[morepower]

I'm a decades-old Pentax film user and considering the purchase of a K-1 to continue the tradition, so to speak. I know this is a loaded question but here goes. Many capable FF mirrorless cameras are available that, arguably, put the K-1 behind in terms of compactness and performance. For example, a used Sony AR7III runs about the same $$ as a K-1 ($1,500 body only) and boasts higher resolution, is about half the weight and has a wider selection of lenses. Since I'm starting fresh what do you kind folks objectively advise?

[Pentax Syntax]

All of my lenses for film SLR work beautifully on the K-1. Much depends on the number of Pentax lenses you have and whether you can adapt to the mirrorless “experience “. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

[HoundFrog]

Do you have Pentax glass, or are you planning to? If yes, K-1 is justified. Do you like OVF? if yes, K-1 is justified. Also, a used Sony should be compared to used Pentax, I think.

Really, glass is the only thing that matters. Sony users enjoy a great choice of 3-rd party optics, something that we don't have. Weight is not that different..(UPD I take that back, it's 660 grams vs 1010) resolution may be important to some and totally irrelevant for others.

You are a Pentax film user. Why do you say you are starting fresh? You must have some lenses.

[Bob 256]

As above. Personally, I wouldn't buy a high priced camera without an optical viewfinder since I need glasses to see the LCD panel, and in bright light they can sometimes be washed out. Electronic VFs are ok, but I like to see the actual image at times, something only an OVF can offer. The added resolution sound's a lot higher but double the pixels is only about 1.5 times the actual resolution, and your lenses will be the actual determining factor in most cases. The performance of the electronics is prime in consideration so I'll leave that to those with Sony experience. I'm very happy with my K-1 and as mentioned, I can use it with all my Pentax lenses including some 6x7 ones I have (with adapters). The K-1 has GPS which I use a lot to automatically label my shots with location information. You might start by writing down the features you really like and then compare your list to both cameras. Anything you have questions on, check back here.

[aaacb]

Using your film lenses with adapters to mirror less negates some of the size advantage, since the slr registration distance needs to be met. As long as your lenses have an aperture ring you'll not lose much else.
But with manual lenses a lot of that performance is also lost, although there are cases for high frame rate with locked focus, tracking is where they excel. Or perhaps you want higher quality video.

For me though, it's the experience of manual lenses and optical viewfinder that makes it come together. Maybe it's less important to others. I have a m43 camera and i enjoy using it, but only with m43 lenses.

[HoundFrog]

The only thing that I'd really like to improve in K-1 is it's fps. 4.4 f/s is not always enough to capture a perfect motion phase of a human or a bird. Would Sony's 10 fps satisfy me, I don't know.

I use LV mostly, by the way. The only moment I need to go to OVF is when I adjust the polarisation filter - via purely optical path it is much more obvious what goes on.

[morepower]

Fabulous input, thank you. Indeed, I have four SMC Takumar 42mm lenses to throw into the mix. While the Pentax K mount adapter does a nice job, adapters for other systems are also available including Sony E mount.

[btnapa]

Since I'm starting fresh what do you kind folks objectively advise?

A few questions. It would be helpful to know.

1. What kind of photography do you do?
2. Do you shoot outdoors a lot?
3. Do you shoot action such as sports, wildlife, etc.?
4. Is video important?
5. What is your total budget, body plus lens(es)?

I am a long time Pentaxian too. I started with Pentax MX back in the film days. I did own the K1 and sold it but kept most of my Pentax lenses. In 2013, I got back into Pentax digital with a K5IIs and upgraded to K3 and finally the K1. Coincidentally, I am shooting with a Sony A7RIV and love the mega resolution. But as a photographic tool, ergonomics and ruggedness, K1 is in a different class. If you end up with Sony after all, get a used A7IV. It is light years ahead of the A7RIII. In addition, I opted for Tamron lenses for my Sony with no regrets.

[jimmm18]

I would recommend you rent one of each and see which one you like. The ergonomics of the K1 is one of the reasons I have it. The other is the image quality. There is something I can't explain nor justify about it.

[leekil]

There's this recent article about why this guy really prefers a K-1

A look at the Pentax K-1: Why I’m not over DSLRs for photography – EOSHD.com – Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews

[mikesbike]

I'm a decades-old Pentax film user and considering the purchase of a K-1 to continue the tradition, so to speak. I know this is a loaded question but here goes. Many capable FF mirrorless cameras are available that, arguably, put the K-1 behind in terms of compactness and performance. For example, a used Sony AR7III runs about the same $$ as a K-1 ($1,500 body only) and boasts higher resolution, is about half the weight and has a wider selection of lenses. Since I'm starting fresh what do you kind folks objectively advise?

Welcome to the forum! Your post is interesting from many viewpoints. I too began in ye olden days of film, and I also mean olden. So it is interesting to hear from someone who is just now considering making such a sizable leap into the digital photography world! And by sizable, I mean really- like still using MF lenses, and no doubt MF 35mm film cameras too. So much has transpired in the interim.

As to mirrorless vs DSLR, there is much to consider in addition to weight and size. One main factor is of course the type of VF. Some have tried switching to mirrorless, only to return to DSLR use because of eye-strain caused by looking at an electronic screen depicting the reality in front of them, instead of looking through the lens at reality itself. But not everyone is so affected, at least not consciously so.

As to the weight, one must include the weight of lenses one might be interested in using. Then there is the issue of build quality. Then there is the issue of controls, handling, and features the design might afford the user that are very useful.

