[biz-engineer]

From what I've seen, a K-1 wide open at ƒ4 and 6400 ISO, would have less noise than a K-3II at ƒ2.8 and 1600 ISO, the same DoF, half the weight. of a comparable 2.8 lens, Having a 60-250ƒ4 instead of a 70-200 ƒ2,8, I have to say, this would be a lens I might be interested in if the cost differential, is like that of the 60-250 and the 70-200, and the quality is up there with the 60-250, I have an FA 35-80 I use occasionally on APS-c. It would be a lot more useful on FF,

Sounds like you're slowly getting contaminated by the K1 virius :-)

[normhead]

Sounds like you're slowly getting contaminated by the K1 virius :-)

As always, I look at the images and read the technical stuff. Others look at the K-1 as an advancement to their photographic hopes and dreams. I look at it more as a more affordable manageable replacement of my desired 645z.

I've never felt there was no benefit to a FUll Frame, just for me, APS-c makes more sense. If i get a K-1 it will be largely a closet camera. Useful for when I'm not walking with the system, or someplace where landscape is possible but wild life isn't. As long a I have a K-3 and a back up for my K-3 adding a K-1 will be a possibility. But it will never be my "bread and butter" body.

I can see the advantages, but, 100-800 ISO where 99% of my shooting is done, a K-1 has little to offer. You can see the difference in the Imaging resources cloth images, But I don't think those kinds of differences lead to a photograph being better very often. I still think 36 MP images are overkill. APS-c is still the best set of compromises for me.

RIght now a K-3II with pixel shift is a lot more attractive.

But if at some point I have chance to add a few K-1 abilities to my APS-c based system for use when appropriate, I might do that.

[Mistral75]

If the patent said 24-105 I would believe it, the dimensions and number of elements would make sense. Nikon Canon and Sigma Have Similar offers. All struggle at being excellent though.

Do not rely on websites such as egami as far as focal length and other specifications are concerned. They take them out of one of the several examples in the patent.

For instance the patent recently presented on the Internet as pertaining to a 100-300mm f/4 shows the optical formula of the D FA★ 70-200mm f/2.8: egami just chose the wrong embodiment.

[gazonk]

Do not rely on websites such as egami as far as focal length and other specifications are concerned. They take them out of one of the several examples in the patent.

For instance the patent recently presented on the Internet as pertaining to a 100-300mm f/4 shows the optical formula of the D FA★ 70-200mm f/2.8: egami just chose the wrong embodiment.

Aha, thank you, that's interesting.
The complexitiy of the construction looks closer to that of some wide range zooms (like Nikkor 24-120 or Canon 24-105), which would make a lot more sense.

[D1N0]

Do not rely on websites such as egami as far as focal length and other specifications are concerned. They take them out of one of the several examples in the patent.

For instance the patent recently presented on the Internet as pertaining to a 100-300mm f/4 shows the optical formula of the D FA★ 70-200mm f/2.8: egami just chose the wrong embodiment.

so where would I find the original patent?

[Mistral75]

so where would I find the original patent?

Here: https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/web/all/top/BTmTopPage

[D1N0]

Here: https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/web/all/top/BTmTopPage

tried that but the only thing I find is this https://www19.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/PA1/cgi-bin/PA1DETAIL?MaxCount=1000&Page...1o1j&Reserve3=
in 2016

[Mistral75]

tried that but the only thing I find is this https://www19.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/PA1/cgi-bin/PA1DETAIL?MaxCount=1000&Page...1o1j&Reserve3=
in 2016

i don't imagine there will be an English abstract for a patent which was just published. The more recent abstracts correspond to patents published on January 28th.

One has to browse the Japanese section to find it.

[D1N0]

I'll go study Japanese for three years first then

[normhead]

I'll go study Japanese for three years first then

If your language skills are like mine, that might not be enough.

[biz-engineer]

But if at some point I have chance to add a few K-1 abilities to my APS-c based system for use when appropriate, I might do that.

i now have both K3 and K1, and yes, K1 isn't the camera to bring about anywhere. First it's more expensive (so if you break it , or it get stolen, it's more a problem than if it was a cheap camera), second the image quality of the K1 isn't far from the K3's... (since I have experienced the K1, I love the K3 more...), third together with the lenses it's becomes large and heavy (I can take the K3 with a couple of primes in a small backpack on a bike, but I don't think I'll ever do that with the K1). With the K1, the latitude of the sensor still no solved... because it's a property of the digital sensors vs film, regardless of the sensor size, so in fact, the final image rendering depends much more on digital post processing skills rather than sensor size.

[Simen1]

resolution
less noise
sharpness
narrower chromatic aberration
more compressed images(less Perspective distortion)

Resolution - I agree
Less noise - Disagree, using f/2,8 on APS-C yelds as low noise as f/4 on FF, given the same shutter speed, scene and so on.
Sharpness - You already mentioned that
Narrower CA - I'm not sure that holds true as a general property.
More compressed images - That does not hold true. Telephoto compression is a function of field of view. Given that you choose lenses with the same FoV, the compression will be the same.

Edit: Try googles translation of the patent. It will save you years of study to get to that quality level of Japanese.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Resolution - I agree
Less noise - Disagree, using f/2,8 on APS-C yelds as low noise as f/4 on FF, given the same shutter speed, scene and so on.
Sharpness - You already mentioned that
Narrower CA - I'm not sure that holds true as a general property.
More compressed images - That does not hold true. Telephoto compression is a function of field of view. Given that you choose lenses with the same FoV, the compression will be the same.

Edit: Try googles translation of the patent. It will save you years of study to get to that quality level of Japanese.

Good Grief! Are you serious?

[bilybianca]

What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms?

Maybe not a bag full, but to me with a number of fast HQ prime lenses it would be nice to have a lightweight walkaround lens, like I have used my DA16-45 on APS-c. With the K-1 high ISO capacity f4 would be plenty good enough.

Kjell

[Simen1]

@Silver-Surfer: I'm just happy to help. If you still wonder about something, just ask.