[UncleVanya]

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.

I've always thought the 28-200 was only ok never loved it even back in the day. The question I would have is there room in the FF Pentax lineup for at least as good a lens as the 18-135 in equivalent focal length? I'd say a lot of people who don't own the k-3 and k-1 might like it. The 28-105 is not for the same purpose at all.

Thank you for posting these.

[Alex645]

I've always thought the 28-200 was only ok never loved it even back in the day. The question I would have is there room in the FF Pentax lineup for at least as good a lens as the 18-135 in equivalent focal length?

Agreed. My vote goes to a 24-120mm f/4.

[repaap]

I've always thought the 28-200 was only ok never loved it even back in the day. The question I would have is there room in the FF Pentax lineup for at least as good a lens as the 18-135 in equivalent focal length? I'd say a lot of people who don't own the k-3 and k-1 might like it. The 28-105 is not for the same purpose at all.

Thank you for posting these.

Agreed. My vote goes to a 24-120mm f/4.

Well actually 24-120/4 is not same either, but it would be nice.

I really doubt that i'd get FF 28-200. For me it kind a negates the good things of FF. Why not 18-135 and aps-c or 14(12)-100 on m4/3 instead. Smaller, rarely looking after shallow DoF and they are good for pseudo macro also. Size for walkabouts is nice too.

This is exatcly why I said in my first post in this thread that even M4/3 pictures are more than enough some times, let alone aps-c. KP seems to have nice ISO performance. I suspect that K-3 successor will do even better. K-1 is quite a bit better than K-3. My Oly E5 MII is worse than K-3, but it is okayish. aps-c is great compromise.

First and last of all it is a lot about personal taste too, and PP skills/needs. For me, I really like buttons, handling and VF in my K-1.

[UncleVanya]

I really doubt that i'd get FF 28-200. For me it kind a negates the good things of FF. Why not 18-135 and aps-c or 14(12)-100 on m4/3 instead. Smaller, rarely looking after shallow DoF and they are good for pseudo macro also. Size for walkabouts is nice too.

This is exatcly why I said in my first post in this thread that even M4/3 pictures are more than enough some times, let alone aps-c. KP seems to have nice ISO performance. I suspect that K-3 successor will do even better. K-1 is quite a bit better than K-3. My Oly E5 MII is worse than K-3, but it is okayish. aps-c is great compromise.
.

I guess I was thinking not everyone wants multiple bodies.

[normhead]

I guess I was thinking not everyone wants multiple bodies.

I've always said for a single body I'd use APS-c. People keep expecting me to change my signature, but, it's not going to happen.
One stop more DoF at given aperture but still capable of nice bokeh on narrow DoF images does it for me.

[UncleVanya]

I've always said for a single body I'd use APS-c. People keep expecting me to change my signature, but, it's not going to happen.
One stop more DoF at given aperture but still capable of nice bokeh on narrow DoF images does it for me.

Not having owned full frame since film I respect your input here.

[Violet]

After a bit more reading here and on a few other threads, I did it. Ordered the K-1 II from Adorama. It may be that the K-3 xxx successor would have fit my requirements as well but with no idea of when such an item might be available - 1-2-3 years from now - I decided to go ahead with the K-1 II.

Again, thanks for the discussion, UncleVanya. It helped a lot.

[UncleVanya]

After a bit more reading here and on a few other threads, I did it. Ordered the K-1 II from Adorama. It may be that the K-3 xxx successor would have fit my requirements as well but with no idea of when such an item might be available - 1-2-3 years from now - I decided to go ahead with the K-1 II.

Again, thanks for the discussion, UncleVanya. It helped a lot.

Please let me know how you get along with it. I'm curious.

[normhead]

After a bit more reading here and on a few other threads, I did it. Ordered the K-1 II from Adorama. It may be that the K-3 xxx successor would have fit my requirements as well but with no idea of when such an item might be available - 1-2-3 years from now - I decided to go ahead with the K-1 II.

Again, thanks for the discussion, UncleVanya. It helped a lot.

They are great cameras, you won't be disappointed.

[normhead]

I was out doing a few more images today, amazing how hard it is to get good comparison shots.

Just out with the dogs trying to get some comparison images...
K-1 with the DF 100 Macro, K-3 with the Sigma 70 macro, from the same tripod settings.

Straight up, I didn't see much difference, even pixel peeping...

Can you tell which was taken with which camera?




Thanks to Jesse for staying in the same spot while I took one camera off the tripod and put the other one on.

With my K-3 my K-1 has an advantage, probably because of Pixel Shift, my K-3 doesn't have it, the K-1 image without Pixel Shift didn't look much different the colour reproduction and depth and DR were obvious in this comparison.





Exif can be viewed by clicking on the images and scrolling down the page. Having a K-3II K-P or K70 with Pixel Shift probably would have evened out the above comparison. But, well never really know.

[Ex Finn.]

K3 for the first and K1 for the second image of your pooch.
I would have thought the opposite looking at them here on PF.

edit: that D FA 100 Macro really shines.

[builttospill]

Were your exposure settings the same? If so, I'm guessing the K-1 took the second image due to the increased detail in the dog's eyes and face.

Incredible dog to hold still for two shots!

Below is a DPReview comparison of the K-3 ii and the K-1. Keep in mind they're using the DA* 55 (they finally replaced their FA 50 Macro) on the K-3 ii and a 20-year-old FA 77 (but we all know how good the FA Limited lenses are) on the K-1.

[normhead]

K3 for the first and K1 for the second image of your pooch.
I would have thought the opposite looking at them here on PF.

edit: that D FA 100 Macro really shines.

Even the pixel peepers of her nose and whiskers look surprisingly similar. Where the K-1 really shines, on my sunsets and sunrises I'll probably never get images of. The DFA 100 2.8 macro shines, but that Sigma 70 2.8 macro is no slouch either. Most of my test images were ruined because the two lenses have such different characteristic close in. The 100 on the K-3 was a wider field of view than the 70 on the K-3. Another parameter that makes a mockery of equivalence. Even on the shot of my dog Jesse the K-1 DFA 100 image had to be cropped to match. On close ups this was even more exaggerated. To the point where it would have been unfair to crop the K-1 image to match the K-3 images. You can say the 70 on the K-3 is equivalent at infinity, but how each lens handle the minimum focus distance to infinity varies widely.

I also see that with my DA*2-- and DA*60-25-. The DA* 60-250 at 10 feet is about the equivalent of 135mm. With the 1.4 TC on it roughly matches the field of view of the 200 on it's own.

[repaap]

I was out doing a few more images today, amazing how hard it is to get good comparison shots.

Just out with the dogs trying to get some comparison images...
K-1 with the DF 100 Macro, K-3 with the Sigma 70 macro, from the same tripod settings.

Straight up, I didn't see much difference, even pixel peeping...

Can you tell which was taken with which camera?




Thanks to Jesse for staying in the same spot while I took one camera off the tripod and put the other one on.

Exif can be viewed by clicking on the images and scrolling down the page. Having a K-3II K-P or K70 with Pixel Shift probably would have evened out the above comparison. But, well never really know.

well to me that little more of DR to bring up face details and little a bit softer Oof did point out which one is which. once again small details, and also little more crisp Dfa 100. I did confirm my thoughts by looking it up, but honestly I could see the difference even from shots from this thread. Now is that enough to justify the purchase? That is a good question. thanks for pointing that out Norm.

[kenspo]

K-1 is good enough for us pros and is on a big US tour bus right now