Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2018, 01:22 PM - 1 Like   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 63
Just tried out the K-1

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


02-10-2018, 01:48 PM   #2
Veteran Member
gmans's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hunter Valley,NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,467
You are bit late to the party or just fishing? haha. Welcome either way to Pentax Forum.
02-10-2018, 02:09 PM   #3
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 63
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by gmans Quote
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.
02-10-2018, 02:25 PM - 1 Like   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: South West UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,444
QuoteOriginally posted by keos Quote
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....

02-10-2018, 02:40 PM - 2 Likes   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kiwi_jono's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,409
QuoteOriginally posted by victormeldrew Quote
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!
02-10-2018, 03:28 PM - 2 Likes   #6
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,530
QuoteOriginally posted by keos Quote
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.
02-11-2018, 04:33 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,191
QuoteOriginally posted by keos Quote
Things I liked ISO invariance;
ISO invariance is not an advantage, it's a disadvantage that most digital camera have.
02-11-2018, 06:01 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,755
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
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).

02-11-2018, 07:14 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,650
QuoteOriginally posted by keos Quote
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.
02-11-2018, 11:26 AM   #10
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 63
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The equivalence setting for 5.6 on FF is 8. 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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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.
02-11-2018, 12:23 PM   #11
Journeyman Cat Wrangler
Loyal Site Supporter
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Maine, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,685
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.
02-11-2018, 03:33 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,755
QuoteOriginally posted by keos Quote
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.
02-11-2018, 04:00 PM   #13
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,650
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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.
02-11-2018, 06:14 PM   #14
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 63
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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.
02-12-2018, 03:35 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,755
QuoteOriginally posted by keos Quote
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, change, dof, dslr, enlargement, eyes, f2.8, ff, field, focus, full frame, full-frame, iso, k-1, k1, length, lens, noise, pentax k-1, shutter, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tried out a DA* 16-50 Tighelander Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-25-2013 09:45 PM
Tried out Fuji X100 pichur Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 01-30-2012 07:16 PM
Tried out the K7 and Kx at Frys Timtast1c Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 12-18-2009 04:06 PM
I tried out the Hasselblad H3Dii-50 briefly. kcmadr Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2 10-22-2009 07:45 AM
Anyone tried out sigma 70mm f2.8 macro yet? roentarre Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 01-06-2007 11:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top