[VictorDA]

As someone on the fence considering an upgrade to the K-1 II from a K-70, I was wondering if you could elaborate, or if you still feel this way. I heard the K-1 would be a significant step up in image quality.

As someone on the fence considering an upgrade to the K-1 II from a K-70, I was wondering if you could elaborate, or if you still feel this way. I heard the K-1 would be a significant step up in image quality.

I can only suppose the quote above refers to image quality when viewed on a 4K monitor or at reasonable printing sizes.
I upgraded to the K-1 from a K-3 II (same resolution as the K-70) and indeed, I would not be able to tell the difference in these conditions.
As stated above, however, a number of objective parameters show that the K-1 image quality is higher. Just bear in mind that these alone will not make a vast difference in "normal" viewing conditions. Most of the time, you will simply have more cropping room

[AgentL]

I don't have a K70 but used to have a KP and have a GRIIIx. The K-1 sensor is a lot better than these, in the ways I care about: shadow and highlight detail, and color depth and richness. However, the JPEG engine is pretty bad; I've never been very happy with the JPEG files, so I kind of rely on post-processing RAWs to get the results that I want. Which itself requires a little specialization: I'm much happier using Color Fidelity's profiles for the K-1, as both DXO and Adobe make the DNGs look pretty ugly with their default profiles. Color Fidelity is the best $25 I've ever spent on photography. Also, you do need a fairly fast machine to handle the 36mp DNGs quickly. I just added a GeForce RTX 1660 Ti to my rig, a budget video card but much better than the one I used to have, and it vastly improved DXO PhotoLab 5's performance in every respect.

[BGT24]

Thank you. Even viewing on a monitor, I would expect the K-1 image to have better color depth, clarity and sharpness compared to a crop sensor camera. That’s why I was a little confused by the comments.

Good points about photo processing. I only shoot raw and I make my own color profiles using the ColorChecker Passport. I also bought a new computer a couple years ago with a fast processor and 16gb of RAM. It handles the K-70 raw files easily in Lightroom, so I should be fine if I do upgrade. Before that, I had 8gb of RAM and could barely edit my photos.

[pschlute]

Even viewing on a monitor, I would expect the K-1 image to have better color depth, clarity and sharpness compared to a crop sensor camera

What do you take photographs of, and under what lighting conditions ?

How large do you print ?

These are the questions that will determine if the K-1 II is a worthwhile upgrade.

[lithedreamer]

I jumped from a K-30 to a K-1 and the low-light performance is incredible. I’ve recovered portraits from my flash not firing (shooting in manual—almost completely dark frame) and been completely happy with the results.

[texandrews]

I jumped from a K-30 to a K-1 and the low-light performance is incredible. I’ve recovered portraits from my flash not firing (shooting in manual—almost completely dark frame) and been completely happy with the results.

Yes. I have found in Pentax with the K1 and even more so the 645Z that recovery of dark areas is indeed astonishing. It's way better than Canon IMO, and seems to be better than my previous Sony cameras. Highlight recovery is a bit worse, though, but for me not an issue since it's possible to slightly underexpose in Pentax with no penalty at all---but Canon is better at highlight recovery in my experience. It's made me wonder about what Pentax has had done or does to the sensors they get from Sony....

[normhead]

Yes. I have found in Pentax with the K1 and even more so the 645Z that recovery of dark areas is indeed astonishing. It's way better than Canon IMO, and seems to be better than my previous Sony cameras. Highlight recovery is a bit worse, though, but for me not an issue since it's possible to slightly underexpose in Pentax with no penalty at all---but Canon is better at highlight recovery in my experience. It's made me wonder about what Pentax has had done or does to the sensors they get from Sony....

I've heard that you can connect different camera leads to different parts of the chips to obtain different results, apparently there's bit of a menu, with different connections with different results. I have n idea if it's true, but I'll throw it out there anyway. But it's quite possible to get different results out of the same chip based on the manufacturers philosophy.

But personally I use the K-1 for most landscapes and macro, the K-3 for most telephoto work, and for day to day casual images, my iPhone 14 has taken over most of my "just walking around taking a few images" shots. But of course, I have wildlife images taken with the K-1 and phone, I have macros and landscapes and many walk around images taken with the K-3, and I have one of every category taken with the phone. It seems to depend on how I'm feeling that day.
Questions"
do I want to carry a camera bag... don't care.. used the K-1.

