[Carpon]

Hi there,

I'm thinking about buying my brothers K-1 (had posted it here bud turns out I'm not allowed to sell it for him and has been removed, no problem, rules are here for a reason). I'm extending my interest to bird and wildlife photography There will be off-course a loss off reach compared to my K-3. I'm currently experimenting with the DA* 300mm F4 and the HD 1.4 TC on my K-3 but this combination is vignetting big time on the K-1 (as expected). So I am looking for a TC (1.4 /1.7 /2.0) combination the will work well with this lens and the K-1. Does anyone off you have experience with a combination like that. Or advicefor a long good, sharp and reasonably priced long tele (zoom) lenzes (around the €1000 mark) up to 400mm or higher. Like to hear from you for it will help me in my decision to make the big step to the K-1 or wait, hope and pray for a great successor for the K-3 any time soon.

[Sandy Hancock]

Relative to the K-1, the K-3 *is* a teleconverter for the DA*300 - essentially a 1.5xTC without losing a stop of light.

Use the K-1 for landscapes and portraits. Keep the K-3 for telephotos, and perhaps macros.

[Carpon]

Relative to the K-1, the K-3 *is* a teleconverter for the DA*300 - essentially a 1.5xTC without losing a stop of light.

Use the K-1 for landscapes and portraits. Keep the K-3 for telephotos, and perhaps macros.

You're right, maybe I'm just looking for a excuse to justify the step to K-1 and convince the sensible part of my brain As Macro and Tele is 90% off what I do. Just wished the K-3 had better ISO handling.

[pearsaab]

Hi there,

I'm thinking about buying my brothers K-1 (had posted it here bud turns out I'm not allowed to sell it for him and has been removed, no problem, rules are here for a reason). I'm extending my interest to bird and wildlife photography There will be off-course a loss off reach compared to my K-3. I'm currently experimenting with the DA* 300mm F4 and the HD 1.4 TC on my K-3 but this combination is vignetting big time on the K-1 (as expected). So I am looking for a TC (1.4 /1.7 /2.0) combination the will work well with this lens and the K-1. Does anyone off you have experience with a combination like that. Or advicefor a long good, sharp and reasonably priced long tele (zoom) lenzes (around the €1000 mark) up to 400mm or higher. Like to hear from you for it will help me in my decision to make the big step to the K-1 or wait, hope and pray for a great successor for the K-3 any time soon.

I have the SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter and it is FF so might work well with the 300mm. You have to manual focus to get close and then it will autofocus the rest of the way. The weather is supposed to be horrible this weekend or I would offer to check it out on my K1.

[Carpon]

I have the SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter and it is FF so might work well with the 300mm. You have to manual focus to get close and then it will autofocus the rest of the way. The weather is supposed to be horrible this weekend or I would offer to check it out on my K1.

Same here it's pouring down, thanks for your offer. Would open possibilities.

[UserAccessDenied]

Relative to the K-1, the K-3 *is* a teleconverter for the DA*300 - essentially a 1.5xTC without losing a stop of light.

Use the K-1 for landscapes and portraits. Keep the K-3 for telephotos, and perhaps macros.

interesting...
I thought FF was "better" for macro than APS-C.

Is the K-3 preferred for macro over the K-1?


I also shoot 90% macro and tele. I love the idea of getting a K-1, but if it really only benefits my portrait and landscape, it's not justifiable for 10% of my shooting. Especially when I don't get paid for anything I shoot!!

[normhead]

My solution was buy a Tamron 300 2.8 and put the 1.7 on it so I'd have the same reach as with the K-3 and DA*200. Guess what? Now I always use the 1.7x on the Tamron with the K-3. There just are very few times when doing birds, the K-3 doesn't do a better job in bright sun. I had a forum thread a while ago on a TC that might work with the K-1 and came up with nada. Of the 60,000 Pentax users registered on the forum apparently none has cracked this nut yet.

The Sigma 2x is said to be the best option, but it only works with some lenses and because of physical conflicts, it won't mount on my Tamron 300. The various Promaster / Samyang /Bower versions, I can't really get a read on. But i you want, I'll keep you informed as this drags on by adding to this thread.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/339750-any...out-there.html

[shardulm]

interesting...
I thought FF was "better" for macro than APS-C.

Is the K-3 preferred for macro over the K-1?


I also shoot 90% macro and tele. I love the idea of getting a K-1, but if it really only benefits my portrait and landscape, it's not justifiable for 10% of my shooting. Especially when I don't get paid for anything I shoot!!

Macro lenses are usually 1:1 magnification and a D-FA 100WR is 1:1 meant for a FF. In theory if you use an APS-C for this lens you are getting increased magnification so it is better or not better depending upon what you want. In general a high megapixel crop sensor with a Macro lens is the best bet for Macro shots. The DOF is also a little more forgiving on an APS-C. So your K-3 is still very useful in that sense IMO.

[UserAccessDenied]

Macro lenses are usually 1:1 magnification and a D-FA 100WR is 1:1 meant for a FF. In theory if you use an APS-C for this lens you are getting increased magnification so it is better or not better depending upon what you want. In general a high megapixel crop sensor with a Macro lens is the best bet for Macro shots. The DOF is also a little more forgiving on an APS-C. So your K-3 is still very useful in that sense IMO.

Interesting.
So if the DFA100WR is 1 : 1 on the K-1, would that make it 1.5 : 1 on the K-3?

