[Rmagers]

I am ready for an upgrade from my K-x. Though it has served me very well and still works great, I am to the point of needing (wanting) more than 12MP. So far I have been mostly shooting landscape with a few portrait sessions under my belt. For my portrait sessions I use speed light, constant light, as well as natural light both indoor and outdoor. My question is should I go with the KP or take the attitude "go big or go home" and get the K-1?

Is full frame that much better? Are their aspects of the K-1 that would make it the clear choice? Any help would greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Richard

[Na Horuk]

Which lenses do you have? If your lenses are crop-only, then a K-1 would also require buying more lenses, which can strain the budget.

I think most people will recommend the K-1, since it is full frame which can give the effect of more subject isolation, bigger bokeh. But even the KP will be a nice upgrade from the good ol' K-x. Lots of new tech

Also, think about the size of the cameras. The K-1 is much much bigger than the K-x! Try handling both cameras at a store, that might make it easier to decide

[jatrax]

As Na Horuk says either will be a big (huge) upgrade.
Question comes down to:
- do you want the expense of new FF lenses for the K-1
- are you OK with the added weight of both camera and lenses
- do you really need 36mp
- do you want on board flash

Either will work just fine. But choose wisely. K-1 is simply amazing for the price point but it is not needed for everyone.

[Rmagers]

Which lenses do you have? If your lenses are crop-only, then a K-1 would also require buying more lenses, which can strain the budget.

I think most people will recommend the K-1, since it is full frame which can give the effect of more subject isolation, bigger bokeh. But even the KP will be a nice upgrade from the good ol' K-x. Lots of new tech

Also, think about the size of the cameras. The K-1 is much much bigger than the K-x! Try handling both cameras at a store, that might make it easier to decide

jatrax. I use a Sigma 18-50 2.8 and Tamron 70-200 2.8. I was under the impression these lenses would work on either. Is that not the case?

[monochrome]

jatrax. I use a Sigma 18-50 2.8 and Tamron 70-200 2.8. I was under the impression these lenses would work on either. Is that not the case?

Both lenses should work on both cameras.

There is some debate on the following but - in general - you should able able to achieve similar subject isolation on both a FF camera (K-1) and APSc camera (KP) using your zoom lenses by shooting your subject on APSc at approximately 2/3 the focal length as you would have shot on FF and adjusting your aperture a stop. Therefore - within reason - your choice of camera is not solely a matter of the final image (for instance 70mm f/2.8 on APSc will be somewhat equivalent to 105mm f/4 on K-1 - about 1.5 feet DoF at 15 feet and similar hyperfocals).


* assuming both lenses are FF version.

[Rmagers]

Both lenses should work on both cameras.

There is some debate on the following but - in general - you should able able to achieve similar subject isolation on both a FF camera (K-1) and APSc camera (KP) using your zoom lenses by shooting your subject on APSc at approximately 2/3 the focal length as you would have shot on FF and (some say) adjusting your aperture a stop.

Good to know. Thanks

[Na Horuk]

Both cameras are K-mount, just like the K-x. But the K-1 literally has a bigger sensor. The bigger sensor needs a lens made for Full frame, otherwise you get black edges or have to use APSC mode. The ASPC cameras, like K-x and KP, can use APSC or FF lenses normally.
Pentax M, A, F, FA and DFA series lenses are all FF. Some DA lenses are APSC only. There is a thread which tests which ones, if you are interested: "DA lenses on Full frame". Full frame refers to sensor size being the same as old 35mm film frames. APSC is slightly smaller, thus slightly cropping the edges of the image.

If I remember right: Sigma uses the label DC for crop sensor lenses (will have black edges on full frame camera) and DG for FF.
Tamron uses Di for FF and Dii for APSC. Double check if I got these meanings right. You can just google the lens you have. Though, this would only matter if you are buying the K-1

[dakight]

Let's be really clear... it is not mandatory to upgrade to full frame lenses. The apsc and 1x1 crop mode of the K-1 will accommodate those crop format lenses that will not adequately cover the full frame circle. Likewise one can use full frame lenses on a crop format body with no ill effect. Many of the "DA" crop format lenses will work in full frame mode on the K-1 with little to no vignetting and by the same token some Full Frame lenses exhibit significant vignetting even though they are full frame rated.

It is a perfectly valid strategy to upgrade the body then acquire new lenses as needed and as the budget permits. I personally consider the lens to be a non-issue when considering which body to buy. There are in-depth reviews of both cameras here in the forums and I think it would be worthwhile to read and comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of each. I would also take a long look at the K-3II as it is a higher grade body than the KP but similarly priced and has many of the features of the K-1.

[jatrax]

jatrax. I use a Sigma 18-50 2.8 and Tamron 70-200 2.8. I was under the impression these lenses would work on either. Is that not the case?

I am really only familiar with Pentax lenses. However, I can say both of those lenses will work on the K-1 or KP as long as they worked on your k-x but they might not be the best choice. I would think the 70-200 would work just fine on the K-1 but the 18-50 will most likely vignette badly. It might be usable at 24mm or so but you would have to test.

Only you can decide what is acceptable for you but if you are going to go with the K-1 I would suggest you also budget for a 24-70 lens of some sort. The DFA 24-70 is excellent but there should be older Tamron or Sigma ones out there in similar focal ranges. Or if f/2.8 is not critical think about the DFA 28-105.

Let's be really clear... it is not mandatory to upgrade to full frame lenses.

