[interested_observer]

and for a landscape camera filters dont fit the DFA15-30 lens... Unless you purchase a very expensive bracket system... To be coupled with an overpriced lens... !!

I don't use a whole lot of filters, especially for astro. Adorama has the lens at $1009, while the Tamron for Nikon/Canon is $1099.

• Pentax D HD FA 15-30mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Lens
• Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 DI VC USD For Nikon DSLR Cameras AFA012N-700
• Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 DI VC USD For Canon EOS DSLR Cameras AFA012C-700

To be coupled with an overpriced lens... ???????

If you don't like the lens, there is the Irix, or the Rokinon, etc.... Whatever - your choice, your money.

---

Last edited by interested_observer; 11-15-2018 at 06:20 PM.

[szs]

Thanks to all of you for your comments.

My conclusion is: I do want to to more astrophotography and I already do a lot of low natural light photography. I also like to shoot volatile scenes, children, street, animals, travel, so a faster and more exact AF comes in handy. All of this leads me to the conclusion that I will buy a K-1 some time soon. Although I noticed that the K-3II has a lot of those features as well except the FF sensor, but that's a discussion for another thread. I would still keep my K-5 for situations, where I don't want to put the expensive camera at risk, or I need the cheap flash rather than more pixels.


That leads me to another question: I have a few of old lenses made for film cameras. Namely the SMC Pentax-FA 28-200, Exakta 35-70 Macro and Auto Revuenon MC 1.7 50. Can I use them with decent results with the K-1?

[SSGGeezer]

That leads me to another question: I have a few of old lenses made for film cameras. Namely the SMC Pentax-FA 28-200, Exakta 35-70 Macro and Auto Revuenon MC 1.7 50. Can I use them with decent results with the K-1?

I am certain that many older lenses are brilliant with the K-1. Even cheapie lenses like the Rikenon 50mm F/2 has made some great images with the K-1. Once you have wandered the forums a bit more you will be astounded, so check out the bokeh thread under the header of lens Discussions, and the Prime, Prime, everywhere a prime thread under that header also.

[clackers]

That leads me to another question: I have a few of old lenses made for film cameras. Namely the SMC Pentax-FA 28-200, Exakta 35-70 Macro and Auto Revuenon MC 1.7 50. Can I use them with decent results with the K-1?

You could even buy some more, SZS! With the K-1, they're back to being used as they were intended. It's not just K-1 users who are finding new uses for legacy glass, the mirrorless people of other brands are seeking them out too, including the very old but still very good Takumars.

[Fenwoodian]

I am certain that many older lenses are brilliant with the K-1. Even cheapie lenses like the Rikenon 50mm F/2 has made some great images with the K-1. Once you have wandered the forums a bit more you will be astounded, so check out the bokeh thread under the header of lens Discussions, and the Prime, Prime, everywhere a prime thread under that header also.

I've got two large cases full of old MF prime lenses that I use on my K-1 camera for bokeh.

One case is full of old lenses that produce "soap bubble bokeh".

One case is full of old lenses that produce extremely "creamy background blurs"..

The marriage of a Pentax K-1 and old MF primes is a beautiful thing.

[szs]

Wow! Now I even more want to have a K-1.


I really love handling the old lenses. For the haptic experience as well as the result. I started off into the world of photography with a Canon AE-1, and somehow the mentioned lenses, especially the fix 50mm, yields the *— words are failing — feel, smell and taste of the pictures taken with this classic.

My worry was that I'd have to buy not only the somewhat expensive (for my purse) body, but also a new set of lenses.

Decision is made.

[stub]

Lot of ill-informed talk here, Stuart … not sure what that's all about. Perhaps Szs doesn't have a shooting style that can take advantage of full frame, that's a legitimate reason not to upgrade, but you go way beyond that!

"Expensive"? Compared to a second hand K-5, maybe, but it's one of the cheapest FF cameras you can buy.

"Heavy? You get twice the picture size but it's only 30 percent heavier than a K-3.