So, since you are coming from such a long-ago point in technology, and just now ready to jump way ahead into digital, where you'd be best off to start, with so many options available to you- to bring some enlightenment for you will certainly require knowing a bit about your photographic interests, and potential interests. Again, coming from where you are comng from, I believe you will eventually have some amazement to experience.

As to myself, I have very broad interests. Sometimes I am very interested in subject matter requiring wide angle lenses, sometimes requiring telephoto, and sometimes moderate mid-range use. Sometimes I need a lens having a wide aperture, but sometimes this is unnecessary so I can travel lighter, or use some smaller prime lenses. Sometimes it is scenics in good lighting, and sometimes I shoot low light scenes. Sometimes I need a longer FL to isolate subjects out of a scene. Sometimes I shoot action, with flash and also without.

So, what are your interests likely to be? Depending, it might not even be best for you to stick with a FF camera.

Your giving a price of $1500 for a camera of consideration tells me you might be in the US. If so, and compared to that FF camera of interest, you could get quite a deal for a new Pentax current model, the K-1 II, for not much more than that used mirrorless. It would actually be a lot more camera in many ways.

If your interests include a significant portion of telephoto use, you might consider going for a Pentax APS-C model instead. If wanting very high-level build quality and many, many useful features along with great performance, a low-use KP could be the camera love of your life. It has been known as a mirrorless killer on behalf of DSLR use, especially for high-end APS-C. Again, depends. There is a major difference as to the FOV (field-of-view) between APS-C and FF, which would make a major difference as to how things will look through the same lens. APS-C is more practical for size and weight considerations, especially when it comes to telephoto. As to going for fast (larger-aperture) wide angle prime lenses, advantage is for FF. APS-C is considered being best for all-around usage, and with smaller, lighter bodies and lenses.

[Jonathan Mac]

I'm a decades-old Pentax film user and considering the purchase of a K-1 to continue the tradition, so to speak. I know this is a loaded question but here goes. Many capable FF mirrorless cameras are available that, arguably, put the K-1 behind in terms of compactness and performance. For example, a used Sony AR7III runs about the same $$ as a K-1 ($1,500 body only) and boasts higher resolution, is about half the weight and has a wider selection of lenses. Since I'm starting fresh what do you kind folks objectively advise?

Really I could only recommend a DSLR to someone if:

1. They really need an optical viewfinder for some reason (if electronic ones cause headaches or you'll be looking through it for extended times and need to avoid battery drain)
2. The extra size and weight when compared to a mirrorless camera doesn't bother you
3. You already have a lot of compatible lenses that you want to keep and don't want to use an adapter (bearing in mind that there is an AF adapter for certain Pentax lenses to work on Sony mirrorless cameras)

For everything else a mirrorless camera is a better choice due to smaller size, lower weight, far better AF and a far better experience with old manual lenses.

[Kevin B123]

There are some other things to consider in the digital realm.
Your old glass will be designed with minimal distortion because it could not be corrected after the event on film, so they should be good in that regard on any digital body.

Digital glass is quite different, and some lens suffer huge distortion, which is corrected in camera or in the post processing software to bring it back to an acceptable image.

If you were shooting poor digital third party glass on any camera body, DSLR or mirror-less and wanting to use just a JPEG straight out of camera you will be out of luck because the camera will not have any profiles for it. This can be fixed by shooting RAW files, and correcting in post (another rabbit hole right there).

The digital lenses can be quite expensive as I’m sure you realise, so in considering which way to go you should IMO only consider what lens you want, and get the native body for that and be done with it. If you can adapt your current glass that is a bonus, not the main consideration because you will eventually want some first party glass anyway so start there. The cost of a good quality digital lens will likely dwarf the value of all your current glass too.
Consider also the timespan of your hobby. If you break the bank and get one good lens that satisfies you for several years to come and then amortise that cost per year the expensive lens that you couldn’t afford has then saved you from buying other lenses that you will / might need to cover your original need, if that makes sense.

IMO the advantage (and reason for the cost) of Sony bodies is the autofocus and video specs.
If you are not going to use those with manual glass, what is the point of having a Sony? So that leads again back to native glass.

I also think the camera body weight thing is well over blown. People put their gear in a bag that is heavier that the body and then load it up with other kit. Your heart has to pump the blood for the total weight of the kit, so reduce it elsewhere.

btnapa’s raises some good questions and we can help more if we knew the answers here.

Finally, all digital cameras will offer a range of capabilities that may be redundant for your needs, so its understanding what you do need now and in the future and finding the system that meets those best for the least money.

[HoundFrog]

> point of having a Sony?

Weight and fps. And total costs. A long tele from Tamron or Sigma (native E-mount) is twice lighter than a 150-450, quite cheaper too. In-lens IS is a bonus.

[robgski]

A few questions. It would be helpful to know.

1. What kind of photography do you do?
2. Do you shoot outdoors a lot?
3. Do you shoot action such as sports, wildlife, etc.?
4. Is video important?
5. What is your total budget, body plus lens(es)?

Exactly the right questions to ask.
I'll add that if you were an SLR user and have muscle memory and habits developed from shooting with SLRs, and if you have some good quality lenses from your SLR days and really want to to use them to best advantage in a digital platform, then the K-1 is a great choice.

Also, buy a used K-1 here on PF. 90% of my gear has been purchased here from other PF members, and I have no regrets, only a slightly lighter wallet.