Help me decide between K1 or KP for nightphotography

HopelessTogger · 03-08-2017, 03:56 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by jrpower10

I think you need a 645z.

. . . with a motorized equatorial mount.

surfar · 03-08-2017, 04:25 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mag07

K1 is heavy. It's brilliant but heavy

It definitely weighs more! However to get used to that all I did was pick it up everyday and do a few shots....When I picked up the K50 it felt LIGHT, like a toy!

K1 gets heavier depending on the lens....its pretty nice street shooting with a DA 40/50....but long telephotoing with the 135-400 I feel the weight.

OP, it may be a time to wait and see....a K3(iii) may be around the corner.Your lens line up shouldn't need much more if you get impatient and go with a K1( some of the DAs you have that you haven't mentioned may do ok @ FF....most work with 1;1 and all work in crop.

mag07 · 03-09-2017, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

A sling strap makes a big difference, it distributes the load more comfortably than a neck strap. Not germane to the original post, of course...

It most certainly does. I use a Peak Design strap, cross body, that said, it does not help the weight of all the gear when in a bag/backpack even with a well supported one, after few hours I do start to feel the weight. Not so young anymore haha and trouble with FF, some lenses are much heavier, too. But again, the IQ is worth the effort for me.

zapp · 03-12-2017, 11:14 AM - **1 Like**

I think that for long tele lenses the gain in reach for an APS-C body equals the gain in noise for a FF camera. You can use a 2.8/200 on APS-C to get the same coverage that a 4/300 will bring in FF. For shorter lenses you can get lense with same aperture and coverage, here FF may excel.

A.Styrlander · 03-15-2017, 05:19 AM - **1 Like**

Ok, I've taken my time to carefully think about this for a week and I've also read all your great insights here in this thread.

Im definitely looking for what you could call a "miracle" which doesn't exist. I live in Sweden where its very dark most of the year and I like to do some wildlife shooting at dusk and dawn when the light isn't very ideal. I do everything in my power to keep the ISO down as low as possible, I usually shoot moose and dear with my 150-450 at 450mm with a slow shutter speed around 1/40s. I usually have the camera on a tripod and use a wireless remote to shoot fast bursts at my subject. Usually I get 1-2 images that are sharp enough out of 20 shots. This is only if the subject stays perfectly still. With this approach I often hit ISOs around 1600-3200 but sometimes 6400. Thats why I would like a high ISO beast so I could use some faster shutter speeds and bump the ISO a bit more without too much penalty in IQ.

But I guess the K1 isn't what Im looking for. Its better but probably not good enough to justify the price and also the lesser reach it would give me would also push me to crop even more.

I think I will procrastinate for a bit and work with what I have. I might have to learn to use flash for wildlife too.

I have to admit Im a bit of a lazy editor when it comes to noise, I will also try to improve my skills in noise reduction and check out DXOs tool as someone mentioned here.

Thank you all!

I submitted some attachments if anyones interested to check out som sample shots of what I do with my K3.

**TER-OR** · 03-15-2017, 06:33 AM

I was going to suggest a monopod, but if you're using that nice gimbal head on a tripod you're well ahead of that game.
Maybe the better noise handling of FF would pay off in lower light, as long as you don't crop too heavily. It may be worth looking at Topaz or some other plugin for Photoshop or Lightroom to help with noise. It's definitely pretty technical photography, and quite challenging.

Some say the 16MP Sony sensor in K5 handled dark conditions better than the 24MP in K3. Others argued that if you crop to the same size that difference disappeared.

So there you go, no answer from me! I'll stay in the sun taking pictures of insects and getting more skin cancer.

**UncleVanya** · 03-15-2017, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

Some say the 16MP Sony sensor in K5 handled dark conditions better than the 24MP in K3. Others argued that if you crop to the same size that difference disappeared.

I thought the method of leveling the noise playing field was downsampling to 16MP. However there is a lot of controversy about this method. Many say it is very crude compared to using dedicated noise reduction which will target noise and attempt to leave detail in a more intelligent way than simple downsizing does.

I personally like DXO Optics prime noise reduction.

howieb101 · 03-19-2017, 04:07 AM

Please note it is downsize not crop. The image looks identical, ie, the composition doesn't change but the resolution is downsized to 16 Mpx. A crop changes the composition as you are cutting off bits of the image.

**sibyrnes** · 03-21-2017, 06:54 AM - **1 Like**

Well here's a quick test at ISO 51200 - both shot with 28-105, hand held. Photos are the original RAW exported as JPEGs in Lightroom. Notice the difference in exposure although both were shot in Av mode under the same conditions. My lens was zoomed to different focal lengths to compensate for the crop factor of the KP. What do you think? First KP, second one K1.

