[jatrax]

I added a K-1, rather than replacing it. If you are going to only have one camera then you should seriously consider the pros and cons of APS-C versus FF. One format is not better than the other they both have their place. That said the K-1 is a newer, better camera than the K-3II in almost every way. But it is bigger, heavier and slower than the K-3II. And needs different lenses to make full use of it.

I'm keeping both the K-3II and K-1. The K-1 is my primary and I have sold off all my APS-C lenses except the DA 16-85 which lives on the K-3II.

[david94903]

My main complaint about the K-1 is a lack of wide fast primes, but hopefully that gets fixed eventually.

I concur with this, lack a modern Pentax UWA lens is an issue. My "work around" has been to purchase a M20mm F4 lens. And truthfully, it's a great little lens. Its IQ from a RAW file straight out of the camera is almost as good as the IQ of my D-FA24-70 at 24mm. Not quite as good but pretty dang close. I have to really pixel peep to see the differences. If on a scale of 1 to 10, the 24-70mm was a 10, the 20mm would be a solid 9. Now compared to an FA Limited.... well, those start a 11 on that 1 to 10 scale, so the comparison wouldn't be fair.

[Sandy Hancock]

I have had the K-1 since May 2016, and love it so much I rarely use my crop gear. I have basically given my K-3 away to my brother, with permission to borrow any of my APS-C lenses. If I really want light and compact I have a KP or, taking it to the extreme, my Q7.

Sure, the body is a little bigger than the K-3, but I have carried the K-1 with DFA15-30 and several smaller lenses all around the UK and Ireland for three weeks without needing to book into a chiropractor. The ergonomics are much better too. Image quality is better across the board, especially as the ISO climbs.

Full frame lenses aren't necessarily huge either. Yes, the DFA15-30, DFA24-70 and DFA*70-700 are behemoths, but the FA limiteds are tiny and perform superbly. The same can be said for most of the legacy glass - I have the FA20, F28 and A50/1.2 and none of them could be called big. Even my FA*24 and FA*85 are pretty small for what they offer. Of the modern lenses, the DFA28-105 and DFA100WR are remarkably compact.

In short, if you can afford it, do it! But as clackers and jatrax said, there is still a place in my heart (and bag) for a crop body.

[monochrome]

My experiences are similar to most of the previous posters. I sold my K-3 when I got the K-1. I’ll never go back to APSc. The ergonomics are perfect. Of course I specifically shoot old FF film lenses. With the K-1’s VF I can actually OVF manually focus using K-1. I do have the FA Limiteds, the 24-70 and 70-200. The 24-70 is comfortable hand held; I often use an old monopod with the 70-200. The best thing I’ve discovered is the Peak Design Sling neckstrap. I can carry cross-body for hours using that, and detach it if I have a Domke with me.

I have a KP and 20-40 for travel (I usually take the SMC DA15 and HD DA70 as well) and still have a K-01 and K-S1 for truly light hiking with the DA40XS.

None of this discusses the better image quality (for what I do) versus K-3, which is well covered above.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-18-2018 at 06:07 PM.

[neokind]

The FA Limiteds are in NO WAY handicapped on the K-1. Not by a mile. You're really missing out if you think that way.

The downside as far as primes go is they don't have anything wide. There are some 3rd party ultra wides but not a lot from Pentax.

Not visually. But they lack quick shift focus. That gives us 31, 43, 77, and 100 MACRO. Plus an impending 50 that is HUGE (not a problem, necessarily, but lacking the size of the limiteds.) No 15 or 24? And the original FAs could be refreshed. The point is that they have a very full line of crop sensor lenses, but it will take time to get there for ff. I’m thinking about waiting until there’s a broader collection of modern lenses before going full frame.

[dafbp]

For those that still find a use for an APS alongside FF, any of those for performance reasons?
And did you find a difference in AFC, using modern lenses?
I can live with K1 fps, but I'm worried about buffer depth and card write time.

[ffking]

Yuh - if I had to chose, it would definitely be the K-1 - an ongoing joy to use.

The higher pixel density, greater frame rate and greater effective magnification of the lenses makes the K-3 a better choice for most wildlife situations - in particular macro - and I do a lot of insect macro.

