[Rondec]

I don't know what people expect.

When folks get a new camera, you know what? They shoot all the same stuff they shot with their old cameras. And a lot of that stuff is just snap shots. That is true in the K3 threads and the K5 threads. It is true in the DA limited thread. In the longer than 300mm thread, you get a lot of birds, some of which are really good, but still, just the same. What you sense from the K-1 thread is that some folks who weren't necessarily shooting a lot before are out there shooting now and are excited about new gear and that is a good thing, as far as I can tell.

As to rendering, that is all lens. The camera is merely a light box with a sensor that captures what the lens renders. And if folks are shooting with good lenses, that may be better and if they are shooting with 50mm lenses that are a little inaccurately focused, it may not be so great.

The biggest difference to me, is resolution and that is absolutely not going to be visible on the forum or even on the internet. That is the sort of thing that shows up when you blow up an image to a very large size and the detail holds. Yes, you can blow up a K5 image a lot and a K3 image a little more, but a K-1 pixel shifted image is going to hold up to close scrutiny at a very high printing size and that is the sort of thing that could sell more prints -- if you do that sort of thing (I don't).

The only thread on the forum that feel has significantly higher quality is the medium format thread and I feel that is because the posters have better skills than the rest of us and are more selective about the images they post. Even the full frame threads get cluttered up with a lot odd and fairly uninteresting shots -- I do it too, so not casting stones -- but just take it for what its worth, average to half decent photographers enjoying a piece of new equipment a lot.

[rawr]

This discussion is funny.

K1 adds new capabilites (eg low light, and resolution) that don't kill the utility of cameras like the K-3 (eg fps and reach). It's not a case of winner-loser.

Event/sports photographers in particular now have a very useful 2 camera kit in the form of the K-1 + K-3.

[Mr Bassie]

We looked at a K-1 last Friday and ended up going home with a Holga TIM half frame .

Thought the K-1 felt good in the hand and the viewfinder was bright.

Would love to see a comparison between the K-1 and the Holga TIM

---------- Post added 05-19-16 at 08:35 AM ----------

It's all about the confidence. He thinks he's better, therefore he is.

Something about Rupert's pictures does look different to me. I suppose the new sensor is better than whatever he had before.

[Rondec]

Assuming you are using the same lens, for example the FA 77, the biggest thing is that you are going to stand closer to get the same framing. That is often a good thing. But the rendering is really the same if you are shooting on a K3 or a K-1. You'll have a little less depth of field if you step closer, but everything else should be the same.

[Fat Albert]

...some folks who weren't necessarily shooting a lot before are out there shooting now and are excited about new gear and that is a good thing, as far as I can tell.

Amen. I've brought more lenses out of the cabinet than I have in a LONG time because of the new perspective. Although I don't think that the cure for falling into a rut is new gear, it seems that this new body has spurred more than a few others to shoot more than they have been.

I'm also excited about the current health and future of Pentax. Very excited. This is all unfolding so much better than I could've imagined

EDIT: to answer the question posed in the title, yes it was. And it continues to be

[Wheatfield]

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 ...

Nothing that couldn't have been shot with my K3, but the K3 doesn't come close to the image quality of the K1.
It depends on if you are looking for quality or not, and if you are looking on flickr, I doubt if you are.

[Clinton]

Nothing that couldn't have been shot with my K3, but the K3 doesn't come close to the image quality of the K1.
It depends on if you are looking for quality or not, and if you are looking on flickr, I doubt if you are.

Let alone an iPhone 6. I mean really, come on guys, why would we buy these giant things that you have to attach even more giant glass things, when you already have an Apple sponsored camera in your pocket.

[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 shot a wedding last weekend. Short answer: The K-1 didn't need a flash. I put the radiopopper on the K5, well, because it's a K5.

So ya, I can't see shooting without a K-1 indoors or at dusk. It would be silly and crazy-making.

Some of the shots were at ISO 12800, a whack at 6400; import into LR and it's obvious which shots were K-1 and which were K5.

Secondary bonus: Since it was non-flash, WB didn't argue, and I didn't have to gel flashes.

If you are a pro shooter it would be irresponsible to not shoot with the K-1. If I were shooting full time I'd buy two more (one as 2nd lens, one backup in the car). As it was I had the K20D in the car - so glad it stayed there.

[pathdoc]

but everything else should be the same.

There will likely be some changes because of a somewhat different image processing algorithm linked to the completely new sensor, but I think only scrupulous/insane study of test charts shot under standardised conditions will sort those out. In field use, I suspect photographer and environment variation will overshadow most of the differences, and the rest will be obliterated in post.

