[richard0170]

A while ago I acquired a Sigma Ex DC 28mm f1.8 Macro, for use on my K3, as I like that focal length on APSc. I was and am very impressed by the lens, but it makes the K3 front heavy, even with a battery grip attached. But, it got me thinking. I have a lot of old K and KA mount lenses. I like to take landscapes and studies of things, still lifes and such like. I have been put off by the K1's bulk in the past. My attitude has been "If a want to get the best quality image, I might as well use Fuji Velvia of Ilford Pan F in my Bronica ETRSi, if I have to lug a tripod around, so why bother with the K1?"
So here is where I am at. I have full frame lenses from the M 20mm f4, the Sigma 28mm F1.8, M 35mm f2.8, Auto Revuenon 45mm F2.8, a K 55mm f1.8, M 100mm f2.8 and Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Macro. Will the K1 with these lenses match up to my Bronica images?
Bronica lenses are 40mm F4 75mm f2.8 and 105mm f3,5.

[Adam]

Digital can outperform film these days (especially if you're using pixel shift a.k.a. super resolution), but ultimately it will probably boil down more to technique and lenses in your case. If you were to go down the K-1 route, I'd also recommend upgrading to modern landscape lenses which are capable of putting a lot of those old primes to shame.

[kiwi_jono]

What Adams says but as a budget photographer owning quite a few older lenses, I can say that the K-1 will get the best out of them.
Regarding versus film, I think with a bit of image tweaking (PP learning curve), you will find you are happy with the results.
If you find yourself wanting something modern - my only modern Pentax lens (currently) is the DFA28-105 - which is a surprisingly good performer and I find I use it a lot more than I thought I would.

[Mikesul]

What these guys ^ said. Full frame film era lenses are just better and easier to focus on the K-1, I was just playing with my 40 year old M 50 1.7 this morning and noting how good if felt on my silver K-1.

[WPRESTO]

Plenty of good advice already given. As already pointed out, the K1, especially with pixel-shift, will bring out the best in any older lens. BUT ALSO, the ability to tweak and adjust in PP means the images will be significantly better than anything you could get from film with the same lenses. Some purists think this is "cheating," but adding more sharpness, contrast, and saturation, eliminating vignetting and color fringing, softening graininess at high ISO, cloning out telephone wires were all things photographers dreamed of being able to do in the film era, and now it can be done sitting at a desk with keyboard and mouse or touch pad, no stinky chemicals that might not be fresh enough, might be too warm or too cold. Not using the opportunities and option that digital offers is like insisting on turning a crank to start a car, spurning the sissy convenience of a self-starter (IMHO). I brought back about 5,000 images from Africa. Trying buying and transporting enough film for that, or adding up the time, trouble and expense of getting the film converted to an image that you could share. And I could take any image at any ISO I wanted, convertible between color to B&W whenever I wanted at the press of a button. Use film for the retro fun of it, but for practical photography, best possible IQ, maximum flexibility, digital is no argument vastly superior.

[twilhelm]

Wpresto really summed it up. On the other hand, I shoot 4 formats. I have several apps-c bodies, including the K3, and I have the K-1, plus several (many) 35mm bodies and I’ve started with medium format recently. In my opinion, they all have their place, but the K-1 is really a stellar camera, especially with landscapes and weddings. You’ll get a lot out of those old lenses that you didn’t know they were capable of. I’ve had a few ready for sale, until I used them on the K-1. And in truth, I haven’t really noticed the “bulk” over the K3.

[ffking]

You could always just win one at the end of this month and see if you like it

[twilhelm]

You could always just win one at the end of this month and see if you like it

And if he did win and didn’t like it, he could return it for someone else to win!

[Scorpio71GR]

I have that same Sigma 28mm lens. I can use it in the K-1 without the grip. Warning! If you get K-1 and start using those full frame lenses on it your K3 may get pretty lonely. The K-1 is essentially everything I have wanted out of camera for the last decade.

[pcrichmond]

I own two of this model after coming up from the k10,20,3 route. Bought the first K1 because I still have plenty of lenses left over from the film days. It was a great pleasure to have my 50 act as it was meant to and the K1 felt like I was back with an old trusted K1000. Image quality is close to what I could achieve with my 6X7 or C330. I have enjoyed using this camera so much that I bought a refurbished one and had it converted to full spectrum for IR & UV.
Don't let the bulk stop you, rent one and see for yourself if you'd think it might be too big but I'll bet you'll be surprised. Without the external grip it is very easy to hand hold and balances well with most lenses.
Not sure where you are located but borrowlenses and lensrentals in the US both rent the K1. Give it a try and then enter in this months raffle, you might get lucky.

[Sandy Hancock]

Wow, that Sigma really is huge! I have seen a lot of lovely images from it though.

You totally need a K-1

[gaweidert]

I have that same Sigma 28mm lens. I can use it in the K-1 without the grip. Warning! If you get K-1 and start using those full frame lenses on it your K3 may get pretty lonely. The K-1 is essentially everything I have wanted out of camera for the last decade.

Ditto. Took a K1, K1-II and a K3 to Yellowstone in mid May. The K3 never came out of the bag. Simply no need for it.

[Obin Robinson]

I've had my K-1 for two years now. In that two years I've sold most of the older Full Frame lenses I had and upgraded to newer lenses. The K-3 is no slouch but the K-1 can find all the flaws at the edge of the lens that the K-3 could not. With that being said the K-1 is a monster compared to the K-3. It is simply a better camera. I still use the K-3 when I want something compact but the K-1 is my go-to camera. I am 100% pleased with it and would recommend it to any photographer.


obin

[felixkh]

I agree that the K1 is a fantastic camera. I have owned it since it came out. My signature will share all the lenses I have and I just ordered the Zhong Yi Mitakon 85mm F1.2 manual lens for portrait use.

[WPRESTO]

Wpresto really summed it up. On the other hand, I shoot 4 formats. I have several apps-c bodies, including the K3, and I have the K-1, plus several (many) 35mm bodies and I’ve started with medium format recently. In my opinion, they all have their place, but the K-1 is really a stellar camera, especially with landscapes and weddings. You’ll get a lot out of those old lenses that you didn’t know they were capable of. I’ve had a few ready for sale, until I used them on the K-1. And in truth, I haven’t really noticed the “bulk” over the K3.

I would never gainsay someone who wanted to work with film. There is a psychological engagement with an image when you've processed the film, worked in darkroom cropping, fiddling exposure, dodging, burning and got your fingers wet in chemicals that you've mixed from powders. Done all that and spent more time doing it than I care to remember. But if you have to go with one system, the vast, vast majority of us are far better off with digital.


BTW: Do you digitize your film images for posting here on PF?