[BigMackCam]

The only problem with dropping the KP was they increased the price of the K - 70 to KP level.

Currently, the K-70 costs GBP £579 here in the UK, which is only 5% up on last year's price for the same month - and it typically drops to around £475 - £500 during sales, for those who are patient. The KP very briefly dropped as low as £620 in the sales, but typically sold for £700 - £900... so the K-70 is still a lot cheaper, even now; and while new KPs are still available from several major retailers, the price is ranging between £850 - £930.

Right now there is a vast gap in the lineup between the K70 and the K3 III that needs to be filled. Hopefully someone is looking into that.

Perhaps the K-70 replacement, if and when it arrives, will be a step up and closer to the KP level? Given what we've seen with the K-3III and recent lenses, I'd be surprised if we'll see another Pentax camera at the K-70's price...

I've been using the same combo, K-3 + DA*60-250 and HD DA 1.4x converter, lately quite a lot, and been happily surprised to see the relatively good image quality. I did not expect (and not quite get) exactly the same quality as w/o the converter, but it's close enough for my needs and making the extra reach in focal length well worthy. Definitely better than just cropping. It only needs 1/3 stop (5,6 > 6,3 with the 1.4x) to achieve very sharp images, and even wide open it's quite okay.

My experience with the DA*60-250 and HD DA 1.4x is identical to yours. It's definitely usable wide open, but 1/3rd of a stop down (or more) and it's very good; not quite as good as without the TC, but better than cropping.

... but isn't APS-C still better form factor for long lenses, giving more reach? And K-3(Mk3) already giving enough pixels for most purposes?

Arguably, yes... but I guess a lot of folks would prefer an optical solution rather than an additional body. Plus, if Ricoh ever releases a new FF TC, I'd expect it to be half the cost of a K-3III or less... so it would be more economical.

But the K3-III is more expensive than the K1!

For good reasons, of course Still, it is a bunch of money. But for those who won't or can't ante up, there's the K-70 - and it's an awfully capable camera for the price.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-07-2021 at 05:03 AM.

[Lowell Goudge]

This all comes back to an old debate. I use a sigma APO 70-200/2.8 EX with 1.4x and 2X TCs and have done so for almost 20 years, because the TCs were designed by sigma to work with specific long fast tele photos, much like the Pentax rear converter L. These TCs have the front element protruding into the rear of the lens.

I find that for camera bodies with the pixel density of the K5/K1 there is still value added by using the TC over cropping. I can’t say how the K3 would work with this lens /TC combo but the K3 MKiii is on my long term list as my K5 is getting rather beat up, and long in the tooth.

TCs also have their use with respect to portability and compactness. I don’t take my DA560 on plane trips, it is just too big, so I take the 70-200/2.8 and a couple of TCs, so I have something longish in my bag.

The bigger issue is support for the TC in the cameras. What I find frustrating , and this has had many negative comments from people in the past, is that for me, if Pentax doesn’t offer products themselves, they should at least make the software changes to allow their user base, that has been faithful to the brand to make the most use of third party TCs by letting the user input the TC so that all the program functions work, and here I am not talking about just exif data, but proper aperture control and flash metering, shake reduction, and following lens program lines for exposure control.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

But the K3-III is more expensive than the K1!

That is true, but all newer camera's are more expensive because of the shortage of certain parts in camera's. The logic is that shortly after releasing the KP the K-3 Mark II was discontinued and there was no new APS-C camera until the call for another flagship APS-C became louder and louder. Still think the idea was two APS-C camera's and one flagship the K-1, which in the order of going from K-7 backwards to 1 there always was just one flagship (except for the time the K-1 and K-3's were there together). Two flagships is strange and confusing even if the one is an APS-C and the other one an FF!

[BigMackCam]

Two flagships is strange and confusing even if the one is an APS-C and the other one an FF!

They're different tools, really. The K-1II and K-3III have serious amateur / professional features and many overlapping applications, but each is king for specific use-cases. The full-frame "flagship" is the K-1II, but it's not the best tool for sports, birds-in-flight etc. The APS-C "flagship" is the K-3III, but it loses out to the K-1II as a field camera for landscape, shallow depth-of-field and astro work (due to the K-1II's built-in GPS). As such, you can't really say one is better than the other.

