatible file.

You can do that. My understanding is that they are only 8 bit TIFFs, so you lose something there and the time it takes to develop them is really long -- 45 or 50 seconds from what I recall, making it really clunky. I basically gave up on dynamic pixel shift and use regular pixel shift if I have a tripod and nothing but straight RAW if I am hand holding.

[kevinWE]

Ricoh is a company with an annual revenue of 2.063 trillion yen and a nett profit of 68.562 billion yen. (Year ended March 31, 2018) (0.6 billion US$)
How much more "high powered mover" do you want?

Yet they can't compete with the big boys.
Something is off with those numbers. Most likely how much money is appropriated towards Pentax cameras.


A High Powered Mover is more than a dollar sign.

[normhead]

Yet they can't compete with the big boys.

Not at all. They do compete with the big boys.

With AF.s, Pixel Shift and astro-tracer, the big boys can't compete with Pentax. It's all about how you frame the statement.

But when they bought Pentax the price for the kind of presence the other companies have was 1.6 billion. That's a lot to gamble on something that might not even work out.
Pentax is a company that got way too conservative. They hired a high powered CEO who claimed he could save the company, but they paid him way to much. He ended up with so much in stock options he sold the company to Hoya, who were basically a liquidator. By the end of the Hoya era, the company was a shell of it's former self. Ricoh is trying to find the way to clean up the damage. But the price they paid was pocket change to them.