However, I don't use the K-3 for much else now, despite it being lighter, because I never want to wish I'd taken the shot on the K-1 - nine times out of ten (at least) I'd rather carry the extra weight and get the better image, just in case t's an unrepeatable one.

Finally, the value of K-3 to me is still much greater than its monetary trade in value so, from a starting point of already owning a K-3, having both K-1 and K-3 is optimal, but if I was starting from scratch (only knowing what I do now), it would have to be the K-1

[Sandy Hancock]

For those that still find a use for an APS alongside FF, any of those for performance reasons?

Yes.
There are no full frame lenses which match the DA15 and DA21 for flare resistance and starbursts. They are the reason I still keep a crop camera.
There are no medium telephotos (>100mm full frame equivalent) which match the DA70 for compactness.
For longer lenses, a crop body is like a 1.5x teleconverter without losing a stop of light.

I can live with K1 fps, but I'm worried about buffer depth and card write time.

Even for event shooting, my spray and pray days are over, so buffer depth is less of an issue than I once thought it was.

[Oakland Rob]

These are very helpful answers. I note quite a few folks have a second body; so do I. I've always liked having complementary equipment; I've overlapped from bare P&S to bridge, and then to superzoom, and then to M43, and then APS-C, always keeping the last body. I'm thinking I'll keep my M43; not only is it lighter and smaller, but can use many of my K mount (or M42) lenses very effectively. Probably sell the K-3ii instead, and some of the APS-C lenses. Seems that there's enough there to warrant an upgrade. Not needed, to be sure, but seems like a good time to get some money out of the stuff I sell.

One nice thing about a lack of new Pentax FF lenses is that I'm not tempted to buy any . I have a lot of old lenses and the more I use them the older and funkier I want them, so I'm not real worried about glass...just more of my USD going to Ukraine I guess.

I seem to recall there being a thread or something somewhere about people's experience using Pentax and third party non-FF lenses on the K-1, but I couldn't find it. Do people get much use out of the crop mode on the K-1 with such lenses? or just shoot FF and deal with the vignette or lack of edge sharpness (maybe a feature, not a bug?)?

[clickclick]

For those that still find a use for an APS alongside FF, any of those for performance reasons?
And did you find a difference in AFC, using modern lenses?
I can live with K1 fps, but I'm worried about buffer depth and card write time.

I like to chase small birds. So, FPS and buffer and the crop factor all make my K3II the go to camera for the little creatures. Put the 55-300 PLM on it, and I can even do some AF C tracking with the family dog playing and keep up pretty well. I find the K-1 is used for most of what I do, but when it comes to telephoto work, I go for the K3II. And I have the DFA150-450, and still prefer it on the K3II for birding. The one time this changes is when I start loosing light. The low light performance of the K-1 is a game changer. I plan on upgrading my K1 to the II version. I will also replace my K3II with whatever the next generation is when it finally appears. I see a place for both formats in the bag. I often throw the K3II body in the bag with the K-1 as my "teleconverter". Why throw another piece of glass in the mix with associated image degradation? Just put on the "crop" body.

[Oakland Rob]

I like to chase small birds. So, FPS and buffer and the crop factor all make my K3II the go to camera for the little creatures. Put the 55-300 PLM on it, and I can even do some AF C tracking with the family dog playing and keep up pretty well. I find the K-1 is used for most of what I do, but when it comes to telephoto work, I go for the K3II. And I have the DFA150-450, and still prefer it on the K3II for birding. The one time this changes is when I start loosing light. The low light performance of the K-1 is a game changer. I plan on upgrading my K1 to the II version. I will also replace my K3II with whatever the next generation is when it finally appears. I see a place for both formats in the bag. I often throw the K3II body in the bag with the K-1 as my "teleconverter". Why throw another piece of glass in the mix with associated image degradation? Just put on the "crop" body.

Do you find that K-3ii solution works better than just cropping the FF image on the K-1? I would have thought that perhaps with the extra abilities re exposure it might be preferable, but I'm wondering about how that works out in practice.

