K10d upgrade Do I get a K3 or K1 full frame

oldstoat · 06-02-2016, 09:49 AM

Having looked at the specs of the K3 and K3ii. The only difference I can see is that the K3ii has astrotracker and GPS. The astrotracker is not required for me as my telescope is motorised and will track anyway. GPS is of no interest to me. So it seems to me the K3 is the best choice unless anyone can point out any advantages the K3ii would have for me

Rupert · 06-02-2016, 10:33 AM

I'm gonna go against the grain here......Don't end up second guessing yourself or wondering if you did the right thing. Just get the K1 and be done with it.
The K1 excels in low light, low light focusing, and in a bundle of advanced features that are very usable. If you want to shoot wildlife on a very dark and rainy day, you'd better have a camera that will focus in near dark and will deliver you a usable shot. The K1 can do this with ease. Fast focus in the dark woods..or anywhere else.....usable shots high up the ISO scale....it all matters.

All the other things matter too...but these two often matter the most in tough situations. The K1 is not talk, it's not hype, it's the real deal we have all been hoping for all these years. Just get it!

1/60 handheld f7.1 @500mm ISO 10000 K1 _ Big ol' slow Bigma 50-500 Instant focus in the very dark woods.

1/60 handheld ( the new SR is wonderful!) f7.1 @500mm ISO 10000

A legendary "Blind Orphan Squirrel" ...I guess they really exist?

1/60 handheld f7.1 ISO 8000 @ 500mm

After sundown ISO 12800

The Crop Mode is wonderful...it frames exactly what you will get and lights up the big red frame when focus is acquired and you have your shot......just like what you saw. Sure....the K3 has more pixels in a crop......but unless you print billboards, what difference does it make posted here?

Just get the K1 and be happy...everyone I see with one is thrilled!

Best Regards!

john5100 · 06-02-2016, 01:46 PM

This is my K3 at ISO 8,000. The K1 should rock!

Relaxation by John Rudolph, on Flickr

and 12,800

Martha Davis and The Motels by John Rudolph, on Flickr

fredwilliams · 06-08-2016, 12:37 PM

If you have the cash, I would go for the K-1 and replacing the APS-C lenses. It would probably be a great setup. But if you don't want to spend the cash on new lenses, you may be as well off going to the K-3 or K-3 II.

pentasonic49 · 06-10-2016, 09:39 AM

What ever you do. keep the K10, there's something special about that model.

oldstoat · 06-12-2016, 09:46 AM

having looked at the specs for the new k70. Would this be a better choice of camera than the K3 or K3ii. I am on a budget of about £700, and the K1 would be another year away of saving. But given my interests, the K70 seems to be a great idea

---------- Post added 06-12-2016 at 05:46 PM ----------

Originally posted by pentasonic49

What ever you do. keep the K10, there's something special about that model.

certainly intend to

Qwntm · 06-16-2016, 01:35 PM

Listening to people extol the virtues of the K1 you would think the K3/k3II was pretty much useless.

Ironically, the real benefits of the K1 can be measured in single digit percentages, maybe tenths of percentages.

And the compromises of the K1 can be measured in full dollars, ounces and cubic inches and lenses or lack thereof.

As for depth of field, 50mm at f1.4 on a FF gives you about a 1/2 inch focus zone. 35mm at f1.4 on a APS-c gives you about a 2 inch focus zone. Does anyone really have a practical application where this would make any difference at all?

And, 40x60 inch (non pixel shift) prints made from a K1 vs made from a K3II will be indistinguishable from each other when viewed from a distance of 6 feet or greater. (I am guessing that the K1 produces prints of the same general quality as the Nikon D810, because I personally have 40x60 K3II prints next to D810 prints and can not see a difference at a 6 foot viewing distance. One of the main reasons I don't shoot the D810 anymore.)

So, to everyone with a K1, enjoy it, it's a great camera. And to everyone with a K3 or K3II, enjoy it, it's a great camera that happens to be thousands of dollars cheaper, lighter and smaller, and 98-99.5% as good.

