[Kingman]

I have a K-1 Mk II, K-1, and K-3. The weight difference between the K-1 and the K-3 is 6+ oz. While this doesn't seem like a lot, when using all my full frame D FA lenses, every oz weighs on my tiring arthritic hands and body. My original kit with the K-1 was with the DFA 24-70/2.8. The second K-1 came with the newer DFA 28-105/3.5-5.6. I now prefer using the lighter weight glass or primes when all else possible. I love the FA77/1.8 Limited on either the full frame or cropped bodies. The DFA15-30/2.8 and the DFA70-200/2.8 are beasts to use all day. While switching to primes solves some of the weight issues, it certainly does not solve the slower focusing speeds of the K-1 versus the newer reported faster focusing speeds of the K-3 Mark III for birds in flight. For my low light, astro, landscape and architectural work, the K-1's are awesome. I still pack the K-3 as a back up body for my shoots, but perhaps I need to retire the older K-3 for a newer and faster focusing K3 Mark III. I have been looking at the Sony A7rIV for faster focusing in general, but the K-3 Mark III might save me some costs, but I also do like the issue of more pixels with the Sony. Perhaps the unannounced K-1 Mark III will incorporate the advances featured in the K-3 Mark III, but that will be literally years off. An upcoming African photo safari shoot in 18 months will need a faster focusing body for sure. I am pretty sure, as a diehard, going completely mirrorless is not in the cards for me. The more accurate viewfinder tracking with a DSLR is very important to me. An interesting shoot out for birds in flight would be the K-3 Mark III with the D FA150-450 versus the Sony A7rIV with the FE200-600. I’d rent these combos to see which set up performs best. Then there’s that new upcoming Monster adapter KA-KE1 that allows autofocus of Pentax lenses mounted on Sony MILC bodies.

[UncleVanya]

My K-1 II is not that much bigger/heavier than my K-3 II, seriously -- and this is one of the big, unexpected surprises learned during my first day with my K-1 II -- so I don't think size and weight is going to be much of an issue for me as to which camera I take out on a hike or on a tourist walk through a town (i.e., K-3 II vs. K-1 II).

That is an interesting viewpoint. Mine was the opposite after spending a month with the K-1 (not the K-1ii) I found it to be huge. But to be fair I was also comparing it with the 24-70 f2.8 vs. something like the K-3 with the 16-50 f2.8 - the difference was stark. Keeping the same lenses on both I could see your point but still feel like that's a weird way to view things since the two cameras don't give the same FOV with the same lenses. So while I may be content with the K-3 and a 55-300, the same FOV needs a 70-400 on the K-1 and so on. This doesn't mean you are not right, but I'm struggling to see it. I already have trouble deciding to take the Sony out with me over the KP due to size - the bodies are almost the same weight and the size difference isn't that large at all - but the lenses are much larger for the Sony - at least when trying to accomplish the same basic shots from the same places.

[Kingman]

That is an interesting viewpoint. Mine was the opposite after spending a month with the K-1 (not the K-1ii) I found it to be huge. But to be fair I was also comparing it with the 24-70 f2.8 vs. something like the K-3 with the 16-50 f2.8 - the difference was stark. Keeping the same lenses on both I could see your point but still feel like that's a weird way to view things since the two cameras don't give the same FOV with the same lenses. So while I may be content with the K-3 and a 55-300, the same FOV needs a 70-400 on the K-1 and so on. This doesn't mean you are not right, but I'm struggling to see it. I already have trouble deciding to take the Sony out with me over the KP due to size - the bodies are almost the same weight and the size difference isn't that large at all - but the lenses are much larger for the Sony - at least when trying to accomplish the same basic shots from the same places.

I just calculated that the K-Mark III and the D FA150-450/2.8 and the Sony A7rIV with the FE200-600 are approximately the same weight. The Sony A7rIV has 61 MP (full frame) and the K-3 Mark III has 26 MP (cropped sensor). The Sony kit costs $1500 more (here in the US). The issue is which kit will have the higher percentage of in focus images in birds in flight and action wildlife photography. Pixel count don't really matter, however image quality, and high focus accuracy does count. OK, I know the Sony has a higher FPS and that may or may not matter, but the DSLR has the optical viewfinder for possibly more accurate image tracking within the viewfinder. I'd like to this kind of shoot out.

[UncleVanya]

I just calculated that the K-Mark III and the D FA150-450/2.8 and the Sony A7rIV with the FE200-600 are approximately the same weight. The Sony A7rIV has 61 MP (full frame) and the K-3 Mark III has 26 MP (cropped sensor). The Sony kit costs $1500 more (here in the US). The issue is which kit will have the higher percentage of in focus images in birds in flight and action wildlife photography. Pixel count don't really matter, however image quality, and high focus accuracy does count. OK, I know the Sony has a higher FPS and that may or may not matter, but the DSLR has the optical viewfinder for possibly more accurate image tracking within the viewfinder. I'd like to this kind of shoot out.

