In reading a lot of the full frame threads over the years here, and taking a position that a full frame was probably not in my foreseeable future, the announcement of the K1 has me thinking - yet again.
- Need / Want / Value - A lot of folks have been waiting for so long to get back to the full frame format, the decision was easy. For me, I certainly would like one - but there is no real specific need. The larger question is the value. What is the value - or what is it worth to me to move up to the big leagues?
The post -
10 Things that Make the Pentax K-1 Unique, clarified a number of things - but also clouded things for me. So, let me walk through this for myself and try to figure out what I should do.
Last year, I finally got off the mark and opted for a set of cropped lenses - the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for astro and the DA 60-250/f4 with the 1.4 TC for everything telephoto. I mainly shoot landscapes, cityscapes, astro - mainly stuff that does not move. So, along with the K1 body, I should consider the DFA 15-30/f2.8. My widest FF lenses are 20, 25, 28 and 31. So, this bounds my cost at around $1800 for the body and $1500 for the lens - totaling $3300. I'll punt on the question - if my skills are sufficient enough to warrant the costs, for now.
- Lens - Well the 15-30/2.8 has been pretty well reviewed to compare with the Nikon 14-24/f2.8. In the portrait orientation, I would get an additional 30 degrees in field of view (over the Sigma 18-35), which would really help in the astro - however at the expense of a bit of sharpness (each pixel would just have more area to represent - but there would be double the pixels). So this would be some what of an advantage to bump up.
- Lens Speed / Aperture - The K1 would add about a stop in light collecting - with everything else being equal (ISO 1600). This would augment the lens - the 15-30/2.8 and essentially bump its apparent performance to about f2, which is a third of a stop slower than my current K5IIs & Sigma 18-35/1.8 combination for astro. Essentially, this would be a push - all things being equal. I would not gain a lot, nor really loose anything.
- K1 Body Features - Integrated GPS is there. The tilting monitor would help a lot for night stuff, along with the LCDs (red would be better, though). Monitor brightness would be a plus. Tethering might help. The 5 axis SR should help a lot by removing the star trailing on the extreme edges of the frame with my K5IIs, so I could go back up to 2 and possibly 3 minutes for the Milky Way shots. At a minimum it would be a push, but more in the way of a nice reasonably large bump up - which would be nice.
So, that brings me back to the question of money and skill. Is my skill worth the $3K cost at this time? I don't know. The more I shoot the better I get. With retirement looming later this year, I'll have more time and opportunity to work on this.
But, this is needs to be asked in the context of my original plans which was to wait and look at the K3 replacement. For the sake of argument, I need to assume (at least for now) that the K3 replacement will essentially be the K1 with a cropped sensor - all the creature features pulled forward - with an estimated announcement date of later this year and availability early 2017 - just a wild a$$ guess. The price would be capped by the K1, so - no K1 discount in the foreseeable future - so I would figure on $1300 which was about the same price as the K3.
The safe approach would be to wait for the K3 replacement and see what it offers and costs - which was my original plan. The other aspect to all of this is support utilities.
- L Bracket - which lives welded to the body I use. Is one going to be available for the K1 and / or K3 replacement? Usually RRS comes through on this, but no announcement yet.
- Pano head - will the K1 be too large / heavy for it. It should be right on the margin.
I guess kicking the can down the road would be the safest decision and just wait and see how things turn out.... Also, watching the early adopters, and see the amount of drool their threads create.