[keos]

it is an amazing piece of kit. Stands up there with the 5D Mk IV and D810 overall, should have attracted a larger following
Things I liked

1. ISO invariance; wow never thought that ISO-400 pushed up a stop in post looks almost the exact same way as when shot at ISO 800
2. In body stabilization; used the D FA 24-70mm lens, and most people on Canon & Nikon bodies had to suffer without any form of IS since they either didn't want to pay for the VR version or didn't want to use a Tamron

Things I didn't like

1. AF didn't always catch
2. Evaluative metering does not always do well in indoor light conditions, even with studio lights
3. UHS-1 cards still didn't clear the buffer fast enough
4. There's a video recording feature on this thing?
5. definitely loses out to Canon's system in terms of lens availability geared towards digital sensors

Things I wish I wish I knew

1. DoF on FF is a blessing and a curse. Even with F5.6, sometimes the hands would be in focus and the eyes are slightly blurred
2. FF + f2.8 zoom is heavy; not that a f2.8 zoom on a mirrorless much better

[gmans]

You are bit late to the party or just fishing? haha. Welcome either way to Pentax Forum.

[keos]

You are bit late to the party or just fishing? haha. Welcome either way to Pentax Forum.

I just rented the K-1. I never used it before. My experiences has been more with the APS-C Pentax bodies, and I'll never forget then time when my 40D focused faster than the K50; we're talking about something that's at least half a decade apart on technology. The value prop on the K-1 is so much more than I would have expected. I'm just surprised it hasn't helped Pentax's overall market standing in the DSLR market.

Don't get me wrong, I've read the reviews, so I knew what the K-1 was capable of compared to its peers, but until you experience it first hand, it's hard to put into perspective. At least for me.

[victormeldrew]

I'm just surprised it hasn't helped Pentax's overall market standing in the DSLR market.

Just did a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation and I believe their share of the full-frame market has increased by infinity percent....

[kiwi_jono]

Just did a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation and I believe their share of the full-frame market has increased by infinity percent....

Well the mathematicians around here will probably be screaming - "No! Pentax's gain is undefined! Dividing by zero is not infinity!"

No question its a great camera and note that its not heavy when used with those small FA primes!

[Digitalis]

definitely loses out to Canon's system in terms of lens availability geared towards digital sensors

Bear in mind that some of Canons currently produced lens designs and coatings haven't been changed since 1993*. When it comes to digital optimization**, I have to tip my hat to Fuji and Olympus...everyone else are complete laggards compared to them.


* it is only in the past 5 or so years where they have been producing/updating new and improved lenses and coatings
**I have yet to come across a lens that has significant issues with digital sensors. I have seen some pretty bad ghosting, but other than that: Nada.

[biz-engineer]

Things I liked ISO invariance;

ISO invariance is not an advantage, it's a disadvantage that most digital camera have.

[Rondec]

ISO invariance is not an advantage, it's a disadvantage that most digital camera have.

Why would it be either an advantage or a disadvantage? It just is.

Yes, I suppose you could shoot at iso 100 and have all your photos black and then brighten them up four stops in post, but then you wouldn't have a clue if your focus was on and if your composition was correct and those are probably more important than noise and dynamic range in most photos anyway. As far as the depth of field thing, I don't understand the issue. If you stop down roughly one stop from where you shoot on APS-C you should have similar depth of field (assuming equivalent focal length and distance to subject).

[normhead]

DoF on FF is a blessing and a curse. Even with F5.6, sometimes the hands would be in focus and the eyes are slightly blurred

The equivalence setting for ƒ5.6 on FF is ƒ8. But in any case, you're the photographer. Getting the eyes in focus is part of your job. Unless you have eye-focus like an A9. But, that's going to cost you.

[keos]

The equivalence setting for ƒ5.6 on FF is ƒ8. But in any case, you're the photographer. Getting the eyes in focus is part of your job. Unless you have eye-focus like an A9. But, that's going to cost you.

you mean F5.6 on APS-C vs F8 FF? I thought subject distance plays a factor as well?

For the specific shot both the hands and the eyes needed to be in focus, luckily I shot at f8 for most of it, tried 5.6 to get a better ISO but forgot about DoF on a FF. I'm just used to what's in focus with a given f-stop and effective FL on aps-c cameras. It's my first time using a FF in a real shooting environment so I consider it a shakedown cruise, so to speak.

