[normhead]

Methinks your K-3 enables you to see barbs where none exist.

Touche

[derekkite]

I got shots with the K3 that I didn't with the K5 for two reasons; improved autofocus and lack of AA filter. The K1 negates the advantage.

In good light you can't go wrong with almost anything. The increased pixel density is a benefit. As conditions deteriorate the low light capabilities of the K1 gives the advantage.

My K3 sits forlorn and unused on my shelf. I dug out my K5 for the stabilized video recently. It works very well. I haven't used it for stills, but it makes for a very nice vlogging body.

[MikeBenson]

I did it for light gathering. It was my understanding it is a squared term. I’d go 12 Mb FF vs 36 APSC.

Test pics validate this. But I’m still getting lenses software camera dialed in.

[zapp]

FF is great and the step from K3 to K1 was important.
Check the lens lineup before switching sensor sizes. You need to reconsider every lens and its use.

[Rondec]

Methinks your K-3 enables you to see barbs where none exist.

My comment was not an attack on the pursuit of high-resolution avian plumage images.

One of the deeper problems on these threads is that we all use the same words (e.g., resolution, equivalence, DoF, etc.) to mean very different but equally-useful things. And if we accidentally or intentionally use a different definition of a word, then it's no surprise that we bicker about the advantages and disadvantage of the methods and camera-lens system rankings linked to each different definition.

Thus, one root cause of confusion is a lack of consensus on the terminology.

I think too, the difference in megapixels sounds bigger than the real world differences. Assuming you are printing images, a K5 can print a 16 by 10 image at 300 dpi, the K3 can go to 20 by 13 at 300 dpi -- not as big a difference as the difference between 16 and 24 megapixels makes it sound. Of course you can print both K5 and k3 images bigger than that, but there just isn't as much difference as "50 percent more pixels" makes it sound.

[gatorguy]

I always said, APS_c was my favourite set of compromises.

APS-c for macro
APS-c for telephoto
FF for landscape.

APS-c for hiking or any time you are carrying your gear.
FF when I can set up and take my time, not going far from the car.

If I had to get rid of one of my cameraa, my K-1 would go before my K-3. That being said, I really like having the K-1. It'a great camera to shoot with. It's just the conditions under which I can use it are more restricted. My guess is a 645z would be even more so.

In actual usage terms, I have on my hard drive currently, 1060 K-1 images an 1000 K-3 images, some of those images carried over from other years. But there were many more K-3 exposure because I so often shoot wildlife and birds in burst mode. I take 23 images in a burst and keep one or two. In terms of actual preference expressed by the number of keepers the K-1 is on top. However, in my experience, the K-3 is better at taking pictures I use the K-1 for than the K-1 would be taking images I used the K-3 for, but it's not that great a difference. I have landscape taken with the K-3 and wildlife / birds taken with the K-1. You have to look at the exif to tell which is which.

After all the FF hype on the forum, I was expecting the difference with FF to be considerably more noticeable. I have not one side by side set of images showing the K-1 gives better IQ, and I've taken a few. I have a lot of images that I suspect are better because they were shot with the K-1, but the only time I've actually shot side by side to compare it's come out a draw, in overall IQ, not pixel peeping perhaps, but even then it's pretty close to a saw off.



A while ago with the K-1 I heard someone behind me say to a spouse, "Look how big that freaking camera is" with the K-1. It's odd, but I've never heard that while carrying the K-3. Maybe that's just coincidence, who knows?

Norm, this is a very insightful and helpful post. I was wavering jsut a tad on adding a FF, a couple decent deals in the Marketplace. After reading your comments I'll stay with my K-70 and probably add another unless a new APS-C from Pentax comes soon. One of my 2 K-S2's is sold and the other on the market very soon.

Thank you sir.

[Merv-O]

Norm, this is a very insightful and helpful post. I was wavering jsut a tad on adding a FF, a couple decent deals in the Marketplace. After reading your comments I'll stay with my K-70 and probably add another unless a new APS-C from Pentax comes soon. One of my 2 K-S2's is sold and the other on the market very soon.

Thank you sir.