Camera bag but a light bag, (16-85 and DA 55-300 plz in one small bag with the TC for a range of 16mm-420mm.

Something I can tuck into my top pocket and use if needed, but not not really expecting anything- use the phone.
For my recent churches of Peterborough I just used the phone. And if 24mm is ok , I also use the phone as that camera is 48 MP.
A pocketable camera but not so small sensor... ZS100.

I tend to see adding a camera as adding to the choices available. They all offer something a little different. I'd hate to be in a "pick one and only one" situation.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-09-2023 at 08:34 AM.

[northcoastgreg]

Thank you. Even viewing on a monitor, I would expect the K-1 image to have better color depth, clarity and sharpness compared to a crop sensor camera. That’s why I was a little confused by the comments.

A K-1 image should have better measurable color depth and sharpness, but whether you can perceive these qualities with the naked eye is another matter altogether. Depending on size and resolution of the monitor, you may notice more detail with FF, but also, depending on the lens used, what detail you see may be rendering in a more pleasing, natural, life-like manner. Of course all this is quite subtle. But with FF there's a sense that it is somehow better in a way that can't be measured.

[texandrews]

A K-1 image should have better measurable color depth and sharpness, but whether you can perceive these qualities with the naked eye is another matter altogether. Depending on size and resolution of the monitor, you may notice more detail with FF, but also, depending on the lens used, what detail you see may be rendering in a more pleasing, natural, life-like manner. Of course all this is quite subtle. But with FF there's a sense that it is somehow better in a way that can't be measured.

I'd like to underscore all of that. One, it's image to image---in some images it really doesn't matter (for a host of reasons that are OT). In images where it does---that's actually the call of the photographer in a lot of ways. Yes, the differences can be subtle. But once seen then you will continue to see them in close scrutiny. As far as better in a way that can't be measured, I would say "measured yet". I have seen the clear difference in images I've made of the same subject with 2 different cameras (in this case, a FF camera and a medium format one). I have only seen one 2 comparisons online that showed the differences.

[Alex645]

Dpreview.com has a Studio Shot Comparison where you can compare up to four camera at the same time. Of the Pentax DSLRs, you can choose from eight different APS-C sensors, two FF, and one MF. They do a decent job of using comparable optics in the tests. You can select from jpegs or RAW, the range of ISO available with that camera, and a very good sampler that shows a range of detail, contrast, color and tones.
Of course, this is all pixel peeping and a great composition and lighting matters more than any tech specs.....unless you're pushing the envelope with low light, cropping, or print size. Also the lens used is going to have a bigger impact on most results. A K500 could outperform a 645Z if it had a top prime at f/8 vs. telephoto zoom on the 645Z at f/45.

[normhead]

Also the lens used is going to have a bigger impact on most results. A K500 could outperform a 645Z if it had a top prime at f/8 vs. telephoto zoom on the 645Z at f/45.

uh huh..... if you say so....

I was just going to get a 645z and 150-300 to shoot at ƒ45, and a K-500 to see if you're right, but I have a hang nail I have to trim. Maybe later.

More seriously, about half the time when I have the ability to investigate these kinds of claims, they are incorrect.

[house]

The performance drawing and aberrations of lenses are different. The same lens on apsc could be seen as a different lens on ff. You get faster and wider lenses on ff which enables another look in your repertoire.
I do find that the K-1 delivers smoother more natural looking files than my K-3II. I doubt I would be very successful in a blind test but there is a sort of crunchyness to apsc files.

[Alex645]

uh huh..... if you say so....

I was just going to get a 645z and 150-300 to shoot at ƒ45, and a K-500 to see if you're right, but I have a hang nail I have to trim. Maybe later.

More seriously, about half the time when I have the ability to investigate these kinds of claims, they are incorrect.

Yes, take care of that hang nail first. If you have a K500 with a modern prime at f/8 and a 645Z with that telephoto zoom at f/45, yes, please prove me wrong. Half the time, I'm right

[normhead]

But these disadvantages disappear by shooting in APS-C mode on the K-1. In essence, the K-1 has a K-5 built into it so give up almost nothing.

Except 8 MP and 600 lw/ph. Which theoretically could be significant.

[normhead]

Yes, take care of that hang nail first. If you have a K500 with a modern prime at f/8 and a 645Z with that telephoto zoom at f/45, yes, please prove me wrong. Half the time, I'm right

Ya, I'm not sure that's something you want people to know.
Here for the sentiment.

You Tube

You Tube