[Bui]

I apologize in advance if it's a stupid question. I bought my first DSLR camera which is an used Pentax Kx 3 years ago. Since then I have moved on to the Ks-2 and now the KP. I'm happy with all of them. I use mostly small lenses e.g. the DA limiteds or the 55-300 PLM. The biggest lens I have is the 50-135. I don't do any professional photography, mostly these equipment are used for our traveling, family events, daughter growing up, and sometimes free services for friends wedding and birthday etc.

Of course along the line sometimes I'm curious about FF, and wish to try it one day. I have never done that, mostly because of cost, and weight.

Now, I have chance to buy a K1 at a good price, something like 500-600$. Is is worth trying?

Added: most of my travel photos are taken in the middle of the day, with very bright sun, since it's not practical for me to travel and take photos early or late in the day. So I end up with lost of photos with burned highlight and very dark shadows, even with the KP and DA20-40's capabilities. PP improved them somewhat, but I can't say they're super pretty. Will or can the K1 offer improvement in this regard?

---

Last edited by Bui; 06-14-2019 at 01:19 AM.

[Paul the Sunman]

I apologize in advance if it's a stupid question. I bought my first DSLR camera which is an used Pentax Kx 3 years ago. Since then I have moved on to the Ks-2 and now the KP. I'm happy with all of them. I use mostly small lenses e.g. the DA limiteds or the 55-300 PLM. The biggest lens I have is the 50-135. I don't do any professional photography, mostly these equipment are used for our traveling, family events, daughter growing up, and sometimes free services for friends wedding and birthday etc.

Of course along the line sometimes I'm curious about FF, and wish to try it one day. I have never done that, mostly because of cost, and weight.

Now, I have chance to buy a K1 at a good price, something like 500-600$. Is is worth trying?

I love the K1 for its image quality, but you pay a price in weight of both the camera itself and especially the lenses that go with it. However, if you are willing to put up with less-than-perfect corners, some of the DA Limited lenses you have may be very useable on it, so the weight increase will be minimised. I Use the DA 40 and DA 70 Limiteds on it quite regularly. You may like to check out my thread on the DA40 on K1. The DA70 is better still.

For some purposes though, the KP will be ideal, such as with the 55-300. Similar reach on the K1 requires the huge and expensive DFA 150-450 (which is brilliant though). At the wide end, the new APS-C-only DA* 11-18 also looks a cracker, and is much more compact than the DFA 15-30 for FF.

[microlight]

Hi Bui; no problem - the only stupid question is the one you didn’t ask. I understand your thought, and I guess if it’s in good condition then at that price it’s a real bargain. But it doesn’t get smaller or lighter, and would still need expenditure on 35mm format lenses to get the best from it, although you could crop the images a little in post to deal with corners. In crop mode, as it has the pixel density of a K-5 it would probably perform less well with your lenses than the KP that you already have. As Paul says, then there’s that cute new 11-18 which I desire far more than I do a format change and a K-1. But that’s just me. 😜

[Dartmoor Dave]

If you normally print up to about 12"x18" at 300dpi then your 24 megapixel KP is plenty. If you want to go up to 16"x24" at 300dpi then you'll need the 36 megapixels of the K-1. Although in the real world people look at bigger prints from further away, so only the most obsessive pixel peepers would notice if you printed at 16"x24" or even bigger from your KP.

I doubt you (or I) would you be able to tell any difference between 12"x18" prints from the KP and K-1 side by side.


Edit: When it comes to problems with blown highlights, the brutal truth is that reading a good book on exposure will help you a lot more than buying a new camera. Sorry to be so blunt.

[Billk]

Try just looking through the viewfinder of a K1. Everything is brighter and clearer.

[timb64]

Sorry Bui l can't comment on the K1 but with regards to your exposure problems shooting at midday do you use RAW?Because of the way I travel I similarly often find I'm out in bright sunlight and find it helps to expose for the highlights so they're not blown out and then recover detail from the shadows PP.

[tokyoscape]

IMHO, I would stay with KP if I mostly do daytime photo and concern about weight. It is a very capable camera.

Then maybe look for a tutorial online to deal with shooting in high contrast situation. One thing I could recommend is to shoot raw at ISO100 and make sure the highlighted part is not blowout and deal with shadow part in post process. Sony sensor has a very good dynamic range performance. Or use the HDR feature in the camera.

[Madaboutpix]

If you normally print up to about 12"x18" at 300dpi then your 24 megapixel KP is plenty. If you want to go up to 16"x24" at 300dpi then you'll need the 36 megapixels of the K-1. Although in the real world people look at bigger prints from further away, so only the most obsessive pixel peepers would notice if you printed at 16"x24" or even bigger from your KP.

