Pentax K-1 full frame DSLR camera officially announced


The Pentax K-1 full frame DSLR camera is now officially announced. Head over to PentaxRumors for a detailed coverage.

This entry was posted in Pentax, Ricoh and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Duncan Dimanche

    1800$ ! That’s a very VERY agressive price !

    Good job Pentax !

    and it’s the first DSLR with inbody stabilisation !! awesome !

    • MdB

      No it isn’t the first, it is miles from the first. It’s the first FF DSLR with 5-axis IS though.

      • Spy Black

        What other DSLR had it? Are you thinking of mirrorless?

        • NLKA07

          The first FF DSLR had IBIS was Sony A900, that was back in 2009.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        yes that’s what I meant

    • good price indeed

    • Ufupuw

      First DSLR? LOL. Sony FF DSLRS A900/A850 had IBIS 9 years ago.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Aiki76

      Pentax introduced in-body stabilisation in 2006, and it is present in all their DSLR since that moment. The K1’s shake reduction is a 5 axes stabilisation, so is a great improvement of the previous technology.

      • Ufupuw

        Minolta DiMAGE A1 had IBIS back in 2003

  • PhilK

    Hmm, well there it is. Not exactly the prettiest face on the block..

    • Cinekpol

      Well, it looks like Pentax.

      • PhilK

        Well I guess it looks like a modern Pentax. Maybe that’s the problem.

        Because a lot of the older, classic Pentaxes starting with old H3, Spotmatic, Mx, Me, LX… were pretty decent looking.. some downright elegant IMHO. (Spotmatic)

    • Sakaphoto Graphics

      The images out of it are more important than the images of it.

      • PhilK

        I agree, but it is telling that very few people that choose to comment on my point are defending the look of the camera, just making points like this. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        And while the preview images I perused on DPreview did look pretty good, I as a visually-oriented person (photography, eh) also like my tools to not be ugly to look at.

        Not that I think the K-1 is super ugly (that booby-prize might go to the EOS-1Dx-II and its ugly pentaprism hump), I just don’t think it’s particularly pleasant to look at either. Neither do the ergonomics look particularly appealing, but then again that’s something I’d rather determine in person.

        I also don’t understand why a company would use a really cheap-looking silkscreened model number on the front of their flagship camera. I guess it’s all part of the cost-cutting to keep the price cheap.

        • Sakaphoto Graphics

          Probably but I’m less sensitive to the exterior, except for cars.

          It seems that many people buy a camera for how it represents them. Someone was arguing with me over rangefinder or SLR style for mirrorless–all I see are camera bodies helping me finish my job.

          • PhilK

            For me the functionality is primary and the “look” is secondary, but that doesn’t mean the “look” isn’t important at all. Whether I would rather have something “cool” looking… that’s tertiary, I guess. I just don’t want it to look ugly, mostly.

          • Sakaphoto Graphics

            I understand. When the first Somy dSLRs arrived, a friend from Singapore kept telling me how beautiful they were and I didn’t agree. I don’t care for the retro look, either but I suppose I would pick something more modern.

    • Cynog

      I like it, but then, I’m a great fan of tanks and military hardware. Purposeful is how I’d describe it.

    • Zos Xavius

      Because how a camera looks is the most important part.

    • ThePatriotMuckraker

      Neither are the Blobs from Canon. Nikon’s Blobs are nicer, I’ll give you that.

      • PhilK

        I think in general the Canon’s look fine, I just don’t like their ergonomics much.

        The EOS-1Dx-II, on the other hand, with that horrible pentaprism tumor, is probably the worst-looking Canon I’ve seen in a long time.

  • VanHoff

    Is that a revamped Tammy 15-30 in the third image? :-O

    • toinks

      rebadged ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Sakaphoto Graphics

        It is marked WR so it may be well-sealed, not just moisture resistant.

        • toinks

          that would be good news if true. on a different note, i hope pentax would release another UWA that has a filter thread.

        • Aiki76

          WR stands for weather resistant. There are a lot of video on youtube (for other Pentax DSLD, still not for K1 but will be the same) showing the camera put under the water without any damage

          • Sakaphoto Graphics

            Putting a weather-sealed camera under water is asking for trouble. If you have an accident and it survives that’s one thing. Inviting disaster means that someone has too much money.

            I’d used Olympus equipment out in three hurricanes and it’s still fine but I’d never think to put it in a lake, a pool, or the ocean.

