[Wheatfield]

I'm sorry if the question does not make sense, or it has been asked 9999 times in the forum, but it's still not clear at all to me.

Context: I have a bunch of DA Limited and DA* lenses, using it with a KP I bought used 3 years ago. The KP is excellent, but (but but but) when new shiny thing arrives, one can't help but start staring at it. Let's just say I want even better dynamic range and iso performance, better autofocus too, while more resolution does not harm. That's why I have been saving and preparing a bit of fund to invest in a new camera next year. Obvious candidate is the K3iii, but since the price would be >2000 euros, a K1/K1ii is increasingly attractive even if I am never really serious with moving to FF. After all I love trying new things.

I like landscape photography, and occasional portrait.

The cons of going for the K1 rather than K3iii, to me:

- Weight and size. Portability.
- Cost of future lenses. I have a few good FF or FF-ready primes so I have time

What about the pros? I like the KP+16-50 a lot, so I could imagine to go for the K1/24-70 combo if I go that route, because the price is quite good, but does that really make a difference?

For starters, your credit card company will love you.

[Bui]

I have both sets of cameras and lenses, and often carry and shoot both (K-1 for stills, KP for timelapse) so thought I'd chip in.

Extra benefits of the K-1:

* Better shallow depth of field in your portraits
* Better high-ISO performance. It's close because the KP is great, but the K-1 is still a notch above.
* Better viewfinder, more focus point options, and generally better AF.
* Higher resolution for printing benefits.
* You get the astrotracer.
* 2 SD cards
* Better battery life
* Better hand-holding ergonomics (for my hands, anyway), and a more roomy control environment for your thumbs.
* I like the index-finger dial and shutter setup better on the K-1.
* Improved flexible LCD screen. I like the KP's, but the K-1's gives you all the KP does plus more. The K-1's feels way more robust too.
* Remote shutter port is on the right side of the camera. Tripod shooting in portrait orientation on the KP isn't great with a remote shutter.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but those were the most immediate improvements to me.

That's a great sum up, though I would assume a few of them are applicable for the K3iii. It's really a toss up.

---------- Post added 10-29-20 at 03:40 AM ----------

i see comments about the K1MK II as being out of date technology.

i would be willing to bet that the K1 MK II is far superior in high iso performance. aside from that you have a difference in the way to take advangate of very shallow DOF

other than that i would say it's a toss up

I think he meant other technology e.g. image processing, AF algorithm and tracking, etc. To me when I have to sacrifice weight I want IQ, so IQ technology will be of most important. In this sense if the K3iii is not expected to surpass the K1ii (High ISO, dynamic range), then K1ii is a no brainer

---------- Post added 10-29-20 at 03:43 AM ----------

Going FF over apsc you gain

- Weight and a camera no longer suitable for picking up when heading out on activities where photography is down the list of priorities
- In my opinion much better files. Compared to my K-3II I find the K-1 files much smoother, nicer and richer even at web sizes for some types of images.
- Less money in the account. Your DA lenses are only stopgap solutions you will need to buy FF lenses unless you are willing to work within the complex limitiations of DA lenses on FF.
- Ability to print and crop beyond what you can do on apsc.

If you do a lot of dedicated photography the K-1 will deliver better quality (IQ of K-3III is unknown). If you have your camera with you at non photo activities apsc is considerably more portable.

This is interesting. I know the possibilities for trying new things with FF, shallower portrait for example, but landscape is still what I do most, and I'm not clear if FF makes a difference. But as you said, it's noticeably better.

[aslyfox]

why I resisted the K 1 and K 1 II for a long time

what it is best for wasn't what I wanted

however I found an " experienced " K 1 II at a price I couldn't resist ( and the wife agreed to )

so I can now choose between FF and ASP-C depending on what I plan on photographing

Who Is It For

With its superb imaging capabilities, weather resistance, built-in GPS, durability, and exceptional ergonomics, the K-1 II might be the best full-frame landscape camera available today. Improvements in noise handling and pixel shift, when compared to the K-1, will be beneficial to anyone shooting static scenes. In general, the camera is also an excellent choice for astro photography with bulb shooting up to 20 minutes, a dedicated red LCD mode, and the Astrotracer.

