[Merv-O]

It's almost like the old days. I'm tempted to try and get 10 years out of my K-3, just because I can. And that's much more likely now that the K-1 has taken some of the load.

K-3 and Tamron 300 with 1.4 TC



K-1 and Tamron 300 with Tamron 2x TC


The K-1 is better for the uncropped, in tight, "in your face" images. ( Top image) The K-1 is better for maintaining detail and context in images where a considerable portion of the environment is included. (Bottom image.) The cameras compliment each other, one doesn't replace the other.

K-3 on a long hike... fall colours... with excellent light.


K-1 taken from a bridge over the river, a short walk from the car. Poor , light, overcast day, late in the day.


I really don't have a preference. I definitely prefer the K-3 in good light for it's deeper buffer and twice as fast burst speed. And I prefer the K-1 in low light for it's better high ISO perfpormance. But giving up either means giving up something.

That's why I wouldn't be happy giving up either. On a bright day I head out to the blind with the K-3 and enjoy it's superior image capture performance. On a dull day I head out with the K-1 and enjoy it's superior low light performance.

I wouldn't say I've switched to FF. I've augmented what I use by adding FF. My XG-1, Q, APS_c cameras are all still in play. And they all have their purposes. You can never have too many cameras IMHO. I still haven't made a print from a K-1 file. Other factors besides what camera body is used makes more difference than which camera I had in my hand.

My latest 48x32 print is a K-3 image as is my my latest 32x24 canvas. Some day I'll get a K-1 image that passes the test, but after 2 years, not yet, although I have many K-1 images that would print extremely well, if someone wanted to hang one on their wall, and was interested in the subject matter. Luck of the draw so far has meant no K-1 images have been selected for printing. It can happen.

Some would have you think selecting K-1 images for printing would be automatic. However, that's not my experience. The problem for the K-1 being that what it's good at, low light, often doesn't produce the most compelling images.

Excellent statement Normhead….I augmented my preference of Pentax when they added the K-1ii,,,It's a beast and I agree for in tight non-cropped resolution, it's my king. However, I wish it was a tad lighter because I get some minor blur (even with the stabilization) in slow shutter speeds. I hate going over 6400 ISO because noise and minor artifacts begin creeping in and I love more precise exposures. In any event, I enjoyed your foilage pics very much.

[normhead]

Excellent statement Normhead….I augmented my preference of Pentax when they added the K-1ii,,,It's a beast and I agree for in tight non-cropped resolution, it's my king. However, I wish it was a tad lighter because I get some minor blur (even with the stabilization) in slow shutter speeds. I hate going over 6400 ISO because noise and minor artifacts begin creeping in and I love more precise exposures. In any event, I enjoyed your foilage pics very much.

It's not just the weight of the camera body, it's also the weight of the lenses you have to carry for basic kit. For the K-3 the 18-135, 55-300 and Sigma 8-16 will handle almost anything. You need a lot more heavier lenses to match that range on a K-1.

[Kerrowdown]

Lots of interesting comments here and this led to think about things as I was reading through them.

I guess it would be fair to say... that I was really almost marking time with Pentax, by continuing to use K20Ds right up until FF came along.

I'm in lucky in the sense that I do use multiple brand systems, so I do always have the right tools to get the job done.

[reh321]

Being mainly interested in images not hardware, I could care less about the third dial. If I got what I wanted the third dial would have been an ISO dial, like on a film camera. I change ISO almost shot to shot in many situations.

But with my finger trained to hold down the buttons to adjust ISO and EV, I just don't use the third dial.

I've read reports of people who use back button focus, the top screen, and the third dial. An individual might think such things are important. I don't. Your mileage may vary.

My only reason I like the K-1 is every now and then I get an image that just blows me away. The extra dynamic range above what my K-3 offers is significant. And every now and then the extra resolution comes in handy. However, look at what my wife does with her K-5 and it's less difference. For us mostly landscape, macro. wildlife, etc. shooter, the K-3 was step back. And K-1 images that are heavily cropped are printable at 72 DPI because they are so clean.

My K-3 remains a100 ISO to 640 ISO camera. The K-1 takes that to 100-3200, and I am willing to shoot 6400 and clean it up, if conditions demand it. I'm more comfortable with 6400 ISO on a K-1 than I am with 800 ISO on a K-3, and part of that is there is so much dynamic range as you have dynamic range to burn you start lopping it off to create higher ISO values.

Based on how you use your cameras, would you have been willing to consider a 24mp FF camera if that were also available? or would you want the 36mp for the extra pixels for printing and/or cropping?

[reh321]

Lots of interesting comments here and this led to think about things as I was reading through them.

I guess it would be fair to say... that I was really almost marking time with Pentax, by continuing to use K20Ds right up until FF came along.

I'm in lucky in the sense that I do use multiple brand systems, so I do always have the right tools to get the job done.

You use heritage prime lenses with your K-1. What is your thinking in using them instead of the new DFA lenses?

[Kerrowdown]

What is your thinking in using them instead of the new DFA lenses?

I've nothing against the newer lenses, it's just that I grew up with fast manual focus glass.