No it is not mandatory, but IMHO rather silly to spend the money on a FF camera and use old APS-C lenses. If anyone is going to make the commitment to FF I think they are just fooling themselves in thinking they will be satisfied with APS-C lenses. Considering where the OP is coming from (k-x) then the KP (or the K-3II as you suggest) would be a huge upgrade, would use his existing lenses and be far cheaper.

I would suggest that, given a certain budget, buying a KP or K-3II and a top notch lens will result in better performance than buying a K-1 and sticking old APS-C glass on it. This is especially so in the OPs given use case, portrait sessions with studio lights. In that case the low light ability of the K-1 is not a factor and the lower weight of the KP or K-3II would be an advantage. Of course if budget is not an issue then go all in and get the K-1 and DFA 24-70.

[stillshot2]

If you need to shoot at portrait focal lengths such as 85mm-135mm and do it indoors a lot the full frame sensor will make it easier to fit your subject in the photo without having to stand back so far or have to go outside.

[StephenHampshire]

If you need to shoot at portrait focal lengths such as 85mm-135mm and do it indoors a lot the full frame sensor will make it easier to fit your subject in the photo without having to stand back so far or have to go outside.

I would agree with this- the Tamron 70-200 works well on the K1 - I use this combination - and 70-105mm is the classic full frame portrait range.

[Saltwater Images]

A big advantage offered by full frame for portraiture is shallower depth of field. To take complete advantage of the larger sensor you'll want full frame glass. The difference in depth of field between formats is significant. An f/2.8 lens wide open on the APS-C sensor has a depth of field similar to f/4 on FF. The crop factor not only applies to focal length but also to depth of field. If your pockets are deep enough I'd say go for the K-1 and FF glass.

Or you stick with the humble APS-C sensor. A KP or K-3II and fast APS-C glass along with mastering strobe photography works too. I often shoot portraits between f/5.6 and f/8 using 3-4 strobes and A Cactus V6 radio trigger. The creativity you can unleash with lighting is a heck of a lot of fun!

[gatorguy]

A big advantage offered by full frame for portraiture is shallower depth of field. To take complete advantage of the larger sensor you'll want full frame glass. The difference in depth of field between formats is significant. An f/2.8 lens wide open on the APS-C sensor has a depth of field similar to f/4 on FF. The crop factor not only applies to focal length but also to depth of field. If your pockets are deep enough I'd say go for the K-1 and FF glass.

Or you stick with the humble APS-C sensor. A KP or K-3II and fast APS-C glass along with mastering strobe photography works too. I often shoot portraits between f/5.6 and f/8 using 3-4 strobes and A Cactus V6 radio trigger. The creativity you can unleash with lighting is a heck of a lot of fun!

FWIW shooting with continuous lighting in place of strobes at 5.6-8 might be an even better starting point for photographers new to studio portraiture. I know it was for me. I got up to speed with light placement, poses, flags, gobos, and various types of softboxes/modifiers and their effects far faster than if I had relied on out-of-the-camera results with strobes.

5.6 and 100-200 ISO is very achievable with good LEDS that can be had for only a few hundred dollars. I've regularly shot at f/3.5-4.5 in my little studio. Just a thought for those who find learning to work with strobes too daunting or time-consuming.

I've been pretty content with the images I've captured on APS-C and see no real need to go full-frame at the moment.

[Saltwater Images]

FWIW shooting with continuous lighting in place of strobes at 5.6-8 might be an even better starting point for photographers new to studio portraiture. I know it was for me. I got up to speed with light placement, poses, flags, gobos, and various types of softboxes/modifiers and their effects far faster than if I had relied on out-of-the-camera results with strobes.

5.6 and 100-200 ISO is very achievable with good LEDS that can be had for only a few hundred dollars. I've regularly shot at f/3.5-4J in my little studio. Just a thought for those who find learning to work with strobes too daunting or time-consuming.

I've been pretty content with the images I've captured on APS-C and see no real need to go full-frame at the moment.

Completely agree with LED to start. I started with 2 Rotolight RL 48 Ringlight LEDs and found them dynamite when the ISO was around 400 on my K-5II. The Rotolights also come with an assortment of Lee coloured gels.

Once I bought my first Cactus RF60 and two V6 transceivers (putting one on an AF360 FGZ) a couple of light stands and silver umbrellas I got hooked. I ended up adding another 2 RF60's and the RL 48's are often used to add a little colour (such as hair lighting) to the mix. Now with shoot through umbrellas and two gridded soft boxes I shoot HD DA Limited's on a K-5II for portraits and am really happy with the results.

Even in available light on the the modest K-5II crop sensor and HD DA 40 can deliver pleasing portrait results. Here's a shot at ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/30.

[gatorguy]

Completely agree with LED to start. I started with 2 Rotolight RL 48 Ringlight LEDs and found them dynamite when the ISO was around 400 on my K-5II. The Rotolights also come with an assortment of Lee coloured gels.

Once I bought my first Cactus RF60 and two V6 transceivers (putting one on an AF360 FGZ) a couple of light stands and silver umbrellas I got hooked. I ended up adding another 2 RF60's and the RL 48's are often used to add a little colour (such as hair lighting) to the mix. Now with shoot through umbrellas and two gridded soft boxes I shoot HD DA Limited's on a K-5II for portraits and am really happy with the results.

Even in available light on the the modest K-5II crop sensor and HD DA 40 can deliver pleasing portrait results. Here's a shot at ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/30.

Exceptionally nice photo sir.