Pentax cameras are never regarded as class-leading regarding autofocus speed (although they certainly perform well in terms of accuracy). In this regard, the K-1 II is an improvement for any dedicated Pentax user desiring to improve the AF performance of his or her kit.

APS-C photographers will benefit greatly from the better noise handling of the K-1 II, as well as its higher resolution, wider field of view and stellar ergonomics such as the tilting screen and external LEDs. The camera's bulk might be overwhelming for some, but it isn't much bigger than APS-C cameras from a few years back. The downsides of the K-1 II compared to APS-C flagships are the heavier weight, slower burst mode and maybe the lack of a built-in flash.

The weakest link in the K-1 II is undoubtedly the full HD video mode, which is dated by modern standards. However, users of the K-1 II will benefit from its improved noise reduction while shooting videos.

Verdict: New User
The K-1 II is relatively easy to recommend to new users. The new model preserves the original K-1's ergonomics, features, and sensor. It offers superb imaging capabilities and class-leading noise handling. APS-C Pentax users will feel right at home using the camera, and newcomers to the brand will appreciate the high level of customization available.

Verdict: Current K-1 Owner
Recommending the upgrade from the K-1 to the K-1 II is not as simple as recommending the camera to new users. In many regards, the mark 1 and 2 are identical. Improvements to the newer model all occur under the hood.

Still, these improvements are real, and can be significant in some cases. AF speed and accuracy is probably the most practical benefit of the K-1 II. Improved AF benefits just about any style of photography. Dynamic (or handheld) pixel shift is also a nice bonus, as it expands the possibilities of in-camera super resolution. Lastly, in general noise handling has been improved, with the most visible results being within the ISO range that most users typically use anyway (not many people shoot at ISO 102,400+ after all). . . .

Read more at: Pentax K-1 Mark II vs K-1 Review - Conclusion | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[house]

This is interesting. I know the possibilities for trying new things with FF, shallower portrait for example, but landscape is still what I do most, and I'm not clear if FF makes a difference. But as you said, it's noticeably better.

I also mainly shoot landscape type things, besides family snapshots. I haven't done any side by side comparisons but my feeling is that the smoothness you can get with medium tele on apsc kind of creeps down to wide angle on FF. Strange comment I know but that's my unscientific experience. Lenses play a part for sure but I'm shooting Pentax FA and Samyang primes which aren't exceptional lenses by any means. On apsc mainly Limiteds.

[tibbitts]

While on the subject of the KP+16-50, although I don't own a Pentax 16-50, my understanding is that is the least-highly-regarded "star" lens, so if you stay with a crop body you might want to replace it when the new version is released (assuming it tests as significantly better.)

[richard0170]

I'm sorry if the question does not make sense, or it has been asked 9999 times in the forum, but it's still not clear at all to me.

Context: I have a bunch of DA Limited and DA* lenses, using it with a KP I bought used 3 years ago. The KP is excellent, but (but but but) when new shiny thing arrives, one can't help but start staring at it. Let's just say I want even better dynamic range and iso performance, better autofocus too, while more resolution does not harm. That's why I have been saving and preparing a bit of fund to invest in a new camera next year. Obvious candidate is the K3iii, but since the price would be >2000 euros, a K1/K1ii is increasingly attractive even if I am never really serious with moving to FF. After all I love trying new things.

I like landscape photography, and occasional portrait.

The cons of going for the K1 rather than K3iii, to me:

- Weight and size. Portability.
- Cost of future lenses. I have a few good FF or FF-ready primes so I have time

What about the pros? I like the KP+16-50 a lot, so I could imagine to go for the K1/24-70 combo if I go that route, because the price is quite good, but does that really make a difference?

