Pentax K-1 FF

Yes that mechanism looks rather fragile.
 
At least one member on the Pentax Forum has the K-1 In hand,waiting to see images from the camera.
 
pez said:

Yes, the article is a very nice write-up on the concepts the designers used, some of the physical design parameters, and the ways the camera has been styled and conceptualized and how it differs from other d-slr cameras. I agree, it's a nice article, and reading it makes me want to actually SEE, hold, and shoot one. If there's a downside to it, it's the ignorant-of-tradition, mirrorless-fawning, 27-year-old boy-type of attitude that, since this is not mirrorless, it's really a POS project. The writer is clearly ignorant of what the K-mount was, and what it offers, and WHY a small, niche company like Ricoh / Pentax would have been utterly INSANE to have developed this as anything BUT a traditional Pentax-like cam era that used PENTAX'S long-established K-mount. Yes, the article is good, and generally favorable, but the headline, and the author both needed the touch of an editor that actually understands WHAT a Pentax camera has meant since the 1960's.

Pentax has always been about good design, good ergonomics, and backward compatibility of the lenses, over decades. It's annoying to see young writers who look at cameras like new toys, like brand-new, just-invented products--as if they have no existing ecosystem, no exiting user base, no millions of legacy users,. no millions upon millions of thread-moutn AMND K-mount lenses that span nearly fifty years. It's as if these guys look at a product not for what is actually ***Is***, but for what it "is not". This is the typical attitude of tech nerds who really don't truly understand the legacy-brand cameras. Obviously, the PentaxK-1 is a POS project because...it's not an iPhone. Obviously, it's garbage, because it's not a Sony. Obviously it's junk, because it's not a mirrorless. That is the Tech Radar attitude...

I OTOH, have owned and shot a number of Pentax cameras over the decades, MX, ME-Super, Super Program, Program Plus, and 35-70,50,55,85/1.8,135/2.8, 200, and was always impressed by the optics, and the Nikon-like similarities of mounting, focusing, and handling. Very Nikon-like in the haptics, and good lenses. Very traditional Japanese CAMERA-like design ethos...not the consumer electronics style of the alarm clock and TV-maker companies, like Panasonic and Sony..the mirrorless stuff the young tech and photo-press writers of today wet their pants over.
 
Last edited:
Having owned Pentax gear since the MX and ME days, I agree with you. I didn't see a huge amount of dismissive attitude in that article, though. Maybe I'm just hardened to Pentax editorial abuse, like the bilge that Ken Rockwell dishes out about each and every Pentax product, lol. This one seemed relatively upbeat and informative by comparison. Hey, I have a Pentax mirrorless K-mount body- a K-01! Two of them, actually- because they were so cheap when it was discontinued. They are quirky, thick as a brick, and every time I have ever used one, I've caught myself bringing it to my eye (awkward), but I love those cameras. Stick a 40mmXS super pancake on one and everyone thinks you have a P&S- especially with the yellow one. Yes, developing an entire replacement lens range would probably be a disaster and kill Pentax.
 
Last edited:
I'm a former editor...I see the editorial bias in the headline, and the very craftily-worded, snide, back-handed swipes at Pentax. I see this as a sort of institutional discrimination...I'm attuned to seeing bias and editorializing, and that's what this piece of writing has too much of: editorializing. They describe lil' ole Pentax, dumbly making a new D-SLR, "in a mirrorless world", as they framed the article. I see the following back-handed digs in this article.

Headline: "....in a mirroless world"

"a daring DSLR in an age when mirrorless cameras are all the rage."

"Pentax could have easily made the camera significantly smaller and simpler by developing the K-1 as a mirrorless camera system. However,... "

"...the Pentax K-1 is just a full frame that's trying to play catch up with other DSLRs, like the Nikon D5 and Canon 1D X Mark II"

"the current camera is still massive next to mirrorless systems and even its film-based predecessors. So, there's plenty of work to be done."
 
Yeah, it's bizarre that it's nearly impossible to find an unbiased review of Pentax gear. By definition, however they are having to play catch-up in the FF world since this is the first effort. The MF experience was a huge help. It's a testament to Pentax/Ricoh engineers that the K-1 is so very competitive and innovative right out of the gate. I'm certainly looking forward to having one in my greedy little paws...
 