[jatrax]

For those that still find a use for an APS alongside FF, any of those for performance reasons? And did you find a difference in AFC, using modern lenses? I can live with K1 fps, but I'm worried about buffer depth and card write time.

Not me. K-1 frame rate is more than enough for anything I shoot.
I keep the K-3II because:
1) It is lighter and sometimes that is important enough
2) It fits in my briefcase for work so I can take it along most of the time without noticing
3) When I go out on a road trip I take both bodies, 24-70 on the K-1 and DA*60-250 on the K-3II
4) The current price of the K-3II is less than it's value to me
5) I need a backup body

[clickclick]

Do you find that K-3ii solution works better than just cropping the FF image on the K-1? I would have thought that perhaps with the extra abilities re exposure it might be preferable, but I'm wondering about how that works out in practice.

Yes, the K3II works better than cropping on the K-1. Did people's heads just explode? it's the truth. You're looking at about 16MP on the K-1 crop area versus 24MP for the K3II. One condition though. The light needs to be good. Let's say ISO 800 is the top that this works for before you do start to get noise that might negate the pixel density, but bottom line is if I have the light to keep the ISO down and shutter speed up, the K3II gives me more. Think shooting a hummingbird 10 feet away. You need every bit you can get, and on a subject like that, I prefer the pixel density of the K3II, and after doing a bunch of side by side comparisons at 10 feet and then distant objects like detail on a pier half a mile away or more - other side of the river I'm looking out my windows at - I find the K3II does better on telephoto detail.

Now, if I can fill my frame on the K-1, there's no comparison. The dynamic range, the low noise, the color, the K-1 is fantastic. And also throw in how are you looking at the pictures? I have the Canon Pixma Pro 100 printer, so I do print out at 13x19. If I can fill the frame, I don't have to multiply that enlargement as many times for full frame versus crop, so the K-1 has a lot to offer over APS-C, but it's not a 100% fits all uses answer. Different tools for different jobs.

And I can think of another thread in the past few weeks where a couple regular members had quite a go at full frame versus crop for wildlife photography. There are folks who steadfastly go one way or the other. It's like UV filters. You can ignite a passionate debate on this.

---------- Post added 02-26-18 at 03:19 PM ----------

2) It fits in my briefcase for work so I can take it along most of the time without noticing

I have to confess I bought an a6000 for that purpose....

[builttospill]

I've used the K-3 and K-3ii several times, but never bought one. They are great cameras, but I still use my K10D for certain subjects and situations. Here's a detailed review/comparison between the K-1 and K10D: Ks, 1s, and 0s - My Journey from the K1000 to the K10D to the K-1 (Lots of Photos) - PentaxForums.com

[savoche]

I have kept my K-3 alongside the K-1. I thought I would use the K-3 when travellng, expecially for wildlife, but I haven't. I guess the main two things for me is the bigger viewfinder and the better high-ISO performance. In fact, I'm happily trading higher resolution for less noise when it comes to wildlife shooting. Light is most often less than ideal and requires raising the ISO.

The articulating screen is something I use a lot more than I thought I would. The third control wheel is nice, too. (The KP will give you that, too, though.)

As for lenses, I have acquired only two new (or "new") lenses with the K-1, and that's the DFA28-105 and A20/2.8, so I can't say much about the size and weight of the f/2.8 zooms - they don't interest me (because of the weight and size).

However, while I found the FA31 to OK on APS-C I find it absolutely wonderful on the K-1. Now it makes perfect sense and is rarely left at home. My other fequently used lenses are the A20, FA43 and DA70. They have taken up so much of my shooting time that I still (after just over half a year) haven't tried all my lenses on the K-1. For travelling I use the 28-105 and the trusty old SMC DA 55-300 (which is surprisingly usable even on FF).

I rarely, if ever, use AF.c, and I live quite well with 4.4 fps and the buffer depth even for wildlife. And after having visited some 40 national parks and wildlife reserves around Africa I still haven't seen a cheetah chase so not even a 600/4 on a D5 would have made any difference in that regard

Were I serious about shooting birds, though, I would prefer the K-3 - and a long and fast lens to keep the ISO down!