[Barry Pearson]

When folks get a new camera, you know what? They shoot all the same stuff they shot with their old cameras. And a lot of that stuff is just snap shots. That is true in the K3 threads and the K5 threads. It is true in the DA limited thread. In the longer than 300mm thread, you get a lot of birds, some of which are really good, but still, just the same. What you sense from the K-1 thread is that some folks who weren't necessarily shooting a lot before are out there shooting now and are excited about new gear and that is a good thing, as far as I can tell.

As to rendering, that is all lens. The camera is merely a light box with a sensor that captures what the lens renders. And if folks are shooting with good lenses, that may be better and if they are shooting with 50mm lenses that are a little inaccurately focused, it may not be so great.

The biggest difference to me, is resolution and that is absolutely not going to be visible on the forum or even on the internet. That is the sort of thing that shows up when you blow up an image to a very large size and the detail holds. Yes, you can blow up a K5 image a lot and a K3 image a little more, but a K-1 pixel shifted image is going to hold up to close scrutiny at a very high printing size and that is the sort of thing that could sell more prints -- if you do that sort of thing (I don't).

I had the D FA 70-200mm and the D FA 150-450mm lenses before I got the K-1. I used them with the K-3II; 70-200mm mainly for motor sports, 150-450mm mainly for things-in-flight.

Now I get better photos with those lenses at the same locations when I'm using the K-1. I'm able to "get more in" at the wide end, and I'm getting more keepers, I think mainly because of better AF. Also, because I'm willing to throw lots of K-1 pixels away, I'm able to use my favourite center-spot focusing then compose/crop in post-processing.

I'm having to make fewer compromises with exposure parameters, (aperture and shutter speed), because the dynamic range of the K-1 means that I'm typically able to ignore ISO and not worry about noise in those situations.

[Gurdur]

... Now I get better photos with those lenses at the same locations when I'm using the K-1. I'm able to "get more in" at the wide end, and I'm getting more keepers, ...

This is definitely my experience too. I now often go photographing with the 450mm lens on the K-1, and a normal lens on the K-3. I tweeted out this cropped photo of a bumblebee on the wing, taken at about 10 feet away, using the K-1 with the 450mm lens; it was done with automatic focusing; had I lowered exposure-time just a tad, it would have been a great photo.

[fjorge]

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 haven't read all 8 pages of this thread, but with the larger prints from the higher res sensor is a big advantage. Better shadow detail is also available. From what I've read it uses the Sony sensor that is well rated.

[Dlanor Sekao]

Not being a 'Pro', I am not particularly interested in what they do with it or what pictures they take. I don't even care if anyone ever looks at my shots. All that I was wondering was whether a K-1 would enable me take significantly less boring snaps than I can take with what I have

I think its Chime In Time about now. I was able to borrow and test the K1 for a whopping 3 days ! Immediately......within minutes.....I knew I was going to Grab one as soon as I could locate one in stock. I took about 400 images in that time period.....testing.....looking......examining......swapping lenses......Pixel Peeking a bit.


After throwing some legacy glass on the K1 , there is just some kind of magic that brings me back to my film days. My manual lenses once again render depth and a sense of being there !
I can only speak for myself......
YES......My Photos aren't as boring as You call it , I Immediately Improved.
YES......My Interest is Renewed because I'm getting better Landscape Images.
YES.....Its Worth It !


Yes , Yes , Yes , Yes ......Yes Yes.......YES ! My Legacy Glass......Once Again Renders as The Gods Designed it ! No Crop Factor Intended.......YMMV

---------- Post added 06-13-16 at 07:14 AM ----------

It's all about the confidence. He thinks he's better, therefore he is.

Exactly Right ! +1 on this.

[kh1234567890]

I can only speak for myself......
YES......My Photos aren't as boring as You call it , I Immediately Improved.
YES......My Interest is Renewed because I'm getting better Landscape Images.

Let's see some pictures then ...

[fromunderthebridge]

Let's see some pictures then ...

Your insistence that K-1 would need extravagant gains in the kind of photography you do to justify its existence and worth is frankly tiresome. You again ask a general justification for the existence of the device ("is it worth it?") and use your own personal preferences ("won't help me jacksh*t") as the universal measuring stick (kh1234567890 seal of approvaltm) that should do it for everyone (clearly not worth the $ or €).

I find that if tool can easily produce results that would be more difficult to achieve otherwise (e.g. K-1 produces comparable or better results easier than K-5), then it has value. If there is enough value/$ is a matter of personal preference and answer is inherently subjective.

You know, the "if rigorous process is applied, and use case is well selected even an iphone can match a DSLR" thing exists, but a good camera makes it easier (and many find additional value in an actual camera), no?