As long as I can get the results I need and these "Ladies" can easily still do that, I'm a happy bunny.

Guess I'm just an old school photographer.

[normhead]

Based on how you use your cameras, would you have been willing to consider a 24mp FF camera if that were also available? or would you want the 36mp for the extra pixels for printing and/or cropping?

The only real advantage to FF 24mp is one stop of narrower depth of field and possibly one stop better high ISO performance. There are 8 viable f-stops on most aperture rings.Having one more stop of anything is obviously pretty limited as a feature, necessary only if you can't get it done with what you have. But most of the time people can get it done with what they have. You buy an ƒ1.4 lens instead of 2.8 on APS-c and you've got more shallow field DoF on APS_c than you do on the ƒ2.8 FF zooms most people buy.

24 MP is lots of cropping room. 12 MP is enough for most printing. 6 MP is fine is you do 4x6s and 8x10s. To me the only reason for FF is landscape and dynamic range. And you pay a heavy price in size and wight to get those advantages. APS-c gives you smaller, lighter, less costly kit, ,more reach for telephoto work and. more detail and DoF in macro.

So to me 24 MP FF completely defeats the purpose of the larger sensor. From the early days of film, you used a larger sensor to get more resolution. This whole buying a camera for shallow depth of field thing was an invention of camera companies, of little more value than filters on cigarettes. Especially since it can be made for the most part unnecessary by buying faster lenses.

I have absolutely no respect for people who have to have larger sensors for subject isolation. You see so many for whom shallow DoF become a crutch that completely limits their potential to achieve subject isolation using composition skills. If you are a poor photographer, getting hung up on shallow DoF images seems to be the preferred way to ensure you remain a bad photographer.

There are times when shallow DoF might be your only hope at a clean image. It's a useful trick to have in your tool box. But it's overused, you don't need FF to pull it off, and it's probably the least acceptable method of achieving subject isolation, because it obliterates the context of the image.

I've been laughing at my K-1 purchase a bit lately. The mantra was "you can do larger prints" We recently selected an image for our wall printed at 48x32. The image selected was a K-3 image (composition was more important than resolution)and it looks great. If I'm going to print larger than that, I'll need a new bigger wall. I'm not buying a new house just so I have the space to display my k-1 images at their maximum print size. I have to admit, when selecting images to print, we never consider file size. We have 30x20s printed from 12 MP cameras. Our experience is, liking the image, is the most important thing. Modern enlargement software doesn't enlarge grain or noise, like film enlargemnts did. IN fact the algorithms often make the enlarged image look better and less busy than the original image did, as opposed to film where enlarged grain became visible really quickly in 35mm film.

In some cases, you need a bigger sensor for bigger prints when talking APS-c vs FF is nonsense. The abstract on our wall looks great at 42x32 and would look great at 96 x 72, because it depends on colour contrast, not detail to be effective. There are many ways using composition to make an effective image, resolution and shallow DoF are a small fraction of the tools that can be used in effective image creation. I feel sad when I see people locked into those two, which are the ones promoted by camera companies to sell you more stuff. You can never be sure, do they really need those tools, or are they just swallowing camera marketing hype, hook line and sinker.

I've seen so many claim they live in the little itty bitty area where FF is an advantage over APS-c that don't have the images that demonstrate that they actually do, I don't really pay much attention to that anymore. I suspect a lot of them have read some photographer that they like say that and what they are saying is that they aspire to be that guy, not they've actually achieved that in life. A more experienced photographer might look at it and say "well that's fine but that's not me" . They also might say "I need that" but it shouldn't be an automatic, I need that because the camera companies say I do" type of decision." Too often it's "my pictures suck, maybe buying this new, "different" equipment will make me better." And the problem with that is, APS_c to FF is really not that different. It's an incremental improvement in some areas (and an incremental downgrade in other areas) , and not an earth shattering game changer that will change your photographic life in big way. A few of your images will be better, but you'll also miss out on a few images, if you don't keep some APS-c and even smaller sensor gear.

The big question to the claim "I need FF" is, "Is he really that good, or is he just full of himself?" I have over 10,000 FF,images, about 3 of which benefit from having FF. And not one of which has been printed large. IN fact the biggest surprise to my K-1 was I'm really not getting better results 99.9%, it's just harder to get them.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-24-2018 at 11:50 AM.

[Zivelot]

I read somewhere once: never sell a good lens. I have kept to this philosophy for a long time having a firm stable of lenses for a long time now. Obviously out of GAS I have had some lenses that I bought and sold, but the core remained the same with some rare additions.
That is to say most of my lenses have been FF with some rare exceptions of APS-C.

My first DSLR was a Pentax istD followed by a K100D and then finally a K-7 before switching to the long awaited K-1. Before the K-1 I had quite a few years without any DSLR, shooting only film. I thought if Pentax would not bring out their FF I just stick to film for the rest of my days. Thanks to Ricoh we have the K-1 and II now. So my wait for FF paid off finally. No regret on switching.

[Rondec]

Based on how you use your cameras, would you have been willing to consider a 24mp FF camera if that were also available? or would you want the 36mp for the extra pixels for printing and/or cropping?