I have this idea that this thing is going to be an amazing camera in the hand...just LOOK at that middle finger groove, an d the mock-up/trial pieces in the article...the top non-labelled, multi-function wheel...the analog-type controls...the large prism housing--and more-importantly, the comment about being able to observe wide-aperture depth of field by looking through the finder; one of the Canon high-end FF models Canon's Chuck Westfall said has an effective viewfinder screen scatter factor that rendered the DOF as visually only f/4.8--no matter how wide the aperture of the lens in use! This might have a KatzEye-equivalent type screen in it, stock.

I have a feeling that this camera might have a from-the-factory viewfinder screen that has a different scatter factor than new-era, autofocusing cameras have--a screen that is ground coarsely, not super-finely, and probably not artificially brightened by the camera's battery when the battery is installed and the camera is switched on and is brightening the screen image. If so, that would make this camera perhaps THE best camera in years as far as manually focusing lenses, AND for being able to literally SEE the degree of in-focus and out of focus with fast lenses; given the huge backlog of K-mount manual focusing lenses, this would make a huge amount of sense.

The other thing is that Ricoh has always been a company that has made cameras that are reallllllllly "good shooters". The Ricoh GR for example, has a very enviable record as a real shooter's camera. One of TPF's best shooters loves the GR.
 
I have this idea that this thing is going to be an amazing camera in the hand...just LOOK at that middle finger groove, an d the mock-up/trial pieces in the article...the top non-labelled, multi-function wheel...the analog-type controls...the large prism housing--and more-importantly, the comment about being able to observe wide-aperture depth of field by looking through the finder; one of the Canon high-end FF models Canon's Chuck Westfall said has an effective viewfinder screen scatter factor that rendered the DOF as visually only f/4.8--no matter how wide the aperture of the lens in use! This might have a KatzEye-equivalent type screen in it, stock.

I have a feeling that this camera might have a from-the-factory viewfinder screen that has a different scatter factor than new-era, autofocusing cameras have--a screen that is ground coarsely, not super-finely, and probably not artificially brightened by the camera's battery when the battery is installed and the camera is switched on and is brightening the screen image. If so, that would make this camera perhaps THE best camera in years as far as manually focusing lenses, AND for being able to literally SEE the degree of in-focus and out of focus with fast lenses; given the huge backlog of K-mount manual focusing lenses, this would make a huge amount of sense.

The other thing is that Ricoh has always been a company that has made cameras that are reallllllllly "good shooters". The Ricoh GR for example, has a very enviable record as a real shooter's camera. One of TPF's best shooters loves the GR.

I would die to have a super viewfinder, one that was at least "above useful". This is my number one problem with the D3300. Of course, never thought about that as something important when I bought it. I am reminded of it every time I shoot with a Nikon F, Pentax K1000, or my Canon T70. I think I am more creative with framing and composition using an above average viewfinder.
 
I have this idea that this thing is going to be an amazing camera in the hand...just LOOK at that middle finger groove, an d the mock-up/trial pieces in the article...the top non-labelled, multi-function wheel...the analog-type controls...the large prism housing--and more-importantly, the comment about being able to observe wide-aperture depth of field by looking through the finder; one of the Canon high-end FF models Canon's Chuck Westfall said has an effective viewfinder screen scatter factor that rendered the DOF as visually only f/4.8--no matter how wide the aperture of the lens in use! This might have a KatzEye-equivalent type screen in it, stock.

I have a feeling that this camera might have a from-the-factory viewfinder screen that has a different scatter factor than new-era, autofocusing cameras have--a screen that is ground coarsely, not super-finely, and probably not artificially brightened by the camera's battery when the battery is installed and the camera is switched on and is brightening the screen image. If so, that would make this camera perhaps THE best camera in years as far as manually focusing lenses, AND for being able to literally SEE the degree of in-focus and out of focus with fast lenses; given the huge backlog of K-mount manual focusing lenses, this would make a huge amount of sense.

The other thing is that Ricoh has always been a company that has made cameras that are reallllllllly "good shooters". The Ricoh GR for example, has a very enviable record as a real shooter's camera. One of TPF's best shooters loves the GR.
I hope this is the case!!
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top