[normhead]

Music to the ears of us who can’t indulge their GAS

I still see the K-1 as a rather extravagant frill.
I spoiled myself with it.
Other people go to spas and get manicures.
I may not get better images, but I feel better about taking them. Of course part of that is because it's so much more difficult to produce many images, you have more of a sense of accomplishment when you succeed.

K-1


K-3


To me, the differences are not in the camera it was taken with, but with how easy it was to get the image and because the bird was in different locations with different light. For the K-3 image, I definitely wouldn't have the same image taken with the K-1. The bird would be smaller. Bottom line, I have to look at the exif to know which was taken with which camera. And I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to want a 90" x 6"0 print of a Grey Jay. For many images, the "if you print big" factor isn't a real consideration.

After shooting with both cameras and loading images from both, it's a little disappointing how often I guess wrong, as to which image was taken with which camera. After paying all that money, you'd like it to be a little easier to pick out a difference.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-27-2018 at 08:41 AM.

[aslyfox]

Music to the ears of us who can’t indulge their GAS

or shouldn't

GAS or LBA

both powerful forces

[aslyfox]

I still see the K-1 as a rather extravagant frill.
I spoiled myself with it. . . .

as a parent of a single child

we told people of course he was spoiled, other than the pets he had no competition for our love

but he wasn't spoiled rotten -

there is a difference

he knew what the word no meant

[Bob 256]

As mentioned, if you never make large full-frame prints or use your shots for internet use, you may never notice any differences, but when really large prints are desired, a full-frame camera comes through. Something that isn't thought of is ofttimes a shot requires cropping and that crop is enlarged to say a 5x7 or 8x10. That can be the equivalent of a very large print since a smaller section (a crop) of the original shot is being enlarged more than a straight print would have been. Here, again, the full-frame camera offers an advantage.

I just finished shooting some non-critical photos for my church with my K-1 and to make them more user friendly (and to save some disc space), I reduced the pixel size of each shot by a factor of 2 (from 7360x4912 to 3680x2456). Though this has less to do with full-frame than the actual sensor resolution, the result is less noise since groups of four pixels are averaged to get a resulting new pixel when processed in software. This particularly benefits dark areas where there is more noise to begin with. I mention that this is possible because of the 36Mpx count of the K-1, but that does relate to the fact that it's full-frame which allows more real estate for the chip designer to place pixel sites and those sites are larger allowing more light to be captured (as has been mentioned).

So as has been pointed out, there are a lot of times very little difference can be seen between a crop and a FF camera, but there are those times or situations in which a FF definitely has an advantage image-wise. Of course, much of this assumes that the lens being used is up to the challenge of having a FF sensor (in terms of the resolution and sharpness of that lens - A mediocre lens can't be improved much with a FF camera).

---

Last edited by Bob 256; 12-27-2018 at 09:08 AM.

[normhead]

but there are those times or situations in which a FF definitely has an advantage image-wise. Of course, much of this assumes that the lens being used is up to the challenge of having a FF sensor in terms of resolution and sharpness.

And those times are what gets people carrying the FF everywhere. You get one, and you think "well, it cuold happen again", and the cropping is a much bigger deal than I thought it would be. I can do a reasonably heavy crop and still have the 24 MP of a K-3 image.

[gaweidert]

Personally I haven't been able to confirm that in blind tests. The tests I've run, shooting in most cases with a k-1 and a K-5 have produced very similar images. But those were in good light and with good composition. 16 MP is actually quite manageable. Someday I'll get a couple where the K-1 is significantly better, but, it hasn't happened yet. So far we've run maybe 4 tests, so the sample isn't large.

I would never say the K1 is significantly better than my K5-IIs and K3 image quality wise. I am not sure exactly why I like the FF images just a little bit better. It is nothing that I can put a finger on and certainly nothing that I can measure. Weird, I know, but it is what it is. I have never found fault with any of my Pentax DSLR's from an image quality point of view.

[normhead]

I would never say the K1 is significantly better than my K5-IIs and K3 image quality wise. I am not sure exactly why I like the FF images just a little bit better. It is nothing that I can put a finger on and certainly nothing that I can measure. Weird, I know, but it is what it is. I have never found fault with any of my Pentax DSLR's from an image quality point of view.

Where as I would say I like some of my K-1 images better, but not all. And I definitely like some of my K-3 and Tess' K-5 images better as well. In fact the next one up on the print cycle is a K-5 image. The printing seems to be about evenly distributed between the 3 cameras.

[biz-engineer]

For many images, the "if you print big" factor isn't a real consideration.