"Limited number of … Expensive and heavy lenses?" The K-mount goes all the way back to 1975, it's a vast array. There are plenty of them with 49mm and 52mm threads, cheap on eBay or here from the Market Place. The FA Limiteds are wonderful performers and are small and well-built. You can even use all your existing DA lenses, many without cropping.

"Does not auto focus fast enough" Comes as news to me and others who shoot not just flowers but cars, motorbikes, dancers, people, runners, aircraft, football, wildlife, baseball, cyclists… have I left anything out?

"Flash system is way behind the competition" The Pentax flash system works in the same way as the TTL, HSS, and manual systems of Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Same hotshoe even. I've shot in studios with their own strobes and triggers, and had to do *nothing* different to what the owners of other brands did on the day.

"filters dont fit the DFA15-30 lens" If you shoot other brands you will know that the pro quality UWAs have bulbous front elements and don't support screw in fliters, you also buy into something like the Lee system. Have a look at the very popular Samyang 14mm f2.8 while you're at it, same deal, landscapers understand this.

"No backing from 3rd party manufacturers" Just in the last month we've seen the Godox Pro release and the Irix 150mm f2.8 Macro.

"none [backing] from Pentax." ? Real 'Sony' Northrup comment that, but even he awarded the K-1 his camera of the year! As of this year, the K-1 now comes with the KP's noise reduction chip and handheld pixel shift.

Clackers.... You skip some important points here ! "The K1 is only 30% heavier than the K3.... Not much then...!! You can use old K mount lenses... The very lenses that may fit but were outlawed by Ricoh and deemed unsuitable at the K1 launch.. I own two K1's and believe me when they are in a bag with my 15-30 and 24-70mm You certainly know about it...

In my opinion. If you dont know why you need a full frame camera... You dont..!! Why pay twice as much for full frame lenses if you cant reap the benefit ?

I also own my own studio strobes.. The market 90% of which only operate in a manual condition. Im a loyal Pentax user. But Please dont put up an arguement for Pentax flash... The new Godoz trigger is brilliant but will only fire a Godox unit at present..

Mr Northrop only gave the accolade as a landscape camera as I remermber.... The Irix and Samyang lenses you refer too are all manual also... Making them less expensive, Do we always have to be offered 80% of lens build...?

Point I was making on the filter system was that its an expensive choice in full frame,as compared to APSC.... You may get your sport shots.. We all do,, But not with the regularity of the competition,,,

PS I much prefer Kase filters to Lee..... Lee are so last year... and only recently upgraded to glass....lol

---

Last edited by stub; 11-16-2018 at 05:35 AM.

[WPRESTO]

Most of the answers you get will really be about why K1 owners decided to buy one. The K1 has many advanced features, and IMHO, it does yield superior IQ. The one downside for me = it is big and heavy. That's been somewhat of a killer at my age with osteoarthritis giving shots of pain when try to grip something tightly. Pushed me to MFT especially for travel.

[btnapa]

Does not auto focus fast enough. Flash system is way behind the competition. No backing from 3rd party manufacturers and none from Pentax...

I agree with @Stub. K1 has plenty of shortcomings. In photographing a few occasional wedding type stuff, I suffered with the K1. Focus is off for fast moving stuff, flash is all over the place with exposures, in short for that type of photography, it is simply not fit for the task. However, for studio type work and nature photography (which is what I do mostly), and for the money, it has little or no competition.

The dynamic range of the K1 alone is worth the price. I know it is limited in lens choices (FF lenses) but there are plenty of lenses to get almost any work accomplished.

I do not own the K5. I got into the Pentax system with a K5IIs. It was and still is a fantastic camera. Ergonomically and feature wise. K1 is miles ahead. The focusing on K1 as bad as it is outperforms the one on K5IIs.

If you want full frame, K1 is a no brainer, especially if it is priced under $1,000. If you want to stay with APSc and want to go up a notch or two, step up to a KP. I have tried it and it is a winner. It has high ISO capability that is even better than K1! Compared to the K5 series, KP has better focusing, higher resolution and so forth. It will be significant step up from K5.

