I must add that I find that the colors and the tonality are much smoother on the K-1, I tend to do much less post on the K-1 images.

[Nuno Almeida]

But you would notice the noise introduced in high DR situations when pushed ...

---------- Post added 09-03-16 at 06:22 PM ----------



You may be right there. The subtly may well be better, when a more considered viewing, especially when printed. But not the step change thet had been suggested, I suggest.

Please be aware I was well aware that the differences would probably not be as big as the hype suggested, and I went into this with my eyes open. It's just that the K-3 is so very competent (at low ISO)

---------- Post added 09-03-16 at 06:25 PM ----------



I have been pushing it at low ISO. I work at low ISO all the time, allowing the shutter speeds to slow down to very long at times. The DR shots I took included strong highlights and dark shadows, designed to test the response of each camera.
I'm sure there are qualities there that the K_1 will reveal, but at low ISO ? Maybe not. It will allow me to change style, though and this is is what I am looking forward too.

I need high Iso, many times, I don't always have the luxury to shoot in happy hour or exactly were I want them to be, the advantage in DR latitude and usable range helps a lot

[BarryE]

I need high Iso, many times, I don't always have the luxury to shoot in happy hour or exactly were I want them to be, the advantage in DR latitude and usable range helps a lot

I like the idea of shooting in "happy hour". I'm up at 3 to 4 am at least once a week, often back home before the household stirs. That is "happy hour" indeed ;-). The natural world draws me in. I can stand for hours watching and waiting for the light to change, and it's odd that wildlife that would be spooked by human presence during the day, seems to pay little attention around dawn. Many years ago when I fished the idea of a successful outing was not when I caught anything (which eventually stopped me, anyway), but the being, seeing and sensing things. Slow photography, that's me now. Happy times ...

[Nuno Almeida]

I like the idea of shooting in "happy hour". I'm up at 3 to 4 am at least once a week, often back home before the household stirs. That is "happy hour" indeed ;-). The natural world draws me in. I can stand for hours watching and waiting for the light to change, and it's odd that wildlife that would be spooked by human presence during the day, seems to pay little attention around dawn. Many years ago when I fished the idea of a successful outing was not when I caught anything (which eventually stopped me, anyway), but the being, seeing and sensing things. Slow photography, that's me now. Happy times ...

Lol, indeed there are times, I picked a film camera just now, specifically to slow down, and enjoy.
Other times need to be fast, the moments go, and it's either get the shot or forget it

[clackers]

Will I now be banned ?

You're obviously a heathen, Barry!

There were forum members who left Pentax because it did not offer a full frame camera at the time.

You can go back and look at the old threads (please don't, for your own sake) where they thought having a bigger sensor meant a magic wand would be applied to your photography.

[Rondec]

My experience is that at a pixel level at low iso, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a K-1 and a K3. However, if you are viewing/printing at the same size, you can push the shadows a lot harder on a K-1 image than you can on a K3 image without the image looking "pushed." There is also a lot smoother tonality with the K-1 than with the K3 with regard to colors.

At high iso, this whole thing is more pronounced.

[grahame]

Using an FF camera usually is not for obvious better IQ at ISO 100-400, particular if you are comparing with a camera like K3.
FF sensor will actually include the weaker corners of a lens in the frame and you might see worse IQ if compare this way.
K1 will allow you shooting from closer position, give you better control of DOF, better DR, better noise performance under low light condition. as bonus, you get bigger and brighter viewfinder. -- if all these are not important for your style, K3 probably fits your needs better.
If you merely compare resolution or sharpness, under optical condition, Olympus 4/3 system might even outperform some FF camera-lens sets.

[kiwi_jono]

thanks very much for the comparative comments. I must admit that I am not too surprised that at base ISO and mostly tripod use the difference is small.
I tend to agree with Grahame that the differences will more likely show up in more demanding situations. I don't have a K-1 yet and currently own a K5. I plan to buy a K1 but my use case is different to yours:
* The resolution of K5 sufficient for most of my use (but then I'm not professional). But would like more cropping flexibility.
* As most of my work is hand held, good higher ISO is important to me. From what I could see the K3 would not allow tighter crops at higher ISO due to noise. However K1 looks like an improvement at even pixel level.

I think your comparison is very fair for your use case (and many others - so those people should take note!). As you say, however, over time I'm sure the K1 will allow more flexibility with how work.

