Biro: No touchscreen, no native wifi, big K-mount lens with noisy autofocus. The problem with the K-S1 is that it's not going to appeal to its intended market: mobile-interface shooters. There've been only two devices that have resonated with this market in the past decade: the iPhone and the GoPro camera. Pentax and the rest of the traditional camera industry still don't have a clue about how to reach these people and I have to wonder what Pentax's next crack at mirrorless will look like. I just have to shake my head.
Sandy - It's DPR -- not me -- that calls EOS1200D, D3300, and K-S1 "entry level." I think K-S1 punches a little bit above that weight class, but I took them at their word to pull up the side-by-sides for 2014. (Of course, DPR also calls the D5300 you mention a "compact SLR" -- like it does EOS1200 and D3300 -- when all three of those are actually larger in all dimensions than the "mid-size" K-S1. So we know DPR mixes some things up.) As for the grip looking wrong, I'm not making a judgment on how it feels until I hold it. As for colors, I think the red D5300 would be just the thing for YOU if you buy one.
"Pentax and the rest of the traditional camera industry still don't have a clue about how to reach these people"
That might be the case, and it might be difficult to do if attempted. But among the C, N, and P "entry level" (DPR's categorization) DSLRs for 2014 (EOS1200D, D3300, K-S1), go to the side-by-side comparison tool and . . . compare. None have touch screen, none have built-in wifi (but Pentax accepts FLU and Eye-Fi cards), and all have big lens mounts. Pentax pretty much wins the comparison not only on specs but also in not being just another black blob. Is it an iPhone or a Go-Pro hit? Surely not, but for an "entry level" (DPR's categorization) DSLR, it's a better at-bat than C or N have done in 2014.
Clyde Thomas: I come here mostly for the colorful comments. Some of you guys are hilarious. Thanks for the laughs Pentax. Hope you do well with this.
More laughs in store with Canon's and Nikon's 2014 "entry level" black blobs with knobs! Their pentamirror viewfinders are especially hilarious, not to mention that they are called "Compact SLR" here at DPR when they are bigger than the "mid-size" K-S1 in every dimension. Now THAT'S funny!
solarider: "If you look closely at what's on the screen above, you'll see that Pentax has given the menus a new font. And it's about time."
DPR: Fontification? Fontastic?
Strange, was the font so bad in the first place? I never noticed.
The Pentax menu font has always been just fine, perfectly legible and clear. DPR's "insight" here is some kind of "princess and the pea" criticism.
drummercam: Comparing the Pentax K-S1 to the Pentax K-50 is definitely a good way to avoid having to compare it to Canon's 2014 entry-level DSLR, the EOS 1200D (Rebel T5). I don't think the pentamirror, mono-microphone, 3fps, 0.8mag viewfinder, 460K-dot LCD EOS 1200D compares favorably at all, and the price difference is buying solid features, including build, no doubt.
And since "looks" get most of the troll action here, that black blob of a Canon lacks all distinction. Also obvious just by looking -- since looking is all that the complainers about the K-S1 have done as of yet -- is that if Pentax intended to present a less intimidating user interface, comparing K-S1 to the EOS 1200D wins the point easily.
DPR also again shows some anti-Pentax bias by listing (according to the "side-by-side" feature) the EOS as a "Compact SLR" and the Pentax as a "Mid-size SLR." The Canon is apparently 130 x 100 x 78mm, while the Pentax is 121 x 93 x 70mm. I guess compact is bigger than mid-size now?
@Tan68 -- DPR's muddling of compact and mid-size is only a corollary point to my main point, but I do think it is very deliberate. Nikon's only "entry-level" DSLR in 2014 (D3300) is also listed as a "Compact SLR" . . . and it too is bigger than the "mid-size" K-S1 in all dimensions.
It's all part of the pattern. K-S1 kicks the soup out of the EOS 1200D, but I think it also takes on the D3300 quite handily. Nonetheless, DPR compares the K-S1 to the Pentax K-50?? Looks like someone wants to take the edge off of the new model's sales and throw them to the K-50 if possible. We certainly wouldn't want the Pentax 2014 "entry level" DSLR to grab anything from Canon or Nikon, now would we? My view is that the K-S1 beats both of the "entry level" offerings for 2014 from Canon and Nikon, and does so not ugly at all, but pretty darned elegantly compared to those black blobs.
The K-3 and the K-5 series were all gizmos. Uh, . . . right, King P.
sdh: Wow. Just... wow.Cameras like this give Canon and Nikon fanbois something to genuinely bond over.
Like Canon's beautiful entry-level DSLR for 2014, the EOS 1200D!
Comparing the Pentax K-S1 to the Pentax K-50 is definitely a good way to avoid having to compare it to Canon's 2014 entry-level DSLR, the EOS 1200D (Rebel T5). I don't think the pentamirror, mono-microphone, 3fps, 0.8mag viewfinder, 460K-dot LCD EOS 1200D compares favorably at all, and the price difference is buying solid features, including build, no doubt.
Excellent picture. Attractive color palette, interesting scene, crisp detail from that K-5 with the 15 Ltd. Congratulations.