  • Aiki76

    maximum native ISO: 51000, the double of Canon 5d mark III

    • Ritvar Krum

      Please do not give attention to this PR ISO craze that producers started lately… give them attention, praise and clicks for ISO performance increase (thus if new ISO 3200 is better than previous 3200)… or else everybody will start to go on ISO full Nikon (read – full retard) will see millions and billions but my Iso 3200 (or whatever your comfortable limit is) will stay the same in fact if this will be so – those pushed isos will stay the same too

      • PhilK

        Nikon has a long history of improving their “standard” ISO sensitivity, and since the D2 series, adding an “extended” range as well. Nikon’s IQ standard for the “standard” range is high.

        And while the “extended” range is now as much as 5 stops higher than the “standard” range – the new Nikons still have the broadest “standard” range in the industry, and I don’t doubt for a second that as per usual, they will be either the absolute leaders in high-iso performance for their era, or at the very least, at the very topmost levels.

        • Aiki76

          In this case, is the max native ISO, and not only the extended ones, that are better in the K1 than in the competitors… the performance will be better also at the intermediate ISO values, such as 6,400 and 12,000 ISO, that will be really usefull

    • Sakaphoto Graphics

      For quite a while, their APS-C dSLRs had a maximum sensitivity of ISO 51,200 so it’s good that they’ve doubled that maximum and put the normal maximum at 51,200.

      Reality won’t have anything to do with that. ISO 6400 should be brilliant, though.

  • Cinekpol

    After years of denial and talking how APS-C is the best format, or how noone needs FF when Pentax offers Medium Format, or how Full frame doesn’t give any advantages worth an upgrade from APS-C, or… bla bla bla – we finally see a full frame from Pentax.

    Makes me wonder what took them so long, but none the less – let’s officially welcome Pentax to the Full Frame family ๐Ÿ™‚

    • PhilK

      Probably the cost of FF sensors and a little revenue from their MF line helped, I’d guess.

  • liking thew price of an ff. thanks pentax. my new ff fave.

  • Sakaphoto Graphics

    Bet it’s quite a bit more versatile than the Canon 6D or Nikon D610 at a competitive launch price.

    • MonkeySpanner

      Problem is, the lenses. Makes it less versatile.

      • Sakaphoto Graphics

        That’s partly true, but I’d rather have quality than quantity.

        Pentax have a long way to go to update their 135 Format lenses for 2016.

        • MonkeySpanner

          Yes and canikon has quality and quantity.

          • Sakaphoto Graphics

            Some but lately, I’ve seen a lot of complaints about Nikon’s latest lens revisions.

          • MonkeySpanner

            Well, to me they really only need a small number of lenses to be relavant. They need a fast normal zoom and a fast tele zoom. Those must be optically excellent and hell for stout. Then a few fast primes and that should do it. Let third parties fill in the rest while they build up the catalogue.

          • Sakaphoto Graphics

            Pentax? Yes, the right lenses are what’s needed. Some of their current offerings are quite good but third party lenses are not, as with those for Sony.

          • PhilK

            Probably because there’s a lot more people using them. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            Any rational person can see that Pentax’s lens selection is a key weak point – and even the lenses they are offering are not all their own, some are obvious OEM rebadges. And there is this hodgepodge of different styles and so on.

            Will be interesting to see if they make a committment to updating some of their old film lenses or not. That would help a lot. The “classic” Pentax lenses were pretty good in their day.

          • Sakaphoto Graphics

            During the 1970s, Pentax (and FujiFilm) was much stronger, I guess, because Canon was so weak. They had good answers for everything, it seemed.

            Pentax seems to be returning to that, slowly but I ended up giving away my K-50 just because I couldn’t get the right lenses and someone had their equipment stolen and I bought a D7200.

          • PhilK

            I’m still a bit skeptical of what Ricoh is going to do with the company, because for example, the fit/finish is not particularly impressing me (classic Ricoh problem from back in the 1970s/1980s when I was in the camera business), and their insistence to keep putting the “Ricoh” name out there in relation to the Pentax products suggests that they are not really supporting the Pentax brand that well and really want to just use it to enforce the Ricoh brand.

            Which is, to me, a pity. Because I think Pentax would develop a better unique identity without the Ricoh baggage. The way it’s going, makes me think they want to eventually kill off the Pentax brand entirely.

            I’d love to see them do something like what Olympus and Fuji have been doing, getting back to their roots, not just for the sake of nostalgia but with some very practical designs. But Olympus and Fuji are still the original companies.. Pentax is not.

