[Rondec]

The initial post sounded a bit snarky, but the answer is sort of. I like my K-1 a lot. It definitely can take photos that have less depth of field than I am used to, it can shoot a lot higher iso with less noise than I am used to, and it is the best focusing Pentax I have ever used. That said, my photos still look like I took them. I mostly shoot landscapes and I have to stop down a bit more, but I use a tripod, so no big deal, that. The resulting images have more resolution and a bit more dynamic range, but it isn't anything dramatic and probably nothing that is visible at web sizes.

I guess the question really is whether or not (a) you have money for an upgrade and (b) are you bumping your head against limitations of APS-C (want less depth of field, ability to shoot higher iso, or print/view bigger). If the answer to both is yes, then you should consider one.

Certainly don't expect it to change your images, though. They will have more resolution and less noise, but they'll still look like you took them.

[Dice]

Coming from a beat up k-5, I can say the functions, AF, flippy screen, amount of detail, low iso capability. Does it make me a better photographer? No! but it does make me want to work on my skills to begin to scratch the surface of what this tool is capable of doing. My k-5 af system was always a point of frustration. I put my 20-40 or 50-135 on the K-1 and they work as intended without the zooming in and zooming out to get a crisp focus on the wide end. It has made my hobby more enjoyable for sure and that is after only using the camera for a day.

[bxf]

OK, now that you've all got your shiny K-1 - any real life pictures shot with it that couldn't have been taken with a crop frame Pentax DSLR ?

I've had a quick look through Flickr and all I could find was some pretty boring stuff that could have been shot with anything ...

I don't think anybody would ever claim that the K-1 (or any FF, for that matter) yields better results than APS-C in all circumstances. However, if we accept, as we should, that the K-1 yields noise and dynamic range performance superior to those of any APS-C, then it goes without saying that there will be some, though admittedly infrequent, conditions where it will produce results that cannot be matched by the APS-C.

[osv]

OK, now that you've all got your shiny K-1 - any real life pictures shot with it that couldn't have been taken with a crop frame Pentax DSLR ?

what you should do here is post up a weak crop shot, something that's been pushed too hard in-camera, and ask if ff would make it better.

if you've got nothing that you want to improve, why start this thread? you don't need ff.

[mee]

The initial post sounded a bit snarky, but the answer is sort of. I like my K-1 a lot. It definitely can take photos that have less depth of field than I am used to, it can shoot a lot higher iso with less noise than I am used to, and it is the best focusing Pentax I have ever used. That said, my photos still look like I took them. I mostly shoot landscapes and I have to stop down a bit more, but I use a tripod, so no big deal, that. The resulting images have more resolution and a bit more dynamic range, but it isn't anything dramatic and probably nothing that is visible at web sizes.

I guess the question really is whether or not (a) you have money for an upgrade and (b) are you bumping your head against limitations of APS-C (want less depth of field, ability to shoot higher iso, or print/view bigger). If the answer to both is yes, then you should consider one.

Certainly don't expect it to change your images, though. They will have more resolution and less noise, but they'll still look like you took them.

I won't but I've been tempted to introduce some photos into the K-1 photos thread taken from my K-5 II and 50-135mm, post process, and alter the EXIF to that of a K-1 just to see how many people take it as an actual K-1 shot and become amazed at the clarity.

It is difficult to judge these high resolution sensors with web sized images that are mostly what are being posted. Esp when they're applying a lot of lipstick. Some of the images are obviously (over)cooked. A bit on the haloy crispy side.


I more think the K-1 just makes it a bit easier to get the shot, it isn't revolutionary though... unless you're shooting for billboards or printings hung off the side of buildings... or in a dark area and NEED the extra 1-2 stops of decent ISO performance.

[noser]

OK, now that you've all got your shiny K-1 - any real life pictures shot with it that couldn't have been taken with a crop frame Pentax DSLR ?

I've had a quick look through Flickr and all I could find was some pretty boring stuff that could have been shot with anything ...

I recently posted here (and to Flickr) two images, one shot with the K5 + 16-45mm and the K-1 + 24mm downsized to something like 1024pix wide. There is almost no difference in the two shots.

Except there is.

1) The 16-45 shot has some bad smudging in the corners.
2) I can crop waaaaaaaaaaay in on the 36mp shot. Can't do the same on the 16mp shot.

So in one sense the shots are the same.

In another they are worlds apart.