Different horses for different courses....I would add a KP when you replace the K-S2, not another K-70....In reference to Normhead's weight issue....the difference to the K-1 vs. the K-3ii with grip (it feels more balanced with it on) for me is negligible. the image quality of the K-1 and the KP are several steps ahead of the K-3 and, the 36mp pops with proper lenses....The step up to FF is a material one: larger sensor attenuates the image quality of sharp lenses. With mediocre ones, the flaws become readily apparent.

[Wheatfield]

APS-C may excel at reach but every FF camera made contains an APS-C camera built right into it.

The K-1, for example, comes with what is effectively an easily accessible K-5 inside it and the K-5 is a damn-fine APS-C machine -- plenty of megapixels and decent burst.

That's a big reason why I can't regret moving from the K-5 to the K-1 because the K-5 is still always with me inside the K-1.

Yeah, I kept my K3 for the extra 12 MP it gives me when I need to stretch my 600mm lens out, but I have not had a battery in it since I got the K1, so the extra reach of the K3 is, apparently, not terribly important to me.
The K1 is a better imaging machine in every metric than any of the APS-C cameras.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 08:42 AM ----------

It's funny that there is so much focus on wildlife/birding photography in this thread.

If someone is trying to argue that full frame is not a useful format compared to APS-C, then that is the only arrow in his quiver.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 08:43 AM ----------

I still don't follow this at all.

If I point my K1 at a subject and use spot meter to get the right exposure, it doesn't change when I switch to crop mode.

If I take the correctly exposed FF image and crop it in pp the subject does not change brightness.

If I use my incident light meter to take a reading it does not ask me what format I am using or what size I intend to crop to.

It's the whole equivalence thing. It gets pretty tired.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 08:52 AM ----------

Your meter and exposure is based on a unit of area measurement so no it will be the same. The light that the larger sensor captured when cropped will not be used so there is less light going into the image.

The image on the APS-C sensor is cropped compared to the larger sensor. The amount of light falling on the APS-C sensor is exactly the same, and there is the same amount of light going to the image. If you compare apples to apples, there is no difference. To see a difference, you have to compare apples to grapes.

In order to get the same image on full frame as APS-C you are using a 50% longer focal length, and that is costing you light, in that if getting the same DOF is important, you are stopping full frame down more.
The whole argument is pretty silly, since in order to make a point in either direction, some parameter has to be ignored.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:05 AM ----------

Hi All
I've just had a look at the K1 with vintage lenses.

So what is the problem ?
New lenses, older lenses all look ok to me, the difference if any is the photographer behind the camera .
Its been the same since the first release of a Pentax digital camera

Dave

Not quite. Some older lenses, the A100/2.8 macro for example, have problems taming sensor based flare. I quit using my copy of it for this reason. It's too bad because it is an excellent lens in every other detail, but I don't want the hot spots in the middle of my pictures. Also, F8 is the great equalizer. When I ran a comparison between the D FA* 50/1.4 and the FA 50/1.4, the newer lens kicked the older one's butt until about f/8, and then suddenly it got pretty close. The newer lens was still better, but the gap had closed considerably, certainly enough that in an online image or 8x10 print, there wouldn't have been much difference.
Certainly older lenses can have some problems with fringing, since that is something that has become a problem with digital that we really didn't see with film, but it is also something correctable in raw conversion, so it's less of a deal than some make it out to be.
Having said that, there are a lot of very, very good legacy lenses out there, and my impression is that old Pentax glass has made a better transition to digital than that from other manufacturers.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:10 AM ----------

"But to claim that most K1 users dont get the best out of their cameras because they are using old lenses that dont cut the mustard is nonsense."!

Not me claiming that but Pentax.. So in effect you are now claiming that all the lens coating development over the past decade or two has been a complete waste of time and we should just use legacy glass... The very coatings which Pentax says sets there DFA 24-70 among others above the Tamron lens they are put in..

