[oscaletrains]

I have 4 Pentax digital bodies in addition to the K1, but only because compared to what they cost new they are not worth selling now. Once you use the K1 you realize there is no real need for any other Pentax body though.


Waiting for the K1-II to come out now...

[UncleVanya]

I will say this again in different words: IF you are a working professional with a need to meet deadlines, assignments, etc. IF you accept money for event photography. IF you have any other specialized time dependency... THEN you need a backup body. While the K-1 may be head and shoulders better than any other camera on earth (it isn't but let's pretend) you better have a backup no matter how inferior if you need one.

If you are shooting for fun or without time pressure and can afford to be without a camera for a few days (the time needed to acquire a working backup during a repair). For me it wasn't worth selling off my K100D Super when I got the K-50 despite not having any real time pressure. When I got the K-3 I sold off the K-50 - but acquired a GX-7 and a K mount adapter. This was my backup strategy. These days I have two K-3's and a GX-1 and soon a K mount adapter for the GX-1. I may sell off one of the K-3's at that point. On top of this I have an LX-7...

In any case, I don't think the backup body is a bad idea but it's not a requirement for many of us.

[gaweidert]

I look at my K3 as complementary to my K1 and not a backup. Different tools for different jobs. My K5 and K5-IIs still get used occasionally too, but I am not really sure what to do with them.

[UncleVanya]

I look at my K3 as complementary to my K1 and not a backup. Different tools for different jobs. My K5 and K5-IIs still get used occasionally too, but I am not really sure what to do with them.

Quick - if the K-1 broke tomorrow and there was an event you wanted to photograph that was better suited to your K-1 what would you do? if the answer is grab the K-3 - then it's still a backup camera even if it has another role as a complementary camera. LOL. If the answer is grab the K-5iis for the slightly better noise then that's your real backup. If the answer is grab a beer than that's OK too.

[Kevin B123]

Today I use both my K-50 with the 55-300 parked on it and the K-3ii with the 18-135 on it. The primes lose out a bit with this arrangement.
I did not intend to have two bodies, but when the K-50 went for repair I had nothing to use for too long and that was painful. Had that not happened I might have traded in the K-50 at a later time.


When I got it back, I boxed it for a while, and realised I missed it and now use both. Really, I would think the value of your K-30 to you as known entity would out weigh the small trade in value (there is the slight possibility of an exaggerated trade in value on a K-1 I suppose).


I'd keep it for now if you can afford too, but it's a personal thing as some K-1 users can't find a use for APS-C having been spoilt with FF.
I can see why, just using a 50mm prime would get the right FOV and compression, so looking up from the viewfinder, nothing changes and that would be very sweet.


I'm getting one in 2020, when I have used every feature the K-3ii offers in full and worn the menu button out.

[geomez]

For me K-1 for wide and normal focal lengths and my old K-3 for telephoto. For that purpose the crop factor is invaluable. Also the ability to hike with a normal focal length and another with a telephoto for birds without having to swap lenses allows me to get shots where time is imperative.

[bilybianca]

Like Gorme I use two bodies for event shooting, like my schools christmas and summer shows which are always given twice (not enough room for all the students at the same time in the theatre). One with a 200mm lens, the other with an 85mm for the first show. Then from the other side of the room with a 50mm and a 35mm for second edition. Doing that I can put together a slide show with a variety of viewing angels and close-ups/full stage pictures. Those who watch the slide show and see one picture of a singer and then a picture from another angle with the whole band, can't see that there is an hour between the two shots. Last time I used the K-1 and the K5, before that the K5 and my old beloved *ist DS. The *ist DS definitely is outdated (but I keep it for nostalgy), but the K5 delivers like ever before.

Kjell

[Bengan]

My suggestion is, when you have received the K-1 give it a couple of months and see if you use the K-30 as your "crop mode" or not. Then make the decision.

[aslyfox]

I will say this again in different words: IF you are a working professional with a need to meet deadlines, assignments, etc. IF you accept money for event photography. IF you have any other specialized time dependency... THEN you need a backup body. While the K-1 may be head and shoulders better than any other camera on earth (it isn't but let's pretend) you better have a backup no matter how inferior if you need one.

If you are shooting for fun or without time pressure and can afford to be without a camera for a few days (the time needed to acquire a working backup during a repair). For me it wasn't worth selling off my K100D Super when I got the K-50 despite not having any real time pressure. When I got the K-3 I sold off the K-50 - but acquired a GX-7 and a K mount adapter. This was my backup strategy. These days I have two K-3's and a GX-1 and soon a K mount adapter for the GX-1. I may sell off one of the K-3's at that point. On top of this I have an LX-7...