I’d say it’s a strange lineup. The A6600 is more appropriate as a comparison. Also the Sony 100-400 or the Tamron 150-500 perhaps? I’d say that the “worlds fastest focus” a6600 (Sony claims) 0.02 sec would be hard to beat in the raw numbers of focused shots and tracking. But as to which would give the best shot - anyone’s guess if both are used by equally talented wildlife photographers.

[Kingman]

I’d say it’s a strange lineup. The A6600 is more appropriate as a comparison. Also the Sony 100-400 or the Tamron 150-500 perhaps? I’d say that the “worlds fastest focus” a6600 (Sony claims) 0.02 sec would be hard to beat in the raw numbers of focused shots and tracking. But as to which would give the best shot - anyone’s guess if both are used by equally talented wildlife photographers.

I guess I am justifying for a A7rIV. I am more than willing to support two camera systems, especially when some if not all my Pentax D FA , FA., A, and Takumar glass can be use on Sony MILC bodies when the Monster Adapter KA-KE1 Magic Ring Pentax K Lens to Sony E-Mount Camera Adapter comes out.

[biz-engineer]

That is an interesting viewpoint. Mine was the opposite after spending a month with the K-1 (not the K-1ii) I found it to be huge.

Interesting point. Lens and accessory make a difference (L bracket, flash). I bought a D-FA 70-210 f4 (~800gr), and the difference is so significant with the DFA 70-200 2.8 (1800gr) that I'm not using the DFA 70-200 anymore. Following that experience, I checked out how I feel with the DFA24-70 2.8 and 28-105 and 15-30 compared. I also compared the K1 with and without L bracket (+200gr). Basically, I came to the conclusion that for me the threshold for walking kit is around 750-850gr for the camera and 750-850gr for lenses. At 1kg and above (2kg kit) it's uncomfortable to hand hold for long time without fatigue. At >2kg a lens+camera (such as 70-200 or 150-450), it's special use cases, e.g use with monopod / tripod / gimbal setup. Now, if I mount the DA40XS or HD FA 35 on my K1, remove the L bracket, it's small again and not really heavy, I can easily fit two K1+HD35 kits in the same bag. The lens is a big contributor. Oddly, I feel that the K1 body only is light weight , almost feel cheap without the grip (for me), but once I add the L bracket it doesn't feel light anymore (~1kg) and a 15-30 f2.8 zoom lens to it and now it's heavy to carry around.

[UncleVanya]

Interesting point. Lens and accessory make a difference (L bracket, flash). I bought a D-FA 70-210 f4 (~800gr), and the difference is so significant with the DFA 70-200 2.8 (1800gr) that I'm not using the DFA 70-200 anymore. Following that experience, I checked out how I feel with the DFA24-70 2.8 and 28-105 and 15-30 compared. I also compared the K1 with and without L bracket (+200gr). Basically, I came to the conclusion that for me the threshold for walking kit is around 750-850gr for the camera and 750-850gr for lenses. At 1kg and above (2kg kit) it's uncomfortable to hand hold for long time without fatigue. At >2kg a lens+camera (such as 70-200 or 150-450), it's special use cases, e.g use with monopod / tripod / gimbal setup. Now, if I mount the DA40XS or HD FA 35 on my K1, remove the L bracket, it's small again and not really heavy, I can easily fit two K1+HD35 kits in the same bag. The lens is a big contributor. Oddly, I feel that the K1 body only is light weight , almost feel cheap without the grip (for me), but once I add the L bracket it doesn't feel light anymore (~1kg) and a 15-30 f2.8 zoom lens to it and now it's heavy to carry around.

That’s certainly a good analysis. I feel similarly about my k-3 and KP. I like these better without lugging the 60-250 along. My Sony a7riii is another example where I prefer not taking the 24-105 most of the time unless I have specific goals. In the Sony case I defer to my KP or RX100IV depending on the planned activities.

Your points about using the k1 make sense. I should determine what lens/body weight I’m happy with using existing gear - I am certainly strong enough to carry more than I do but I might be spoiled by choices. Lol.

[DonV]

Weight and ergonomics - really are personal- we all have our likes/dislikes/opinions !

[mikesbike]

I already have trouble deciding to take the Sony out with me over the KP due to size - the bodies are almost the same weight and the size difference isn't that large at all - but the lenses are much larger for the Sony - at least when trying to accomplish the same basic shots from the same places.

