Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-14-2019, 10:28 AM - 3 Likes   #301
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by stillshot2 Quote
For wide angle shots, yes, the K-1 is superior with more total megapixels and when at high iso, but for macro and tele shots, the K3 has more density for heavy crops and will pull more detail using the same lenses. I find I'm not willing to pay 3-4 times the money for a K-1 and give up the better ability for cropping macro and wildlife shots. And 24mp shooting at 15mm is quite amazing; not sure 36mp at 22mm would make much a discernible difference unless you are printing billboards to be viewed at close viewing distances, and even harder to tell a difference at base iso 100 (which I mostly shoot).
You have to put a lot of caveats in there to make a point that is, at best, questionable.
I used to be one of those people that made myself believe that full frame was just a meh because I didn't have one.
I pointedly ignored what friends who had full frame Nikons and Canons told me because I didn't want to know what I was missing out on.
Then the K1 came along, I bought one, and realized that just like with film, more real estate translated to better pictures.
I kept my K3 for exactly the reasons you stated, but I haven't had a battery in it for over 3 years.

05-14-2019, 01:29 PM - 3 Likes   #302
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,352
QuoteOriginally posted by stillshot2 Quote
For wide angle shots, yes, the K-1 is superior with more total megapixels and when at high iso, but for macro and tele shots, the K3 has more density for heavy crops and will pull more detail using the same lenses. I find I'm not willing to pay 3-4 times the money for a K-1 and give up the better ability for cropping macro and wildlife shots. And 24mp shooting at 15mm is quite amazing; not sure 36mp at 22mm would make much a discernible difference unless you are printing billboards to be viewed at close viewing distances, and even harder to tell a difference at base iso 100 (which I mostly shoot).
I've sung the praises of the K-3 for a long time. I told a lot of people that I didn't want or need full frame. I got a K-1 only (I thought) for reviewing purposes.

A few hours with the K-1 and the K-3 became redundant. I've used it only for reviews, and when my K-1 went for the MK2 upgrade. The K-1 became my main shooter in less than a day.

Noise handling is so much better that, except at really low ISO, cropping on the K-1 is easier than using the higher pixel density of the K-3.

In other words, your logic is sound, but experience shows that the noise handling of the K-1 beats the higher "resolution per surface unit" of the K-3.
05-14-2019, 03:58 PM   #303
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,782
I shoot wildlife and the limiting factor is usually light. A K3 vs K1 at >1600 iso, the advantage goes to the K1. In very good light the denser pixels had an advantage.

When I sent my K1 in for an upgrade I used the K3 and remembered the hard ceiling on iso performance.
05-14-2019, 11:25 PM - 1 Like   #304
Unoriginal Poster
Loyal Site Supporter
iheiramo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Espoo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,175
I upgraded from K5 to K1ii and use mainly older manual lenses. It's great to be able to use these lenses as they were designed. Most noteworthy difference is in wide open performance. With many lenses on APSC I tried to avoid it. With FF I love it. Large censor squeesh out the best of limited sharpness and boosts the bokeh.

With APSC I mainly shot from stopped down to f8. With most lenses there was no gain in going to f11. With K1ii I have a lot more to choose from and go comfortably from wide open to f16. Due to shallower DOF it's sometimes needed to for smaller apertures than with APSC, but the drop in sharpness is not that visible, so it's no problem.

When I compare my shots with K1ii to ones taken with K5 it's clearly visible that there is more detail and finesse in the shots. Everything looks just a little bit better.

As I don't do wildlife, I like the view angle FF provide. My lens lineup feels more usable with it.

I don't see much use for my old bodies at the moment. They don't provide any more reach than K1ii in crop mode and I rarely need that. There are some occasions where I need more bodies, as there is no time and weather doesn't really allow lens changes, but i wish I had more FF bodies to take with me. I bought K1ii with thought that it would be my camera for a long time, but might end up getting also the next FF model or the one after that depending on censor improvements.

05-15-2019, 02:58 AM   #305
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
The K3 does have some advantage in "reach" over the K-1 in low iso settings. It isn't as much as you would think and once you get over iso 800, that advantage is nil, because the k3 just isn't as good at high iso as the K-1. For macro shots, APS-C is as good as full frame, although both are probably going to require photo stacking and similar techniques to get the same quality images (depth of field is going to be the same in macro situations for the same magnification).
06-16-2019, 07:41 AM   #306
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The K3 does have some advantage in "reach" over the K-1 in low iso settings. It isn't as much as you would think and once you get over iso 800, that advantage is nil, because the k3 just isn't as good at high iso as the K-1. For macro shots, APS-C is as good as full frame, although both are probably going to require photo stacking and similar techniques to get the same quality images (depth of field is going to be the same in macro situations for the same magnification).
If you fill the frame with both APS_c and FF, APs-c should give you one stop better DoF.
Not to mention the 1.5 smaller pixels for a larger image in smaller frame.

