[Fcsnt54]

It all depends on what you want to get from it, and i think you will get conflicting answers on here. The p mode does a great job if you dont want to go full manual. The camera is comfortable, and a great camera to grow into. I was out with a friend for a hike that knows nothing about a dslr besides what they look like. Set it up on p mode and gave him some pointers. He absolutely loved it and how the pictures turned out. With that being said, i think it can be used as a beginner camera.

[mee]

It depends on your budget and your desire to resell old equipment. What I mean is you could get the K-1 and a couple lenses now (expensive) and just use that for 5 6 7 years. Or get a K-S2 or K-70 and a few lenses now (not as expensive) and then resell later once you've mastered using them in a few years. By that time K-1 prices should have come down, there should be more lens selection, and perhaps even a K-1 successor by then. But then you'd have the hassle of trying to resell your old gear for a fraction of their paid-for cost.

It is a difficult question to answer since it depends a lot on YOU.

I'd say the K-1 is most definitely not a beginner's (oriented) camera but there isn't a such thing as a camera so advanced that it would not allow beginners to use it. Starting out, I'd be more happy using an APS-C based camera such as the K-70 and a few lenses (10-20mm, 16-85mm WR, 55-300 PLM) with a few filters (neutral density and circular polarizer), a sturdy tripod, and a remote timer.

A lot of landscape though, I find, is in the processing. So that should be a consideration for learning too.

Meanwhile, as you are learning, your equipment is losing value over time. So it kind of makes more sense, to me, to buy cheaper equipment until I understand it than go whole hog for the 'finest' gear I can grab as even the base level APS-C DSLR bodies are really nice these days.

Then again, if money is no object, why not a K-1, a 15-30, the 3rd party filter holder, a 28-105, and a 70-200mm for good measure. It's just paper money afterall.

[Tan68]

K-1 is an impressive camera and it is good for landscapes.. but, in considering K-1, you aren't making a decision about 'pro' or 'beginner' type camera... rather, you are making a decision about format meaning APS-c or full frame.

All the comments about starting with a used beginner camera or starting directly with flagship are fine. I think you need to first decide if you will even want FF and to THEN worry about type of camera.

There are people who don't want FF for macro and animals. They have good reasons. FF isn't necessary for landscape. FF or APS-C will shape the decisions you make for lenses. Decide sensor format first. If you are unsure, I guess get a competent APS-C and let things perk a bit

I was real happy with my K-5 but bought a K-1 for my reasons. For what I do, the K-5 was great and smaller.. I do like the smaller size and had to make trade offs for traveling to offset the extra weight. What will you do with your camera stuff... just a thing to consider :^)

For 'pro' camera features, I would recommend K-5iis (not K-5) or the K-3 series and the K-3 should have better AF and greater pixel density that should be nice for landscapes. You may find the K-3 loses a bit to dynamic range (in tests) but I don't think it is significant and if you aren't very careful with exposure, you will lose more there than with the difference between K-5 & K-3.

For not 'pro', other camera models have been mentioned. You can do almost all the same with these basic cameras. Certainly you can do all the same typical picture taking exposure stuff but you may need a few more button presses or dial turns.

If you are technical and like fooling with things and learning things and 'configuring things/apps, I would not worry a bit about being intimidated by 'pro' buttons and whatever on cameras. If you are not into this stuff and just like simple interfaces with the things you own, button mania might be a thing to consider :^)

However, as I first wrote, you are really making a format decision. 9 months ago, 'pro' or not APS-C body was the only consideration with Pentax. Now you must first decide FF or not. If you want FF and Pentax, the body decision becomes simple, yeah ?

---------- Post added 10-30-16 at 01:32 AM ----------

Why do you associate beginners with auto mode? Anyone who wants to get into photography should start learning how to do proper exposures in various modes, we shouldn't encourage people to use auto mode just because they are beginners.

Yeah, there was a time people had to learn with either aperture or shutter priority being the only 'auto' mode. And they managed it. Digital and the instant feedback it provides is really nice.

'auto' everything can make the camera more like a point and shoot.. but I think starting with a priority mode like Av or Tv is not a bad thing.

---------- Post added 10-30-16 at 01:50 AM ----------

Advanced cameras like the K-1 allow a budding photographer room to grow into it. ...

I never used most of the electronic features of the K-5...
Bracketing only some. Shutter delay or mirror lock up more.
Bulb mode some and multi-exposure a couple times
Center point AF with manual point select only.

All the other stuff (HDR or focus point groups or horizon tilt or whatever else the camera does) is not used. The K-1 offers even more features and I expect to use even fewer of them :^) I don't take pictures of very dynamic subjects.

I did use K-1 5-point group select AF of whatever to take a picture of a llama. I think I will like this and some other bits of new AF tech in K-1. Should help with sheep pics. Otherwise, I really use the 'pro' bodies in a pretty basic way..! I like two command dials.

