[matroxication]

@bob, you are right. I have not shot using the full frame. Also I believe the camera rental in Sydney is quite expensive and they come with minimum 6 months time frame.

Regards,
Jai

[lithedreamer]

I upgraded from a K-30 to the K-1 and I love mine!

[Rondec]

The K-1 will give you a little bit better than a stop improvement with regard to high iso performance. As to the question of lens performance on full frame, certainly you do deal more with vignetting on a full frame camera with fast lenses wide open, but APS-C cameras stress lenses in other ways and you usually have to stop down a bit to get maximum pixel level sharpness on APS-C with a lot of lenses.

The biggest questions are what you want and whether your budget is able to tolerate it. If you do want it, I wouldn't hesitate to get one -- it definitely would be a step up from a K30 and I think you would enjoy using a lot to take photos of your family.

[normhead]

Hello everyone,

Am a hobby photographer and currently own Pentax k30 for last three years. Am happy with the camera and currently bought Sigma 35mm 1.4 art lens to add to my arsenal. I still have not explored much with that lens but the quality indoors is quite comparable as my Pentax 50mm DA 1.8 lens. One major difference is the focus improvement in the sigma in low light conditions. I always wanted to own a full frame camera even though there is a debate that the upgrade from APC to full frame is negligible when compared to medium format etc...

Am not too keen in getting higher megapixel or more focus point but wanted to know if I would be getting better IQ from Pentax K1 when compared to K30. I do understand that the person behind the camera plays the major role and also the lens, but still my instinct was leaning towards an upgrade if it offers a better image quality than shooting with K30 if using same lens.

Any pointers will really help me in my decision since the investment is quite large for the K1. The K1 costs roughly around AU$2900 (body alone) in Sydney.

Regards,
Matt

You bought a 35 1.4 so my guess is you aren't into telephoto work, or macro. Those are the two areas APS-c excels and will actually give you better IQ in many images.

A K-3 squirrel


A K-1 squirrel


A K-1 bird


A K-3 bird


A K-5 image


A K-1 Sunset


A K-3 sunset


K-5 sunset


K-20D sunset


A K-1 Ice Crystal


A K-3 ice image


I prefer working with the K-1, especially the performance at 3200 ISO in low light, or to keep my shutter speed up when taking images of small quick moving birds. The K-1 has become my landscape camera. After a few walks I'm going back to the K-3. There's simply nothing on the K-1 like the 18-135 on the K-3 both in terms of range and pseudo macro capability .

I use the K-1 when I can. But lens limitations, weight etc. mean it's not the best for every situation. IN a trade between a K-30 which is essentially the k-5 sensor, the extra sensor resolution is going to produce marginally better images at large sizes.

Compared to a K-3, you're simply going to get more subject resolution with a K-3 for macro and telephoto. If you don't do those, and don't plan to, the decision comes down to 3200 ISO instead of 1600, and more resolution for extremely large prints. How much is that worth to you?

But to my mind, the situation, not the camera is making the difference in how much I like these photos. And I'm still going with the K-3 is the best camera for walking around. To have the same range of lenses on a K-1 you need a couple of extra lenses and a sherpa. The K-1 is better when you're going to a set location where you know what you're going to do, and you can take the appropriate lens, without wanting to anticipate anything that might happen.

On a walk like this where you take pictures like this...








IN the same walk, an APS-c camera with an 18-135 or 16-85 is much better idea. But, maybe you don't do that. The big drawback to the K-1 is the lack of choice and flexibility in light weight, portable multi-use lenses.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-18-2016 at 07:34 AM.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'm in the same boat, having bought the K-30 when it was first released. But I've been so happy with the performance and image quality of the K-30 that I have not been able to convince myself to upgrade. Instead, I've used my budget (such as it is) to flesh out my m43 system, which I very much enjoy.

Have you considered the K-70? It seems like the first APS-C model that offers a significant upgrade in terms of image quality compared to the old K-30, and it's got a lot of other great features, including improved AF. From what I've seen, it has better image quality than even the K-3 II. It's a real value, and I would think your bang-for-the-buck would be much better than the K-1, leaving more money for lenses or whatever.