I already pair my DFA100WR on the K-3 with the 1.4xTC. Does that mean I'm actually getting a magnification of 2.1 : 1? That doesn't sound right to me?

I guess at the end of the day, the numbers don't really mean much to me. If my subject looks good when framed I shoot. If I need to get closer or farther away I change lenses, move closer or pair the TC.

It's still interesting to understand the relationship between lenses and sensors.

[normhead]

Simple answer, if you only use the centre of the frame your K-3 is better. If you use the full frame (in which case you would have to back your K-3 out to get the same shot) the K-1 is better. But, at minimum focussing distance 1:1) the K-3 will provide more magnification in the centre, the K-1 will provide more resolution over the whole frame.

1:1 magnification means subject size is the same size as image size. An APS-c camera will reproduce a 22x17 image at 1:1. A K-1 will reproduce a 36x22 image 1:1. But there will be more magnification from the K-3 of what it captures. It's complicated for sure.

Just say the K-3 is better unless you have to back away from minimum focus to fill the frame. Once you back away a bit its a crap shoot. That's an easy rule of thumb.

[pearsaab]

My solution was buy a Tamron 300 2.8 and put the 1.7 on it so I'd have the same reach as with the K-3 and DA*200. Guess what? Now I always use the 1.7x on the Tamron with the K-3. There just are very few times when doing birds, the K-3 doesn't do a better job in bright sun. I had a forum thread a while ago on a TC that might work with the K-1 and came up with nada. Of the 60,000 Pentax users registered on the forum apparently none has cracked this nut yet.

The Sigma 2x is said to be the best option, but it only works with some lenses and because of physical conflicts, it won't mount on my Tamron 300. The various Promaster / Samyang /Bower versions, I can't really get a read on. But i you want, I'll keep you informed as this drags on by adding to this thread.

Any Pentax compatible Teleconverters out there? - PentaxForums.com

Norm i had the sigma 2x but have to say it never impressed me and felt i definitley lost image quality...got rid of it before the K1 so can't comment if it would have been any better

[normhead]

Norm i had the sigma 2x but have to say it never impressed me and felt i definitley lost image quality...got rid of it before the K1 so can't comment if it would have been any better

I'm starting to wonder if Pentax stopped at 1.7 because they couldn't keep the IQ they wanted above that. However I regularly see Canon guys using 2xs on their 70-200s.

[shardulm]

Interesting.
So if the DFA100WR is 1 : 1 on the K-1, would that make it 1.5 : 1 on the K-3?

I already pair my DFA100WR on the K-3 with the 1.4xTC. Does that mean I'm actually getting a magnification of 2.1 : 1? That doesn't sound right to me?

I guess at the end of the day, the numbers don't really mean much to me. If my subject looks good when framed I shoot. If I need to get closer or farther away I change lenses, move closer or pair the TC.

It's still interesting to understand the relationship between lenses and sensors.

Well it boils down to FOV. Usually Macro subjects are way smaller than a K-1 frame, smaller even for a APS-C frame. See this..

All 3 lenses below offer a 1X magnification at their focal lengths (A FF image circle).
D-FA50 Macro has MFD of 20cm
D-FA100 Macro has MFD of 30cm (You get twice as close but loose the MFD by only 10cm not 20cm)
A200 Macro has MFD of 55cm (You get 4 times closer but loose the MFD by only 35cm) <- Stil wonder why it is so expensive and images are so clean?

Smaller than 35mm sensor size is essentially built-in cropping and works in favor of subjects that are smaller for a 35mm frame. If the subject is even smaller (as in much of even the APS-C frame is wasted) then you could switch to a smaller sensor camera with higher density pixels (ex. Q with an adaptor, not sure if there is one) to get most usable pixels for your frame. Call it magnification or whatever.. you need as much pixel density in the subject are as possible to get good Macros.
So in some sense to get a best Macro shot use a Pentax Q (or a smaller high MP sensor) and a 200mm/f4 lens (guess it all maxes out with the Pentax system) if your subjects are tiny enough to fill the sensors frame.

Like someone mentioned if you need to back out to get the subject in frame use K-1 or else K-3 is best and golden if you have a A200/f4 macro.

[UserAccessDenied]

Simple answer, if you only use the centre of the frame your K-3 is better. If you use the full frame (in which case you would have to back your K-3 out to get the same shot) the K-1 is better. But, at minimum focussing distance 1:1) the K-3 will provide more magnification in the centre, the K-1 will provide more resolution over the whole frame.

1:1 magnification means subject size is the same size as image size. An APS-c camera will reproduce a 22x17 image at 1:1. A K-1 will reproduce a 36x22 image 1:1. But there will be more magnification from the K-3 of what it captures. It's complicated for sure.

Just say the K-3 is better unless you have to back away from minimum focus to fill the frame. Once you back away a bit its a crap shoot. That's an easy rule of thumb.

Thanks,
that makes sense...

Again, at the end of the day it's all preferential.
If I frame the shot and it looks good, who's to say otherwise? Of course, once a print is sold that all changes...

But for my walls at home, no one can say otherwise!

---------- Post added 03-08-17 at 01:08 PM ----------

... golden if you have a A200/f4 macro.

I'd need a golden wallet to achieve this as well...

[normhead]

I'd need a golden wallet to achieve this as well...

See if you can find one for me too.