[FrumPilot]

Thanks Barry that does demonstrate the ability of the camera. Nice shots! Ultimately i hope to go to the store to get the feel of both camreas and to take some samples as well. i have tried the k-1 against the d810. both have the same sensor and are similar in iso capabilities. The K-1 is a very heavy camera though. that works for and against (You can't have it both ways!). No I don't want the camera for birding of the like, but I do need accurate tracking for dancers.
And after all I'm a Pentaxian at heart!

[Poit]

And after all I'm a Pentaxian at heart!

Just come back to Pentax. You know you want to

[Ginnipe]

I would go down to a store and feel both of the cameras side by side, especially with a lens on them to get a feel for the ergonomics.

When I purchased my K1, the Ergonomics are one of the things that really won me over. It just fits in my hands so nicely. I enjoy just carrying it and holding it, where as my Nikon D300 felt like it was always about to fall out of my hands.

However it is heavy, there is no way around that. The camera body itself is fine on weight, it's just when you throw a lens on it like the 24-70 2.8 or the telephoto's, it can become difficult to use over long periods of time. I've been carrying mine around Athens with me the past week and there are times where I just take off the 24-70 and opt for my 100mm 2.8 just for the weight savings. After 6 hours, it becomes annoying. If you plan to work for long hours, this weight affect is definitely a noticeable one, and may actually sway you over to the D500.

According to the Camera Store TV reviews the D500 is fantastic with low light performance when compared to the D750, practically on par with it. So If the D750 has low light performance that you need, then it will be on the same level. The K-1 is a step or two above both of them though, especially when considering you can shoot at very low shutter speeds and consistently get sharp shots. That can be very key, getting shots that you otherwise couldn't get at all. I'm able to take this camera out at night and have no issue at all shooting under available street light, it just works fantastically in ways the D500 just wouldn't be able to do without stabilization and the benefit of the K-1's clean higher ISO's.

The K-1's focusing is no slouch, it works well, but the D500 will do better. Not only do the focus points fill the frame, but there are more of them and they are more sensitive. If very accurate tracking is the main concern, or if you just need the "free" 50% range boost APSC grants you, then the D500 will be a better option. It will also be lighter overall, which when working for long hours can make a possessive difference.

However if overall performance, IQ, high ISO, and image stabilization are major factors, then the K-1 will suit you very very well. I adore mine, and it really allows me to get shots that I couldn't dream of on the D300 I used prior to this.

Either one you decide to choose will be a workhorse of a camera honestly. They are both absolutely fantastic, and may be some of the best DSLR's ever produced with everyone slowly switching over to Mirrorless systems. Both of them perform superbly, and have their own strengths, but at the end of the day you will be happy with your decision. You just have to really ask yourself which factors are more important.

[Barry Pearson]

When I purchased my K1, the Ergonomics are one of the things that really won me over. It just fits in my hands so nicely. I enjoy just carrying it and holding it, where as my Nikon D300 felt like it was always about to fall out of my hands.

However it is heavy, there is no way around that. The camera body itself is fine on weight, it's just when you throw a lens on it like the 24-70 2.8 or the telephoto's, it can become difficult to use over long periods of time. I've been carrying mine around Athens with me the past week and there are times where I just take off the 24-70 and opt for my 100mm 2.8 just for the weight savings. After 6 hours, it becomes annoying. If you plan to work for long hours, this weight affect is definitely a noticeable one, and may actually sway you over to the D500.

I bought the new D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 with a vague intention of using it as a "carry around" lens. But I've found it is also a good "just in case" lens.

For example, I was shooting an airshow using the D FA 15-30mm for inside the hangers and display areas, and the D FA 150-450mm for aircraft in flight. But that leaves a gap, so I also carried the 28-105mm lens. If I'm just shooting interiors, I expect to use the 15-30mm, but there will be cases where it isn't suitable, and the 28-105mm can fill in.

So the 28-105mm has now become my "always available" lens. Whether I'm using the K-1 with just this lens, or I'm using it with a more specialised wide or long lens because of the nature of the shoot, I always keep the 28-105mm available. It is the lens that is on the camera when I'm travelling from one place to another.

It is light and small and has a moderate filter size. Its compromises are not optical quality, which is very good corner to corner at FF. The comprises are the obvious functional ones: the zoom range and the variable apertures. They have enabled Ricoh to make this lens what it is very good for: carrying around with good image quality, at a moderate price.

[banep]

I bought the new D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 with a vague intention of using it as a "carry around" lens. But I've found it is also a good "just in case" lens.

For example, I was shooting an airshow using the D FA 15-30mm for inside the hangers and display areas, and the D FA 150-450mm for aircraft in flight. But that leaves a gap, so I also carried the 28-105mm lens. If I'm just shooting interiors, I expect to use the 15-30mm, but there will be cases where it isn't suitable, and the 28-105mm can fill in.

So the 28-105mm has now become my "always available" lens. Whether I'm using the K-1 with just this lens, or I'm using it with a more specialised wide or long lens because of the nature of the shoot, I always keep the 28-105mm available. It is the lens that is on the camera when I'm travelling from one place to another.

