[MetteHHH]

So, first of all, I am well aware that this is very much a first world problem. Also, that the actual answer is just "no".

However: It's December in Denmark. This means miserable short days with no real daylight. Back in the day, the snow offered some consolation, because a snowy ground is not completely dark and would blanket the wreckage of our winter garden nicely. But the last few Decembers have been snowless, just rain, rain, rain.

This sets some limits to photography. My number of images shot in December are at an all time low. Work has as much to do with that as weather, but I still find myself asking, as I did last winter (and even the winter before that, when it was still hypothetical): Do I need to get a K1?

I am first and foremost into wildlife photography, most of all birds, most of all birds in flight. But, honestly, THERE IS NO LIGHT! I took a series of shots of some bohemian waxwings last week, when the sun was _almost_ visible above the horizon - they still needed lots of post processing and noise reduction to look half decent.

So, I turn to indoors photography. 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.

My Nikon-cousin has gone full frame years ago. He never uses flash, and he gets lovely results with ambient light - even the hardly-there-at-all sort of ambient light you get in a Danish December. But I have told myself that the K1 is not for me, that I should wait for the next flagship APS-C - and now it is announced... but I am still in doubt.

I COULD look for a surge of second hand K1s appearing on the marketplace, once the next camera has a release date. But... do I need one?

Your thoughts are appreciated - all sorts, thanks!

[redpit]

You definitely need a K-1. You will love it under such light conditions. Since you consider the new APS-C, you will spend more or less the same amount to get a K-1 that will make a difference! (you will know what I mean when either you try one or when you get it).

[biz-engineer]

I am first and foremost into wildlife photography, most of all birds, most of all birds in flight. But, honestly, THERE IS NO LIGHT!

Get the new Pentax apsc flag ship , with a flash and a better beamer (kind of fresnel lens to focus the flash beam on the bird). I've used it , and so far no bird fell of the tree when I shot them.

[Matthew]

As a recently updated K-5 shooter, I can offer the advice that you don't really need full frame if you want better high ISO performance. I have shifted to the KP. While I'm still struggling to get the best out of it, mostly because 9 years of shooting with the K-5 has left me dependant on its nice interface, the High ISO performance is astonishing. Now it sounds like you are shooting telephoto and if you go full frame you will need to get longer glass to match the crop factor. and to maintain any sensitivity advantage the glass will have to have an equally large aperture to what you are shooting now.
I bought the KP because I was getting sick of waiting for the new top end camera and in most respects it is great but I am still long for the basic handling of a K-5 and so I will be seriously considering the new camera when it finally arrives.
If you don't want a KP as a stop gap then look on the bright side. Your winter solstice is next week and then your days will start lengthening again!

[MetteHHH]

You definitely need a K-1. You will love it under such light conditions.

Get the new Pentax apsc flag ship.

you don't really need full frame if you want better high ISO performance. I have shifted to the KP. While I'm still struggling to get the best out of it, mostly because 9 years of shooting with the K-5 has left me dependant on its nice interface, the High ISO performance is astonishing.

Great! Already I have good arguments pointing in either direction. I expected no less of this forum!

Actually, I very much doubt that I will be able to resist the new APS-C when it comes around. I am very happy with my K3II - except this time of year, really, and I think it would be a shame to get the KP, because I expect the APS-C will probably do all that the KP does and a bit more. So, I was sort of trying to justify the K1 because it does something else.

I know one piece of advice that I definitely WILL take to heart is yours, Matthew, about the winter solstice. It's not far away, and I will keep telling myself that, over and over, until the axis tilts enough that I can tell it's getting better!

Hmm. But if the release date of the next camera turns out to be... I don't know, April or later, then I still just might keep looking for a good K1 offer, to see me through the dark.

[k5astro]

I think if you do nature photography you might be better off with the aps-c because I don't think the K-1 has a very high frame rate - best for landscape. Nature and sports can really benefit from hi FPS and I would think any new camera will do better in low light than what you already have.

[noelpolar]

I would get a silver K1.... easier to see in the dark.

Anyway.... get a K1 and cheer yourself up.




I am mostly nature shooter.... and much much preffer K1 over K3 etc. Lots of wildlife is in lowish light..... morning, evening, under tree canopy etc.... FF much better for that.

---

Last edited by noelpolar; 12-16-2019 at 05:48 AM.

[ffking]

Of course you need a K-1 - everybody needs a K-1 - some just haven't realised it yet

[Lowell Goudge]

So, first of all, I am well aware that this is very much a first world problem. Also, that the actual answer is just "no".