BTW, I also owned a pair of K3 bodies which I sold in favor of the K1. In my opinion KP is superior to the K3 in image quality and just about any department you want to compare them in.

Just my two cents.

[normhead]

and just about any department you want to compare them in.

Except frame rate and buffer size.

[interested_observer]

That leads me to another question: I have a few of old lenses made for film cameras. Namely the SMC Pentax-FA 28-200, Exakta 35-70 Macro and Auto Revuenon MC 1.7 50. Can I use them with decent results with the K-1?

Yes, absolutely! There are pluses and minuses on their use.

• On the plus side - If they currently mount on a Pentax body (with or without an adapter), they will mount on the K1. Pentax has the green button for metering, the K1 offers focus peaking for assistance in manual focusing, along with the 16x zoom for magnification on the rear screen.

• On the minus side - When using any full frame lens on any brand of crop body, you will be using the center of the lens, so the edges and corners are really areas of the center. Well more towards the center, than the actual edges and corners. You wind up getting superior results in your images, because you are shooting through the center of the lens. When you take that same lens and mount it on any full frame body, you will be using the entire lens, just not the center - because of the full frame sensor. The corners and edges of the resulting image will reflect the optical qualities of the edges and corners of the glass - rather than just the optical qualities of the areas more towards the center of the lens. So, essentially you are going back to the optical performance the lens showed with film (in a way).

The K1 has 36MP which is less than the current crop of full frame bodies running at 42 and 50MP. To me, that's a happy medium. The pixel area on the K1 sensor is about the same size as the K5's (you just have more of them), so they tend to soak up more light with their larger size (for me, all the better for astro and low light shots). With the larger full frame sensors, the older lenses may not out resolve the sensor, so the images will tend to show the older lenses' limitations. The K1 with slightly less resolution, may be a bit more forgiving - but as was shown with Nikon, when they brought out the D800/D810, superior glass will perform better. Most folks have been picking up the better quality older glass as they find them, so in your case you have acquired the older glass for a reason, and the K1 should bring out and highlight these qualities. Every lens is going to perform differently - you just have to use them and see how you like the results.

[normhead]

We need a sticky edited thread for this question. We can only answer it enthusiastically so many times.

[btnapa]

Except frame rate and buffer size.

@normhead, you know a lot more than I do on the details of each of the Pentax offerings. You have a point. I missed those.

However, for my type of photography, I'll take better focusing and better high ISO performance over better frame rate and buffer size any day. Remember, I mentioned I owned a pair of K3 bodies. What good is frame rate if images are out of focus in fast moving situations. I shot my cousins wedding as a guest and for myself, the K3 was so bad inside of the church that I stop taking pics because of 80%+ miss rate... and I was shooting with fast primes! K3 was not so hot above ISO 800 either whereas KP shines into the 6400 and beyond range. For me those (fast focus and excellent high ISO) are very useful and important. I really don't care much about frame rate or buffer size. The images I have seen from the KP in high ISO situation look better than K1 and it focuses better than my K1 too. We all know Pentax focusing system is NOT one of its strongest features. If I shot sports or weddings and such, situations that require fast and accurate focusing, I'll be going to another system probably Nikon. I shoot Pentax for pure image quality not fast focusing or excellent flash system, features that can make or break a wedding photographer.

[stub]

I did my first wedding shoot as a second shooter last weekend. I have to say The K1 really struggled.. I thought to myself, any camera would struggle in these conditions.. Except the Pro photographer I was working along side with his Sony mirrorles didnt seem to...!!

[normhead]

I did my first wedding shoot as a second shooter last weekend. I have to say The K1 really struggled.. I thought to myself, any camera would struggle in these conditions.. Except the Pro photographer I was working along side with his Sony mirrorles didnt seem to...!!

Based on Winders experience I've been saying "A9 for weddings" for a long time. If I did another wedding I'd rent one. The K-1 was OK, but very inconsistent in poor light focus.