[TwoUptons]

The Pentax “APS-C” cameras put more pixels on the subject. I would never purchase a DFA 560 lens. With a DA 55-300 lens, the K-1 becomes a big, heavy 16MP camera, which I cannot imagine choosing instead of the 24MM KP, but you are perfectly welcome to that if you so choose.

I don't know... that 560 would work fine on your KP, and it would get you nearly twice as close as the 55-300, with 24 Mp... seems to me if you really want to get close, that's the answer... or a Q

-Eric

[reh321]

I don't know... that 560 would work fine on your KP, and it would get you nearly twice as close as the 55-300, with 24 Mp... seems to me if you really want to get close, that's the answer... or a Q

-Eric

The 560 is expensive and heavy.
My Q-7 was my original answer - but I could not keep up with manual focus needs.
Believe me, I have considered all the options - my KP works best for birding.

[noelpolar]

The lens rates much better at the 150mm end. I would assume at the same distance and subject so you are close to 150-200 on the kp and 225-300 on the k1.
Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Review | ePHOTOzine

Nah.... all at 450mm... mouse sized birds.... anyway.... important point is my observations are regarding performance "for me"..... others may much preffer a K3 or KP for certain situations... in the end.... for me.... in dynamic general situations (ie bush walks) resulting in a nice photo... K1 all the way.... small bird on a stick filling the frame photos in perfect light are not the norm for me... and when I manage to get something it really is about getting close etc and the techniques around doing that.... rather than a few more smaller pixels on the subject.... but once again.... others situations would/may be different.

Having said all that, a strong possibility (for me)..... is.... out comes the Knew.... life is good.... I read more about it here.... get bored and buy one anyhow as a new toy.... I have no use "what so ever" for the new 85.... but some how feel like I am missing out on something (this goes for the DFA 50 as well).... but I am resisting (I can get away with one unneeded expensive thing like this per year without wife trouble).

[zapp]

The K-new will not be designed for long tele work. It will hopefully do well, but the choice of lenses is so limited... why bother before the release and a spec sheet becomes available. Pentax plays in APS-C 15-300mm land. Everything else is on the extreme side for Pentax.

[repaap]

Ummm. What? Actually there is 11-18 at wide and then 150-450 is perfectly usable in aps-c as is 560. I wonder why Pentax aps-c would not be working in Tele? K-new is new in many ways. Old Pentax has changed.

[BarneyL]

I wonder if anyone here beside me seriously thinks about switching from K-1/K-1 II back to APS-C. Sure, the bump in IQ with K-1 compared to my former camera (k-3ii) is immense. However, after almost 3 years with K-1, I feel like this camera is a huge overkill for my non-professional work, and I'd gladly trade its main strong points (resolution, high ISO performance) for faster SD cards, better AF and cheaper modern lens options. DA* 11-18 is there, new 16-50 is coming, and the DFA* 70-200/2.8 I already have should work well enough on the K-new. Maybe it's better to leave the full frame "magic" to those that need it?

[Kunzite]

I wonder if anyone here beside me seriously thinks about switching from K-1/K-1 II back to APS-C.

I did. Then I decided to wait for the K-1's successor - I already have a few good D FA lenses, and I don't think it will be a long wait
Going back to APS-C is OK, as long as it's not done out of impatience IMO.

[redpit]

The K-new will not be designed for long tele work. It will hopefully do well, but the choice of lenses is so limited... why bother before the release and a spec sheet becomes available. Pentax plays in APS-C 15-300mm land. Everything else is on the extreme side for Pentax.

Your comment couldn’t be more wrong. There is the excellent DFA 150-450 that I feel after enjoying it for 5 years is Pentax replacement for the superb 250-600/5.6 zooms as it offers top IQ even wide open and is an equivalent 250-675/4.5-5.6 on the APS-Cs. Also the DA 560 offers an equivalent 840/5.6 lens which only needs a new APS-C that will elevate the experience of using it to the level of using the lens on K-1 but with a fast-sport camera! (The new viewfinder is a good sign).
I couldn’t be more happy with the release of the K-new to further utilize these gems of lenses... I’m in anticipation for some of the basic specs of the K-new and especially the new AF qualities that I am optimistic they will be greatly improved.