However: It's December in Denmark. This means miserable short days with no real daylight. Back in the day, the snow offered some consolation, because a snowy ground is not completely dark and would blanket the wreckage of our winter garden nicely. But the last few Decembers have been snowless, just rain, rain, rain.

This sets some limits to photography. My number of images shot in December are at an all time low. Work has as much to do with that as weather, but I still find myself asking, as I did last winter (and even the winter before that, when it was still hypothetical): Do I need to get a K1?

I am first and foremost into wildlife photography, most of all birds, most of all birds in flight. But, honestly, THERE IS NO LIGHT! I took a series of shots of some bohemian waxwings last week, when the sun was _almost_ visible above the horizon - they still needed lots of post processing and noise reduction to look half decent.

So, I turn to indoors photography. 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.

My Nikon-cousin has gone full frame years ago. He never uses flash, and he gets lovely results with ambient light - even the hardly-there-at-all sort of ambient light you get in a Danish December. But I have told myself that the K1 is not for me, that I should wait for the next flagship APS-C - and now it is announced... but I am still in doubt.

I COULD look for a surge of second hand K1s appearing on the marketplace, once the next camera has a release date. But... do I need one?

Your thoughts are appreciated - all sorts, thanks!

The question is, what camera do you have now. While I don’t live quite as far north, shooting birds when the sun never seems to rise more than 20 degrees in the sky does not offer a lot of light.

Shooting with a 400+ mm lens demands high iso. My APSC camera is a K5. And I have shot birds up to 6400 iso with that camera. The K1MKII is a little better but in a lot of cases you don’t get close enough to make full frame a necessity,

The problem is if you go for higher resolution then you give up on high iso performance.

When I first got into digital I shot the *istD. It took to the K7 in order to get back to the same high iso performance,

The K5 is infinitely better, but I don’t think the K3 has the same high iso performance, but I don’t really know, I skipped that model. Megapixels don’t really count in bad light.

The K1 is a great camera and I do enjoy it, but for wildlife, I still shoot a lot with the K5.

With either body, yes you can get stunning natural light shots.

Maybe considering your location. You should also consider night photography

[MetteHHH]

Funny: This sounds a LOT like the little imaginary creatures sitting on each of my shoulders and offering advice on the matter. One of them is very much along the lines of:

get a K1 and cheer yourself up.

and

Of course you need a K-1 - everybody needs a K-1 - some just haven't realised it yet

While the other figure would agree, virtuously, with things like:

you might be better off with the aps-c.

and

in a lot of cases you don’t get close enough to make full frame a necessity,

Seriously, though: I do appreciate all your advice. And I agree that the new aps-c makes more sense for most of what I shoot. It's just that during these winter months, indoor photography becomes the main type of photography by necessity. I WILL get the next aps-c, and I probably shouldn't even be thinking of buying a K1 on top of that. But... I want it, and so here I am looking for justification!

Lowell, I loved my K5 very much, and it was definitely a huge step up fra K7. I think you are right that the K3s did not offer nearly as big of an upgrade. I got it mostly for the improved AF-performance, which I think is noticable. I don't think my K3II is worse than K5, noisewise - but I could be wrong. You are absolutely right that full frame is unnecessary for most of what I do, and I shouldn't be greedy... well, maybe once we are past the solstice, I will come to my senses.

It really depends on that release date though, I think...

[EssJayEff]

To what extent do you rely on autofocus tracking, particularly in low light? If you do, might that not be a more important consideration?

[Roadboat24]

It seems you are looking for better low light capabilities. Now, I really don't know Jack from Jill, but I would think any new technology camera/sensor would improve on the capabilities of its predecessors. But, I do have a K1 and am quite pleased with it,... as I am with my K3 and K50, so there ya go. That's my thought for the day...

[zapp]

If you consider buying into ff for birding, define for yourself what camera gives most features for the money. A D810 can be had new and a used tele from Nikon be had for less than a Pentax solution. Sorry that’s the truth.
Nevertheless a K1 with current glass makes a very good kit for general birding. More light, larger aperture become costly very quickly.

[MetteHHH]

If you consider buying into ff for birding, define for yourself what camera gives most features for the money.

I don't, though. I will stick with aps-c for birding. There's just a greedy side of me that is trying to justify a second house for the non-birding, indoor photography.

[aaacb]

I got a k1ii with the kit lens just last week, my apsc camera is a k3ii. Mostly because I wanted a tilting screen and the other features, and the price was so good I expect would have cost not much less to get the new apsc camera (there's a long thread about this sale in the price watch forum...). I shoot landscapes and concerts, plus lots of street but I use a gr for the latter, so for me it made some sense. When the conditions are bad, I tend to find another subject, succumb to gas, or both