[normhead]

Thanks !
Glad you enjoyed the album.
I think the K5/K3 (and the "old" K20D/K10D and K7) all are good enough for birding and that all of them take time to get used to.
I wished I had the funds for a 500mm prime lens though!

My used Tamron SP AF 300mm 2.8 plus the 1.7, combine for 510mm ƒ4.5 under $2000 CDN. But, it's still freakin heavy...

[HopelessTogger]

Thanks !
Glad you enjoyed the album.
I think the K5/K3 (and the "old" K20D/K10D and K7) all are good enough for birding and that all of them take time to get used to.
I wished I had the funds for a 500mm prime lens though!

Looked at the Sigma 4.5/500. £3,599.

Yup, me too.

[trilou]

I'd like to think that I'm serious about birding but I'm also fond of landscapes. I was hoping the K1 would work for both as my K5 has died. The Loon Tango | trilou | Flickr

[Rupert]

Most of my shots are just opportunistic "snappers". I see something out my windows and try for a shot. Sometimes it works out...sometimes not.

That's how I shot this little guy the other day.....saw him eying the corn and got off a shot...I had better luck than he did, he couldn't handle the corn!


Regards!

[derekkite]

The 500mm f4.5 works fine on the K1. Balances nicely with the grip for handheld.

This was with the K3. Obviously not a serious shot or shooter since I don't have a Nikon.

[timcatn]

That bird is flying towards you. A Pentax can not possibly focus under these conditions. Conclusion: you must be cheating!!!!

[derekkite]

That bird is flying towards you. A Pentax can not possibly focus under these conditions. Conclusion: you must be cheating!!!!

I'll go along with that.

I have friends who shoot Canon and Nikon. Their gear is very nice and they get nice shots. And so do I. What I find remarkable about the K1 is that it opens the possibility of getting shots at dusk and at dawn.

[mrfredsporty]

The 500mm f4.5 works fine on the K1. Balances nicely with the grip for handheld.

This was with the K3. Obviously not a serious shot or shooter since I don't have a Nikon.

like the first shot. love the second!

[normhead]

So any loss with crop factor could be gained with ability of the larger sensor in K-1 if shooting with full frame lenses. Crop image (36 divided by 1.5 ) on 36 MP by 1.5x and you get 24 MP. Same as K-3. Dynamic range, low light, high ISO are better in K-1.

All you need to know about this is that the Pentax K-1 crop is the same as 15 MP on a K-3, so you actually gain the difference between a mx. of about 2000 lw/ph on cropped K-1 to get the 27 lw/ph on a K-3. So if you crop to APS_c size you get about 30% more resolution using a K-3. A K-3 is about 2700 lw/ph.

To be equal to a K-3 you need about a .75 crop on the K-3 image 3600x .75=2700, so if you crop the K-1 image 25%, you'll have virtually the same image as a K-3. Anything more than a 25% crop and k-3 would have given you a better image, both in terms of reach, and straight up in resolution. So in K-3 vs K-1 terms, 400 k-3 = 500mm K-1 taking into account the difference in resolution and the crop factor. Because of the difference in pixel densities it's not a straight 1.5, the K-3 also has 1.5 more pixels in the area of the K-3 crop. The actually K-1 advantage is about 1.25.

IN any case, if you're used to your lens on a 24 MP APS-c sensor looking though the K-1 viewfinder is going to be a disappointment. But if you have the long glass and are willing to carry it the K-1 will get you better images.

If you crop more than this the K-3 will give you a better image. This is a 24 MP image.


A similar image uncropped.


You get a lot more, but I'm throwing out the K-1 advantage because it's not needed for how I want to crop.

Here's the same type of image taken with a K-3 although I expect it's actually taken a little closer.


if I took the same image with the K-1 there would be a smaller bird (less centre resolution) and more of the scenery around it.
It comes down to, what do you want? Bird or surrounding scenery.


In some cases you want more of the surrounding scenery.
In some cases you can get close enough to the bird the K-1 is the better image but in this case that wasn't the case. Even though the birds was so close I hade a 36MP file uncropped, the DoF at minimum focusing distance was so narrow, the shot isn't as good as it could have been.


And in shots like this where my final file was 11.5 MP taken with the K-3, the K-1 image would have cropped down to about 7 MP, with a significant loss of resolution.


That would cost me 37% of my resolution.


So that's what it comes down to real world in many situations. The difference between 11.5 MP file and a 7 MP file or a similar breakdown, because you didn't take your K-3

Every now and then you do get an image with the K-1 that is better than anything you might get with a K-3, superior DR, higher ISO range, more resolution, higher shutter speeds possible.


But most of the time I'm shotting with the K-3, faster burst, deeper buffer, quicker buffer refresh rate. When I really want to be sure, I bring both, I shoot with the K-3 when the subject is at a distance in good light, and the K-1 when the subject is close or the light is poor. But long story short, in I'd say 75% or your birding shots, using the K-1 is going to cost you. Either in IQ of the final crop, or the weight of the lenses you are carrying. Much of my shooting these days is done at 500mm ƒ4.5. You get a lot more reach with a K-3. But like everything else, you can gain a lot more by having your K-1 with you for the times you can use it. In fact it is very hard for me to find a K-1 birding image that isn't cropped below the level where the math says I should have used a K-3. I did find a couple though. As is becoming my usual answer, if you want to cover every eventuality, you need both, but for birding, the K-3 should come first. Unless you value the 25% of the images taken where the K-1 is better at 36 MP than the K-3 is at 24 MP. And 25% is probably on the high side. The low estimate would be 90% K-3, 10% K-1.

