[Ex Finn.]

So far the KP with the 20-40 has been my go-to camera v.s. the K1 with the 24-70.
Both of them produce incredible images, to the point where I have to look 3 times to tell them a part.
Comes down to size and weight I guess for me.
I highly recommend getting both, different tool for a different job.

[repaap]

I was going through my LR library just out of curiosity, If I could blindly spot when I changed to FF. I also quite recently picked up M 4/3 camera for other purpose, but have been shooting with it just for fun.

it took me few times to spot ’the thing’. I have more darker tones in my shots with K-1. what does it mean. well with K-3 I have been pushing shadows up. mostly I have wanted to. I have continued to do that still(suppose that it is matter of my taste). but I notice that files are ’thicker’. also I gained a lot of wide end, because mu 14 mm became A LOT wider. and 20-35 is also really wide. Wider than 14 mm was on aps-c...not much but those few mm are fatter at wide end. I did not look pictures in pixel level, just small images 3 in row.

what I put there is the difference. also narrower Dof in few pictures. I have started to use my elichrome Quadra flash more now. I can see the difference at there too. if I stop lens down to f6 or 8, there is still some nice bokeh. but also a lot of details. again, not much, but I can see the difference.

Have it affected the way that I shoot. not much. now I’m just reaching for other lenses more than I did with my K-3. But that little higher quality on that sensor makes you really lust over better lenses. You have quite a bit of thos so you will be fine

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for all the comments. I'm still at Sea on this but I appreciate the input.

[DSLRnovice]

Thanks for all the comments. I'm still at Sea on this but I appreciate the input.

I would not underestimate the difference in DoF. From the K20 to the K-1 I had to be more careful to keep the foreground and the background in focus. Of course the advantage of FF comes when you want shallow DoF. Regarding enlargements, I made fine 13x19" enlargements with the K20. No doubt the K-5 and the K-3 are even better.

Also I miss the on camera flash at times. But since I already had FF lenses from the film days, I was eager to try them on the K-1. Especially my Ricoh fish eye.

I would be curious to see comparisons between shutter vibration induced blurriness in the the K-3 vs the K-1. The K-1's larger shutter and extra resolution tends to highlight the vibrations from 1/60 to 1/180 second exposures.

[mikesbike]

I would not underestimate the difference in DoF. From the K20 to the K-1 I had to be more careful to keep the foreground and the background in focus. Of course the advantage of FF comes when you want shallow DoF. Regarding enlargements, I made fine 13x19" enlargements with the K20. No doubt the K-5 and the K-3 are even better.

Also I miss the on camera flash at times. But since I already had FF lenses from the film days, I was eager to try them on the K-1. Especially my Ricoh fish eye.

I would be curious to see comparisons between shutter vibration induced blurriness in the the K-3 vs the K-1. The K-1's larger shutter and extra resolution tends to highlight the vibrations from 1/60 to 1/180 second exposures.

Interesting. I've read this before regarding shutter vibrations. Never heard anything like it with the K-3 series, nor with the KP, or even the K-70, all having similar resolution There was some of this going on with the K-x, but was corrected with the K-r. Seems to me this could be designed out at some point.

[repaap]

Interesting. I've read this before regarding shutter vibrations. Never heard anything like it with the K-3 series, nor with the KP, or even the K-70, all having similar resolution There was some of this going on with the K-x, but was corrected with the K-r. Seems to me this could be designed out at some point.

As a ovner and quite active user of K-1 that shutter vibration ’think that they say’ has not bothered me even once. It might be there and I might be lucky. Mostly my problems has come from pushing it too far(long shutter speed hand held) but that too is user error not camera.

[reh321]

Back when when the K-1 first came out and Pentax was running their "win a K-1" contest on FaceBook, I almost joined FB so I could join in the 'excitement'- but then I added up the cost to me. Except for high ISO values, I'm satisfied with what my K-30 gives me, and apart from film-era lenses, I have no FF lenses. I would have to replace my 'goto' lens, the DA 18-135mm, which I'm totally satisfied with. So I waited, did nothing then, and later started saving pennies when the KP came out. I was on the fence for a few minutes, but there is no way I would cross over now!

[alvaro_garcia]

Dynamic Range.

Exactly. That's the main benefit IMO.

[Violet]

Thanks for this post, UncleVanya. I've got a K-3 which I truly enjoy but I want a second camera body. So the question in my mind is what's next? A K-1 II or a K-3 II or a K-3 xxx whenever it comes out. My lens selection doesn't cover the range that yours does but the responses to your post helped provide some perspective.

[normhead]

the DA 18-135mm, which I'm totally satisfied with.

The biggest disappointment with the K-1? There's no 18-135 for it. I actually bought an old FA 28-200 which is similar focal length, but pixel peeping, it's not even close.