Better coatings are better coatings, but do recall that in the 1980s, Pentax was bragging that their SMC technology gave something like a 97.5 light transmission, which is very good indeed, and that is all that lens coatings are doing. In very low flare situations, coatings are less effective, and a good lens hood will do more to limit flare than any improvement in coatings since the inception of SMC.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:16 AM ----------

This strikes me as something that's written to try to win an argument rather than to gain understanding. Of course newer lens coatings constitute an improvement that can provide better flare control, color, and contrast. But how much improvement you get depends on how much glass is in the lens, how the lens is designed, and what kind of light you throw at the lens. While HD coatings constitute an improvement over SMC, you're not necessarily going to see that improvement in all circumstances. There are old legacy lenses that have superb color and contrast, and surprisingly good flare control. My M 20/4, for example, sometimes exhibits better flare control than my HD 21 Limited. In a sense, all that improved coating technology accomplishes is to increase the odds that you'll get better contrast and color and protection against flare in many but not all circumstances, because lens performance and light are a very complicated phenomenon, and one should not be too quick to draw dogmatic conclusions. One way to look at this issue is to recognize that many lenses have a sweet spot where they perform quite well. The advantage of modern lenses is not so much that they're better in all situations, but that they have a wider sweet spot. They can handle more challenges. But if you compare many vintage lenses at their very best with modern lenses at their very best, there's often very little difference —*certainly not enough to quibble over.

I think what better coatings have done is allowed for more complex lens designs. Better coatings mean less internal reflections, which means more interfaces are possible. Look at the lens design of the D FA 50mm lens compared to the old FA 50mm lens. The new lens is 15 elements in 9 groups, the old one is 7 elements in 6 groups. The new lens has 30 interfaces, 18 of which are the more flare prone air to glass ones, while the old lens has 14 interfaces, 12 of which are air to glass.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:19 AM ----------

yes agreed.. But I personally dont want to buy from Japan.. It being a lot of money and no warranty..!!

You won't get a warranty on any FA 85/1.4. Also, don't disregard the A*85/1.4. You lose autofocus, but I do believe the A lens renders better than the FA.

[stub]

Yeah, I kept my K3 for the extra 12 MP it gives me when I need to stretch my 600mm lens out, but I have not had a battery in it since I got the K1, so the extra reach of the K3 is, apparently, not terribly important to me.
The K1 is a better imaging machine in every metric than any of the APS-C cameras.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 08:42 AM ----------


If someone is trying to argue that full frame is not a useful format compared to APS-C, then that is the only arrow in his quiver.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 08:43 AM ----------



It's the whole equivalence thing. It gets pretty tired.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 08:52 AM ----------



The image on the APS-C sensor is cropped compared to the larger sensor. The amount of light falling on the APS-C sensor is exactly the same, and there is the same amount of light going to the image. If you compare apples to apples, there is no difference. To see a difference, you have to compare apples to grapes.

In order to get the same image on full frame as APS-C you are using a 50% longer focal length, and that is costing you light, in that if getting the same DOF is important, you are stopping full frame down more.
The whole argument is pretty silly, since in order to make a point in either direction, some parameter has to be ignored.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:05 AM ----------



Not quite. Some older lenses, the A100/2.8 macro for example, have problems taming sensor based flare. I quit using my copy of it for this reason. It's too bad because it is an excellent lens in every other detail, but I don't want the hot spots in the middle of my pictures. Also, F8 is the great equalizer. When I ran a comparison between the D FA* 50/1.4 and the FA 50/1.4, the newer lens kicked the older one's butt until about f/8, and then suddenly it got pretty close. The newer lens was still better, but the gap had closed considerably, certainly enough that in an online image or 8x10 print, there wouldn't have been much difference.
Certainly older lenses can have some problems with fringing, since that is something that has become a problem with digital that we really didn't see with film, but it is also something correctable in raw conversion, so it's less of a deal than some make it out to be.
Having said that, there are a lot of very, very good legacy lenses out there, and my impression is that old Pentax glass has made a better transition to digital than that from other manufacturers.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:10 AM ----------



Better coatings are better coatings, but do recall that in the 1980s, Pentax was bragging that their SMC technology gave something like a 97.5 light transmission, which is very good indeed, and that is all that lens coatings are doing. In very low flare situations, coatings are less effective, and a good lens hood will do more to limit flare than any improvement in coatings since the inception of SMC.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:16 AM ----------



I think what better coatings have done is allowed for more complex lens designs. Better coatings mean less internal reflections, which means more interfaces are possible. Look at the lens design of the D FA 50mm lens compared to the old FA 50mm lens. The new lens is 15 elements in 9 groups, the old one is 7 elements in 6 groups. The new lens has 30 interfaces, 18 of which are the more flare prone air to glass ones, while the old lens has 14 interfaces, 12 of which are air to glass.

