Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-27-2020, 07:10 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 305
What do I gain, going from KP/K3iii+DA 16-50 to K1ii+DFA 24-70?

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?

10-27-2020, 07:14 AM - 1 Like   #2
amateur dirt farmer
Loyal Site Supporter
pepperberry farm's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: probably out in a field somewhere...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,970
one if the cons not regularly mentioned is the size of the image files, either RAW or jpg....
10-27-2020, 07:19 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,593
I guess what you gain is the experience of trying something new.
10-27-2020, 07:22 AM - 2 Likes   #4
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,243
QuoteOriginally posted by Bui Quote
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?
The K-3iii appears to be an action camera. It doesn't sound like you shoot action.... so maybe not for you. To support that I'd ask how often you shoot burst? This is camera made for burst shooters.

The next question of course for landscape shooters, since we so often shoot 100 ISO is how much better will the 100 and 200 ISO images be?

There will be a few things to consider. But, when you think all these features will likely be coming out in the K-1 sometime soon, it's areal toss up even for an action shooter. If the 12 FPS translates to 8 FPS on a 20 shot buffer on the K-1 series, that might be worth waiting for, even for action shooters.

10-27-2020, 08:20 AM - 2 Likes   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 347
You gain abslutely nothing. With the K-1 II you get an old camera with out of date technology. The APS-C capability is sub your KP and old and new K3's. I'd rather go for the K-3 III, you get all new technology (I'm led to believe.)
10-27-2020, 09:24 AM - 1 Like   #6
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,897
QuoteOriginally posted by Bui Quote
What do I gain, going from KP/K3iii+DA 16-50 to K1ii+DFA 24-70?
Bragging rights and the extra grams to show for it? (Dependable AF?)


Steve
10-27-2020, 10:11 AM - 1 Like   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,353
QuoteOriginally posted by Bui Quote
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?
Well I suppose the operative question is: do you really need the improvements FF will bring to your images? For landscape photography, those improvements largely come down to increased ability to print larger (because the FF sensor captures more detail) and one stop more dynamic range to work with in PP. If you could utilize either of those improvements, then FF makes sense. If not, then no, APS-C remains preferable. Even if you could use the extra that FF brings to the table, you will pay a significant price not just in money, but in weight. This is particularly true if you opt for the FF f2,.8 zooms. (Many moving to FF have opted for the lighter and less expensive DFA 28-105 for FF landscape photography precisely to keep cost and weight down.)

Also bear in mind: the days when manufacturers offer compelling upgrades is largely over. The only reason the K-3iii is a better camera than the KP is because the former camera is a flagship with additional features. In terms of the most important feature (i.e., image quality), you'll see no easily noticeable difference between the two cameras.
10-27-2020, 12:33 PM - 3 Likes   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 283
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.

10-27-2020, 01:21 PM   #9
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,234
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
10-27-2020, 04:44 PM - 2 Likes   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,353
I think everyone's done a very good job of explaining that you will need to shoot to advantage of the new setup, Bui.

You actually need to take pictures you don't normally take - shallower depth of field, poorer light, faster moving subjects, etc - or there's the danger you take exactly the same pictures as before, with the same results except you're standing closer for the same framing. There are many people who take pics they could've just used their phone for.

But if you do splash the cash to upgrade from your KP to either the K-1 or the K-3 III, you'll be getting a superb camera either way, I reckon.
10-27-2020, 10:33 PM   #11
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
SharkyCA's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Carleton Place, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 596
QuoteOriginally posted by pepperberry farm Quote
one if the cons not regularly mentioned is the size of the image files, either RAW or jpg....
Here you go Pepperberry! Megapixel calculator @ toolstud.io

I think your close to 45mb and @ 12 frames per sec that adds up pretty quick!
10-28-2020, 02:19 AM - 1 Like   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,195
QuoteOriginally posted by Bui Quote
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?
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.
10-28-2020, 02:32 AM   #13
Bui
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 305
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The K-3iii appears to be an action camera. It doesn't sound like you shoot action.... so maybe not for you. To support that I'd ask how often you shoot burst? This is camera made for burst shooters.

The next question of course for landscape shooters, since we so often shoot 100 ISO is how much better will the 100 and 200 ISO images be?

There will be a few things to consider. But, when you think all these features will likely be coming out in the K-1 sometime soon, it's areal toss up even for an action shooter. If the 12 FPS translates to 8 FPS on a 20 shot buffer on the K-1 series, that might be worth waiting for, even for action shooters.
It's a good question. I do not shot action, and I do burst shooting like 1-2 times every year. The most "action" shots I do is my daughter running in the forest, or a moving deer. Frankly, I have to admit, I don't really need to move on from the KP, it's good for me most of the time, and the fact that I went for it instead of the K3ii, was because of its form factor, and the non-requirement in fast action. The K3iii is not super attractive to me, if it were a KPii instead I would jump in immediately. If I upgrade, and it's not a KP type, meaning I will have to sacrifice compactness and portability, then I want the best IQ possible, that's why the K1/K1ii is looking nice, and especially with expected price of K3iii at 2000 euros (I can get a K1ii used at much less than that).