Well, that's true, but you never know the day you will decide you want to print big. If I knew when and how large I will print in the future, I would simply rent a 645z the day I know I will need the big file for a print. In reality things don't work this way, really is more like: I will take 10000 images with the K1, and maybe on day I decide to print 60" (120cm) one of them... that only day I will appreciate it was taken with a K1. I can write this the other way around, I could shoot with my phone all the time, take 10000 shots a be happy as long as I post images here or other social media site, but if one day I want to print one image, only one image at 120cm size... I will be very embarrassed because the phone image at 120cm just look bad (very bad...), and I won't be able to go back in time to shot that frame again with a K1. If you know you will only display images on a LCD or print A4 max, then get a Nikon P900 or P1000, or even a smaller bridge, don't spend your money into an ILC.


Now if the question is whether full frame is better than apsc, it depends. Full frame is better than apsc but it's not 100% better. If the conditions are good it is eventually possible to get a better image from an apsc camera (you may open up the lens aperture 1 stop, and tweak exposure and move a bit your position for a better background).

[normhead]

Well, that's true, but you never know the day you will decide you want to print big.

Having just printed a 42x30 K-3 image.. and hung it on my wall, I just can't really predict at what size that advantage is going to click in. That doesn't mean it's not there. But I'd love someone who's actually prints a lot speaking up and giving us some definitive information on this. Certainly on the "Monet" type reflection image I just printed, resolution is not that necessary and I'd print the K-3 image wall size without negative effect. An image with more detail would not do as well, the point being, low res can print well large, if its' the right kind of image. It's not just about the size, the type of image it is counts as well.

[biz-engineer]

I just can't really predict at what size that advantage is going to click in.

That's because you print too small. Home printers cannot print large enough. I'm referring to image print height of approximately human body size, that is from 120cm to 180cm. Printer model : Canon ImagePROGRAF 4000 (Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4000 44" Professional 1127C002AA B&H). Here we have a Canon professional printer distributor, I've visited them with the intention to buy a prograf 4000, I told them I was not sure about how large I could print from K1 files, so they offered me to send my files that they printed demo prints to compare the quality at various sizes (nice guys by the way). The guy told me that they have a customer who bought a prograf4000 because he is shooting vintage cars, print and then sell framed photographs to owners of the vintage cars.

[VSTAR]

can you be more specific on that

what do you mean by large prints


where does the difference in ability to print asp-c vs. full frame begin ?

does the type of camera matter, I use a k 3 and K 3 II

thanks

Just made a poster size 24x36 with a photo from a k1 and 17-28 Pentax lens. My wife and I just keep looking at it and are amazed at the detail. So if you are viewing a nonFF image on a monitor or 8x10-11x14 it will look great. Going beyond that size for a poster size print and FF will be noticeable in the difference .

[bkpix]

Generally, the shot discipline used by the photographer -- correct exposure, accurate focusing and use of a tripod -- is a much bigger factor in image quality than the difference between, say, the K-1 and the K-3.

It's also not really true that FF cameras do better at large prints. Higher-resolution cameras do better. And, when considering differences, you should realize that print resolution is a linear measurement, while the number of pixels is a measurement of area. So your 36 Mp K-1 doesn't give 50 percent more resolution than your 24 Mp KP; it gives 22 percent more resolution.

All that said, I agree with Norm that, even though I've never been able to quantify the difference, every now and then the K-1 kicks out a shot that makes me go wow!

[runswithsizzers]

One specification which is often overlooked when picking the better of two cameras is measured between the photographer's ears.

Pop Quiz

Given the choice, would you rather
a. own the perfect camera?
b. make the perfect photo?

My present camera is limiting my ability to take better photos because ________________________________ .

A better camera will enable me to finally take photos good enough to
a. sell to National Geographic
b. get a million hits on my YouTube blog
c. put on my Mom's refrigerator

If Camera A is "good enough" - and Camera B is "better" - how much more would you pay for camera B?

The other photographers kick sand in your face on the beach. To get the respect you deserve, are you going to
a. start working out?
b. buy a bigger camera?
c. start taking better pictures?

Circle one:
True False I may not know art, but I know an expensive camera when I see one.
True False I plan to start trying to take better photos as soon as my collection of cameras and lenses is complete.
True False My collection of cameras and lenses will never be complete.

The bigger the sensor, the smaller the __________________.

[normhead]

That's because you print too small.

If I print any larger I'll need a bigger house. That's going to add a lot to the cost.

[niblue]

FF for me wasn't really as much about image quality (although I would expect the bigger sensor to be better in some conditions, such as low light) but more about making some of the key lenses I'd saved from my film days more relevant again e.g. FA* 85mm F1.4, ATX-Pro 20-35mm F2.8 and many others.