I know Norm already answered, but I don't really think that there is a need for a 24 megapixel full frame camera. I think most of that talk grew out of a desire either for faster frame rate (and bigger buffer) or the hope that such a camera would be cheaper than existing options. But the K-1 is currently 1500 dollars with a free grip and I just don't know that Pentax can undercut that price, even if they had a cheap 24 megapixel sensor.

As far as performance, I think they are actually both about the same, except that 36 megapixel sensors offer more resolution at low iso. Once you size your images to the same size, they will look about the same with regard to noise at similar isos.

[reh321]

I know Norm already answered, but I don't really think that there is a need for a 24 megapixel full frame camera. I think most of that talk grew out of a desire either for faster frame rate (and bigger buffer) or the hope that such a camera would be cheaper than existing options. But the K-1 is currently 1500 dollars with a free grip and I just don't know that Pentax can undercut that price, even if they had a cheap 24 megapixel sensor.

As far as performance, I think they are actually both about the same, except that 36 megapixel sensors offer more resolution at low iso. Once you size your images to the same size, they will look about the same with regard to noise at similar isos.

I originally thought 24mp FF for three reasons

(1) I understood Asahiman to be talking about two new FF cameras. It seemed too early to replace the K-1ii, so 'bracketing' it with 24mp and 45mp made more sense.

(2) 24mp could serve as a 'beginner' - lower cost - FF camera. In response to a question I asked in another thread, Adam seemed to think that the lower price for the K-1 is to eliminate their current stock, so there would be price room for a lower-spec camera.

(3) Nikon users periodically inquire about a 'D750 followup'. They view the 24mp $1400 D750 as being much better - especially lower noise - at higher ISO values than the 20mp $1800 D500 is.

[normhead]

(2) 24mp could serve as a 'beginner' - lower cost - FF camera. In response to a question I asked in another thread, Adam seemed to think that the lower price for the K-1 is to eliminate their current stock, so there would be price room for a lower-spec camera.

The camera may be lower cost, but compared to APS-c, you're going to pay a heavy price in lens weight and dollars. I suspect that would be like printer companies selling you a printer below cost because they know they can stick it to you on the inks. Even that 28-105 "kit" costs a bundle if you don't buy it bundled with camera.

[bdery]

The camera may be lower cost, but compared to APS-c, you're going to pay a heavy price in lens weight and dollars. I suspect that would be like printer companies selling you a printer below cost because they know they can stick it to you on the inks. Even that 28-105 "kit" costs a bundle if you don't buy it bundled with camera.

While that may be bad for the average customer, it's certainly not bad for the manufacturer.

And it would address a potential market need where users either have FF lenses already or are interested in them, but can't or won't justify the high entry price of the camera body.

[normhead]

While that may be bad for the average customer, it's certainly not bad for the manufacturer.

And it would address a potential market need where users either have FF lenses already or are interested in them, but can't or won't justify the high entry price of the camera body.

The K-1 right now is about the same price as my K-3 cost me. The K-P is $1200 if you can't find a deal, How cheap is "low cost". Are you actually thinking developing a new sensor etc. would produce a cheaper camera than the currently discounted K-1?

The next question will be, if the new 24MP camera comes in $200 under the current K-1 price, will anyone buy it? Sounds like a gamble to me.

To me the big gamble for 24 MP is guys like me getting ahold of the Imaging Resources and pointing out the FF isn't really better than APS_c if they are the same number of MP. IN that situation, you give up as much as you gain with the larger format.

[Merv-O]

I've nothing against the newer lenses, it's just that I grew up with fast manual focus glass.

As long as I can get the results I need and these "Ladies" can easily still do that, I'm a happy bunny.

Guess I'm just an old school photographer.

Me too....I still use my old Canon FTBn (film) and a Leica M9 (digital-new sensor)--both totally manual and both produce excellent images as I frame them to my liking. the Canon match-needle system is easy to use and the 50mm 1.8 glass is awesome. The Leica is ridiculous, yet it is not good for fast action....that;s why to me it's all relative about Pentax having slow AF--it's plenty fast in the K-1ii and I get great "action" photos...Below is a photo I took on the PATCO train from New jersey to Philadelphia, through a tinted safety glass (dirty) window on a 45 mph train with my K-3..plenty fast. The photo itself is not great but the clarity of the foggy skyline through that distorted and dirty train window underscores my point--Pentax may not have state of the art auto-focus, but in the right hands, it's blazing fast

---------- Post added 10-26-18 at 01:01 PM ----------

sorry that train pic was with my K-S2 not my K-3 and it's still fast enough...

[reh321]

The camera may be lower cost, but compared to APS-c, you're going to pay a heavy price in lens weight and dollars. I suspect that would be like printer companies selling you a printer below cost because they know they can stick it to you on the inks. Even that 28-105 "kit" costs a bundle if you don't buy it bundled with camera.

If I purchased any FF camera, I would use the film lenses I already have. From using them on my K-30, I've already determined they provide an "adequate" sharpness for me I'm not willing to pay what they are demanding for newer FDA lenses.