Last edited by Qwntm; 06-16-2016 at 04:02 PM.

Doundounba · 06-16-2016, 03:11 PM

Indeed, if you shoot a lot of macro, don't forget about the new K-70. I shoot mostly macro on K-3 and it's a wonderful set-up but for one thing: the non-tilting display. You can, of course, solve that with a K-1 (and its IMHO fantastic back screen mechanism), but (at least for me) the cost is prohibitive. So I am considering the K-70, even though it's kind of a "side-grade" from my K-3 and I'd much prefer a tilting screen that remains in the optical axis of the lens. I think I'll try to hold out for the K-3 III, but it might become hard to resist the K-70...

As others have mentioned, in practical macro terms, the 24MP APS-C cams have a slight advantage in resolution over the 36MP K-1. What I mean by this is that a 1:1, 24MP shot on a K-3 gives you a 23.5mm wide image, while a 24MP crop of a 1:1 shot on a K-1 gives you an image that is about 29mm wide. So you'll need a bit more magnification on the K-1 to shoot the same subjects. Depending on the exact nature of what you're shooting - there's macro then there's MACRO - this may or may not make much of a difference to you. The full frame also has a noise advantage, but at least for flash macro I wouldn't expect that to make a huge difference. Of course, more DR is always desirable...

But in practical budget terms, the APS-C advantage is very large...

fredwilliams · 06-17-2016, 05:08 AM

I just upgraded to the K3 a few months ago. Sure, I would have loved to have got the K1, but the price difference was a deal breaker. Especially with the bargain prices on the K3 right now. The K1 is a great camera, but the cost/benefit just didn't work out for me. If I could comfortably afford the $2,500 - $3,000 it would take to get the new camera and lenses it would have been a no brainer.

06-12-2016, 09:46 AM	#21
oldstoat New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 20 Original Poster	k3 or k70 having looked at the specs for the new k70. Would this be a better choice of camera than the K3 or K3ii. I am on a budget of about £700, and the K1 would be another year away of saving. But given my interests, the K70 seems to be a great idea ---------- Post added 06-12-2016 at 05:46 PM ---------- Originally posted by pentasonic49 What ever you do. keep the K10, there's something special about that model. certainly intend to

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should I upgrade my K20D to a K3?	lynnslenses	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	51	11-17-2015 09:22 AM
Upgrade 496RC ball head or get a gimbal?	HenrikDK	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	5	07-07-2014 11:50 PM
Do I get a K-x or do I wait?	Confuzzled	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	18	07-15-2010 06:16 PM
Do I upgrade my Camera or Lens to get better low light autofocus?	lazarustx	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	04-23-2010 05:19 PM
I need to get a grip - or do I?	WMBP	Pentax DSLR Discussion	53	06-01-2007 07:45 PM

06-02-2016, 09:49 AM	#16
oldstoat New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 20 Original Poster	Having looked at the specs of the K3 and K3ii. The only difference I can see is that the K3ii has astrotracker and GPS. The astrotracker is not required for me as my telescope is motorised and will track anyway. GPS is of no interest to me. So it seems to me the K3 is the best choice unless anyone can point out any advantages the K3ii would have for me

06-02-2016, 10:33 AM	#17
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I'm gonna go against the grain here......Don't end up second guessing yourself or wondering if you did the right thing. Just get the K1 and be done with it. The K1 excels in low light, low light focusing, and in a bundle of advanced features that are very usable. If you want to shoot wildlife on a very dark and rainy day, you'd better have a camera that will focus in near dark and will deliver you a usable shot. The K1 can do this with ease. Fast focus in the dark woods..or anywhere else.....usable shots high up the ISO scale....it all matters. All the other things matter too...but these two often matter the most in tough situations. The K1 is not talk, it's not hype, it's the real deal we have all been hoping for all these years. Just get it! 1/60 handheld f7.1 @500mm ISO 10000 K1 _ Big ol' slow Bigma 50-500 Instant focus in the very dark woods. 1/60 handheld ( the new SR is wonderful!) f7.1 @500mm ISO 10000 A legendary "Blind Orphan Squirrel" ...I guess they really exist? 1/60 handheld f7.1 ISO 8000 @ 500mm After sundown ISO 12800 The Crop Mode is wonderful...it frames exactly what you will get and lights up the big red frame when focus is acquired and you have your shot......just like what you saw. Sure....the K3 has more pixels in a crop......but unless you print billboards, what difference does it make posted here? Just get the K1 and be happy...everyone I see with one is thrilled! Best Regards!