          • Sakaphoto Graphics

            Ricoh’s oddness + Pentax’ quirkiness seemed a bad match but they’re okay together.

            I miss the Pentax ME Super but little else. The K-50 felt good and works well for the price point.

          • Aiki76

            Ricoh name has been printed only on the back of K3 body. On the back of K3II and K1 there is a Pentax writing and no Ricoh logo…
            I think that Ricoh values very much and respect the Pentax identity an history

          • PhilK

            I hope so. We will see.

          • MdB

            What!? The very fact that Ricoh are letting their good name be plastered on a Pentax shows they have a lot of pride in the Pentax brand, despite it being dragged through the mud by Hoya. It’s not a bad thing that they are trying to help that association along. It’s only diehard Pentax fans that somehow find that offensive.

            As for build quality, you are basing this off cameras from the 70’s-80’s when you were ‘in the business’… What business?

            Olympus and Fuji? Who cares whether they are the ‘original business’, what the heck does that even mean? They are both publically owned companies with likely a workforce of way less than 1% from the ‘original business’.

          • PhilK

            I worked in photo retail for a number of years.

            The comment about the “original business” pertains to when a company tries to “get back to their roots”, and their “roots” don’t actually really exist any more (because some random company or investor fund just bought the name for the purpose of marketing, for example), it’s kind of insulting to the people who they are hoping will find that exercise “comforting”. It’s just a marketing slogan.

            Whereas when a company like Nikon, Canon or Olympus – which are basically under the same ownership and with a number of staff still connected to the entity that existed 30, 40, 50 or more years ago – produce a “classic” or “retro” product – that actually means something other than a superficial slogan. For example, Nikon has made new “collector’s edition” copies of some of their classic rangefinder camera from the 1950s (S3 in 2000, and SP in 2005) – *using the original tooling from the 1950s*. Leica has done the same.

            Pentax was a strong force in the photographic industry long before Ricoh was even on the map – and Ricoh’s main business today is office equipment. So yes, I think that Pentax’s historical reputation in the camera/optics field is much better than Ricoh’s is, in general.

            Some people don’t care about such historical matters, and that’s fine. But if you’re going to argue about all the benefits of this “Pentax branding”, then one would assume you see something valuable in what it stands for, besides just the letters on the front of the housing.

          • ThePatriotMuckraker

            You will probably never own 95% of the canikon lenses in production. So, your point is moot.

          • MonkeySpanner

            You are WAY off. Its more like 98%.

          • Aiki76

            Today, 12 high quality Pentax lenses in production supports full frame, from 15 to 450 mm, and it is the day of the launch of ff for Pentax. It’s a good starting point. Plus hundreds of legacy lenses. Plus every DA lenses, that can be used with crop mode and sometimes support FF too. I guess that in a couple of years the lens lineup will be improved

  • Duncan Dimanche

    I wonder if this is their flagship FF or will they come out with a “pro” version at those 3000$ price range ?

    • Zos Xavius

      Don’t be silly. Of course it is the new flagship. This camera isn’t “pro” enough for you?

  • Duncan Dimanche

    Admin: no info on the magnification of the viewfinder ?

  • Duncan Dimanche

    Admin: no info on the magnification of the viewfinder ?
    crossing my fingers for a big one but I think that we would all have heard of it by now if it was that nice…

  • MonkeySpanner

    Does anyone know if Pentax has implemented focus peaking in live view on this body?

    • Aiki76

      Yes, there is focus peaking

      • MonkeySpanner

        Gawd, I can’t understand why canikon doesn’t do this. Lots of good manual lenses from Nikon, but manual focus through the vf is a bit$#. Focus peaking much better.

        • PhilK

          I assume because it requires a completely different viewfinder design, that Nikon feels either adds excessively to the cost of the product, uses too much battery power, or perhaps causes potential reliability/longevity issues.

          It’s of course trivial to include it in an EVF or in LiveView, and Nikon could certainly easily do it in LiveView if they wanted. But I personally cannot stand shooting using the display on the back of a camera as a viewfinder unless I absolutely have to. (Eg, low-angle shot, certain kinds of macro photography, etc)

          • MonkeySpanner

            Yeah, I also detest shooting a DSLR in live view, but if it means the difference between getting a focused image or a blurry one, I will do it. Mirrorless are way ahead on this front.

          • PhilK

            They are ahead on that front because it is trivial to provide when you have a full-time EVF.

            Just buy lots of batteries. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Back to top