---------- Post added 02-11-18 at 11:30 AM ----------

Why would it be either an advantage or a disadvantage? It just is.

Yes, I suppose you could shoot at iso 100 and have all your photos black and then brighten them up four stops in post, but then you wouldn't have a clue if your focus was on and if your composition was correct and those are probably more important than noise and dynamic range in most photos anyway. As far as the depth of field thing, I don't understand the issue. If you stop down roughly one stop from where you shoot on APS-C you should have similar depth of field (assuming equivalent focal length and distance to subject).

thats' the thing with FF I wasn't prepared with. for similar DoF compared to APS-C you're stopped down a stop, but that means either shutter or ISO have to give. Just didn't have time to change the ISO in flight when sometimes I had to be at a minimum shutter to freeze motion, so being invariant is a big help when I'm one stop off. plus instincts kick in and I change back to the fstop I'd be on when I'm using a smaller sensor, with slightly embarrassing results.

[SSGGeezer]

On your metering issues, what were you using for lighting? LED bulbs are all over the place spectrum peak wise so depending on your White Balance settings, your metering could be off. I use all LEDs in my house that are of differing quality, mostly Cree but some off brands and trying to get the WB correct indoors leads me to just use flash, at least as a fill in when I am at home.

This is just a SWAG since I am no more than an amateur camera knowledge-wise.

[Rondec]

you mean F5.6 on APS-C vs F8 FF? I thought subject distance plays a factor as well?

For the specific shot both the hands and the eyes needed to be in focus, luckily I shot at f8 for most of it, tried 5.6 to get a better ISO but forgot about DoF on a FF. I'm just used to what's in focus with a given f-stop and effective FL on aps-c cameras. It's my first time using a FF in a real shooting environment so I consider it a shakedown cruise, so to speak.

---------- Post added 02-11-18 at 11:30 AM ----------


thats' the thing with FF I wasn't prepared with. for similar DoF compared to APS-C you're stopped down a stop, but that means either shutter or ISO have to give. Just didn't have time to change the ISO in flight when sometimes I had to be at a minimum shutter to freeze motion, so being invariant is a big help when I'm one stop off. plus instincts kick in and I change back to the fstop I'd be on when I'm using a smaller sensor, with slightly embarrassing results.

The whole point is that you should have similar framing between your APS-C and full frame shots. That means that, say, you are shooting a portrait with a DA *55 on a K3 at f2.8 standing at 10 feet -- you should shoot an 85mm at f4 at 10 feet in order to get similar results. If you are not using an equivalent focal length that gives the same field of view and not standing in the same spot then I have no idea how to compare the two.

[normhead]

The whole point is that you should have similar framing between your APS-C and full frame shots. That means that, say, you are shooting a portrait with a DA *55 on a K3 at f2.8 standing at 10 feet -- you should shoot an 85mm at f4 at 10 feet in order to get similar results. If you are not using an equivalent focal length that gives the same field of view and not standing in the same spot then I have no idea how to compare the two.

That is exactly it... it's the using the longer lens to achieve equivalent FoV that makes the difference. The wider the lens you use at the same distance, the wider the FoV and DoF. A longer lens will have less DoF.

[keos]

The whole point is that you should have similar framing between your APS-C and full frame shots. That means that, say, you are shooting a portrait with a DA *55 on a K3 at f2.8 standing at 10 feet -- you should shoot an 85mm at f4 at 10 feet in order to get similar results. If you are not using an equivalent focal length that gives the same field of view and not standing in the same spot then I have no idea how to compare the two.

yes, of course it's about having the same FoV; my point is that you are 1 stop slower in the aperture on the FF for similar DoF, which means something has to flex to give the same exposure.

[Rondec]

yes, of course it's about having the same FoV; my point is that you are 1 stop slower in the aperture on the FF for similar DoF, which means something has to flex to give the same exposure.

That is true. Personally I use auto iso and set it for a range that I'm comfortable with -- 100 to 800. On a K-1 you should be able to stop down and bump your iso one stop to get the same results as on APS-C, if you need it. That is, iso 400 on APS-C should have roughly the same noise and dynamic range as iso 800 on full frame. But you are also correct that there is less benefit to full frame if you need APS-C's depth of field and you have to bump your iso up due to shutter speed issues.