My K-30 is approaching 80,000 clicks, but if it ever dies I'll probably replace it with the K-70.

[Culture]

I used spend lot of time in post processing since I like to have the pictures more dramatic appearance.

This. My questions is. When one does a lot in post processing, does it even matter anymore which format is used?

[normhead]

This. My questions is. When one does a lot in post processing, does it even matter anymore which format is used?

The biggest difference is when you get into high ISO shooting situations. A camera like a K-1 hs resolution to burn. On a smaller sensor, the nows in resolution due to noise correction can make a smaller sensor camera useless in some rare situation. This is much more noticeable in cameras like the Panasonic FZ1000 with it's 1 inch sensor, where you start to lose resolution immediately, even at 200 ISO. You get more latitude in a K-5 or K-3, you get even more in a K-1. Also as you go higher in ISO smaller sensor lose dynamic range to unacceptable levels faster, because they have less to start with.

But the question is not "does it mater" it's "does it matter to you". That's much harder to answer.

[gaweidert]

This. My questions is. When one does a lot in post processing, does it even matter anymore which format is used?

Yes. If a K5, K3 or K1 are all covering the same field of view the K1 will have 50% more pixels to work with than the K3 and 100% more than the K5. When I started looking at the images from my K1 I was highly impressed with the image quality, (I was going to say blown away, but it is an overused term.) I still use my K3 with my K1 as it complements the K1 quite nicely in the field. My K5 and K5 IIs sit mostly unused. To me the K1 is the first digital camera that I have owned that makes me not long for films such as Kodachrome 25.

[normhead]

Yes. If a K5, K3 or K1 are all covering the same field of view the K1 will have 50% more pixels to work with than the K3 and 100% more than the K5. When I started looking at the images from my K1 I was highly impressed with the image quality, (I was going to say blown away, but it is an overused term.) I still use my K3 with my K1 as it complements the K1 quite nicely in the field. My K5 and K5 IIs sit mostly unused. To me the K1 is the first digital camera that I have owned that makes me not long for films such as Kodachrome 25.

You only get more pixels to work with if you don't crop. Using the same lens... if you crop this much or more, you would have better resolution and use more pixels, with a K-3.



K-1 cropped image....


K-3 uncropped image


K-1 uncropped


Take the K-1 off the camera and put the K-3 on, and again you get higher resolution (more pixels, on the subject).


There's a thing happening. If you crop the K-1 image barely at all, a K-3 would have given you more resolution with the same lens. But, if you are able to walk in a bit and fill the frame with the K-1 that will give you more resolution. But whether or not a K-1 gives you more resolution than a K-3 is circumstantial, because of the difference in pixel density.

And the weight cost of shooting with an equivalent lens is prohibitive, much of the time, especially for telephoto work.


Saying you have 50% more pixels is also misleading in that a K-1 is 7360x 4912, a K-3 images 6016x4000.
The horizontal increase in pixels, is 22%
The vertical increase in pixels 19%.

In combination the increase in resolution is at best about 33% The 50% stat is the most favourable (to the K-1) way of expressing the advantage of the K-1 and the one that's least relevant to your photography.

Or look at it this way, 67% of the resolution for less than half the cost, or if you're looking at a K-70 , for 1/3 of the cost. You better be good at convincing yourself you need that extra resolution.

I really like my K-1, but for me, it's a nice to have, not a have to have. The K-3 is "have to have". But for folks who have more control over their shooting situation, I can see the situation being reversed. It's not all about squirrels.

[Canada_Rockies]

Norm, I find your comments confirm my personal take on the discussion. For me, the resolution on the K-3 is more than enough, but I work more on images taken at high ISO levels if I am going to view or print them large.

For what I now do, the K-3 is the tool I will use for the foreseeable future. My M 400 isn't the best lens compared to modern lenses, but to upgrade would really bash the budget.

[lithedreamer]

Something that really surprised me was the cropping power 36 megapixels gives you. I made some group portraits of two to three people with the K-1 and 70-200, and was able to crop in post and end up with the 36MP group shots, as well as some ~16MP "individual" portraits, the same resolution of image my K-30 gives me.

