[iheiramo]

To give one answer to the question in title; K1 is perfect for those who like to shoot a lot with vintage lenses. So far every lens I have tested has been better in native format. But I upgraded from K5, so difference shouldn't be as huge when compared to KP.

[officiousbystander]

I didn't expect this but I love my K1 most for its ability to do candid family snaps where the shallow depth of field separates the subject in a way which can give you a professional look. And whether it's glary outside light or dim inside there's no drama. It's one of those examples where equipment does make a difference. You can't beat the laws of physics. And these photos are with the A 50 1.4. So you don't need to spend a fortune on lenses. At $500-600 yes it's definitely worth trying. And a daughter growing up? She's worth it.

[cport]

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?

More or less, I am in the same position. After using K-5II I tried to live with K-1 for a couple of weeks. My intention was to use it with FA 35/2, DA 40 and DA 70 limited to get the FF look and not to increase the weight of the system too much.


In my case, although I enjoyed the ergonomics of K-1, I decided to go to KP. The weight and size difference is quite big for daily use (for me!). KP with limiteds is quite small and unobtrusive and with great ergonomics as well. Still from time to time I miss the FF look (or something like DA* 24/1,2 for APS-C format:-) ). So, the decision is up to you ...

[Alex645]

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.

Of course along the line sometimes I'm curious about FF, and wish to try it one day.

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

Added: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?

I went from 35mm film to 645 because I had hit a technical barrier in the smaller format that only medium format would allow me to do in making significantly higher quality 16x20" prints and larger and more cropping,

I also went from APS-C to FF digital for better bokeh, improved low light and higher contrast situation with less noise.

So the first question you ask: Is it worth trying? Yes and no.
Yes because it will show you first hand what you're missing (or not). Yes, because maybe the reported 14-15 EV dynamic range of the K-1 may help you enough in your highlights and shadows that the 10-11 EV range of KP wasn't. On the other hand, there are HDR techniques that can fix some of your problems, but it's certainly less convenient, takes more effort, and can be problematic for the scene.

So why no? Because of "Pandora's box". Once I fell in love with the bigger format, I rarely went back to the smaller format. Some PF members use both in situations that benefit APS-C or FF, but you'll want FF lenses for the K-1 which usually means selling off your APS-C 'system'. So can you afford and are you willing to upgrade your lenses as well?

Of course you could buy the K-1, try it, and then sell it if you find the size, weight, and additional lens costs are not worth the improved IQ over your KP.

Another way to make your decision:
K-1 if you're a perfectionist and you want the best but can't afford the 645Z.
KP if you're a pragmatist. For $500-$600 you could get a powerful Metz mecablitz 64 AF-1 flash or an all weather Pentax AF540FGZ for fill flash and then have change for a set of graduated ND filters (plus a quality CL Polarizer) to handle blown out cloud highlights for your KP.

Metz mecablitz 64 AF-1 digital Flash for Pentax Cameras MZ
Pentax AF540FGZ II Flash 30456 B&H Photo Video

[ThorSanchez]

So why no? Because of "Pandora's box". Once I fell in love with the bigger format, I rarely went back to the smaller format. Some PF members use both in situations that benefit APS-C or FF, but you'll want FF lenses for the K-1 which usually means selling off your APS-C 'system'. So can you afford and are you willing to upgrade your lenses as well?

This is not insignificant. I don't have a FF camera, although I rented the K-1 to try it out. It's fine. Obviously much better than fine. But to cover my K-3 use cases with a K-1 I'd have to invest very heavily in new glass. My most common kit on the K-3ii is the 15/21/40 and 55-300, and the grand total of that whole system was less than $2000 (most of the lenses were used, body and PLM new). If you don't mind some vignetting and fixing things in post most of those lenses could be okay on full frame.

But to replace them with real FF glass? Just the 150-450 would be almost $2000, well over $1000 used. The 31mm would be a good replacement for the 21mm, used that's $600. The 43mm and 77mm would be rough equivalents in that general range, they're each $500-700 used. So you're looking at $3000+ just for used lenses, unless you're willing to go with film-era and/or manual focus glass.

The big deal killer for me and FF is the 150-450. From all accounts a brilliant lens. But it's three or four times the size and five times the cost of the 55-300 PLM that I use all the time for everything from soccer to birds to the moon.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I have a 60 x 90 cm (about 24"x35") print at 300 dpi of the image below hanging in my hallway (apologies if I have posted this elsewhere; link to full-res JPEG for the pixel peepers: Dresden & Saxon Switzerland 2018 - Marc). 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.

I'm sure it's a beautiful print, but of course it will have to have been upscaled to print at that size at 300dpi. The original question was about reasons why somebody might want a K-1 rather than a KP, and one reason would be to make bigger prints without interpolation.

Personally I'm quite happy to upscale and I regularly make 12"x18" prints taken with a 10 megapixel APS-C CCD, and even with a 6 megapixel CCD. But if somebody was asking why he might want more megapixels than that, one reason is that he could print bigger without interpolation.

[wstruth]

To give one answer to the question in title; K1 is perfect for those who like to shoot a lot with vintage lenses. So far every lens I have tested has been better in native format. But I upgraded from K5, so difference shouldn't be as huge when compared to KP.

