regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff
The stats say that the Pentax kicks butt but is there more to the story than the stats suggest?
The K-1 specs are very nice, and it does perform very well.
The specs comparisons they do are OK for getting a shortlist of cameras that might suit you, and there is always more to the story than the spec list will tell you.
As always, it depends on what your shooting habits are, and what's important for you.
Having said all that, I can say I am well pleased with mine, and reckon it's a lot of camera for the price. I see it is available, body only, for less than $2800.
K-1, K-3 II, HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6ED DC AW, Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC MACRO HSM, Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF DG HSM, HD PENTAX-DA AF Rear Converter 1.4x AW
Wow. Now THAT was a biased review!
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
"Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints. Kill nothing but time"
D800 || Sigma Macro 105mm f2.8 || Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 || Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 || Samyang MF 35mm f1.4 || Samyang MF 85mm f1.4 || Nikon Speedlight SB900 || Kenko Teleconverters || Cheap eBay diffuser
The K-1 is brilliant. Had mine for two weeks now.
I do have to question the assessment too tho.
(and not because I'm a Nikon fanboi either!)
I totally fail to see how the K1 is better at sports photography, when sports photography is primarily about focus speed/accuracy and features(eg. accurate and consistent tracking) .. and usually has nothing or very little to do with image stabilisation!
And on the hand, how the K1 and D810 are equal at landscapes, when the K1 has features that make it far superior to the D810 for landscapes!
It's almost certain that the K1 is the better camera, almost certain to have a bee's thingy more dynamic range for single shots, and far more when all the important features are used to good effect.
So my question isn't so much about whether the K1 or or isn't the better overall camera for an average user(someone that dabbles in a bit of most aspects of photography).
I'm questioning(and from memory, once again) the site's ability to accurately assess camera performance!
From all reports read so far, the D810 is an order of magnitude better than the K1 for fast paced sports/action type photography simply because the D810 has a superior focusing system(features and actual physical focus ability.
But on the flip side, the K1 is about 2 orders of magnitude better value for money(unless you shoot sports for a living).
I can't compare the autofocus systems of the K-1 and D810 as I've not used a D810.
The K-1 is more than adequate for BIF, and with the lens I generally use (Pentax 150-450) it locks on fast and the focus tracks OK if you manage to keep the subject in the viewfinder...usually the hardest bit of the whole business. So if the D810 is better, it would be good for those corner cases where the subject is a bit more difficult and that would be a plus.
I should also add that the continuous autofocus settings can be a bit confusing, and Pentax could do better in explaining how to set them for best use in various cases. It has been suggested that some of the poor reviews of the K-1 autofocus could be explained by wrong settings. The review by DPR which gave a poor result to the K-1 tracking approaching bicycle riders has been refuted by a few users who have attempted similar tests with quite different results...but none of that is conclusive, all it does is suggest not is all as it may initially seem to be.
The DR, low noise and shake reduction are excellent.
Last edited by tduell; 23-07-2016 at 10:01am.
But I'd be going the other way and switching to Pentax now, if I wasn't invested so heavily in Nikon mount lenses .. and other gear.
Besides, I'm totally and completely Pissed at Nikon for the crap 10 pin(accessory) port they failed to put together properly(so my Nikon fanboi-ism is questionable).
And I emailed some unknown idiot at support and got the standard denial of responsibility reply where they aren't aware of any such issue.
And even tho I've emailed them with a detailed reply again and linked to many web pages of info regarding the exact same issue I have(10 pin port collapses into the body) one of which is the well known and popular PhotographyLife web site .. they still claim that the issue is not known within Nikon's service system.
I gave up, will not use their approved repair services, as I know they're going to charge a min $400 to replace a $2 piece of Chinese plastic junk with with a 0.50c piece of Chinese plastic crap again.
Back back onto the review site in question: It does appear that they've taken all the values claimed in the spec sheets, run them through some kind of artificial and unintelligent software .. and produced an inaccurate analysis(other than the final result that the K1 is a bit better.
The one thing that I still can't get my head around is the value for money score tho.
The D810 is close enough to double the price, yet it scores a 91 and the Pentax @ 98.
Now the Pentax I can understand at 98(out of what looks like 100 as it's so close to the top of the bar line).
So as they cameras average close to equal scores in all other departments, the assumption is that they perform almost equally(apart from the above stated advantage differences .. focus on the Nikon for sports and pixel shift on the Pentax for landscape)
So what makes them so close in value for money score?
You would expect about a 49 score on the Nikon or a 182 score for the Pentax!
Doesn't the actual cost of the product count for much in a value for money score?
it seems the most logical way to assess a value for money score.
Had mine since shortly after release, and I think it is brilliant...very happy indeed.
Pentax K-1, K-3 and some lovely, mostly Pentax, mostly prime lenses - FA 31, 43, and 77 Ltd, DA* 200 & 50-135, DA 12-24, 20-40 (ltd), 15, 21, 35 (Ltd) Macro, 40, 50, plus a couple of manuals from way back and a few others for good luck.