But on a phone screen they are the same... Maybe print bigger?

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

. (skip to 19:00 for the reveal)

[RonHendriks1966]

I recently posted here (and to Flickr) two images, one shot with the K5 + 16-45mm and the K-1 + 24mm downsized to something like 1024pix wide. There is almost no difference in the two shots.

Except there is.

1) The 16-45 shot has some bad smudging in the corners.
2) I can crop waaaaaaaaaaay in on the 36mp shot. Can't do the same on the 16mp shot.

So in one sense the shots are the same.

In another they are worlds apart.

But on a phone screen they are the same... Maybe print bigger?

Maybe. (skip to 19:00 for the reveal)

That is fun to watch. On the big image you probably don't have the pixalasation with K-1 as back in 2004!

At 15 min he tells us that the future in photography is for mobile phone! Why did that took so long if he knew this already in 2004?

---

Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 05-15-2016 at 12:30 AM.

[pinholecam]

1. Far better AF
2. Far better DR (really malleable files, reminds me more of K5 at ISO80 but this time at FF and 36mp)
3. Pixel Shift - is worth it
4. Astro tracer - The many times I struggled to keep ISO/Shutter speed/aperture within reasonable limits on cameras before this.
5. Wifi - splendid! for shooting in really odd angles (like camera on the floor, shooting the ceiling)
6. Build quality of the camera just feels nice holding it.
7. Shallow DOF look that is easier with a FF
8. Shooting groups of ppl with less distortion using the K24/2.8 vs using my DA15ltd.
9. Easier working distances for portraits that need more subject isolation


All worth it.
Furthermore, its nice to think that my friends paid a bit more and got a less feature packed camera with the D610 and D800.

[repaap]

I'd join in and say that it was worth it. Even that I'v just used it couple of weeks. More control, great AF and truly great professional grade build quality. With more resolution than ever, will have to get more high quality lenses thou...but even with my lenses now, it is great joy to see files on my laptop. maybe I could have saved some money waiting couple months and just shoot with K-3 and be happy with my DA16-50/not happy with it on crop mode, and having to buy new lens to replace it.

[surfar]

Only got mine the day before yesterday, I had to kill the snakes in my pocket to get to my wallet....sure glad they are dead!


Its a low light monster, big heavy and WHY, didn't they bring it out sooner!


Its WORTH it!

[Tan68]

...

Is there any killer feature, picturewise, that the K-1 has or can do that APS-C can't ? Show me ...

Well, it truly has a digital zoom built-in. For me, the digital zoom achieved by using crop mode with a FF lens is acceptable; I had continued using a K5 and was happy.

I sometimes carried a 35mm on APS-C. Seldom used, I will just crop if I want that same field of view on FF. I used a 77 on APS-C and now have a wider field of view I think I will enjoy (I wasn't sure I would) and can crop to my old field of view.

There are other benefits to me you are not interested in; they have as much to do with using a camera 6 yrs newer as using a FF sensor.

[normhead]

All the multitudes of threads over the last year with titles like "What does FF do for me that APS-C can't" and all the talk of format equivalence and so on and this matter is in need of additional clarification? (I need a head-bang emoticon.)

Here is the answer in short form posed as a question:

Are you totally happy with your current camera and is it capable of making the captures you wish with the range of lenses/accessories you currently own or can afford?

If yes, the K-1 has nothing to offer.

Steve

I have to ask, who is totally happy with any piece of equipment. Even a K-1. I keep hearing "It's heavy."
And if you own a K-3 and are not totally happy, who's to say the camera that will make you happy isn't a Panasonic FZ1000, or a Q .

As much as we'd like to have a simple sound bite, I'm afraid this isn't it.

[kh1234567890]

Hmm...

My original question still appears to be unanswered. No killer shot examples that I couldn't take with crop bodies/lenses. I think that I'll wait for the K-0

[monochrome]

Hmm...

My original question still appears to be unanswered. No killer shot examples that I couldn't take with crop bodies/lenses. I think that I'll wait for the K-0

Oh, I think what you infer is absolutely right. No one needs the K-1 to take any photograph that couldn't also be taken with a crop body and the right lens. It's the equivalence argument all over again, except asking for photos to prove it (if there aren't pictures it didn't happen). *





*and I don't really care.

[normhead]

Show me a killer shot you took with a crop body then.

Are squirrel shots allowed?