That's probably my favorite reason for having the K-1 along with the field of view of a 50mm lens on full frame, since my first camera and lens combo was an MX with a 50 1.7.

To the OP: For day to day uses and if you don't pixel peep and don't do tons of low light work, don't do a lot of astro-photography a full frame won't offer you too much more that what you can get with a KP. I have and love my K-1 and I purchased it when I had a K-S2. I later upgraded from the K-S2 to a KP and realized that camera would handle most if not all of my photography needs. The KP is actually a great low light machine, I'm always pleasantly surprised what it can do (the K-1 is admittedly better), and I tend to reach for it first when going out. I make a few 16 x 10 prints every year and am pleased with the results.

[Dartmoor Dave]

24 MP APS-C is easily capable of delivering high quality prints larger than 12” x 18”.

Yes, of course it is, using interpolation. But one answer to the question "Full frame camera is for whom" is that you can print bigger without interpolation. At the sort of viewing distances that most people tend to look at prints, that difference doesn't really matter. It certainly isn't important to me personally. But it's a difference that does exist.

[pepperberry farm]

if there's the option to rent the K-1 for a week or so, to help determine if it's for you or not, I would definitely suggest doing so before sinking money into a body that you may turn around and sell....

[ThorSanchez]

if there's the option to rent the K-1 for a week or so, to help determine if it's for you or not, I would definitely suggest doing so before sinking money into a body that you may turn around and sell....

If they're in the US, Lensrentals.com has a K-1 and a 24-70 for about $225 including shipping for a week.

[savoche]

Another way to make your decision:
K-1 if you're a perfectionist and you want the best but can't afford the 645Z.
KP if you're a pragmatist. For $500-$600 you could get a powerful Metz mecablitz 64 AF-1 flash or an all weather Pentax AF540FGZ for fill flash and then have change for a set of graduated ND filters (plus a quality CL Polarizer) to handle blown out cloud highlights for your KP.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Every argument for a K-1 over a KP is also an argument for a 645Z over a K-1, and every argument for a K-1 over a 645Z is also an argument for the KP vs the K-1. They're all a set of compromises.

Solving the problem with high-contrast scenes is probably better done with filters, flash, bracketing, or simply by exposing to protect the highlights. Shooting in raw format will also provide a lot more leeway for lifting those deep shadows in post.

(Yes, I'd love a 645Z but the cost and size both prevent me from going that route, so I have ended up with a K-1 - even though APS-C (or µ4/3) would be the rational choice for my needs.)

[Bui]

Wow, lots of feedback already. I will need to spend time tonight to read all of them. Just a quick clarification: mid-day or harsh light performance is one extra motivation, not the only reason I asked for deciding whether to upgrade. I do try shooting RAW, ISO 100, and underexpose a lot to have some room in PP. I think I get my KP dynamic range to the limit in such situation, so if the K1 is even better, why not?

Alarm clock as one of you said, doesn't work :-) I'm not that lazy, it's just I have things to do at early morning and evening so it's not practical for me to get out at that time. I will try experimenting with ND filter, thank you.

[CarlJF]

A K-1 for 600$ is a very good deal. However, as others said, putting good glass in front of it micght rapidly become quite expensive. It doesn't make much sense to get this kind of premium body without willing to put some money to get the best glass paired with it...

High contrast midday scenes are always challenging for any photographers, even with a FF camera. So, a K-1 might be of some help but probably still not enough. Others have proposed godd technical solutions. But you can also make do with the lighting conditions as they are. There's nothing wrong with having the shadosw deep black if it serves the pictures. You can experiment with backlighting with some elements only appearing as black vignettes... Or find interesting shadow patterns... Instead of fighting the scene, try to flow with it and make the best of it, even if it means stepping outside what you usually do. Just don't look for the pictures usually done in completely different lighting conditions.

[stevebrot]

Will or can the K1 offer improvement in this regard?

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that when the range of light in the subject is great, there are limits as to what to expect from the camera's imaging system and its metering. The K-1/K-1ii is no better in either regard than your KP. You can avoid blown highlights by applying minus exposure compensation, but doing so will darken the image overall with loss of deep shadow detail. Likewise, you can raise shadows with plus exposure compensation, but at the expense of bright highlights. If you need both, then HDR (either in-camera or in PP) is a possible solution, though not practical for hand-held work. If HDR is not an option, expose for the highlights and hope for the best for the shadows and bracket several exposures as insurance.


Steve

[btnapa]

Will or can the K1 offer improvement in this regard?

I started out with K5IIs then K3 and now K1. I do occasional paid shoots so image quality is very important. Over the years, I did plenty with the K5IIs and K3 and I was totally happy. These were studio environment shoots with ISO not exceeding 400. However, I was not too happy with the K3 at high ISO (above 1600). With K1 that changed. I had a chance to try the KP and I think its high ISO is even better than K1. If I started over with the Pentax line today, I would not hesitate to get a KP and the lens that I always wanted the 20-40 for starters. Aside from the fact Pentax has a lot more choices for the APS-c bodies.

In any case, for your shooting situation, try to shoot RAW. You can do a lot of adjustments in post. One rule to follow with any digital camera is to shoot to preserve the highlights. K1 and KP can pull out an amazing amount of clean detail from the shadow areas.