A.Styrlander · 03-24-2017, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by sibyrnes

Well here's a quick test at ISO 51200 - both shot with 28-105, hand held. Photos are the original RAW exported as JPEGs in Lightroom. Notice the difference in exposure although both were shot in Av mode under the same conditions. My lens was zoomed to different focal lengths to compensate for the crop factor of the KP. What do you think? First KP, second one K1.

Wow, thats interesting! The KP image looks a tad bit better than the K1 image, I think. The K1 image is softer and lacks a little more in the fine details.

Did you have any in-camera noisereduction on any of them?

Maybe the KP is a lowlight beast after all.

**sibyrnes** · 03-24-2017, 04:57 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by A.Styrlander

Wow, thats interesting! The KP image looks a tad bit better than the K1 image, I think. The K1 image is softer and lacks a little more in the fine details.

Did you have any in-camera noisereduction on any of them?

Maybe the KP is a lowlight beast after all.

I agree. I was surprised and really did not want to believe it - the KP image looks better to me! Those photos were taken with no noise reduction or processing of any kind.

Stavri · 03-24-2017, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by sibyrnes

I agree. I was surprised and really did not want to believe it - the KP image looks better to me! Those photos were taken with no noise reduction or processing of any kind.

I don't know if I'd consider the KP images sharper, It seem to be a bit "punchier" with harsher transitions of greys (in the shadow). The K1 has higher Dynamic Range to me. I would try the shoot both cameras underexposed and see how much detail you could recover before image degradation

mag07 · 03-26-2017, 02:48 AM

Focal length and shutter speed are different (even accounting for crop sensor differences). Shutter speed is mean to affect image quality in low light, isn't it?

**sibyrnes** · 03-26-2017, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by mag07

Focal length and shutter speed are different (even accounting for crop sensor differences). Shutter speed is mean to affect image quality in low light, isn't it?

Please explain how a difference in exposure of .003 sec affects image quality in low light.

Rico · 03-27-2017, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by sibyrnes

Well here's a quick test at ISO 51200 - both shot with 28-105, hand held. Photos are the original RAW exported as JPEGs in Lightroom. Notice the difference in exposure although both were shot in Av mode under the same conditions. My lens was zoomed to different focal lengths to compensate for the crop factor of the KP. What do you think? First KP, second one K1.

This isn't really a proper comparison. You shouldn't compensate for the crop factor by adjusting the zoom. You should have taken each image at the same focal length but moved closer with the K-1 to compensate for the crop factor. This is a better real world comparison of the benefits of one over the other.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Pentax KP? Para que la Pentax KP?	ZeaFoto	Pentax KP	16	06-14-2018 08:53 AM
More test images from the Pentax KP compare with D500/K1	melander	Pentax KP	3	02-02-2017 11:00 PM
Help me settle a dispute between me and my gf	r0ckstarr	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	31	12-16-2015 10:11 PM
Another "Help me decide between K-5, K-30" thread	ChooseAName	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	10-15-2012 05:53 PM
help me decide between a 67 and a 645n	zosxavius	Pentax Medium Format	26	10-14-2012 12:27 PM

03-08-2017, 03:56 PM - 1 Like	#16
HopelessTogger Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Roi-et, Thailand Posts: 773	Originally posted by jrpower10 I think you need a 645z. . . . with a motorized equatorial mount.

03-08-2017, 04:25 PM - 1 Like	#17
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,145	Originally posted by mag07 K1 is heavy. It's brilliant but heavy It definitely weighs more! However to get used to that all I did was pick it up everyday and do a few shots....When I picked up the K50 it felt LIGHT, like a toy! K1 gets heavier depending on the lens....its pretty nice street shooting with a DA 40/50....but long telephotoing with the 135-400 I feel the weight. OP, it may be a time to wait and see....a K3(iii) may be around the corner.Your lens line up shouldn't need much more if you get impatient and go with a K1( some of the DAs you have that you haven't mentioned may do ok @ FF....most work with 1;1 and all work in crop.

03-09-2017, 01:16 AM	#18
mag07 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 60	Originally posted by TER-OR A sling strap makes a big difference, it distributes the load more comfortably than a neck strap. Not germane to the original post, of course... It most certainly does. I use a Peak Design strap, cross body, that said, it does not help the weight of all the gear when in a bag/backpack even with a well supported one, after few hours I do start to feel the weight. Not so young anymore haha and trouble with FF, some lenses are much heavier, too. But again, the IQ is worth the effort for me.

