[aslyfox]

I don't know if the OP has used the camera comparison tool or not

K 1 II vs KP vs K 1 vs K 3 II

Pentax K-1 II vs. Pentax KP vs. Pentax K-1 vs. Pentax K-3 II - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

among other differences that might matter to a wildlife photographer is the different burst rate

[texandrews]

So, for your described use-case scenario, very low light levels, then yes, the K1 or K1mkII will be helpful, possibly significantly helpful.

I use my cameras professionally in museum settings, with fairly low light levels, flash cannot be used. While not as good as my 645Z, the K1mkII (upgraded version) is my backup camera and it does quite well. I can lift my exposures reliably 2 stops at least without much ill effect. I can also shoot at ISO 3200 and not have it be too grainy for pro work (maybe a little PP massage required, incident dependent). ISO 6400 is usable, but requires more PP. But these are in exacting circumstances----your noise tolerance may be much higher. Certainly mine is for all family stuff, and much other private work (although not so much for my own artwork).

[hypermodern]

I was trying to shoot pheasants in the hedgerows on the way to work last week (in Yorkshire, so similar-ish latitude). In conclusion, December, dawn, K3ii and 300mm f4 equals not enough light/too much noise. I wish iso 6400 looked like iso 800.

[Zivelot]

For me buying the K-1 was a reasonable step, but only because I have not stopped using film. So when the K-1 came out, I only had to invest into a body, but no lenses (I had had sold my APS-C camera and lenses long before the K-1). So I have not really handled an APS-C for about five years, but judging by reviews of recent APS-C cameras I would probably go with one if I were you. They get good reviews.

On the other hand it is true, that you can get a K-1II for as much as the new flagship that comes out next year, and you can use crop lenses as well as FF.

[Madaboutpix]

I have a good workflow, though, with my current software, which makes upgrading my software somewhat painful. I am using Lightroom 5.7 for RAW conversion, and I supplement that with the Topaz software suite - I don't use DeNoise so much, but there is a built-in noise reduction in Topaz Adjust that I use. I don't know. I have my whole Lightroom catalogue, currently 118,015 photos, indexed and tagged and whatnot. I already opted out on updating my Lightroom back when they switched to a cloud-based platform...

Okay, that may be a considerable obstacle, and I wasn't trying to suggest that your PP workflow is ... lacking. I just remembered how liberating the switch from LR to OpticsPro/PhotoLab felt to me, both in terms of intuitiveness and output quality. But I happen to care little about cataloguing functions, which may matter to you, and while DxO offers some basic indexing/tagging functionality in its software, the focus is clearly on processing results. Can only say that four years after I made the jump from LR5 to OpticsPro10 I have no regrets whatsoever.

[Kerrowdown]

Do I NEED a full frame camera?

Absolutely... feed your inner gear acquisition syndrome demon.

Folk here are exceedingly good at coming up with many reasons to spend your money.

[MetteHHH]

Okay, that may be a considerable obstacle, and I wasn't trying to suggest that your PP workflow is ... lacking. I just remembered how liberating the switch from LR to OpticsPro/PhotoLab felt to me, both in terms of intuitiveness and output quality. But I happen to care little about cataloguing functions, which may matter to you, and while DxO offers some basic indexing/tagging functionality in its software, the focus is clearly on processing results. Can only say that four years after I made the jump from LR5 to OpticsPro10 I have no regrets whatsoever.

Thanks Marc. I don't feel like I ought to be old enough not to update my software - and since LR went cloudy, I might as well look at the alternatives. I will read up a bit on OpticsPro on the internet - I haven't actually heard about it before.

Absolutely... feed your inner gear acquisition syndrome demon.

Folk here are exceedingly good at coming up with many reasons to spend your money.

Yes. Actually I'm more surprised at the number of postings advising me NOT to spend money. I'm happy my husband isn't reading the thread...

But in all probability, what I will do is wait and see what is announced about the next APS-C. It has been a while since the K3II, and ISO performance has evolved a lot. Now that aslyfox made me look at the comparison tool, I still find it mindboggling to see the range of the K1 going up to ISO 819,200 - but that is as much a question about age as sensor size I guess. (The camera's age, I mean, not mine. Well, OK, probably mine as well. I remember film ISO).

In any case, as I wrote repeatedly, I don't expect to give up on APS-C. That is what I expect to still use for birding. It's just winter, dark, rainy, and I felt like giving myself an undeserved present. But... there's something about presents supposedly being for other people anyway, this time of year.

Thanks for playing along, everyone. I got more food for thought than expected - but that is not the first time in these forums.

[shyrsio]

Hi! I am actually on your same dilemma. I shoot a k-5 and a k-30. and i have a series of analog bodies with the respective lenses, 28/35/50 you name it. I occasionally use the analog primes on the digital cameras, and the result has always satisfied me...until..
Until I borrowed a K1ii from a friend.
The goods:
1. no crop factor. a 50 is a 50, not a 75 like on apsc
2. there is so much more light, so the iso game is totally different.