[gaweidert]

Norm,

If you use a 50mm lens on a K3 and a 75mm lens on a K3 you have the same field of view. The K3 has a 24 MP sensor and the K1 has a 36MP sensor. Is that not 50% more pixels recording the same scene?

[normhead]

Norm,

If you use a 50mm lens on a K3 and a 75mm lens on a K3 you have the same field of view. The K3 has a 24 MP sensor and the K1 has a 36MP sensor. Is that not 50% more pixels recording the same scene?

Of course. You just need to clarify what that means. And what it means ia if you crop 1500 pixels from the horizobal and 800 from the vertical, you have the same number of pixels. If you crop this much or more, you would have been better of with a k-3 and th same lens. SO, yes it's 50% of the surface area, but it's relatively small in terms of possible increases in resolution. Although it does better than you'd mathematically expect. All of that is moot of course, if you no ever establishes if resolution is even necessary past 16Mb. In some images, I think some people will enjoy the images more the are less crisp images are compared to razor sharp high resolution ones. Once you cross 16 Mb, all bets are off.



I often crop my K-3 images that much... and when I do, a k-1 image would have been worse, unless a lens was used that made up for both the 1.5 crop factor, and the 9 MB increase in pixel density, which gives the K-3 another 20% resolution advantage, even after you add your 75mm lens. You've made this sound a little crazy using 50 and 75, which really isn't an issue. When it's a DA*200 2.8 or a Tammy 300 2.8 it's a four pound difference. So once again, if you're a long lens shooter (or a macro shooter) there are going to be things about the K-1 you really dislike. IQ sometimes, and Burst Mode and Buffer all the time.

These things only are mathematically clean when both the FF and the APS-c cameras are the same MP. It's so much easier to experiment and give people your conclusions. I have seen the above math 100 times, without anyone ever remembering the resolution difference in the crop area of the K-1 15 Mp(2000 lw/ph), and the same area of the K-3 (24Mp, 2700 lw/ph)

People tell you the 1.5 crop factor as if it's not a constant that doesn't change with the various pixel densities of the sensors. It's distressing, seemingly smart people leave out critical information that completely changes the dynamic of what you are discussing. If you're going to do the math, do the math.

[RickC]

I have a K3 and struggle(d) with the same question. My solution was to go to LensRentals.com and rent a K-1. That way I could double check how my lenses worked with it and get a feel for the image quality in my eyes. Today I did my first "field test" and found the amount of noise at 3200 ISO was the same as what I got in the 800-1200 ISO range on my K3. Tomorrow I shoot some indoor sports and will see how the images look.

I will comment that I definitely noticed the drop from 8 fps to 4 fps. HOWEVER that being said being familiar with what I was shooting and having shot hundreds of photos of the sport I was still able to get good captures. This image is an example of "catching the moment". No way my timing is that good, but being familiar with the sport allowed me to anticipate the player's shot and get the moment the ball hit the paddle. I'll work on fine tuning it as all I did was increase the exposure a tad.

[elpolodiablo]

Well I do own both K-30 and K-1, and I can tell you K-1 does give you better image quality in general terms(and I have to agree with the discussion above, if you only ever use the image for web purposes, stick with APS-C), but the bulk and weight of the K-1 and accompanying FF glass IMO will NOT enhance but interfere with the joy of taking photo of you new born daughter. Maybe it's just me, but I just found that I tend to use K-1 a bit more seriously, whereas with my K-30 I can just relax and have fun. The difference in image quality is definitely there, but whether or not the benefits out weight the increase in cost and bulk is totally up to YOU!

Also, instead of buying fast glass I would suggest invest in flashgun and learn how to bounce the light, it will cost you a lot less and improve your shot enormously. A friend of mine welcomed his daughter earlier this year, on one of my visits to their place I happened to have my K-30 and Metz 48 flash with me, after seeing the shoots of his daughter with bounce flash he immediately dropped his plan to buy a 5D Mk III(he's a Canon APSC shooter) and got himself a YongNuo flash kit instead, and after seeing what I can do with Sony RX100Mk1 and bounce flash at the recent Xmas party at his place, he's now saying he might just get a RX100Mk3 and forget about the bulky DSLR kit.