K-3 420mm Goldfinch says happy shooting.

[mrfredsporty]

i really dont like the answer cuz i use my k-1 with a bigma cropped and like the results. BUT it seems that the k-3 may actually be a better birder. i certainly cant argue with such a very detailed answer. great job.

[derekkite]

I'm getting shots with the K1 that I couldn't get with the k3 due to better low light handling. The electronic shutter on the K1 gets me shots that I wouldn't even try on the K3. Two examples.

I've been closer to an American Pipit with the K3, but they like the shade and blend in, so never got any decent shots. This is with the K1, Sigma 500mm f4.5. cropped as usual. I had given up trying these shots with the K3.



This was at the end of the day, at a distance. Seriously cropped, K1, 500mm Sigma 4.5 and electronic shutter on a tripod. I wouldn't have bothered with the K3; it would have been noisy mud. Not a great shot, but much better than anything else I've used so far.

In awful conditions the K1 does better and in very good conditions it is exquisite. There are some situations where an apsc would be better, and indeed I use the crop function to get faster frame rates. All in all I'm very happy with the results, and the K3's are at home.

[normhead]

i really dont like the answer cuz i use my k-1 with a bigma cropped and like the results. BUT it seems that the k-3 may actually be a better birder. i certainly cant argue with such a very detailed answer. great job.

I have never printed a bird image ;larger than 8x10. While the K-3 gives me more resolution on the bird, will I ever actually use that resolution? I know of at least one guy who has a D810 and chooses to use it for birding. He wants the great shot in the maximum resolution, and he's willing to forego the opportunity of a very good image to get it. I have often seen tog's set up with a 500 or 600 f4 lens on their tripod holding awn APS-c body with a 100 to 400 in their hands. I'm almost ready to join that club. Nothing as frustrating as when you see a shot that's too tight at 500mm on the K-3 and you realize you would have had a great shot if you'd had the K-1 on the camera.

---------- Post added 05-25-17 at 10:27 AM ----------

I'm getting shots with the K1 that I couldn't get with the k3 due to better low light handling. The electronic shutter on the K1 gets me shots that I wouldn't even try on the K3. Two examples.

When I go out in the evening I almost always take the K-1 not the K-3 just of that reason.

Out in my back yard, with the Tamron 300 and 1.7x. Wide open at 4.5, 3200 ISO, 1/60 of a second braced on my kitchen window, I don't think you get nearly as good a shot shot with a K-3. And even though the fox could be bigger, it's a nice size. You don't have to fill the frame with your subject in every image. A bit of context helps.



But it's not the same quality it would have been taken in good light at a lower ISO


That being said, for those of us who shot with a K-5 for years. the K-1 is a K-5 with an extra half stop of dynamic range, a stop better low ISO performance and twice the image size, what's not to like? Every time your rephrase the question...you get a different answer.

How about get a K-1 if it's an easy purchase for you but don't be disappointed if you end up with a K-3... does that work as an acceptable answer? (Always looking for the famous consensus answer.) But I would definitely say don't think you're going to be happy birding with a K-1 at less than 400mm. 500 or 600mm will be more functional. I use my DA*200 as a walk around lens on my K-1 for dog shots and close ups of flowers etc.

[zapp]

Key question: What kind of reach do want need for your birding images? You always want to go longer. If FF would require 400, 500, 600 mm stick with APS-C as Pentax land is quite limited in FF long glass. K1 with 500mm plus lens is a real challenge even after the very significant investment. If you can live with the 150-450 on APS-C got for it. Even with K5/K3 you have a much larger rig than before. K3+ have better shake reduction. Worst case, you will buy the K1 a little bit later and keep the APS-C as teleconverter.
K1 in crop mode only uses half the viewfinder. Things look small. I would not buy a K1 if you want to do birding in crop mode. If you can get close enough to use FF on most/many occasions, you can take advantage of better ISO performance, great SR, better AF, ... plus all the advantages for still photography like resolution and pixel shift...

[Blue]

Sure, one can capture the occasional odd bird or two with Pentax equipment, but I know no serious birder who shoots with Pentax.


Pentax K-3, Sigma 150-500 OS lens is a great combination. You have a K-3II so you are half way to becoming a serious Pentax Birder.

David

I know this is a year old post from a guy that hasn't been active this year and isn't directed at him but this attitude in general. However, this has to do more with statistics than anything else. 1st, I don't run into many serious photographers or more casual photographers either using Pentax gear. Secondly this applies that someone running another brand is a pro or semi-pro never mind that many of those brands have intro models that are just gawd awful.

[Suhail]

This thread can never be outdated. The shots here are for eternity for all those who come here and are in awe of them. Super-mega-awesome shots!