Per DoF master

K-1 (D800)
100mm f 16 at 20cm total DoF .19 ccm
100mm @ ƒ/22 total DoF .127 cm

Pentax K-01/K30
100mm @ƒ/16 20 cm , total DOF =.13

The K-3 is going to have more DoF at ƒ16 than the K-1 has at ƒ22.

Last edited by normhead; 06-16-2019 at 07:50 AM.
06-16-2019, 10:32 AM   #307
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,033
I've used a K1 as my main shooter the past three days. About 150 shots since then and so far I'm not yet convinced the benefits for me personally are there. I've lots of FF-compatible glass, and I've used the K1 so far for macro, landscape, and architecture. The photos themselves are not a noticeable improvement over the K-70 or KP. I haven't yet tried portraiture with it so perhaps that's an area where I find the value.

When I first picked it up the size was a concern. Three days later and it's not. I like the in-hand feel a lot and other than pairing with *200 and *300 the add'l weight hasn't even been noticed. The viewfinder is amazingly good, the better separation in controls makes a difference , but I'm not seeing the "better autofocus" that some users are.

I'm giving it another few days of course, but so far I don't believe I'd significantly benefit from the K1.
BUT...

For someone upgrading from an older Pentax like a K5 or even a K3 I think the K1 might be the better choice between it and a KP. The ergonomics are so much better, the weight and size won't be noticed,if moving up the image quality is superb, and operation is straightforward with lots of options to expand on what you had. If not already invested in new Pentax crops I might be more seriously considering the K1 instead. I still might.

Just my 2 cents.

06-16-2019, 11:49 AM - 2 Likes   #308
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
volley's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Springe
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,691
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you fill the frame with both APS_c and FF, APs-c should give you one stop better DoF.
Not to mention the 1.5 smaller pixels for a larger image in smaller frame.

Per DoF master

K-1 (D800)
100mm f 16 at 20cm total DoF .19 ccm
100mm @ ƒ/22 total DoF .127 cm

Pentax K-01/K30
100mm @ƒ/16 20 cm , total DOF =.13

The K-3 is going to have more DoF at ƒ16 than the K-1 has at ƒ22.
Are you sure? If I use the link and put in the numbers the calculater shows a DOF of 0.27 (not 0.127) for the K1/D800 @ f/22.
According to your post the DOF @ f/22 would be smaller than @ f/16 ...
06-22-2019, 08:40 AM   #309
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Merv-O's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Philadelphia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,098
QuoteOriginally posted by gatorguy Quote
or someone upgrading from an older Pentax like a K5 or even a K3 I think the K1 might be the better choice between it and a KP. The ergonomics are so much better, the weight and size won't be noticed,if moving up the image quality is superb, and operation is straightforward with lots of options to expand on what you had. If not already invested in new Pentax crops I might be more seriously considering the K1 instead. I still might.
As I have 5 of the most recent bodies from the K-5ii (it's good to have a AA sensor in the stable) to the K-3, KP, et al., I notice a slight degree of improved sharpness with the K-1 in all genres, but only when using prime lenses. FF is so smooth and predictable with primes, that I use the 15mm Irix, 35mm Pentax, 50mm f1.4 with the K-1, Occasionally, I'll add the 70mm limited and keep it uncropped as well. My APS-c bodies seem to have excellent balance over the K-1 using short zoom lenses. That was a surprise; the best deal of it is, all the lenses are compatible with each other. Additionally, I just love the K-5ii's 16mp sensor, it's really like the g-spot for APS-c bodies--balance, low light capability, reasonable sharpness up to 11' x 14" prints.
06-22-2019, 09:21 AM - 1 Like   #310
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by volley Quote
Are you sure? If I use the link and put in the numbers the calculater shows a DOF of 0.27 (not 0.127) for the K1/D800 @ f/22.
According to your post the DOF @ f/22 would be smaller than @ f/16 ...
Ya I read the wrong line in the readout.

