[PePe]

I posted a thread recently on lenses for a k3, though are looking to find some information on the k1 versus the k3, and what the real advantages are apart from megapixels/ and it being full frame.

I am currently a happy owner of a K-1. Before this body I used to shoot with a K-3, K-5, K-7, and most of the earlier APS-C bodies. The area where the K-1 excells is high ISO performance, dynamic range, and the various special functions and features. It is just amazing how much detail you can pull out of the dark areas of a K-1 RAW-frame.
With its 36 MP cell the K-1 of course has an advantage in terms of resolution - provided your lenses are up to the same standard. However, in most cases the resolution of a K-3 is more than sufficient. The K-3 has a faster frame rate and bigger buffer.
They are both very capable cameras. The only advice I can give is that you have to judge them against your own needs, and the requirements of your style of shooting.

[yozza]

It seems like the k1 is worth the investment over the k3 and in shooting low light as well. Does anyone here shoot full body portraits at all with k1? Love to know what type of lenses or lense you find most beneficial?

[sumitkar1971]

Lowlight - The first shot @ISO 3200 & the Second @ 6400 on the K1

[photobobhunt]

I have a K3 and did not go to the K3II because I like the pop up flash and have no need for GPS. I was intrigued with the K1 but in reality APS-C is good enough for me.
I have made award winning prints of 16 x 20 but lately found those with the "full framers" are getting slightly better Bokeh and resolution.
Since it took Pentax 10 years to introduce full frame , I have a lot of APS glass and really cant justify buying new full frame glass which will be heavier & more expensive.
So rather than get the K1 , I decided to upgrade all of my Glass to fast DA* and have noticed the improved quality.
The deciding factor was that many who have upgraded to the K1's are selling their DA* lenses at a good price, and I am jumping on it. Just Saying......

[btnapa]

I have a K3 and did not go to the K3II because I like the pop up flash and have no need for GPS. I was intrigued with the K1 but in reality APS-C is good enough for me.
I have made award winning prints of 16 x 20 but lately found those with the "full framers" are getting slightly better Bokeh and resolution.
Since it took Pentax 10 years to introduce full frame , I have a lot of APS glass and really cant justify buying new full frame glass which will be heavier & more expensive.
So rather than get the K1 , I decided to upgrade all of my Glass to fast DA* and have noticed the improved quality.
The deciding factor was that many who have upgraded to the K1's are selling their DA* lenses at a good price, and I am jumping on it. Just Saying......

You are the wise one. K3 is indeed a great camera. Less resolution in the sensor and better glass is always better than great sensor and so-so glass. I have shot plenty of good stuff with the K3 and even my beloved K5IIs. However, the K1 is something else. I love it and it is something to look forward too.

[UncleVanya]

Honestly for what you describe my Panasonic LX7 would be almost overkill. However, in keeping with the question, k-3 over k-1 grab a used DA* 50-135 and enjoy.

[Nicolas06]

I posted a thread recently on lenses for a k3, though are looking to find some information on the k1 versus the k3, and what the real advantages are apart from megapixels/ and it being full frame.

With my focus on full body and 3/4 portraits only for the web, plus the amount of lenses available for k3 crop and overall $$ range versus k1, am i missing out on much by not having the k1 or in image quality? Any feedback would be great

K1 main difference with K3-II is sensor size. For the rest there small improvements here and there and annoyingly it is bigger/heavier/more expensive and need bigger/heavier/more expensive lense to fully leverage its sensor.

Contrary to many there, I would not consider that the benefit of an K1 is 36MP or pixelshift, astrotracer etc. While it is there theses are for me completely secondary. The first 2 are never visible on a final picture outside of 100% crop and astrotracer is very specialized.

No, what really interresting is because of the sensor size you get:
- significantly better low light performance. This is clearly visible on many low light shots
- You can select lens with slower apperture and still get nice subject isolation and the wide open performance of the lens look much better
- Overall better rendering, better image quality allowing for more errors, more post processing...

As if you couldn't do something with the K3, well this is wrong K3 would do everything. As if you wouldn't benefit from FF, even for the web, this is wrong. FF buy you comfort, conveniance and margin.

[photobobhunt]

Honestly for what you describe my Panasonic LX7 would be almost overkill. However, in keeping with the question, k-3 over k-1 grab a used DA* 50-135 and enjoy.

I did purchase the DA* 50 -135. So far, very good. Just visiting family in the UK on our way to India for a few weeks. Will be exploring some of my favorite spots in London over the next few days. I will also be trying out the 16 -50 DA* with the"funky" af. Uncle will be getting this as soon as I return next month.
Thanks everybody for the good advise & suggestions ..... Bob

[Tatouzou]

Regardless of what you post on online, you still have to look at it on a monitor for post processing
But you're right, and really, I bought the K-3 for frame rate and buffer size, for on-line portraits a K-5 or K-5ii will get it done. My wife still uses her K-5 and sees no reason to change. The K-5 has better Dynamic Range than a K-3 and as far as I'm concerned, better colour. My K-1 replaced my K-5, not my K-3. To a certain extent, you're talking different cameras for different purposes.