---------- Post added 10-28-20 at 02:36 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Well I suppose the operative question is: do you really need the improvements FF will bring to your images? For landscape photography, those improvements largely come down to increased ability to print larger (because the FF sensor captures more detail) and one stop more dynamic range to work with in PP. If you could utilize either of those improvements, then FF makes sense. If not, then no, APS-C remains preferable. Even if you could use the extra that FF brings to the table, you will pay a significant price not just in money, but in weight. This is particularly true if you opt for the FF f2,.8 zooms. (Many moving to FF have opted for the lighter and less expensive DFA 28-105 for FF landscape photography precisely to keep cost and weight down.)

Also bear in mind: the days when manufacturers offer compelling upgrades is largely over. The only reason the K-3iii is a better camera than the KP is because the former camera is a flagship with additional features. In terms of the most important feature (i.e., image quality), you'll see no easily noticeable difference between the two cameras.
Thank you for jumping in. The 24-70 is just a reference, because comparing (more or less) equivalent scenarios is easier, hence K1ii+24-70, since I use KP+16-50 quite a lot. If I ever get a K1, I know I will eventually get FA limiteds to try them on their home, for example. But it will be expensive, and for the time being, the KP with my APSC lenses are fine. On the other hand, most of the people who switched to FF say they don't use their K3/KP (a lot) anymore. So I'm quite curious.
10-28-2020, 02:56 AM - 2 Likes   #14
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,301
I much prefer the DFA24-70 to the DA*16-50. The image quality at the edges is better, the fringing is better, and the autofocus is *much* better. It doesn't extend as much during zooming, and it has a zoom lock to prevent creep. Although it is a little bigger in girth, its narrower profile hood means it doesn't pack bigger or feel much bigger.

As for the cameras - you get more pixels with the K-1 of course, and better dynamic range. I also prefer the ergonomics and its unique articulated screen. For portraiture, the longer focal length at the same aperture will give you a little bit more depth of field control if you like that sort of thing.

The differences were enough for me that despite enjoying many of my crop lenses, I no longer own a DA*16-50. And I have had two copies.
10-28-2020, 07:49 PM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,757
QuoteOriginally posted by Bui Quote
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?
My view is, if you like it a lot- keep it! The FF equivalent will be considerably heavier. The body alone will be more than 1/2 lb. over your KP! And the lenses larger and heavier, sometimes considerably so. The difference in DR and ISO are there, but the KP tracks closely behind, even in resolution. The K-3 III would be amazing to equal the K-1 II in these respects, but that is going some, and it is very unlikely to surpass. Either way, it is a lot of money to spend for very marginal gains. Those K-3 II shooters who have been waiting for an upgraded K-3 II will certainly get their wish, and it will no doubt be worth their wait. But the upgrades will be very marginal for KP owners who are not speed buffs. And there is no doubt the resolution between the K-3 III's 26mp sensor and the KP's 24mp sensor will not be a visible factor.

Now, if you already own some great FF glass that would serve you well when used in original FOV on a FF body- then it is a different story entirely. Or, if there is FF glass available to you that would do likewise. For example, there is the excellent FA 35mm f/2. Very fine as a landscape lens on FF. Edge-to-edge high quality imaging. On APS-C you get no wide angle at all. On FF (I bought mine way back for use on my film bodies) you do get wide angle, not real wide but still wide angle. This can be a good FL for landscape, because if going too wide, in many instances, too many objets in the frame are too small. And the price is not bad, nor the weight. Also, to get the same FOV with APS-C you'd need 24mm, but there are none that can equal the FA 35mm f/2 on FF. You could go to the FA 31mm, but still not WA on APS-C, yet on FF it gets you meaningfully wider than the 35mm yet still not too wide- but then it'll cost you nearly another grand if you don't already have one. If you like to use a wide angle zoom lens, then you might consider putting that money on a DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 for your KP. it will be far more manageable for handling and cost far less than getting the K-1 II with the DFA 15-30mm f/2.8 lens.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
action, benefits, burst, camera, da, ff, improvements, iq, iso, k-1, k-mount, k1ii, kp, landscape, lenses, pentax lens, price, question, shooters, shutter, slr lens, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K1ii, D-FA 24-70/2.8, Samyang 85/1.4, DA 50/1.8, flash HDpotato Sold Items 5 07-13-2020 04:22 AM
K3iii vs K1ii troika Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 09-10-2018 12:24 PM
Oh well....no K3iii announced Spodeworld Pentax K-3 20 11-28-2017 07:39 AM
Dilemma: Portrait Shooting between DFA 24-70 or DFA 70-200 Gerard_Dirks Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 10-05-2017 04:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top