It is light and small and has a moderate filter size. Its compromises are not optical quality, which is very good corner to corner at FF. The comprises are the obvious functional ones: the zoom range and the variable apertures. They have enabled Ricoh to make this lens what it is very good for: carrying around with good image quality, at a moderate price.

Is it sharp wide open?

[Barry Pearson]

Is it sharp wide open?

I haven't used it wide open. I've mainly used it at f/8, simple because that was what the scene appeared to need.

See this review.

[Ginnipe]

I bought the new D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 with a vague intention of using it as a "carry around" lens. But I've found it is also a good "just in case" lens.

For example, I was shooting an airshow using the D FA 15-30mm for inside the hangers and display areas, and the D FA 150-450mm for aircraft in flight. But that leaves a gap, so I also carried the 28-105mm lens. If I'm just shooting interiors, I expect to use the 15-30mm, but there will be cases where it isn't suitable, and the 28-105mm can fill in.

So the 28-105mm has now become my "always available" lens. Whether I'm using the K-1 with just this lens, or I'm using it with a more specialised wide or long lens because of the nature of the shoot, I always keep the 28-105mm available. It is the lens that is on the camera when I'm travelling from one place to another.

It is light and small and has a moderate filter size. Its compromises are not optical quality, which is very good corner to corner at FF. The comprises are the obvious functional ones: the zoom range and the variable apertures. They have enabled Ricoh to make this lens what it is very good for: carrying around with good image quality, at a moderate price.

I have been busy traveling around here in Greece so I apologize that this response is so delayed. I'm really in a pickle right now with the 24-70 2.8 vs that 28-105 lens. Everything you say about it is true, its optically great, lighter, and has a great range. My issue with it however is that variable aperture. I'm not worried about sacrificing some ISO to get a shot, that's fine, what im worried about is the fact that at 105mm and f 5.6, the depth of field isn't shallow enough to isolate subjects well. When I schlep around the 24-70, I know that if I quickly have to go into portrait mode and throw that background away, I can. I just go right down to 2.8 and get within a few feet of the person I'm shooting and bam, perfect portrait.

With the 28-105, that will be much much more difficult. Id want to zoom in to at least 50mm if not 80mm to get the facial features rendered nicely, and by then I'd be at around 5.6 (please let me know if that is incorrect) which would mean that I would have to get very close to my subject to isolate it via DOF.

It really is a conundrum that I've been toiling with the whole time I've been here in Athens. I want that extra lightness and range the 28-105 brings, but I don't know if I can give up that constant 2.8. I could obviously buy a prime or two with the money I'd save by selling the lens but then I have to worry about switching lenses mid walk and that brings up a whole other concern.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this issue! and if you have any portraits taken with the 28-105 I'd love to see them and how it well it can throw out the background!

[Barry Pearson]

I have been busy traveling around here in Greece so I apologize that this response is so delayed. I'm really in a pickle right now with the 24-70 2.8 vs that 28-105 lens. Everything you say about it is true, its optically great, lighter, and has a great range. My issue with it however is that variable aperture. I'm not worried about sacrificing some ISO to get a shot, that's fine, what im worried about is the fact that at 105mm and f 5.6, the depth of field isn't shallow enough to isolate subjects well. When I schlep around the 24-70, I know that if I quickly have to go into portrait mode and throw that background away, I can. I just go right down to 2.8 and get within a few feet of the person I'm shooting and bam, perfect portrait.

With the 28-105, that will be much much more difficult. Id want to zoom in to at least 50mm if not 80mm to get the facial features rendered nicely, and by then I'd be at around 5.6 (please let me know if that is incorrect) which would mean that I would have to get very close to my subject to isolate it via DOF.

It really is a conundrum that I've been toiling with the whole time I've been here in Athens. I want that extra lightness and range the 28-105 brings, but I don't know if I can give up that constant 2.8. I could obviously buy a prime or two with the money I'd save by selling the lens but then I have to worry about switching lenses mid walk and that brings up a whole other concern.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this issue! and if you have any portraits taken with the 28-105 I'd love to see them and how it well it can throw out the background!

I also have the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8, pretty well for the reasons you identify. Specifically, one of the reasons for buying the K-1 was for studio portraiture, and the D FA 24-70mm is what I expect to use there. Although even there I expect to use it stopped down, perhaps to f/5.6 or f/8, simply because my experience is that this will be necessary to get the whole head and enough of the body in focus. Outdoors, if I had a formal portraiture session, I would use the D FA 24-70mm, or possibly the D FA 70-200mm f/2.8.

At the following link, I apparently used the D FA 28-105mm at f/7.1, and the background is still pretty obvious. I used it because I had it with me! I was at an airshow, where I use the D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-f/5.6 for aircraft in flight. That just wasn't the right lens in this case. I didn't have the other lenses with me, because of the weight. They were in the car. (Had I have been doing landscapes or interiors using the D FA 15-30mm f/2.8, I would still have had the 28-105mm with me, but not the others).
Photos showing the quality of the 28-105mm lens

If you can get close, (which I couldn't in that case), it would be much easier to throw the background out of focus. You can see from those photos that even though I was using the lens at 105mm, the subject was not large. (Perhaps I could have used the 150-450mm after all!) I think the D FA 70-200mm would have been my best lens for the purpose, but it was in the car!