OK so there you have it, APS-c gives you narrower DoF for smoother bokeh... then why are all these dudes buying FF for the narrow DOF? The calculators says they are wrong.

OH wait, I think I have it, you have to shoot the APS-c camera at 30 cm to match the field of view. Then the ƒ16 APS-c is .38mm, and we are back on track.
06-23-2019, 06:42 AM - 2 Likes   #311
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
My FF vs APS-c poll is up, please participate.
Full frame or APS-c, you be the judge. - PentaxForums.com
12-09-2019, 07:15 AM   #312
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
fs999's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,588
Answer to the op : Oh yes !!!!
12-09-2019, 07:57 AM - 4 Likes   #313
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by Bassat Quote
The differences between full frame and aps-c photographic results only become apparent when cropping severely, or printing HUGE. Everything you honestly believe you are seeing is marketing hype, specifically designed to get you to 'improve' your results by spending more money. Nikon did a test between the then-new D90 and whatever full frame model was current at that time. They printed poster-size (20"x30") of the same scene and displayed them on the streets, asking anyone who walked by to discern between the two. Total failure, even for seasoned photographers. It was a marketing ploy for the D90. That was at least 10 years ago. Gear, of both sizes, has improved since. For the record, I've never owned a Nikon camera.
Huge prints and deep crops aren't the only noticeable differences between FF and APS-C images. There are at least two other major side-by-side differences in FF vs. APS-C images:

1) Scenes with poor lighting and deep shadow recovery also benefit from a larger sensor.

2) Shallow DoF shooting (if you like that sort of look) is also much easier with FF.


But the biggest difference isn't in the images, it's in the viewfinder! Ask random people on the streets (and especially seasoned photographers) to look through an APS-C versus an FF DSLR viewfinder. See if they can spot that difference. HECK YA! The FF viewfinder is bigger and brighter, making it easier to compose better pictures. Sure, an APS-C camera could in theory take almost the same good picture as an FF camera, but the FF shooter has an advantage when it comes to finding, composing, and framing good pictures.


P.S. For the record, APS-C has an advantage in shooting conditions that depend on high frame-rate to increase the chance of a great shot.
12-09-2019, 09:01 PM   #314
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 390
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
But the biggest difference isn't in the images, it's in the viewfinder! Ask random people on the streets (and especially seasoned photographers) to look through an APS-C versus an FF DSLR viewfinder. See if they can spot that difference. HECK YA! The FF viewfinder is bigger and brighter, making it easier to compose better pictures. Sure, an APS-C camera could in theory take almost the same good picture as an FF camera, but the FF shooter has an advantage when it comes to finding, composing, and framing good pictures..
I am starting to believe this may be an age, experience thing. Started in the 1970's with 35mm SLR's (Fujica series and Chinon). Clarity and brightness of viewfinder was never a problem. Purchased a Mamiya C220 twin reflex and learned the difference in the viewfinder compared to the 35mm SLR.

All the early digital were poor resolution viewfinder and lcd's but you learned to adapt. When I purchased a Sony DSC-R1...now that was a step up.

Purchased a kx and k30...nice cameras generally, viewfinders-OK, but not like the non-digital SLR's.

Purchased a K1....and OMG...it was like the old days. Can look through the viewfinder forever, no eyestrain, all info crystal clear. A 645D-same thing. I have one mirrorless- Samsung NX-1 - can use the viewfinder but nothing like K1.
12-12-2019, 05:00 AM   #315
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Genf
Posts: 1,138
It is not an easy question. Few years ago I would have said yes just because I did not mind extra weight and even carrying a tripod when needed.
Today with kids around and backpack being crowded with items not related to photography, I value light weight and smaller items. I have FF compatible gear but my lonely photo trips are more and more rare to justify the purchase of a K1. If Pentax launches a compact ML FF on L mount with fully automated adapter that enables the use of K mount lenses, I will of course reconsider this.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aps-c, camera, canon, decision, ff, finland, full-frame, glass, hand, head, hobby, jump, k-1, k-5, k-50, leica, neck, option, pentax, photo, size, stability, train, tripod, window, winter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ? zoolander Pentax DSLR Discussion 89 11-16-2018 08:24 AM
Why I am Switching Back from Canon FF cali92rs Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 06-26-2015 09:17 AM
Alien Skin Software/ Switching to FF? dr_romix Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 01-08-2013 11:00 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-18-2012 10:09 PM
Switching from Pentax to FF 123ben Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 31 05-25-2012 02:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top