[clickclick]

I would do it. The autofocus is remarkably better. I gave up on birds in flight shooting with the K1; they would fly out of focus by the time it took the exposure. It was frustrating; I would see it in focus in the viewfinder but the shot would be out of focus.

This makes it very enticing and perhaps is the deciding thing for me to upgrade.

[noelpolar]

Welcome, but I must ask how you mean the 150-450 improved on a K-1?

Just focus speed and accuracy in continous shooting.... our needs are a bit different I take it..... as I use the K1 all the time on the DFA 150-450.... not my K3 anymore.

[clickclick]

Just focus speed and accuracy in continous shooting.... our needs are a bit different I take it..... as I use the K1 all the time on the DFA 150-450.... not my K3 anymore.

Yep, and always hesitant to write what I did for just that reason - different needs, but wanted to make sure you were aware of the crop factor comparatively. I still use my K3 II all the time for the little critters.

[noelpolar]

Yep, and always hesitant to write what I did for just that reason - different needs, but wanted to make sure you were aware of the crop factor comparatively. I still use my K3 II all the time for the little critters.

yeh.... I guess I'm pretty happy with th K1..... but do understand the issues that occasionally impact me..... these mostly are the often discussed things such as AFC, buffer and frame rate. I purchased a second K1 last year thinking that that is that for, say, the next 5 years.... maybe I should stick to that...... I've been spending a fair bit recently on my camping stuff.... and feel a bit out of control.

[david94903]

Just focus speed and accuracy in continous shooting.... our needs are a bit different I take it..... as I use the K1 all the time on the DFA 150-450.... not my K3 anymore.

Same here.

[clickclick]

I would do it. The autofocus is remarkably better. I gave up on birds in flight shooting with the K1; they would fly out of focus by the time it took the exposure. It was frustrating; I would see it in focus in the viewfinder but the shot would be out of focus.

Thinking more about your improved AF, how do you feel about the new noise reduction and birds? I don't think the "detail issue" is anywhere near as bad as it might have seemed at first, and I'm on the fence on how much of the perception in detail changes is noise versus real information, but all that aside, what's your take away on it? The question behind my question is have you done birds at higher ISO's, lets say 6400 or above? I felt 3200 is about as far as I want to go on the K-1 before the noise seems detrimental and requiring some work in post. One of the appeals of the upgrade and chasing the little critters is being able to increase that shutter speed, and oddest thing about birds is they hang out in shady trees , which means less light and need more sensitivity. As mentioned, I still use my K3 II for most of my birding, but when the light starts going, I reach for the K-1. The combination of the improved AFC and being able to easily use higher shutter speeds is very appealing.

[derekkite]

Thinking more about your improved AF, how do you feel about the new noise reduction and birds? I don't think the "detail issue" is anywhere near as bad as it might have seemed at first, and I'm on the fence on how much of the perception in detail changes is noise versus real information, but all that aside, what's your take away on it? The question behind my question is have you done birds at higher ISO's, lets say 6400 or above? I felt 3200 is about as far as I want to go on the K-1 before the noise seems detrimental and requiring some work in post. One of the appeals of the upgrade and chasing the little critters is being able to increase that shutter speed, and oddest thing about birds is they hang out in shady trees , which means less light and need more sensitivity. As mentioned, I still use my K3 II for most of my birding, but when the light starts going, I reach for the K-1. The combination of the improved AFC and being able to easily use higher shutter speeds is very appealing.

Here are a bunch of high iso images, no noise reduction applied. I suspect I will see a few situations where the IQ is degraded, just as I've seen moire in feathers the odd time, a handful of shots over thousands. As you say, the low light capabilities open shooting opportunities. Better focus gets more usable shots. In going through the shots I've taken since the upgrade I'm blown away how many very good ones are at iso 3200. The K1 is excellent at that ISO, as is the Mark II. The K3 in some light and color situations gives good results but rarely.

The shots with the sparrow would have been mud with the K3, and I'm not sure with the K1. There were lighting situations like this; dark and deep colors with low light where there was no detail, even at lower isos where usually you get good results. None of these are great shots, but there is lots of detail.

The dog shot is handheld at 1/20 10000 iso with FA100 lens. No detail loss there.









---------- Post added 09-06-18 at 08:28 AM ----------

A couple more. Iso 10000 and iso 12800. No noise reduction in post processing.

[clickclick]

Here are a bunch of high iso images, no noise reduction applied.

These look very good. Thanks for posting them.