To buy a K-3 you have to ask, do I need 8 FPS and a 23 shot buffer, and the 1.5x long lens advantage. That's what I bought mine for. If you don't need those things and you don't need the resolution of the K-1, a K-5 series camera will save you a pile of money.

I have a k3 and so has my son; I had a K30 before, and he had a K5. We upgraded to K3 because it has a much better AF: faster, more AF points, and smaller ones, works better in artificial light where K5 often struggled, better Z axis tracking this you enjoy it everytime, and it makes a lot of difference because you cannot improve an out of focus image in PP!

As for DR and high ISO, we dont really see the difference when watching at the same picture size. Of course above ISO 1600, K5 looks sharper at pixel level, but as there are more pixel in the same picture, there is no visible divfference when watching the full image.

The 24 MP are handy at ISO under 800 because it allows you a lot of cropping in PP.

[normhead]

I have a k3 and so has my son; I had a K30 before, and he had a K5. We upgraded to K3 because it has a much better AF: faster, more AF points, and smaller ones, works better in artificial light where K5 often struggled, better Z axis tracking this you enjoy it everytime, and it makes a lot of difference because you cannot improve an out of focus image in PP!

As for DR and high ISO, we dont really see the difference when watching at the same picture size. Of course above ISO 1600, K5 looks sharper at pixel level, but as there are more pixel in the same picture, there is no visible divfference when watching the full image.

The 24 MP are handy at ISO under 800 because it allows you a lot of cropping in PP.

All those things are also true. But we have awesome k-5 dog images... taken with the K-5. All the things you said are true, overall the K-3 is a much better camera, but the K-5 wasn't bad, the K-3 is just better. My wife still uses a K-5 day to day, but when trying images like this, she borrows the K-3 now.



It's definitely easier getting action shots if you can frame lose and crop. A K-3 gives you more room to do that.


Unfortunately as can happen, the K-3 shot was easier to get, we did much more work getting the K-5 image, but the K-5 image is the better image. Sometimes having an easier to use camera makes you lazy in terms of setting up your shots.

Pressing the shutter button is the easy part. Setting up the shot is the same no matter what camera you use, and that is where the time is spent.

[yozza]

You are the wise one. K3 is indeed a great camera. Less resolution in the sensor and better glass is always better than great sensor and so-so glass. I have shot plenty of good stuff with the K3 and even my beloved K5IIs. However, the K1 is something else. I love it and it is something to look forward too.

btnapa that's very interesting, as i have just posted a thread on this.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/333256-pentax-k3...arter-kit.html

If less resolution in the sensor and better glass is better than great sensor and so-so glass, it seems like the k3 is what i should be looking at with better lenses. Do you shoot portraits at all by any chance, i'd be interested to hear in what you use if so?

[btnapa]

btnapa that's very interesting, as i have just posted a thread on this.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/333256-pentax-k3...arter-kit.html

If less resolution in the sensor and better glass is better than great sensor and so-so glass, it seems like the k3 is what i should be looking at with better lenses. Do you shoot portraits at all by any chance, i'd be interested to hear in what you use if so?

Hi Yozza,

I bought the K5IIs almost four years ago when I also owned a bunch of Canon gear. Pentax offered a K5IIs deal which included the FA 31, 43, and 77. The price was right and I could not resist trying my long time beloved brand. So as you can see, I started my Pentax journey with their top glass. I eventually graduated to the K3 and added a few more lenses of lesser quality (Pentax 16-45, Sigma 10-20, etc.). I shot a fair amount of commercial work with the K5IIs and K3 duo and the FA lenses with great results. I let my Canon gear go immediately after the K5IIs purchase.

Eventually, I let go of the K5iis first and the K3 later in favor of the K1. The main reason was that I do more landscape work and the extra resolution of the K1 makes a difference as to how big I can print my work.

Back to your question of portrait work. I did shoot a few portrait sessions with the K3 and the FA limiteds. As long as the subject did not move a lot, I got great shots. Of course this is in outdoor well lit situations where K3 is a fast focusing camera. In my opinion the lens is the cause of speed drop. I never got a chance to shoot with the new crop of lenses (24-70, 70-200). I hear they are very fast.