I have a 60 x 90 cm (about 24"x35") print at 300 dpi of the image below hanging in my hallway. Shot with a 24-MP crop body and a 100-euro lens. Standing in front of it, and looking as close as my ageing eyes will allow, I can discern single needles of the spruce trees, I get gorgeous colours and tonality, and hardly any noise. Okay, in this case, everything came together perfectly (base ISO, solid tripod, Mirror Lock-up, IR remote, best aperture, etc.) - I get it - but it still doesn't exactly give me the feeling that I need to upgrade to full frame. Especially, given the bulk and cost penalty it would entail.

And, yes, it's perfectly okay to want and get a FF kit. The K-1 line are excellent cameras, and there are areas where they are going to beat their crop cousins.

[Rondec]

To me, the big benefits of full frame are better dynamic range, better high iso performance, and the ability to print/view bigger. The downside is mostly size. Your KP is really good in those respects already, so only you can answer if the K-1 would be worth it to you. Certainly that is a price that would be hard for me to pass up...

[amstel78]

I like FF for image quality, generally lower noise at higher ISO, and depth of field in relation to focal length. Sometimes trading off a lighter system can be worth it if you're looking for those attributes.

As for midday sun, I try to avoid shooting in it as the light is generally very harsh. It's hard to almost impossible capturing certain types of images without the use of ND filters. Try to make the effort to shoot at dusk or dawn depending on subject matter. The light really is everything when it comes to photography.

[Saltwater Images]

If you normally print up to about 12"x18" at 300dpi then your 24 megapixel KP is plenty. If you want to go up to 16"x24" at 300dpi then you'll need the 36 megapixels of the K-1. Although in the real world people look at bigger prints from further away, so only the most obsessive pixel peepers would notice if you printed at 16"x24" or even bigger from your KP.

I doubt you (or I) would you be able to tell any difference between 12"x18" prints from the KP and K-1 side by side.


Edit: When it comes to problems with blown highlights, the brutal truth is that reading a good book on exposure will help you a lot more than buying a new camera. Sorry to be so blunt.

I have had 36” x 24” prints made by a local print shop on gallery quality canvas that were shot on my humble16 MP K-5II. These were taken with a tripod and remote. Some are slower shutter speeds, some are not. No issues with IQ, highlight and shadow details or lack of detail when viewed up close. A little work in Lightroom helps them pop. Now I have a few files shot with the KP that have also been sent in - to be printed on 36” x 24” - looking forward to seeing the printed result. 24 MP APS-C is easily capable of delivering high quality prints larger than 12” x 18”.

The key advantages of the larger sensor are low light performance and shallow depth of field. When it comes to low light performance the KP is no slouch either.

[Rondec]

Amstel is right. Either invest in an alarm clock and wake up earlier (or shoot later) or get some ND filters. You can under expose shots in the middle of the day to save the highlights and post process them, but the light is still pretty harsh and the result will not be the same as photos taken in the golden hours.

[Sluggo]

The problem with harsh mid-day light is universal to photography, and a full frame upgrade doesn't help very much with it. What does help some is to shoot RAW, maybe bracket exposures or expose a little to the left, and then attend to your postprocessing tools/techniques. Most of what you say suggests you should stick with the KP. But on the other hand:

• When going from K-3 to K-1, I found the weight difference was mostly a non-issue.
  
• The image-quality benefits of full frame are not limited to just providing more megapixels for printing.
  
• Seriously, only 500-600 clams for a K-1? That's a ridiculous deal, unless there is something wrong with it.

[kiwi_jono]

That price is pretty good, if the K-1 is great shape.
Weight is a consideration but personally I like the weight of mine. As for size it is just perfect for me (fits my hands so much better than the K-5 did) BUT I would not be so happy with mine with bigger lenses as I would be less likely to travel around with it. I started using mine with FA28, FA 35 f2, FA 50 f1.4 lens and it makes for quite a travel (and carry around) friendly system. However I now have the three FA queens and I'm very happy with my K-1 system. Its almost totally cured me of LBA (if only I could get a nice compact prime around 20mm that is).
I can't speak for the PLM 55-300 but my DAL 55-300 performs quite well from 100 - 300mm.

If you get the chance try a K-1 out and see what you think of it - only you can decide if its worth it!

[biz-engineer]

Fullframe camera is for whom?

It's for people who want to print / view images larger than A2 [16,54 x 23,39 inches],
or it's for people who like the comfort of extended exposure triangle that full frame offer over smaller format.
With the K1 and SR I can shoot hand held long exposures or higher ISO that would never be able to get with a K3.
The only case where I'd still prefer a K3 over the K1 is with supertele lenses.

And...

Fullframe camera is for whom?

It's for people who want to post their K1 photos in the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314413-post-your-k-1-pictures.html thread.