I am in a similar position to yourself, being very tempted by the new K3iii (it is new, shiny and exciting) but nervous about the price, especially as I would want a battery grip, of which there is no news (hopefully it will be the same as the K3 one but I doubt it). The cost of the new model is very off putting and its handling and performance would have to be spectacular for me to consider the upgrade. Where I would be able to see the new model in the flesh and have feel is beyond me at present. At the touted introductory price point the K1 new or used is now very compelling. I have both the K3 and KP and would part with the K3 if I upgraded.

Because of the size of my hands and the shape of the hand grip I require a BG for handling on the K3 series so I find the difference in size and weight between a K1 without BG and K3 with to be negligible.File sizes on the K1 can be bigger, but these can be reduced if needed. Indeed you may find shooting in square format with a DA lens a good option with the K1.

If you were to sell your KP, you may get Eu500-600, maybe a bit more if you sold the 16-50mm too, so you would be looking to finance around Eu1500. In your position, I would treat myself to a used K1 together with the 28 to 105mm or nice legacy prime or two, like the K 28mm f3.5 and K 55mm f1.8. Preferably though I would keep the KP if I could afford to and still go for the K1 option. This would give you more flexibility - KP for snaps, speed, light weight and convenience and K1 for more considered work. Alternatively for Eu1500 you could get a second KP body,plus BG, plus a high end lens which is not currently in your line up. Again increasing your flexibility. If you had to sell your KP to finance a K3iii you may end up regretting the lack of tilting screen and built in flash and the latter in the case of the K1.

Being as you already have some good FF primes, a used K1 and keep the KP seems the most sensible solution as it will add more variety to your shooting options.

[aslyfox]

. . . , especially as I would want a battery grip, of which there is no news (hopefully it will be the same as the K3 one but I doubt it).

we can only hope that the past predicts the future:

the battery grip for the K 5 family remained the same for each member: K 5, K 5 II and K 5 II s

the battery grip for the K 3 and K 3 II are the same

[ThorSanchez]

we can only hope that the past predicts the future:

the battery grip for the K 5 family remained the same for each member: K 5, K 5 II and K 5 II s

the battery grip for the K 3 and K 3 II are the same

I don't have the reference handy, but I know people have mentioned a new battery grip than includes the autofocus joystick for the K-3iii.

[richard0170]

I don't have the reference handy, but I know people have mentioned a new battery grip than includes the autofocus joystick for the K-3iii.

Further bumping up the price perhaps. Grrrrrr.

[house]

There are pictures if the K3-III with a battery grip floating around. I think there was a grip in that video conference video ricoh did. So they have a grip already.

[ThorSanchez]

so far, since their is no mention of a battery grip or what it details in the official description, I classify that as a rumor

let's hope it is wrong

There are pictures if the K3-III with a battery grip floating around. I think there was a grip in that video conference video ricoh did. So they have a grip already.

From the May 14th video at about 33-35 minutes in. They explicitly state that this is a new battery grip with focus joystick.

[aslyfox]

From the May 14th video at about 33-35 minutes in. They explicitly state that this is a new battery grip with focus joystick.

thanks

I stand corrected

so I deleted my erroneous post

[noelpolar]

The K1 and KP are two modern classics that can live under the same roof indefinately. Get a K1 but keep the KP.... life is short.

[aslyfox]

The K1 and KP are two modern classics that can live under the same roof indefinately. Get a K1 but keep the KP.... life is short.

it would appear that there are advantages to using an ASP-C body

as well as advantages to using a Full Frame body


depending on your photography goals

so if you can have both

[Bui]

Thank you for your comments, I think I've made up my mind. I will hunt down ideally an used K1ii, starting from a few FF primes I currently have, getting a 24-70/28-105 as next step, and see when I can put my hands on the 3 Amigos. That way I will be experiencing something new: full frame. It may or it may not fit with me, but I'm not afraid of selling things that don't work with me. The KP will stay with me in any case, for when I want portability. Both K1ii and K3iii does not hold a candle to it in this regards, and considering the K3iii's improvements do not mean a lot to me, I will wait for it's review, reduced price, or ideally a KPii.