Of course, none of this changes your valid comment about room to grow. I just realized how few features I use. I ignore the features I don't need and the complex body is simple enough.

[Sandy Hancock]

If you have piles of cash and you're prepared to read lots to learn about your new hobby - by all means lash out on the K-1. Remember that lenses will generally be bigger, heavier and more expensive too.

That said, I would also recommend starting with a crop sensor system. Not because it's simpler, but because it's CHEAPER. And smaller. You can get the feel of an interchangeable lens system quicker and easier, and learn the craft without blowing the bank. If you decide to move to the K-1 later, your crop body will always work with later full frame lenses, and your crop lenses will always sell at little loss in the second hand marketplace.

[felixkh]

Something for you to read and consider. A K70 review by our Clubsnap Pentax moderator in Singapore.

Pentax K-70 Hands On

[Digitalis]

the K-1 and most all top end cameras from other makers have many more features than you need at this stage

My take: Hold off on the K1. Buy a used K-30

No, it is a terrible first camera. It will taunt you incessantly,

I would also recommend starting with a crop sensor system

+1 these are all pretty good points that mirror my sentiments regarding buying a K-1 for a beginner. The K-1 has a steep learning curve, the only camera I could think of that would be categorically worse would be a 100Mp hasselblad H5D - which is a camera that puts my photographic technique to the test.

[Adam]

Why do you associate beginners with auto mode? Anyone who wants to get into photography should start learning how to do proper exposures in various modes, we shouldn't encourage people to use auto mode just because they are beginners.

Baby steps!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[surfar]

Anybody can learn to use whatever level camera they have in their hands,Back before AF and Liveview people learnt to create images....Get a K1 turn it onto M and away you go!

[eaglem]

IMHO simply saying, buy a camera you will grow into slowly and learn from it but don't buy a camera you'll grow out of quickly and will need to trade up to further your skills as this can end up being an expensive exercise.

[Digitalis]

buy a camera you will grow into slowly and learn from it but don't buy a camera you'll grow out of quickly and will need to trade up to further your skills

I have one small nitpick with this statement, I don't think it is possible to completely outgrow a camera. There is always something even the simplest of cameras can teach you. All cameras these days are capable of producing excellent images. But for various and assorted reasons some cameras are inherently better suited for a particular subject type* - and choosing the right kind of camera for that task is ultimately is what forces a photographer to one model from the next. Shutter speed, ISO and aperture: are the three fundamental variables to learn to control, once someone has mastered that, there are mise-en-scène** which have little to do with the camera itself and rather the photographers preference for subject matter, and how it is portrayed in the final image.

I can still get great images out of the Pentax K10D, just as easily as I can get great images out of my Nikon D4, Leica Monochrom, Leica S2 and Hasselblad H5D.

* Rangefinders can be used for sport photography but ts is kind of like using a hammer to drive in screws, there are better tools for that task.
**A french cinematographic term which literally means: place in scene. Which covers the design aspects of image creation and set design such as composition, lighting, space, aspect ratio, film stock [Colour or B&W] and how these play together to convey a narrative - telling the story.

[Rondec]

I have thought about the question a little more and I think the two things that beginners struggle with the most when coming from cell phone/very small sensor cameras are achieving sharp focus and post processing. When you shoot with a cell phone, basically everything is in focus. When you move to a camera with a larger sensor, the depth of field is often much more shallow. I remember when I got an FA 50 for the first time and shot a couple of rolls of film with the lens between f1.4 and f2 and what I got was terrible. Not enough depth of field for the stuff I was shooting, my focus was off, I was convinced my lens was a dud. Put a hood on it and stop it down a lot more and suddenly, it was a lot better.

Anyway, both of these things take quite a bit of practice. Crop cameras are a little more forgiving in this respect since they do offer a little more depth of field, which is often a good thing as you are learning to get your focus where you want it.

Post processing is the other big thing. Out of camera jpegs are OK, but I really do think for your best images it is best to learn how to get the most of your photos with some sort of RAW editing program. This also takes a lot of practice, but in the end helps you in two respects. Probably the biggest is that it shows you things you could do better in the future -- either with regard to composing your images or with regard to camera settings (stopping down a little more, dropping your iso). It also lets you take more control of you image, whereas shooting jpegs in camera doesn't.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I think a crop camera is better to start with and get some good lenses. The modes are the same on all of these cameras and you can grow with any of them. If the point comes where you are suddenly into portraiture or are maxing out your camera with landscapes, then it is time to move on to something better.

[Digitalis]

Post processing is the other big thing. Out of camera jpegs are OK, but I really do think for your best images it is best to learn how to get the most of your photos with some sort of RAW editing program

I think we can all agree that Pentax has some work to do in this regard - OOC Jpegs are a hit-and-miss affair. Even the TIFF files generated in camera with minimal alterations never look quite right to me.