In any case, I don't think the backup body is a bad idea but it's not a requirement for many of us.

every day photography is one thing.

however if you are going to a "once in a life time" type event or going on a vacation - overseas or otherwise, a good back up camera is very nice. I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law:

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong

and

Finnegan's corollary to it:

Murphy was an optimist

so ask yourself - what would it matter if I can't take photos of X today? how important is it to take photos of X right now? on my last vacation, I took my then new to me K 5 II and backed it up with a new Nikon Coolpix P610.

on my next trip, I will be taking my new K 3 and back it up with the K 5 II

the Nikon stays home or if we have room, it comes along as back up for my wife's Nikon Coolpix P 610 (we bought 2 for our last trip)

should you go buy a back up? that is one question, should you get rid of a potential back up well that is a horse of a different color.


please remember that my opinion and $ will buy coffee at the diner

[gerax]

My suggestion is, when you have received the K-1 give it a couple of months and see if you use the K-30 as your "crop mode" or not. Then make the decision.

What he said...

[Slash392]

If I were to buy a sledge hammer would I cash out on the claw hammer I've used forever? I think I can find room in my toolbox for both, each with it's own ability to strike the proper blow. The precision and speed I find with the smaller hammer may be more appropriate at the butterfly pavilion, but there is always the railroad fanatic in me who has bigger and slower moving ambitions where all the features of the sledge come in handy. Nope, I'm not a pro but I know when to grab which hammer.

[pathdoc]

I do not absolutely NEED a backup body, and given that my tradeup from the K-1 is going to be from a K-5, I stand to gain in almost every possible way; there is very little the K-5 series offers me that the K-1 does not (legendary noise suppression, half a megapixel in crop mode, internal flash). If I were trading up from or supplementing one of the K-3 family (K-3, K-3ii, K-70), that would be a different matter.

I had originally intended the K-1 as a replacement-upon-death for the K-5; now I have my OH urging me to treat myself and buy it! It will be interesting to shoot both for myself, alongside each other.

[KA5TXL]

Hi all

I'll be upgrading from K30 to K1 in a few months. I read posts on here where many of you have more than one camera body. I'm in doubt whether to keep my K30 (as a backup) or sell it to soften the purchase of the K1 a bit, since I'll need a couple new FF lenses too (currently the only one I have that can be FF compatible is the Sigma 70-200 DG HSM, others will need to be used in crop mode untill I get suitable replacements).

I was wondering what's the reason many of you guys with a K1 still keep a K3II or K5 other than backup purposes. Is that because the APS-C sized bodies offer features that the bigger sister doesn't? If so what? Are there any other reasons?

My trusty K30 is 4 years old and I loved every minute with it, but it's starting to become a bit outdated and going for as low as $230/250 here and on other boards or second hand markets so I'm not sure if selling it will be worth it...

Thanx

Do what works for you. I have every camera I have ever owned, which would be my 1st Kodak Box Brownie, two Pentax film camera's, plus my istDL,K20D, and now the K1. I have both crop and legacy glass. I occasionally shoot weddings so that's why I keep backups. But again do what works for you.

[devouges]

I went from K10 to K5ii to K3ii.
I Kept my K10 as backup when I had the K5ii.
Now that I have th K3ii, I basically gave away my K10 (traded it for a battery grip) and use my K5ii as backup.
I do mostly birding with my K3ii with my 300mm da* and when I go somewhere I do not often go, I will also bring my K5ii with the 18-135mm for landscaping and general use.

I do not like to change my lens when it is windy or anywhere outside for that matter.

[normhead]

We are getting off topic here. The question was K-30 for back up with K-1, and the whole changing lenses issue. These are personal preference types of question. I frequently carry a long lens in a holster and a second body with a wide angle or normal lens around my neck.

While I appreciate Fenwoodian's enthusiasm for his K-1 it took me about 20 minutes to disprove it.

Having set up my K-3 with a DA*200 ƒ2.8 and a K-1 with a Tamron 300 ƒ2.8, shooting for the same DOF , shooting Blu Jays from my blind, the K-3 out performed the K-1 in every conceivable way. Subject detail, noise, colour rendition. And the weight penalty for using the K-1 and 300 2.8 is 4.5 pound. Not to mention the practical situations like the burst rate making image acquisition twice as fast on the K-3. That's very important with small birds where a "pose" may no last more than a second. The was virtually no difference in speed of AF.

So folks like Fenwoodian may have owned a K3ii, but they didn't make full use of it's capabilities. That's the only way they could make a statement like that. My feeling has always been, keep your most recent camera as a back up when you buy your new one. Otherwise you're a drop away from having no camera for a few months.

My test

I did some testing today... tripods set up maybe 2 feet apart both in the blind, taken at approximately the same time.....

One taken with the K-3 and DA*200 ƒ2.8
One taken with the K-1 and Tamron SP AF 300 f2.8

To normalize DoF, the K-3 was shot at ƒ5.6 and 400 ISO
The K-1 was shot at ƒ8 and 800 ISO

The surprise from that was the K-3 had better noise and contrast.





But enough of the web sized comparisons what about the pixel peeper you all say.





The K-3 produced more subject magnification and a cleaner image and more vibrant colour. Not what I expected.

OK, so it's only one test... but, so far in my testing.... 1 for the K-3 as a birding camera, 0 for the K-1.

But I digress, this thread is about a K-30 for a back up. I'd say go for it. You won't get enough money to make it worth your while to not have a back-up, or second camera to take to the field. With only one camera, you re always a drop away from having no camera. I always save my newest older camera as a back up, when I buy a new body.