[Pentax Syntax]

I think IQ is only part of the story. I rejoiced at the K-1 introduction because I still shoot film and all of my "Vintage quality glass" works wonderfully on the K-1. The 28-70 FA* and 80-200 FA* are particularly good on the FF sensor; wasn't a fan of the lenses on crop sensor cameras.

[Neville Holmes]

I produce prints for club competitions covering a wide range of subjects. I print to a canon pro 10s using canon pigments from lightroom. Monitor is calibrated. I use some legacy lenses and some da. The best club photographers use FF (canon) and achieve the last few percent of brilliance to prints. My best results though we're with my 35yr old M 50mm F1.7.

[Sandy Hancock]

There is a disturbing paucity of images in this thread.

Unless there is a 24mm f/1.0 in K-mount, which is tack sharp wide open, I'm certain I could not have reproduced these images with a crop camera. I have only recently acquired this lens, and my early test shots are certainly not high art, but this sort of subject pop and background blur at this perspective just can't be done without a tilt/shift lens, a Brenizer technique, or extensive blurring in post processing.







As far as image quality and noise go, I reckon the KP is very nearly a match for the K-1, but I haven't yet done any night sky shots to really push the comparison.

[stevebrot]

Try telling a 645 user that his focal lengths do not make sense

ROFL


Steve

[Wheatfield]

Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format. I know the theory of it all but what happens in practice.

A club member and I both had the same 16Mp mirrorless. He upgraded to 24Mp so I asked him if the images when printed 16"x12" were any better. He did not think so, just he could crop a little more. It does not seem worth me upgrading for that. Then he justified the expense claiming bells and whistles but I am happy with the functions that I have.

I have a K3, now convince me that for 16"x12" prints I do not need to spend the money for a K1. Practicle examples please, not opinion.

Thanks

I've found the K1 pictures to be head and shoulders better than any of the APS-C cameras I have used in the past.

[Rondec]

In general, the benefits of full frame are better high iso performance (more dynamic range and less noise), better low iso performance (higher dynamic range), ability to print/view larger while retaining details, ability to shoot with more narrow depth of field, particularly with wide angle lenses. If you are happy with what you have now then there is no reason to change. For most of us, full frame is more of a want than a need -- we have full frame lenses and want to try them out on a camera that supports their full width.

This is the DA *55 at f1.4 on a K-1.



This is the FA 77 at f2.2.



I won't post high iso shots, although you can find plenty of those out there, but I find there is a good two stop benefit in high iso performance over the K3 and K5 cameras (K-P and K70 seem to have better performance in that regard but I haven't used those). I would say that my problem with high iso on the K5 and K3 has not been noise, which is generally OK and fixable, but lack of dynamic range, which kills photos a lot quicker than does the noise level.

[Rondec]

I will post one more set of images. This was shot at sunset at iso 500. I underexposed so as not to lose the highlights in the sky, but it still was quite dark. The amount of shadow detail I was able to pull from the image was significantly higher than I could have done with either the K5 or K3 at iso 500. The K5 has excellent dynamic range at iso 80 and 100, but it drops quite quickly as you go up. I have here the pre-processed image and the post processing image. Obviously it is up to the photographer what they choose to do with regard to processing, but it is nice to know that the dynamic range is there if you choose to use it.

[robgski]

Another factor to consider, IIRC, if you are shooting at a high ISO, your are going to get "grain" when you enlarge the picture to 16x20.

In any case, I've enlarged cropped pictures taken by a K-5 to 16x20, and won contests. Where the K-1 really made a difference was when I cropped a photo by almost 80%, and the detail of the subject was still incredible. I don't think I could have done that with the K-5.

[acoufap]

You can squeeze more out of your DA lenses if you like to post process! - I posted many examples of the DA15 and DA55-300PLM.

Two recent DA15 examples ... the width of a 24mm lens @FF (angle of view) in width and height by DA15@K-1 Square Mode and pp dark corner crop!

Unfortunately I now long for a FF 15mm lens to get the full FF angles of view in height and width

[Neville Holmes]

many thanks, K1 on order. I will give my verdict in December

[zapp]

K3 has smaller pixel pitch. With K1 you get more information per pixel. Simpler lenses perform well, but have to cover larger image circle.
Same point is important for high ISO.
Sensor size, pixel count is higher for K1, you can do a lot more cropping.
K3 is much lighter than K1 especiall after adding zoom lenses. if you are happy with DA glass - keep it.
Sold my K3 for K1 and feel a kick in image quality, but my back hurts more as well. K1 is also a couple years younger - KP should already produce better high ISO than K3.... KP also has better shake redcution and faster AF. We are not only looking at sensor size and format.

