[Kunzite]

HopelessTogger said "full-frame pro cameras", which the A7 isn't.
I actually find the A7 quite specialized, and crippled in regard to image quality. Yes, I said crippled, by the low resolution.
It can measure better at high and very high ISOs, but the resulting images at the values you'd actually use are impacted by the lack of detail.

Anyway, the K-1's high ISO image quality is not yet known.

[osv]

But this 50MP from D5S is the best in their test amount all Canon sensors. It only means Canon doesn't know how to make a good sensor. :-)

what's really funny is that the k5 variants rank higher on dxo than all of the rest of the canon cameras, ff included.

[grahame]

what's really funny is that the k5 variants rank higher on dxo than all of the rest of the canon cameras, ff included.

But most still believe canon's ff sensors out-performance K5's
So it means, in DxO ranking, Sony wins and Canon is a loser :-); and among Sony and Canon sensors, high MP ones win.

[DeadJohn]

I was hoping for a 24mp BSI sensor in the K-1 for optimal balance between resolution and low light performance as well as AF and fps speed, -4ev focusing too. Very high resolution could still be had with pixel shift.

Cell phones with 20+ megapixels packed onto a tiny sensor benefit quite a bit from BSI. BSI's low light advantage decreases as pixels become larger in cameras like the K-1.

[traderdrew]

And I have owned A7 FF for quite a while. from my logic and experience, I think FF is better for wide to short-tele range. When focal length is over 135/200, which DOF control is not a big problem for even a slower lens on an APS camera, I don't see the benefit of using an FF camera over APS other than better noise control at higher ISO. But if not a professional wide-life photographer, why do we need 125/200-500mm range on FF? And the heavy, bulky and pricy F2.8 tele-zoom? So I wonder if I missed anything here: what's the benefit (other than noise control at high ISO) of using FF system for telephoto and macro?

There have been a couple of bird in flight shots I have captured where I wish I had used a FF and that was because of me and the crop factor failed to capture the entire bird. From memory, the images had nice feather details in the shaded parts. I ended up deleting them.

[bertwert]

I wouldn't mind a K-1, FA* 200/4 Macro and a FA* 600/4 if anyone has spare change...
FF, Macro and Tele..

[derekkite]

There have been a couple of bird in flight shots I have captured where I wish I had used a FF and that was because of me and the crop factor failed to capture the entire bird. From memory, the images had nice feather details in the shaded parts. I ended up deleting them.

And those are the ones that you really wish you didn't miss. The stuff far away end up being uninteresting shots of record. Last year I was surprised how many times I wanted something shorter than 500mm. To have those shots fill the big sensor with all it's benefits and 3/5 more pixels is attractive.

[grahame]

You guys are so luxury! Carry a 500mm lens on K3 around for birding, find the bird getting too close to be captured in the frame, and find the solution is to mount a FF camera onto the 500mm!
My longest one is sig 170-500, which is not a super sharp lens. so I carry 300/4 most, with a 1.7x AFA. If I was lucky enough to get too close, I have 50-135 in the bag, or maybe 20-40? :-)

---------- Post added 03-28-16 at 10:57 PM ----------

you don't get more "reach" with any crop sensor, because the focal length of a lens always stays the same regardless of what camera body it's put on.

True, the focal length stays the same, but FOV changes with different format. To talk about reach of a lens, we have to associate it with frame size. Is 8.5mm a super wide lens? NO, one Q, it is called "01 standard lens". 15-45mm is a "telephoto zoom" on Q. Is 90mm a short tele lens? No, it is a standard lens on 67 MF system. Smaller sensor does give us more reach.

So my point is, if I know I need to reach long, carry a smaller, lighter and cheaper APS tele lens on APS camera can get the same reach, and maybe similar IQ, than much heavier, bulkier and pricier FF lens and camera.

K5 can be bought ~$200, and K3 will go below $500. I think long lens on APS and wide to short tele lens on FF makes more sense.

[HopelessTogger]

HopelessTogger said "full-frame pro cameras", which the A7 isn't.
I actually find the A7 quite specialized, and crippled in regard to image quality. Yes, I said crippled, by the low resolution.
It can measure better at high and very high ISOs, but the resulting images at the values you'd actually use are impacted by the lack of detail.

Anyway, the K-1's high ISO image quality is not yet known.

I have an A7r, colour noise is terrible. I know the 24mp BSI chip hasn't been produced but I feel this would make for a happy medium between speed ala D5, noise ala A7s and resolution ala D810 sufficient for all but the largest prints. Coupled with pixel shift it could still produce ultra high resolution for still life.

There is so much more to pbotography than this silly MP race and that includes lenses (see micro contrast / resolution arguements). We need a best balance race between res/ISO noise/dynamic range and wotnot and so forth.

Viewed on screen my best work still came from the K5IIs and FA Ltds.