03-12-2017, 11:14 AM - 1 Like	#19
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,388	I think that for long tele lenses the gain in reach for an APS-C body equals the gain in noise for a FF camera. You can use a 2.8/200 on APS-C to get the same coverage that a 4/300 will bring in FF. For shorter lenses you can get lense with same aperture and coverage, here FF may excel.

03-15-2017, 06:33 AM	#21
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I was going to suggest a monopod, but if you're using that nice gimbal head on a tripod you're well ahead of that game. Maybe the better noise handling of FF would pay off in lower light, as long as you don't crop too heavily. It may be worth looking at Topaz or some other plugin for Photoshop or Lightroom to help with noise. It's definitely pretty technical photography, and quite challenging. Some say the 16MP Sony sensor in K5 handled dark conditions better than the 24MP in K3. Others argued that if you crop to the same size that difference disappeared. So there you go, no answer from me! I'll stay in the sun taking pictures of insects and getting more skin cancer.

03-15-2017, 07:06 AM	#22
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,459	Originally posted by TER-OR Some say the 16MP Sony sensor in K5 handled dark conditions better than the 24MP in K3. Others argued that if you crop to the same size that difference disappeared. I thought the method of leveling the noise playing field was downsampling to 16MP. However there is a lot of controversy about this method. Many say it is very crude compared to using dedicated noise reduction which will target noise and attempt to leave detail in a more intelligent way than simple downsizing does. I personally like DXO Optics prime noise reduction.

03-19-2017, 04:07 AM	#23
howieb101 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 594	Please note it is downsize not crop. The image looks identical, ie, the composition doesn't change but the resolution is downsized to 16 Mpx. A crop changes the composition as you are cutting off bits of the image.

03-24-2017, 04:26 AM	#25
A.Styrlander New Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	Originally posted by sibyrnes Well here's a quick test at ISO 51200 - both shot with 28-105, hand held. Photos are the original RAW exported as JPEGs in Lightroom. Notice the difference in exposure although both were shot in Av mode under the same conditions. My lens was zoomed to different focal lengths to compensate for the crop factor of the KP. What do you think? First KP, second one K1. Wow, thats interesting! The KP image looks a tad bit better than the K1 image, I think. The K1 image is softer and lacks a little more in the fine details. Did you have any in-camera noisereduction on any of them? Maybe the KP is a lowlight beast after all.

03-24-2017, 04:57 AM - 1 Like	#26
sibyrnes Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 447	Originally posted by A.Styrlander Wow, thats interesting! The KP image looks a tad bit better than the K1 image, I think. The K1 image is softer and lacks a little more in the fine details. Did you have any in-camera noisereduction on any of them? Maybe the KP is a lowlight beast after all. I agree. I was surprised and really did not want to believe it - the KP image looks better to me! Those photos were taken with no noise reduction or processing of any kind.

03-24-2017, 06:13 AM	#27
Stavri Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: at a Bean & Leaf Photos: Albums Posts: 1,832	Originally posted by sibyrnes I agree. I was surprised and really did not want to believe it - the KP image looks better to me! Those photos were taken with no noise reduction or processing of any kind. I don't know if I'd consider the KP images sharper, It seem to be a bit "punchier" with harsher transitions of greys (in the shadow). The K1 has higher Dynamic Range to me. I would try the shoot both cameras underexposed and see how much detail you could recover before image degradation

03-26-2017, 02:48 AM	#28
mag07 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 60	Focal length and shutter speed are different (even accounting for crop sensor differences). Shutter speed is mean to affect image quality in low light, isn't it?

03-26-2017, 08:19 AM	#29
sibyrnes Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 447	Originally posted by mag07 Focal length and shutter speed are different (even accounting for crop sensor differences). Shutter speed is mean to affect image quality in low light, isn't it? Please explain how a difference in exposure of .003 sec affects image quality in low light.

03-27-2017, 01:31 PM	#30
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	Originally posted by sibyrnes Well here's a quick test at ISO 51200 - both shot with 28-105, hand held. Photos are the original RAW exported as JPEGs in Lightroom. Notice the difference in exposure although both were shot in Av mode under the same conditions. My lens was zoomed to different focal lengths to compensate for the crop factor of the KP. What do you think? First KP, second one K1. This isn't really a proper comparison. You shouldn't compensate for the crop factor by adjusting the zoom. You should have taken each image at the same focal length but moved closer with the K-1 to compensate for the crop factor. This is a better real world comparison of the benefits of one over the other.