[BarryE]

Edit - I forgot to say that images on screen cannot possibly show the differences between the cameras output when printed, so there needs to be some opinions, in my opinion ;-)

I've printed many A1 (23x33") prints from K3, so 16x12" would be fine for K3, but using the K1 is easier. It's just more tolerant. The extra pixels make a more relaxed shooting style, as there's greater scope for cropping. DR is better, I'd say by about 1 stop, so not massive.

So when you can crop, push the sliders more, recover detail and just work less hard, the K1 wins.

The K3 is a fantastic camera and the results can be just as good 'when printed' as the K1, but the tolerances are that much finer, so harder to use. The 'when printed' is key to me, as the art of printing possibly creates differences in the final print that is way more extreme than the differences between what the K1 v K3 can produce.

The downside of the K3 is the weight and size of the lenses. This is a big negative to me and brings the comparison a good deal closer.

So to print at 16x12, I'd say stick to K3 unless you want to squeeze that little extra out of your prints. Differences will only be very marginal, perhaps a little better tonally or noise wise from the K1, but it will rarely be noticed even side by side. Paper, colour management etc will effect the printed output way more ...

[Neville Holmes]

I have had the K1 for about a week now. Not yet had the opportunity to print large yet but first impressions are good. Much less tinkering in LR compared to the K3, easier highlight control, and limited noise when pulling details from the shadows even at 3200 ISO.
Weight yes but I gave up neck straps long ago and always use a shoulder bag to carry and wrist strap when in use so not much of a problem. A surprise was how wonderful it felt to use my old 50mm f1.7 M on full frame again. A 35mm lens on a cropped camera was not the same, but should have been and I do not know why. So pleased, I have upgraded to the A version for £35, a joy to use.

[normhead]

Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format. I know the theory of it all but what happens in practice.

A club member and I both had the same 16Mp mirrorless. He upgraded to 24Mp so I asked him if the images when printed 16"x12" were any better. He did not think so, just he could crop a little more. It does not seem worth me upgrading for that. Then he justified the expense claiming bells and whistles but I am happy with the functions that I have.

I have a K3, now convince me that for 16"x12" prints I do not need to spend the money for a K1. Practicle examples please, not opinion.

Thanks

I honestly haven't a single image I can show you that would suggest you need a K-1. I would suggest the opposite. There are in my mind more shots where I need the advantages of a K-3 than there are when I need a K-1. But that's an observation based on the way I shoot.

I use the K-1 more than the K-3, for other reasons, like clean 3200 ISO images,

Like this image.... 3200 ISO ƒ7.1, 1/6s hand held, 73mm, it was actually much darker than the image appears to be, So I would say the biggest advantage to the K-1 is the combination of SR and high ISO performance because images like this really push the boundaries of what's possible.





I have 40 pictures from this trip and 6 of them are high ISO, it doesn't seem like a high number, but their contribution to having images that provide a meaningful record of the trip is invaluable.

These image were taken almost in the dark, without flash, and don't even get me started on how much I would have hated to use flash on these images.

[pcrichmond]

I have had the K1 for about a week now. Not yet had the opportunity to print large yet but first impressions are good. Much less tinkering in LR compared to the K3, easier highlight control, and limited noise when pulling details from the shadows even at 3200 ISO.
Weight yes but I gave up neck straps long ago and always use a shoulder bag to carry and wrist strap when in use so not much of a problem. A surprise was how wonderful it felt to use my old 50mm f1.7 M on full frame again. A 35mm lens on a cropped camera was not the same, but should have been and I do not know why. So pleased, I have upgraded to the A version for £35, a joy to use.

I agree, the reason I bought the K1 was for all my vintage glass. People confuse field of view with lens characteristics. A 35mm will behave as a 35, a 50 as a 50. If it was designed for FF it's traits were engineered for that sensor/film plane size. The same for all the quality DA/APS lenses.
We never hear comparisons that a FF 120-135 is equivalent to 90-105 on my old 6x7. I swap lenses all the time, using FF on my K3 & K01 and some of my DA & 6x7 lenses on the K1 depending on what lens characteristic I am looking for.