[derekkite]

You guys are so luxury! Carry a 500mm lens on K3 around for birding, find the bird getting too close to be captured in the frame, and find the solution is to mount a FF camera onto the 500mm!
My longest one is sig 170-500, which is not a super sharp lens. so I carry 300/4 most, with a 1.7x AFA. If I was lucky enough to get too close, I have 50-135 in the bag, or maybe 20-40? :-)

---------- Post added 03-28-16 at 10:57 PM ----------



True, the focal length stays the same, but FOV changes with different format. To talk about reach of a lens, we have to associate it with frame size. Is 8.5mm a super wide lens? NO, one Q, it is called "01 standard lens". 15-45mm is a "telephoto zoom" on Q. Is 90mm a short tele lens? No, it is a standard lens on 67 MF system. Smaller sensor does give us more reach.

So my point is, if I know I need to reach long, carry a smaller, lighter and cheaper APS tele lens on APS camera can get the same reach, and maybe similar IQ, than much heavier, bulkier and pricier FF lens and camera.

K5 can be bought ~$200, and K3 will go below $500. I think long lens on APS and wide to short tele lens on FF makes more sense.

I had the same experience with a 300 mm on the K3 a week ago.

I like what 400 mm gives you on apsc for length. It seems to be the natural length for what and where I shoot. My 500mm prime on the K1 would give me close to that field of view.

If Pentax was releasing an apsc with the goodies that the K1 has I would have preordered. We probably will have to wait a year for that.

[traderdrew]

You guys are so luxury! Carry a 500mm lens on K3 around for birding, find the bird getting too close to be captured in the frame, and find the solution is to mount a FF camera onto the 500mm!

So my point is, if I know I need to reach long, carry a smaller, lighter and cheaper APS tele lens on APS camera can get the same reach, and maybe similar IQ, than much heavier, bulkier and pricier FF lens and camera.

I am not necessarily completely sold to a FF solution for birding because I've never tried it. There has been at least two potentially killer shots that I've missed because of the APS-C factor. I have tried to understand why so many wildlife photographers have liked using FF cameras. I also think if they don't know how to use their cameras a FF isn't going to make much or any difference.

As far as your point is concerned, you are thinking like an Olympus user. I haven't seen a lot of really good bird photos from Olympus cameras but I would rather not go there without my own research.

I'll tell you something,.. I've looked at a countless amount of outdoor photos. The ones that have really caught my eyes were taken with the D800. Look into 500px.com and perhaps you will see what I see. If the K-1 with a couple of lenses can match those qualities I will most likely buy one.

[pathdoc]

The thing I like about the K-1 viewfinder is that it gives you a peripheral rim of visibility around the crop zone. You could have your APS-C lens on the camera, see the bird coming in, and have the opportunity to optimally frame it in the crop zone and nail it with a high burst rate. And seeing as that's where pretty much all the focus points are, your chances of getting a good shot would seem much improved. The same technique could be used when dealing with planes at airshows, fast-moving children, etc. That little extra bit of "peripheral vision" could make the difference. It's like having a > 100% viewfinder coverage on a crop camera.

[Gimbal]

The thing I like about the K-1 viewfinder is that it gives you a peripheral rim of visibility around the crop zone. You could have your APS-C lens on the camera, see the bird coming in, and have the opportunity to optimally frame it in the crop zone and nail it with a high burst rate.

While the viewfinder in itself doesn’t block the view around the APS-C frame, chances are that the lens will do it, more or less. If the lens doesn’t block the light you might as well use it in full frame mode. (or perhaps not, the picture quality may be to low outside the APS-C frame but good enough for the viewfinder.)

[pathdoc]

While the viewfinder in itself doesn’t block the view around the APS-C frame, chances are that the lens will do it, more or less. If the lens doesn’t block the light you might as well use it in full frame mode. (or perhaps not, the picture quality may be to low outside the APS-C frame but good enough for the viewfinder.)

I think it will depend on the individual lens, and whether the vignetting comes down to "horrible circle in the viewfinder" or "corners that post-processing simply can't get rid of." Even FF lenses might be useful in crop mode, both to allow the higher burst rate and to use the central optical sweet spot (which is also, as said, where all the focus points are). For someone like me, coming up from a K-5, the loss of peripheral pixels should not be a big deal.

[traderdrew]

I think it will depend on the individual lens, and whether the vignetting comes down to "horrible circle in the viewfinder" or "corners that post-processing simply can't get rid of." Even FF lenses might be useful in crop mode, both to allow the higher burst rate and to use the central optical sweet spot (which is also, as said, where all the focus points are). For someone like me, coming up from a K-5, the loss of peripheral pixels should not be a big deal.

The higher burst rate is why some of them temporarily go back to their APS-C unless they are using the D4. The only problem I heard about the D4 is when people start to crop bird photos with it. It's really hard to track some birds and it depends on where you are. 99% of the time I am cropping keeper BIF photos because I can't frame them nicely in my viewfinder. When I don't crop them and if I exposed the bird nicely, the shadowed areas under or on the side of the bird will have good feather details. The more I have to crop, the more the noise becomes apparent in those areas especially when I lighten the shadows in post processing.

The more time you spend studying photos and editing the more things you see. I never used to see things like noise and purple fringing but now they stick out to me. BTW,... I did a search on the D800 and the 645D on 500px. I like low light landscape photos. A few of the D800 photos have great details and dynamic range that seem to be matched by the 645D. What I see is smooth and subtle color transitions in various parts of some of the photos. The 645D came close with one of the photos.