06-02-2016, 01:46 PM	#18
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	This is my K3 at ISO 8,000. The K1 should rock! Relaxation by John Rudolph, on Flickr and 12,800 Martha Davis and The Motels by John Rudolph, on Flickr

06-08-2016, 12:37 PM	#19
fredwilliams New Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Posts: 8	If you have the cash, I would go for the K-1 and replacing the APS-C lenses. It would probably be a great setup. But if you don't want to spend the cash on new lenses, you may be as well off going to the K-3 or K-3 II.

06-10-2016, 09:39 AM	#20
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395	What ever you do. keep the K10, there's something special about that model.

06-16-2016, 01:35 PM	#22
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	Listening to people extol the virtues of the K1 you would think the K3/k3II was pretty much useless. Ironically, the real benefits of the K1 can be measured in single digit percentages, maybe tenths of percentages. And the compromises of the K1 can be measured in full dollars, ounces and cubic inches and lenses or lack thereof. As for depth of field, 50mm at f1.4 on a FF gives you about a 1/2 inch focus zone. 35mm at f1.4 on a APS-c gives you about a 2 inch focus zone. Does anyone really have a practical application where this would make any difference at all? And, 40x60 inch (non pixel shift) prints made from a K1 vs made from a K3II will be indistinguishable from each other when viewed from a distance of 6 feet or greater. (I am guessing that the K1 produces prints of the same general quality as the Nikon D810, because I personally have 40x60 K3II prints next to D810 prints and can not see a difference at a 6 foot viewing distance. One of the main reasons I don't shoot the D810 anymore.) So, to everyone with a K1, enjoy it, it's a great camera. And to everyone with a K3 or K3II, enjoy it, it's a great camera that happens to be thousands of dollars cheaper, lighter and smaller, and 98-99.5% as good. Last edited by Qwntm; 06-16-2016 at 04:02 PM.

06-16-2016, 03:11 PM	#23
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Indeed, if you shoot a lot of macro, don't forget about the new K-70. I shoot mostly macro on K-3 and it's a wonderful set-up but for one thing: the non-tilting display. You can, of course, solve that with a K-1 (and its IMHO fantastic back screen mechanism), but (at least for me) the cost is prohibitive. So I am considering the K-70, even though it's kind of a "side-grade" from my K-3 and I'd much prefer a tilting screen that remains in the optical axis of the lens. I think I'll try to hold out for the K-3 III, but it might become hard to resist the K-70... As others have mentioned, in practical macro terms, the 24MP APS-C cams have a slight advantage in resolution over the 36MP K-1. What I mean by this is that a 1:1, 24MP shot on a K-3 gives you a 23.5mm wide image, while a 24MP crop of a 1:1 shot on a K-1 gives you an image that is about 29mm wide. So you'll need a bit more magnification on the K-1 to shoot the same subjects. Depending on the exact nature of what you're shooting - there's macro then there's MACRO - this may or may not make much of a difference to you. The full frame also has a noise advantage, but at least for flash macro I wouldn't expect that to make a huge difference. Of course, more DR is always desirable... But in practical budget terms, the APS-C advantage is very large...

06-17-2016, 05:08 AM	#24
fredwilliams New Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Posts: 8	I just upgraded to the K3 a few months ago. Sure, I would have loved to have got the K1, but the price difference was a deal breaker. Especially with the bargain prices on the K3 right now. The K1 is a great camera, but the cost/benefit just didn't work out for me. If I could comfortably afford the $2,500 - $3,000 it would take to get the new camera and lenses it would have been a no brainer.