[normhead]

I've been wanting to get into photography and after tons of research, I have narrowed it down to Pentax. After reading about the K-1, I am really impressed. It seems like the #1 camera for landscape, which is what I'm most interested in (well that and wildlife/bugs) and really good for everything else! The K-1 is definitely stretching my budget but I want a camera that will last for a really long time. Is it worth getting or is the K-70 better for me?

As my tag line says I think APS-c is the best compromise. I recently bought a K-1, which I use for landscape and as a basic walk around camera. But for wildlife and bugs (macro photography) a K-70 will give you more magnification for distant subjects and for for making bugs bigger. If I had one camera it would be a K3II. The faster burst rate, and deeper buffer for wildlife , especially birding, can make a huge difference, as is the ability to use shorter lighter lenses for the same field of view.

But, that being said, I use the K-1 way more than I expected I would.

So, to me, it depends on your mix. If you can spend a lot of time using telephoto or macro lenses then a K-70 or K-3ii might be the way to go. They are more acceptable as landscape cameras, than a K-1 is as a wildlife camera. I'd go with the K-3ii for it's burst rate and deeper buffer ( you can take 23 images in a burst before the camera has to slow down and process the images you've already taken), with the K-1 it's 5 or 6 and that is really irritating when your wildlife subject is changing positions and you're missing shots.) . But if you just need a walk around camera and you go to the zoo a couple times a year, you may just want to start with a K-1.

But remember, whatever you get, the first thing you have to understand is exposure. Back when I taught, my classroom had 25 Pentax K-1000s, the first day was on exposure controls, and the first week was spent understanding exposure. Everything starts from there. The nice thing about Pentax glass is they still have the manual levers, so you can take a lens off the camera an manually work the aperture. After that point Aperture will never again be a theoretical concept. Unfortunately you can no longer open up the back cover and fire the shutter, to demonstrate how the shutter works, but if you know anyone with an old film Pentax, also give that a go. IMHO understanding exactly what those two things are doing, and their effect on your images of changing settings is the base on which to build your understanding of photography. Choosing a camera while interesting, is not as critical a choice. You have to learn all the same stuff, no matter what you shoot.

So to me answering your question come down to answering two other questions...

1. How much wildlife and macro are you actually going to shoot.?
2. And how important are those images going to be to you?

If the answer to 1 is "a lot"
And the answer to #2 is "those are the images I'm going to hang on my wall", you might want to look at a K-3ii as your first body.

If the answer is, "I'm a casual wildlife shooter, and my idea of a wall hanging print is a nice landscape, then you'll be better off with a K-1, but both are good enough doing the other thing that they aren' as good at, you can make your choice and be happy with either.

To me the biggest advantage to the k-3ii is, you can buy the K-3II and a DA*300 for wildlife for the same money as a K-1. To get the same field of view with the K-1, you'll need a 150-450. You can fit a lot more into your budget with APS_c. But, I would be conscious of buying glass that will be compatible with the K-1 if you do decide to move up at some point.

[Pixelhdr]

In terms of equipment, lenses are more important than camera body. However, the importance of equipment pales in comparison to skills. Skillful photographers are often not limited by equipment. Photography is an expensive hobby, there is no way to get around it. You will be trading up even if you buy the "best" camera today. If you only "focus" on equipment, you will likely to trade up even faster because you think "better" equipment is the solution to mediocre results. In short, you are far better off improving your skills than chasing the latest and greatest because they will be obsolete in 12 to 18 months.

There also seems to be an implicit assumption that flagship models have features that cheaper models inherently don't or flagship models are more difficult to use than lesser ones. Camera features follow the trickle-down philosophy. For example, pixel-shift is available in K-70 (current mid-tier model) and K-3II (current APS flagship) while not available in K-3 & K-5 series (older flagship models). Using K-70 is not much different from K-3 or K-5 series.

[edo]

Really a lot of good advices here. I do believe the K1 should have been the first digital camera for pentax back in the day before the istDS. I do believe that an amateur is going to love this camera because it is sturdy, intelligent, and the image quality is awesome.

Yes I advise you to buy the K1 because and it can last you 10 years easily. You can buy nice prime lenses (K or M lenses) for nothing. And you will progress way faster than buying a novice all auto camera with a kit lens.

Buy the K1, use manual mode with manual focus prime M or K lenses. First lenses to buy that is bang for the buck :
Pentax 50mm 1.7
Pentax 28mm 3.5
Pentax 135mm 3.5

And enjoy life photographying, you can always buy more expensive lens in a couple of years if you enjoy the show, or just sell the K1 and shoot with a phone if lugging camera is not your cup of tea.