Juck: Seems a bit gimmicky,,,nothing really sexy,,, definitely one for the Pentax fanboys.
Not at all. The fanboys already have a K-30, or a K-50, or a K-5, or a K-3, or a Q, together with a K-01 that they got when prices made it the best bargain in show business for a while. They won't be buying this. This is a new design for new users who, with the more or less standard Pentax features and always very nice user interface, will be well-served by it.
HS Wells: K-S1 is a replacement of K-01 ?
steelhead3: That OVF viewfinder sure has good specs compared to any competition.
Yes, the K-S1 pentaprism goes unmentioned. We did hear that the menu font apparently needed changing, though. And about time!
"bashed our heads"
"Losing skin cells"
Sounds like the K-S1 attacked you.
"About time" for a new font on the menus? What? The font has been just fine. "Bizarre" LEDs? Those are for that market segment DPR can't seem to imagine exists.
In short, I hear some back-handed, unnecessary slamming of Pentax, as usual.
JonathanFV: Also, I'm wondering about something else. Let's say I have my camera on a table in my room, and that I own a cat, who happens to bump head first on the table leg, making the camera fall and the impact triggering the shutter and taking a picture of the cat whose head is still smashing on the table leg. Then I get home, find my camera on the ground, take a look at the photo, and surprise! It's a good photo. It happened randomly. I didn't really take the photo. I could claim a copyright for it, lying and pretending I'm the one who too the photo. But if I told the truth, and if I was honest with myself... I was just lucky. It's okay that not everything belongs to someone.
Jonathan, I hereby demand that you send me a full resolution copy of that public domain cat photo. I'm producing a line of animal greeting cards, and that one sounds just perfect. I'm also demanding the same of Mr. Slater and the monkey picture.
And oh yes, send the RAW file, please, not the jpeg.
RStyga: Nice design but still mediocre IQ and below average lenses. There was nothing wrong with the original Q design, by the way; all subsequent ones were much inferior in built quality. An updated sensor and a few high quality, pancake, very bright primes might do the trick.
"Much inferior" is not accurate, I'm afraid. I have both Q and Q7. There is nothing inferior about Q7's robustness. The pop-up flash, which has several moving parts and one might think is fragile, comprises exactly the same components in both models, and no doubt Q-S1. The sensor assembly behind the lens - exactly the same (but for Q7's larger one, which is not the current point). Hot shoe and controls -- ditto. SD card and battery doors -- again exactly the same. The LCD screen on Q7 is actually improved over the Q. The metal chassis of the Q -- if that is what people refer to when saying the Q is better -- is a fully transparent issue in-hand. There is nothing any less breakable about the Q than the Q7. Q had a stereo microphone, which none of the other Q's have, but that's about it, and again it's not really the point if we're talking about robustness. Some people might like the Q better (I don't because of the LCD), but "much better" than any version since is simply a myth.
drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.
@Pat - One banana only, and that is being generous. The macaque is lucky to be out of jail. If he wants another banana, he can steal it.
Scottelly: I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.
That's probably correct -- Wikimedia should take the photo down . . . if that's what Mr. Slater wants. If he wants to sell prints based on free advertising Wikimedia chooses to give him, that's good for him, too. But it's his call; Mr. Slater owns the work.
Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.
LarryLatchkey: this is a beautiful AND functional. is there any similarly compact 17.5–27 mm superwide angle around? I don't think so, not in a tiny length of 38mm (sic!)http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/lenses/pentax_q_08Mind you it's not a fisheye...but, again, the Q-S1 with the 08 wide zoom would summ up to near to €1000. Hmmm...
"but, again, the Q-S1 with the 08 wide zoom would sum up to near to €1000."
That's why the Q7 Premium Kit that included the 08, 06, 01, 02, all the hoods, a PL filter, the Q7, and a bag for the entire system was such a good deal, and not much more cost.
drummercam: Q-S1 is basically a new production run of the Q7 because, despite the detractors, it is selling well and filling a niche in the market. Many manufacturers freshen up designs after a year and it's a smart thing to do. The system allows you to have a camera system with you on a casual basis with a range of lenses from fisheye to 200mm+ (35mm eq.), and in a bag the size of very small shaving kit. If I go out for a specific shooting purpose, yep, I'll carry the Billingham or the backpack. If I want to be ready for opportunistic photography while out doing something else, the entire Q-system is a barely noticeable carry. The new design will get pull some new buyers, Ricoh has the right to put it out there, and if you don't like it, that's fine too. I find the system very handy, and the IQ for opportunistic shots is more than good enough. I never use my cell phone for casual or documentary shots anymore, just for processing and uploading shots wi-fi'ed from the Q.
Don't know why I would be describing Oly's here, but you force me to ask whether it goes as wide as rectilinear 17.5mm (eq), which I use a lot with the Q 08 lens, especially indoors. Not to mention fisheye (which admittedly I use less often now that I have that nice 08). Superzoom, I don't care much for that but I can use a K-to-Q adapter and bring my K-mount lenses into play if i need to go longer for the kind of shooting I described. I guess I'd also have to get new Oly compatible flashes and a remote control and other bits, so no, I'm not describing an Oly anything here in a Pentax thread.