[Kunzite]

Your comment couldn’t be more wrong. There is the excellent DFA 150-450

+1
The excellent D FA 150-450 - which I have - will be even better on the K-new.
Very good optics and decent AF (about the same, or slightly faster than Nikon's 200-500). Too bad it doesn't have a ring-type SDM, but it's currently limited by the cameras.

[ThorSanchez]

I wonder if anyone here beside me seriously thinks about switching from K-1/K-1 II back to APS-C. Sure, the bump in IQ with K-1 compared to my former camera (k-3ii) is immense. However, after almost 3 years with K-1, I feel like this camera is a huge overkill for my non-professional work, and I'd gladly trade its main strong points (resolution, high ISO performance) for faster SD cards, better AF and cheaper modern lens options. DA* 11-18 is there, new 16-50 is coming, and the DFA* 70-200/2.8 I already have should work well enough on the K-new. Maybe it's better to leave the full frame "magic" to those that need it?

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few like you, and many more like me who never made the FF jump. APS-C just has too many advantages in price, size, sports, wildlife, travel and lens selection. Before COVID probably 50% of my photos were of U13/U12 soccer matches. I could either do that with a very good K-3ii/55-300PLM setup that cost about $1000, or a much larger and heavier kit including a K-1 with a 70-200 or 150-450 that costs $3000 and has a smaller buffer. The K-new will probably double down on those advantages.

[FozzFoster]

I really don't mind the trade offs with APS-C for the benefits it provides...
Especially need to consider the physical size of media you consume your images on (cell phone, monitor, large prints).
Both myself and my clients consume mainly on cell phones and monitors.. my largest print is 11X14. A full frame camera wouldn't realllllly benefit me.

Canon has recently launched ultra super long zooms with very small apertures.
Something like 600/800mm f/11
For birding on bright days, and with newer AI denoise tech, these sort of lenses are intriguing especially to boot out my Bridge format cameras..
Wonder if Pentax would pursue something similar...

[repaap]

I wonder if anyone here beside me seriously thinks about switching from K-1/K-1 II back to APS-C. Sure, the bump in IQ with K-1 compared to my former camera (k-3ii) is immense. However, after almost 3 years with K-1, I feel like this camera is a huge overkill for my non-professional work, and I'd gladly trade its main strong points (resolution, high ISO performance) for faster SD cards, better AF and cheaper modern lens options. DA* 11-18 is there, new 16-50 is coming, and the DFA* 70-200/2.8 I already have should work well enough on the K-new. Maybe it's better to leave the full frame "magic" to those that need it?

I’m thinking of getting the new K-1 when it arrives. But IF this K-New will be really good, why not a new K-1 and this K-New. Resolution is one thing, but that new OVF with X1,05 magnification seems to kill one thing I choose K-1 over K-3. That big and bright VF. I love to use FF for what it is, and for narrow DoF(i go for it most of the time) but for some things that is not needed. So not to replace, but to accompanie.

[ThorSanchez]

why not a new K-1 and this K-New

I can think of about 4000 reasons.

[gatorguy]

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few like you, and many more like me who never made the FF jump. APS-C just has too many advantages in price, size, sports, wildlife, travel and lens selection. Before COVID probably 50% of my photos were of U13/U12 soccer matches. I could either do that with a very good K-3ii/55-300PLM setup that cost about $1000, or a much larger and heavier kit including a K-1 with a 70-200 or 150-450 that costs $3000 and has a smaller buffer. The K-new will probably double down on those advantages.

I'll be putting both to the test side by side this weekend. First "real" portrait shoot in several months this Saturday, indoor, and slated for about 4 hours.

I'll be using a K1 with FA85 and HD FA 50, and a K70 with DA*55 and a Sigma 17-50, and often on the same scene and model but for a different perspective. I should get a much better feel for the pros and cons once I get them in processing.

[repaap]

I can think of about 4000 reasons.

Just askin out of curiosity, after saying that money does not count as a reason, how many reasons do you have left?

With new K-1 I mean the K-1 New which should be coming at some point.