---------- Post added 03-22-19 at 09:19 AM ----------



You won't get a warranty on any FA 85/1.4. Also, don't disregard the A*85/1.4. You lose autofocus, but I do believe the A lens renders better than the FA.

Thanks for the comment.. The lens situation has now been put on the back burner. With the announcement of a new DFA 85 1.4 Later this year.. So depending on cost. weight and size. That will probably be my choice. As Ive been very impressed with the DFA lenses Ive bought so far.. Though Im getting a little distracted in the pursuit recently by the 77mm ltd.. Seeing some outstanding images produced with it.. Though in purchasing this lens it would go against the arguement I have always supported. That legacy glass isnt coated correctly for the digital age and isnt WR. Which is a big promotional selling point to the K1..

[Rondec]

Thanks for the comment.. The lens situation has now been put on the back burner. With the announcement of a new DFA 85 1.4 Later this year.. So depending on cost. weight and size. That will probably be my choice. As Ive been very impressed with the DFA lenses Ive bought so far.. Though Im getting a little distracted in the pursuit recently by the 77mm ltd.. Seeing some outstanding images produced with it.. Though in purchasing this lens it would go against the arguement I have always supported. That legacy glass isnt coated correctly for the digital age and isnt WR. Which is a big promotional selling point to the K1..

For what it's worth, the FA 77 has a relatively recent lens design as it was released in 1999 and Pentax lens coatings have always been excellent.

The issues it has have mostly to do with fringing as it does purple fringe pretty fiercely in the wrong situation. It's usually fixable, but not always. Weather sealing hasn't been a big deal for me with this lens as I don't take many portraits in the rain and just usually use a sealed lens (which I have plenty) if I know it's going to be raining.

[ThorSanchez]

If someone is trying to argue that full frame is not a useful format compared to APS-C, then that is the only arrow in his quiver.

Full frame, at least in Pentax land, isn't useful compared to APS-C if you have a budget at or lower than $1000, or really $1500. In that case I can be happily shooting all day with a new APS-C camera and some limited lenses, but with FF I'm sitting at home wishing I had the money for a camera and lens setup. Even a very well-used K-1 with an old film-era lens is going to push $1000.


Actually I just looked, and right now the cheapest used K-1 (body only) on KEH is $1300. For that price at KEH you could buy a K-3, a 50-135, a 21mm LTD and a 40mm LTD.

That's a pretty big arrow.

[Rondec]

Full frame, at least in Pentax land, isn't useful compared to APS-C if you have a budget at or lower than $1000, or really $1500. In that case I can be happily shooting all day with a new APS-C camera and some limited lenses, but with FF I'm sitting at home wishing I had the money for a camera and lens setup. Even a very well-used K-1 with an old film-era lens is going to push $1000.


Actually I just looked, and right now the cheapest used K-1 (body only) on KEH is $1300. For that price at KEH you could buy a K-3, a 50-135, a 21mm LTD and a 40mm LTD.

That's a pretty big arrow.

Sure.

But what actually happens is someone who is shooting APS-C decides to buy a FA 77. Or a FA 35. Or they pick up a used Tamron 28-75. Or a DFA 100 macro WR. And they are happy, but in the back of their mind there is the thought, "I wonder what these lenses would be like on a K-1?" In that situation, the purchaser isn't necessarily spending a lot more than just the cost of the camera, at least initially.

Sure, the used prices of K-1s are still over 1000, but in another year or two when Pentax releases the next generation of full frame camera, those prices will drop a bit more, as more K-1s hit the market.

[ThorSanchez]

But what actually happens is someone who is shooting APS-C decides to buy a FA 77. Or a FA 35. Or they pick up a used Tamron 28-75. Or a DFA 100 macro WR. And they are happy, but in the back of their mind there is the thought, "I wonder what these lenses would be like on a K-1?" In that situation, the purchaser isn't necessarily spending a lot more than just the cost of the camera, at least initially.