[noelpolar]

For me one of the main advantages is that in many situations I can get some shutter speed back since quality at higher iso is there. I must admit I really enjoy the flexability of the flippy screen and also the shutter sound. Fortunately I've now forgotten how expensive it was (in Australia).

You should post from time to time how it does something better then the K3 though, if just to keep Norm on his toes!

[Class A]

I see it as a( small ?) incremental improvement ...

There is more to a camera (comparison) than the sensor but ignoring many other factors, effectively your statement could be interpreted as saying that the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 44 (if the latter existed on a K-3) does not matter to you much. That's fair enough, but not the same as stating that there is no appreciable difference.

And again, there is more to a camera and the differences between sensor sizes than just DR/noise. In particular, if you are printing large, the different enlargement factors can be significant.

BTW, the difference between APS-C and FF is bigger than the difference between FF and the (cropped digital) MF format of a 645Z. So if you see a difference between a K-3 and a 645Z then FF (i.e., the K-1) splits that difference asymmetrically in favour of FF.

[snpsht]

It took me a little while to get used to the K-1.

It seemed at first that my shots were actually worse...more noise, less clarity etc, and I was disappointed. However, as I adapted to the slightly different approach across all parameters entailed in shooting FF, I have well and truly fallen in love with the K-1. The flexibility and control is amazing, as is what you can achieve in pp as the RAW files have just soooooo much information.

So...from being initially underwhelmed, I am now a very happy camper.

Might not be that way for everyone, though, and that's OK too!

[Rupert]

My perspective......
I am not a Pro shooter or anywhere close. Silly as it sounds I shoot the K1 in Crop Mode 90% of the time. For what I do I don't want or need large files.
Wildlife is best suited for the crop shooting and it cuts down processing time considerably.

What's better....
*For still shooting the K1 AF is excellent, fast, and accurate. Best of any Pentax I have previously owned by far.
*The SR is improved over my K5IIs as well
*Colors are more accurate at high ISO levels
*WB is excellent
*More keepers by a wide margin.

Otherwise, the K5IIs was superb and I can hardly tell the difference except for those improvements I listed.

This is from a very limited viewpoint....if I shot in FF mode or for more professional use, I am certain there would be many more K1 advantages. For most APS-C shooters I can't see any real advantage other than those I listed.
For me, I bought the K1 because my K5IIs was badly damaged in an accident near the time the K1 was introduced...so it made sense to try the "FF advantage". Was it worth the price? Absolutely! That fast AF has ended years of frustration in focusing in low light or crowded outdoor brushy scenes. The K1 focuses in near total darkness and can target a subject in thick brush instantly. My shooting time has increased by two hours a day in early and late low light shooting. Frustrations are gone and joy in shooting has greatly increased.

That's how it is for me....keeping in mind my limited needs and skills.

Considering the price of the K5 at introduction several years ago...allowing for inflation and the much advanced technology....seems the K1 is actually less than what I paid for my K5 back then.....so the K1 is not some out of reach high priced upgrade, it is actually a real bargain!

Regards!

[Rondec]

The biggest negative to me about the K-1 is that Pentax hasn't come out with a DA 15 limited substitute. I own the DFA 15-30 and it is fine, but what I really want is a small, ultra flare resistant, slow aperture 18 to 20mm prime. For all its quirks, the DA 15 is about the perfect landscape lens and while I can mount it on the K-1 it seems like a waste to do so when I own the honking big 15-30.

[noelpolar]

The biggest negative to me about the K-1 is

Voigtlander Colour Skopar 20/3.5 did it for me....great 200gram ish solution..... bye bye DA15.

http://www.hkbns.com/shopping/site/Item/482-Voigtlander-20mm-f35-Color-Skopar-SLII-for-Pentax

[MJKoski]

The biggest negative to me about the K-1 is that Pentax hasn't come out with a DA 15 limited substitute. I own the DFA 15-30 and it is fine, but what I really want is a small, ultra flare resistant, slow aperture 18 to 20mm prime. For all its quirks, the DA 15 is about the perfect landscape lens and while I can mount it on the K-1 it seems like a waste to do so when I own the honking big 15-30.

I was thinking of getting Zeiss 21mm .ZF and using Leitax on that as well. 28/2 already converted perfectly. I have had the 15-30 for few weeks but it is bugging me off due to fact it has been "stuck" at 15mm even if it has not really been needed to get the shot. Zoom lenses kill my brain.

And, d-FA 15-30 @ 21mm does not equal 21mm Zeiss crispness / colors.