Think of a car company like Jaguar... It has a top-of-the-range sedan, and a top-of-the-range sports car. They're both flagships, each can be driven to the supermarket and back, but one is better at transporting you and the family over long distances in quiet comfort and with plenty of luggage, while the other is better for high-performance driving, track days and... well, looking cool Like the K-1II and K-3III, they're simply different tools...

[Spock]

If you mean the K-1ii, given that the K-1 has been discontinued for quite some time, this is from the Pentax Australia website, just now:

Here's one that's closer in price to the K3-III @$2899.95 :

Pentax K1 MKII Body | Ted's Cameras

[MadBill]

I suspect that the market for TCs among Pentax users is not large. I also suspect most people who are looking for reach are using APS-C or FF in crop mode. So the market for a FF TC is likely quite small and not a high priority for Ricoh. Not to in anyway dismiss the validity of anyone's need for a FF TC.

[RobA_Oz]

I suspect that the market for TCs among Pentax users is not large. I also suspect most people who are looking for reach are using APS-C or FF in crop mode. So the market for a FF TC is likely quite small and not a high priority for Ricoh. Not to in anyway dismiss the validity of anyone's need for a FF TC.

I suspect you’re correct, but there’s a further possibility, given Ricoh’s current emphasis on high-performing lenses, and that is the need to match tele-converters to specific lenses, rather than try to produce one with broad application and compromised performance. That isn’t new, of course, as others have pointed out, but it reduces the market even further, or more accurately segments it, and simultaneously increases cost, not to mention the effort and time needed to produce more than one.

The appearance of the K-3iii probably also mitigates the need for a full-frame converter, as the combination of that body’s capabilities with a good 300mm lens and the present DA TC should satisfy a substantial number of requirements. Then again, the transfer of the sensor and AF technologies into the K-1ii successor will probably re-ignite the need, but that’s most likely a way off yet.

PS: all the above reminds me that I haven’t tried my K-3iii with my A400/5.6 (let alone my Sigma 150-500) and my F-AF1.7x. The optical stabilisation in the Sigma might be pretty useful with that combination, at the long end.

---

Last edited by RobA_Oz; 08-07-2021 at 02:16 PM.

[swanlefitte]

My experience seemed the hd 1.4x helps above around 2100 lines at 20Mp apsc. For 24Mp probably 2200 and 16Mp 2000.

[normhead]

I've lost some of the images from the original thread....

DA*200 2.8


DA*200 plus HD DA 1.4 TC.



DA*200 plus F 1.7x AF adapter


Is there more detail in the 1.7 than the there two. Abolsutely. Try reading the Lettering on the box, or the bar code, or the phone number.

The 1.4 TC was not specifically made for the DA*200. Since the DA* 200 is an older design, its more likely it was made the DA*60-250, and DA*300 ƒ4.

Is there an FF 1.4 and 2x coming's? Absolutely, Pentax has said so.

Are the current DA*s good enough to take advantage, again, absolutely.

The original discussion was here, but I no longer have all the images used. A clean up of flickr a while back saw many of them deleted.
Understanding folks saying a TC doesn't ad more detail. - PentaxForums.com

I don't know if people can follow the discussion with no images or not.

But in summary...
Is the absence of a modern FF TC an admission that quality suffers?

Absolutely not.
The HD DA 1.4 TC gives you 40% more resolution with a 3% loss, giving you plus 37% more resolution on the subject according to the Pentax Spec.
The only caveat being, the lens has to out resolve the sensr by 40% And there is still improvement with the 1.7x with the DA^200.

According to what I've done a K-1 can easily handle a 2x TC, maybe not a K-3 though. the bigger pixels on the K-1 make the lens better. I fully expect the new Pentax 2x to be a wonderful match with the D-FA 70-200, when and if it is ever released. Glass that doesn't our resolve the sensor of course, can't be made better. My F 70-210 was absolutely dismal with the 1.4 on it.

[stevebrot]

Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Kenko etc seem to have no such qualms.

I guess that means they prefer to have product on the shelves.


Steve

[K2 to K50]

But the K3-III is more expensive than the K1!