The bads:
1. Weight and size. at first you wont mind since the difference in numbers is not that bigger from a k3, but after a daylong hike you will feel the strain on your hands and shoulders.
2. portability(no, its not the same as above). if you take your apsc with you almost everywhere to any social event, you will think twice with a K1.

[ddharriman]

For the interior photo taking with low light, my advice is:

1 – learn how to use flash better, as you say “I have a flash, Pentax AF-360FGZ, and I never really bothered to master it: I just push the mode button and the power button all the way to the right, angle it upwards a bit to get a bounce off of the ceiling, and shoot. I'm never happy with the photos”.
You already have a good flash and can use it on and off camera, in PTTL, Auto or manual (your choice).
An outstanding free place to have many of the tips necessary is: ? Flash Photography Techniques.

2 – lower your aperture and shutter speed as much as you can. In your 6400 ISO shot, if you managed to lower to 1/40 and f/4.0, you could have used ISO 1600.


To the question: “Do I NEED a full frame camera?”

No, you do not.
But… and if you decide to stay with APS-C…, wait until the new Pentax camera comes out – it looks it will be a bomb -, and buy it (one of the main improvements to be expected is even better high ISO performance).

Best regards,

[noelpolar]

You lost me at "bake cookies"....mmmm

[Rondec]

I guess I would make a couple of comments. Overall, many birders do use full frame cameras, but they need pretty long lenses to achieve good results (or they figure out how to get closer to the birds they are shooting). To me, full frame is more about wider angles, although of course you can shoot long lenses on full frame. Full frame does give great results in high iso situations as well.

The cost of the K-new is probably going to be a bit more than what you would pay now for a used K-1. Just something to consider.

Pros of the K-new are likely to be better buffer, faster frame rate, and (significantly) better auto focus. It will have a bit better "reach" from a birding standpoint and likely will have pretty decent high iso performance if the KP is considered. The K-1 is going to be slower, have a bigger body, but will still produce excellent high iso images and low iso images with better dynamic range. I like the K-1 a lot, but as I am writing here, if birding is a big interest and you have the money saved, I would probably reserve it for the APS-C flagship. I think it would fit your needs better.

[MetteHHH]

1 – learn how to use flash better, as you say “I have a flash, Pentax AF-360FGZ, and I never really bothered to master it: I just push the mode button and the power button all the way to the right, angle it upwards a bit to get a bounce off of the ceiling, and shoot. I'm never happy with the photos”.
You already have a good flash and can use it on and off camera, in PTTL, Auto or manual (your choice).
An outstanding free place to have many of the tips necessary is: ? Flash Photography Techniques.

Hmmmmm.... I'm beginning to think you people ARE in league with my husband. I certainly get a lot of "no need to spend money" advice in this thread!

But in all seriousness: Thank you for the link. I have bookmarked it. Next time I feel like swearing at our lack of light, I will begin reading those articles instead.

[fsge]

If you dont go for K1 ii, then buy KP or Knew. As long as you buy Pentax it is all good!

[newmikey]

Your thoughts are appreciated - all sorts, thanks!

A tiny percentage of people actually NEED the K-1 and if you actually WANT one, why make life hard on yourself? It's awesomeness in a neat package

I've considered the K-1 and rejected the idea for the simple reason no one ever ends up getting ONLY the K-1. Once it's through the door, what usually follows is the glass required to put the K-1 through its paces and keep it happy. Cost wise, the K-1 body is peanuts nowadays but everything that goes with it is twice as big and three times as heavy as well as way more expensive than its APS-C equivalent.

I've built up some pretty decent glass over the years, I travel a lot and when I do, the camera goes in my laptop backpack from work, together with one or two lenses. I have a great photography backpack as well that fits 80% of my gear. Only problem is I don't want to lug it around any more than I need to. Just looking at a K-1 with the DFA70-200 and comparing it to f.i. the K-P with the DA*50-135 is sufficient for me to stop convincing myself I NEED a K-1 - I'm just satisfied in going on wanting it forever.

K-1 + 70-200 = 1010 g + 685 g = 2458 g (almost 2.5 kgs) and dimensions front to back 85.5 mm + 203 mm = 288.5mm
K-P + 50-135 = 703 g + 1755 g = 1695 g and dimensions front to back 76 mm + 136 mm = 209mm

[Kevin B123]

K-1 + 70-200 = 1010 g + 685 g = 1695 g
K-P + 50-135 = 703 g + 1755 g = 2458 g (almost 2.5 kgs)

Uhmm, you have the lens weights the wrong way round

Man maths aside, once you have the idea you want a K-1 it's near impossible to shake off until you have one.