I used to be a wedding shooter, about three years of full-time shooting with Canon gear back in the 2004 or so. I have not shot weddings in almost 10 years. I did try my K3 at my cousin's wedding inside the church with my FA 77 for close up work and my hit rate was less than10% for tracking shots. I tried to get some action shots when the bride and the groom were walking out of the church after the ceremony. I almost got nothing!!. That is totally unacceptable. If I did wedding work professionally, I will be fired if all I could come up with was less than 10% of the shots. It was frustrating because I know the lens and the camera are capable of producing top notch results. As soon as we came outside of the church into a well lit area, the combo came alive. I got some fantastic shots.

I know a lot of people will dispute my results but this is my personal experience.

Again back to your portrait questions, If I had to buy the K3 today and I wanted to shoot mostly portraits, If I wanted a compact package, I would buy either the FA 77mm or the DA 70mm. If I had the budget, and for more versatility (with weight and size penalty), I would get the Pentax 24-70 f2.8. I did own the Tamron version of the 24-70 in my Canon days and it was a top notch lens. It is hard to give advice not knowing more specifics about your shooting style and subjects you mostly photograph. So I shared some of my experiences. Hope my comments helped in some way.

[yozza]

Hi Yozza,

I bought the K5IIs almost four years ago when I also owned a bunch of Canon gear. Pentax offered a K5IIs deal which included the FA 31, 43, and 77. The price was right and I could not resist trying my long time beloved brand. So as you can see, I started my Pentax journey with their top glass. I eventually graduated to the K3 and added a few more lenses of lesser quality (Pentax 16-45, Sigma 10-20, etc.). I shot a fair amount of commercial work with the K5IIs and K3 duo and the FA lenses with great results. I let my Canon gear go immediately after the K5IIs purchase.

Eventually, I let go of the K5iis first and the K3 later in favor of the K1. The main reason was that I do more landscape work and the extra resolution of the K1 makes a difference as to how big I can print my work.

Back to your question of portrait work. I did shoot a few portrait sessions with the K3 and the FA limiteds. As long as the subject did not move a lot, I got great shots. Of course this is in outdoor well lit situations where K3 is a fast focusing camera. In my opinion the lens is the cause of speed drop. I never got a chance to shoot with the new crop of lenses (24-70, 70-200). I hear they are very fast.

I used to be a wedding shooter, about three years of full-time shooting with Canon gear back in the 2004 or so. I have not shot weddings in almost 10 years. I did try my K3 at my cousin's wedding inside the church with my FA 77 for close up work and my hit rate was less than10% for tracking shots. I tried to get some action shots when the bride and the groom were walking out of the church after the ceremony. I almost got nothing!!. That is totally unacceptable. If I did wedding work professionally, I will be fired if all I could come up with was less than 10% of the shots. It was frustrating because I know the lens and the camera are capable of producing top notch results. As soon as we came outside of the church into a well lit area, the combo came alive. I got some fantastic shots.

I know a lot of people will dispute my results but this is my personal experience.

Again back to your portrait questions, If I had to buy the K3 today and I wanted to shoot mostly portraits, If I wanted a compact package, I would buy either the FA 77mm or the DA 70mm. If I had the budget, and for more versatility (with weight and size penalty), I would get the Pentax 24-70 f2.8. I did own the Tamron version of the 24-70 in my Canon days and it was a top notch lens. It is hard to give advice not knowing more specifics about your shooting style and subjects you mostly photograph. So I shared some of my experiences. Hope my comments helped in some way.

btnapa wow thats great to know, have you ever considered the k1 at all?

[btnapa]

btnapa wow thats great to know, have you ever considered the k1 at all?

Hi Yozza,

I bought the K1 back in June. The K1 is by far the best camera I have ever owned. I let the K3 go because I knew once I shot with K1, I would not use the K3 much. All my lenses are full frame which makes it easier to take advantage of the full power of the larger sensor.

[Nicolas06]

I used to be a wedding shooter, about three years of full-time shooting with Canon gear back in the 2004 or so. I have not shot weddings in almost 10 years. I did try my K3 at my cousin's wedding inside the church with my FA 77 for close up work and my hit rate was less than10% for tracking shots. I tried to get some action shots when the bride and the groom were walking out of the church after the ceremony. I almost got nothing!!. That is totally unacceptable. If I did wedding work professionally, I will be fired if all I could come up with was less than 10% of the shots. It was frustrating because I know the lens and the camera are capable of producing top notch results. As soon as we came outside of the church into a well lit area, the combo came alive. I got some fantastic shots.

I did have this kind of issue with K5 not K3. Or with K3, in extremely low light situation like the disco at the end of the wedding. But not in the church.

Question is, would you get better performance with K1? This is necessary to know if you experience is conclusive about AF... Knowing that K1 and K3 have the same AF hardware; K3 just having some AF point disabled, I would not expect a black and white situation between the 2 cameras!

(In attachment, some K3 wedding shots with DA35 and FA77 and by the way I am no pro).