[UncleVanya]

The biggest disappointment with the K-1? There's no 18-135 for it. I actually bought an old FA 28-200 which is similar focal length, but pixel peeping, it's not even close.

A modernized spiffied up 28-200 that was optically in the same class as the 18-135 would be a nice lens indeed.

---------- Post added 05-05-18 at 05:02 PM ----------

Thanks for this post, UncleVanya. I've got a K-3 which I truly enjoy but I want a second camera body. So the question in my mind is what's next? A K-1 II or a K-3 II or a K-3 xxx whenever it comes out. My lens selection doesn't cover the range that yours does but the responses to your post helped provide some perspective.

I'm so glad! I frankly asked to spark the creative juices in my own head. I am interested in a K-1 but not finding myself compelled to buy it. I find the dynamic range and focal length field of view arguments don't move me that much. I likely need to rent one at some point. My conundrum is like yours. If I could get KP level high iso with a K-3 like body I don't know that the K-1 will be as interesting to me.

BUT I haven't held one or shot with one.

[Ex Finn.]

If I could get KP level high iso with a K-3 like body

For sure it is coming.
It should also incorporate the AF performance (or better) of the KP, that alone would make it worth waiting for.

[bigdavephoto]

The biggest disappointment with the K-1? There's no 18-135 for it. I actually bought an old FA 28-200 which is similar focal length, but pixel peeping, it's not even close.

Well....Don't pixel peep and it will be fine.

[mee]

So far the KP with the 20-40 has been my go-to camera v.s. the K1 with the 24-70.
Both of them produce incredible images, to the point where I have to look 3 times to tell them a part.
Comes down to size and weight I guess for me.
I highly recommend getting both, different tool for a different job.

If there are only very minor / negligible differences why lug around a giant K-1 and FF sized zoom? You could sell that, buy another KP and 20-40, and still have cash in your pocket.

But I noticed very massive differences in files from crop to FF but that is due to the huge difference in resolution. And the Bokeh. Cropping with primes on the K-1 up to 100% view still looked nice on screen. Only up to 50% view with crop. But even without that there is still a massive amount of cropability with 36 MP. That was really mindblowing for me.

Uhmmmm beyond that I didn't pair well with K-1 despite a strong honeymoon.

I was used to an all-purpose crop body that could landscape just as well as burst and was lightweight-ish. The K-1 is a heavy, high resolution landscape oriented machine. Yes you can take photos of fast moving objects. Just as you can drive fast in a stock minivan. But you wouldn't pick the van for fast driving, you'd pick something more tailored to that endeavor such as a sporty car.

The point I'm getting at is... if you value the all-in-one ability of your K-3, you might be disappointed with the K-1 as I was. It is not the same experience but with extra res and sensor. No, it is a totally different experience imo.

And it took me several weeks to get to that point... that is, there was a long honeymoon infatuation with the K-1 before I realized it might not work out. And another month or two before I really decided that yeah the flame was out. So I'm not sure even renting it would work... unless maybe you're more attuned to reading those experiences better than me (very possible).

So I'd think long and hard about what you expect to get out of a K-1 over your K-3 rig and if it is setup to do such feats easily. We're only 4ish months away from Photokina time no? Maybe they will have news of a K-3 successor by then... if K-1 isn't for you (and you want to stick with Pentax).

The other option is to keep your K-3 setup and buy a FF from another brand on the side. Dual systems isn't illegal.

[normhead]

Well....Don't pixel peep and it will be fine.

I just ran some comparison images on my dog walk, the kind of images I take every day. The K-1 and 28-200 appeared initially to be equal or lower quality on every images. Some of the images, the K-3 18-135 image was sharper. More weight and bulk for less performance. And the differences were obvious without pixel peeping. The K-3 was much sharper for close ups. The K-1 was better when Dynamic range was an issue.

Forest walk. K-1 vs K-3
Images where K-1 was judged the best.


z

Images where K-3 was judge the best.




The next image acceptable from both cameras was a tie, and my favourite of the day was the last one. There was just no reason for the type of shooting I do to take the K-1 with the FA 28-200. The K-3 images were always close, when the K-3 images were better they were better by a wider margin. The DA 18-135 is so much better as a pseudo macro, those comparisons weren't close even though the 28-200 had the advantage of more MP.

Overall impression for the afternoon. If I'm taking one for general dog walk type trip, the K-3 should definitely be the one to go. On the images it wasn't better on, which was about half, it was more competitive.

Most of the images where the K-1 was eventually judged superior, they were close enough i flip flopped on the decision several times.

My guess is results would be better with better lenses. Maybe tomorrow, Sigma 70 macro on the K-3 and FA 100 macro on the K-1.