If you mean the K-1ii, given that the K-1 has been discontinued for quite some time, this is from the Pentax Australia website, just now:

For good reasons, of course Still, it is a bunch of money. But for those who won't or can't ante up, there's the K-70 - and it's an awfully capable camera for the price.

Here's one that's closer in price to the K3-III @$2899.95 :

Pentax K1 MKII Body | Ted's Cameras

I am confused. I have seen, in a number of different threads, posts stating that the K3iii is dearer than the K1ii. Except when specials were on (and I suspect the Ted's Cameras mentioned here is a special) I have always found that here in Australia at least, the K1 II has always been dearer than the K3 iii (as shown by the post by @RobA).

A check on the B&H site in the US just now shows the K1 ii body (silver) at $2099 is dearer than the K3 iii at $1996 (although there is a k1 ii marked down from $1996 to $1796, which further confuses the issue).
Do the relative prices of K1 ii vs K3 iii differ from country to country??

[biz-engineer]

But in summary...Is the absence of a modern FF TC an admission that quality suffers?Absolutely not.

Shooting a paper target isn't realistic bird shooting scenario. Paper doesn't move, small bird move quickly and often.


For me, the bottom line is: Pentax K3 Mk III + DFA150-450 kit is superior to a K1 + TC + DFA150-450 kit.

K3 Mk III, has BSI sensor (less noise compared to K3), more FPS, more AF points, better AF tracking.
1.4 x TC lose 1 stop of light, forces to lower shutter speed or increase ISO. K1 is slow for birds and AF is more snappy without TC (more light).

It was demonstrated by @normhead here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/429092-more-rea...onstrated.html

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

but I guess a lot of folks would prefer an optical solution rather than an additional body.

There is also the argument that one needs to buy a $2000 cropped body, whereas a cheaper TC can be carried around much more easily than the addition of an extra body when your out in the field

There is also the benefit when you are not limited in your light that you can still put more light onto the sensor

[slartibartfast01]

If you mean the K-1ii, given that the K-1 has been discontinued for quite some time, this is from the Pentax Australia website, just now:

That price for the K3 iii is a lot lower than the price in the UK. The UK equivalent price would be 3583 Aus $.

[Lowell Goudge]

There is also the argument that one needs to buy a $2000 cropped body, whereas a cheaper TC can be carried around much more easily than the addition of an extra body when your out in the field

There is also the benefit when you are not limited in your light that you can still put more light onto the sensor

I don’t know, I have always shot two bodies, with film it began with KX and Ricoh XR2s, then I added the PZ1 and dropped (not literally, but it stayed home) the KX

When digital came I shot PZ1 (for full frame and wide angle shots) and *istD for normal through tele.

I have cycled through digital bodies since, progressing through K10 , K7, K5, and K1. Always retaining the latest 2 bodies, in my day to day kit (I still have all of them) and I am looking as stated earlier to replace the K5 with the K3 MKiii

Shooting 2 bodies makes sense for me with respect to travel, as I put one specific lens on each body, to cover the two most expected use focal length, plus, if I drop one, I still have a camera etc….. the bodies always have different uses. It’s a system.

But it still does not divert me from wanting a TC or TC support. When travelling by air a TC is a whole lot smaller and lighter than my DA560, which by the way, still might find itself attached to a TC even if I get the K3, because for birding, you NEVER have enough focal length

---------- Post added 08-08-21 at 06:50 AM ----------

Shooting a paper target isn't realistic bird shooting senior. Paper doesn't move, small bird move quickly and often.

I agree, but regardless of camera etc, try tracking a small bird at minimum focal distance with a da560. This is one area where longer isn’t always better,

For me, the bottom line is: Pentax K3 Mk III + DFA150-450 kit is superior to a K1 + TC + DFA150-450 kit.

this would be an interesting test

K3 Mk III, has BSI sensor (less noise compared to K3), more FPS, more AF points, better AF tracking.

all good points but nothing to link directly to the discussion about a TC

1.4 x TC lose 1 stop of light, forces to lower shutter speed or increase ISO. K1 is slow for birds and AF is more snappy without TC (more light).

really, the longer any lens gets, the less light you have and the higher the shutter speed you need, newer bodies and technology have always been good for birding.