Yep, and you have a better system of controls and a very fine OVF. The KP is definitely THE APS-C DSLR alternative to high-end APS-C mirrorless and much more. There's another interesting thread about the "reach" afforded by APS-C being real also. For me, my K-1 II presents an advantage with shorter lenses, while 24 or 26mp APS-C with the same framing would not be quite up to the 36mp of the K-1 II. The APS-C is definitely more advantageous for lighter carrying with the 24 or 26mp still yielding plenty of resolution, as well as in the tele range.

[UncleVanya]

Yep, and you have a better system of controls and a very fine OVF.

Fine OVF but not K3iii fine. Lol. Also the controls on the Sony are really good but my familiarity with Pentax may influence my view of the relative merits of the controls. The third wheel on the KP is very helpful but so is the dedicated Exposure Compensation dial on the Sony. I personally like both in the functionality category.

Like another person mentioned. When I shoot wide the pixels on the full frame are more relevant but as normhead has said if the output is a reasonable size the extra pixels may be wasted. Telephoto use favors the 24mp KP but again practical use says it’s become less relevant which I use as both are exceeding my needs much of the time.

[mikesbike]

I couldn't resist. Now I have 6 Pentax cameras. Is there a word for this condition?

Nothing wrong with this- it is a truly great camera at a great price. And spot on since you already have some good FF lenses, so you can explore the advantages of digital FF. This fine camera with a top-quality Pentax APS-C outfit make a great team.

I have a number of old Pentax DSLR bodies I should sell as they just sit taking up space. I am just reluctant to bother taking the time to sell. I mainly am now using my KP and K-1 II. But I still sometimes use my little K-S2 which I bought for light-carrying casual use but very capable if an opportunity for more serious use comes up. I still use my K-5 IIs when I want its great set of on-body controls and features, and even power-zoom availability. I still like my old K20D for its colorful rendering in Fall scenes, etc. and very good for indoor flash also. The rest of my old DSLR bodies could go. I still have my once often-used film SLR bodies, which are rarely used- 2 MZ-S one black, one silver/black, 2 PZ-1P a great full-featured design and much like a modern DSLR, the very compact ZX-L that like the PZ-1P can take old M lenses as well as those with no aperture ring, without any adjustment just attach and fire away, and the classic designed ZX 5n, and the MF Super Program.

[UncleVanya]

I am donating two of my older film cameras to a school photography club. This will lower my body count slightly.

[mikesbike]

Fine OVF but not K3iii fine. Lol. Also the controls on the Sony are really good but my familiarity with Pentax may influence my view of the relative merits of the controls. The third wheel on the KP is very helpful but so is the dedicated Exposure Compensation dial on the Sony. I personally like both in the functionality category.

Indeed, the K-3 III OVF is extra-fine. I have no experience with the Sony. But I know the exclusive Pentax Hyper System for one thing is important for me. Taking instant control when in "P" mode, and then for extra fast and efficient metering in "M" mode using the green button, spot metering in particular, is very special. I definitely concur regarding the added top knobs of the KP and K-1. Very clever and useful designing.

[Abbazz]

I just calculated that the K-Mark III and the D FA150-450/2.8 and the Sony A7rIV with the FE200-600 are approximately the same weight. The Sony A7rIV has 61 MP (full frame) and the K-3 Mark III has 26 MP (cropped sensor). The Sony kit costs $1500 more (here in the US). The issue is which kit will have the higher percentage of in focus images in birds in flight and action wildlife photography. Pixel count don't really matter, however image quality, and high focus accuracy does count. OK, I know the Sony has a higher FPS and that may or may not matter, but the DSLR has the optical viewfinder for possibly more accurate image tracking within the viewfinder. I'd like to this kind of shoot out.

For birds in flight pictures and wildlife photography, I'd rather use my Olympus OM-D E-M1 ii camera with a 100-400 lens. The number of keepers will be much higher than with either the Pentax K3-III or Sony A7rIV cameras and the combo is easily handholdable and transportable in a small bag. The importance of having the right tools for the job...

Cheers!

Abbazz

[UncleVanya]

For birds in flight pictures and wildlife photography, I'd rather use my Olympus OM-D E-M1 ii camera with a 100-400 lens. The number of keepers will be much higher than with either the Pentax K3-III or Sony A7rIV cameras and the combo is easily handholdable and transportable in a small bag. The importance of having the right tools for the job...

Cheers!

Abbazz

Smaller yes… not sure about more keepers. A lot depends on what you are paired up against. Admittedly the a7rIV isn’t the weapon of choice for action in Sony Full Frame, but with the 200-600 and a 1.4x adapter it might be close for a short burst. The A-1 would be another matter. The k3iii? I don’t know as I haven’t looked deeply into it but a lot of this is quibbling. The k3iii will crush the high iso performance of the em1-II so depending on lighting the contest could flip. I’d expect the em1-II to have a good buffer and be pretty fast focusing except in poor light where I’m not sure which camera would rule.