Here's my experience, which obviously doesn't apply to everyone. I bought a K-30 and a kit lens in 2012. I slowly filled out my APS-C kit with good value/performance lenses like used limiteds, a Rokinon fisheye, an old 55-300, then the 55-300 PLM. Splurged for the kind of wacky Lomo Daguerreotype. Even with a K-3ii to replace the K-30 after the aperture block problem I don't think I've spent $3000 on gear the whole time.


Last December I had a Borrowlenses gift card, and decided to see what the K-1 was all about. And while I know my lens selection didn't get the best out of it, I didn't really see what the fuss was all about. Obviously a very good camera, but certainly not enough of a difference to want to spend $1500 on a new camera, and $500, $1000 or more on FF lenses.


On APS-C I take pictures I'm often very happy with. Even landscapes that are right in the K-1's sweet spot. I only have a handful of prints on the wall, and even my 34" monitor at work isn't showing my K-3ii files at full resolution. I've taken pixel shift and non-pixel shift pictures and had to look really hard to see the difference. I just don't see the point in spending a lot more money than I've spent in the last seven years to get marginally better photos in edge cases. In situations like photos of my kids playing sports I'd argue my setup is better than a K-1. So the money goes to other things like kid's college savings and vacations and I still have a heck of a good camera kit.

[Rondec]

Here's my experience, which obviously doesn't apply to everyone. I bought a K-30 and a kit lens in 2012. I slowly filled out my APS-C kit with good value/performance lenses like used limiteds, a Rokinon fisheye, an old 55-300, then the 55-300 PLM. Splurged for the kind of wacky Lomo Daguerreotype.


Last December I had a Borrowlenses gift card, and decided to see what the K-1 was all about. And while I know my lens selection didn't get the best out of it, I didn't really see what the fuss was all about. Obviously a very good camera, but certainly not enough of a difference to want to spend $1500 on a new camera, and $500, $1000 or more on FF lenses.


On APS-C I take pictures I'm often very happy with. Even landscapes that are right in the K-1's sweet spot. I only have a handful of prints on the wall, and even my 34" monitor at work isn't showing my K-3ii files at full resolution. I've taken pixel shift and non-pixel shift pictures and had to look really hard to see the difference. I just don't see the point in spending two or three times the money I've spent in the last seven years to get marginally better photos in edge cases. In situations like photos of my kids playing sports I'd argue my setup is better than a K-1. So the money goes to other things like kid's college savings and vacations and I still have a heck of a good camera kit.

My wife shoots weddings and so the better high iso capability and narrower depth of field possible there help with shot making in that situation. But I guess my point is not that you are ever going to buy a full frame camera, but that it will be more and more tempting to people as the used prices drop over time.

Pentaxians really are the people who buy a thousand dollar camera purely to mount 50 year old, 50 dollar lenses on.

[Wheatfield]

Full frame, at least in Pentax land, isn't useful compared to APS-C if you have a budget at or lower than $1000, or really $1500. In that case I can be happily shooting all day with a new APS-C camera and some limited lenses, but with FF I'm sitting at home wishing I had the money for a camera and lens setup. Even a very well-used K-1 with an old film-era lens is going to push $1000.


Actually I just looked, and right now the cheapest used K-1 (body only) on KEH is $1300. For that price at KEH you could buy a K-3, a 50-135, a 21mm LTD and a 40mm LTD.

That's a pretty big arrow.

That is moving the goalposts to a different stadium.

---------- Post added 03-23-19 at 08:36 AM ----------

Sure.

But what actually happens is someone who is shooting APS-C decides to buy a FA 77. Or a FA 35. Or they pick up a used Tamron 28-75. Or a DFA 100 macro WR. And they are happy, but in the back of their mind there is the thought, "I wonder what these lenses would be like on a K-1?" In that situation, the purchaser isn't necessarily spending a lot more than just the cost of the camera, at least initially.

Sure, the used prices of K-1s are still over 1000, but in another year or two when Pentax releases the next generation of full frame camera, those prices will drop a bit more, as more K-1s hit the market.

Aps-c will always be cheaper than full frame. Thor has made a false argument by comparing usefulness with money. One does not follow the other.