[rjm007]

I have a number of bases covered in my small camera collection. A Sony A6000 when I went the fastest AF and the ability to use adapted lenses (all MF). A Fuji X100T when I fancy myself as a bit of a HCB when I want to capture that moment on the back streets of Paris on my occasional visit. I also have a nicely re-furbed ME Super to fulfill my nostalgia hit and a reminder of my youth. I may have a few other camera bodies knocking around too .....

I *also* have a growing collection of film era Pentax lenses (primes and zooms) currently mostly SMC-M which are under severe risk of being joined by some M42 Takumars in the future.

I will at some point get a FF body . This is not the place to argue why - let's just say I'm inclined to OK :-) My head says get one of the Sony A7x series but my heart is leaning towards a K1 - almost certainly a Mk1. This will tie in with a belief I need a specific camera for landscape which is my primary interest.

OK I will get to the point. Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ? What has been the experience of others using film era glass and have they had to upgrade to match the abilities of the K1 ?

I am not a DPR style gear head or pixel peeper and expect to keep this FF camera for quite some time.

[blackest]

I have a number of bases covered in my small camera collection. A Sony A6000 when I went the fastest AF and the ability to use adapted lenses (all MF). A Fuji X100T when I fancy myself as a bit of a HCB when I want to capture that moment on the back streets of Paris on my occasional visit. I also have a nicely re-furbed ME Super to fulfill my nostalgia hit and a reminder of my youth. I may have a few other camera bodies knocking around too .....

I *also* have a growing collection of film era Pentax lenses (primes and zooms) currently mostly SMC-M which are under severe risk of being joined by some M42 Takumars in the future.

I will at some point get a FF body . This is not the place to argue why - let's just say I'm inclined to OK :-) My head says get one of the Sony A7x series but my heart is leaning towards a K1 - almost certainly a Mk1. This will tie in with a belief I need a specific camera for landscape which is my primary interest.

OK I will get to the point. Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ? What has been the experience of others using film era glass and have they had to upgrade to match the abilities of the K1 ?

I am not a DPR style gear head or pixel peeper and expect to keep this FF camera for quite some time.

Then I guess i'm a fool Most of my lenses are old manual full frame maybe flawed in some respects but I call it character. It's highly likely I will find some new lenses to lust after but I think the K1 should make the most of my old lenses even if my old lenses don't make the best of my K1.

[BigMackCam]

Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ?

That depends entirely on your expectations of the glass.

There are many lenses that show their limitations when coupled with even a lowly 10MP K10D, if the images are viewed and appraised at 100% reproduction... but when reproduced at realistic sizes, and viewed at typical distances, the images look absolutely wonderful.

A seemingly-growing problem with digital photographers is to judge the quality of a lens on its ability to produce pin-sharp results with complete lack of visible aberrations when viewed at 100% reproduction. This may have some justification for a few very specific applications, but I'd argue that it's utterly unimportant for most photographers. At the very least, it's far less important than overall rendering.

But, you need to decide what's important for you - is it test chart and 100% reproduction perfection, or enjoyable rendering for normal reproduction and viewing conditions? If the latter is important to you, it really doesn't matter what camera you choose. The K-1 will give you 35mm film field-of-view, and the lenses will perform (more-or-less) as they always did, assuming you reproduce the images at the same size.

[Sandy Hancock]

What Mike said.

Go for it!

[monochrome]

K-1 is a great camera to use with legacy manual lenses. The OVF is large enough and bright enough to focus by eye, and Focus peaking with the articulating screen works well for critical focus. I bought my K-1 intentionally to use with film era lenses so I think your kit will work just fine once you learn the technique. . Click ‘Manual Focus Lenses’ at the bottom of my Sig below to see what I use. I sold my M lenses only because they were duplicate focal lengths. Your legacy lenses will serve you well on a K-1.

I have a number of bases covered in my small camera collection. A Sony A6000 when I went the fastest AF and the ability to use adapted lenses (all MF). A Fuji X100T when I fancy myself as a bit of a HCB when I want to capture that moment on the back streets of Paris on my occasional visit. I also have a nicely re-furbed ME Super to fulfill my nostalgia hit and a reminder of my youth. I may have a few other camera bodies knocking around too .....

I *also* have a growing collection of film era Pentax lenses (primes and zooms) currently mostly SMC-M which are under severe risk of being joined by some M42 Takumars in the future.

I will at some point get a FF body . This is not the place to argue why - let's just say I'm inclined to OK :-) My head says get one of the Sony A7x series but my heart is leaning towards a K1 - almost certainly a Mk1. This will tie in with a belief I need a specific camera for landscape which is my primary interest.

OK I will get to the point. Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ? What has been the experience of others using film era glass and have they had to upgrade to match the abilities of the K1 ?

I am not a DPR style gear head or pixel peeper and expect to keep this FF camera for quite some time.

[stillshot2]

It's all about the lenses. Buy a body that unleashes their potential and/or works best with them. A full frame camera will use the full image circle of a lens and imo will bring out all of a lens' character. I had a Pentax DA 50mm 1.8 and had to sell it because it did everything so well that its images were actually boring to me. My Auto Takumar 35mm f2.3 on the other hand, has plenty of flaws but the images have such a nice look and feel to them that it sits on my camera about as much if not more than my 77mm.

[Not a Number]

If you feel full-frame is the way to go I say go for it. For value for the money you'll be hard pressed to beat the K-1. That you have a collection of usable FF lenses is a plus. You could always rent a newer lens or two and see if they make any difference to you.

[Igor123]

Definitely yes! K-1 works great with older glass too and isn't "wasted" at all, especially the better of the older primes will in many cases outperform most modern non-top-end zooms (and maybe some top-end zooms as well), so don't worry about IQ, you'll love it and probably be surprised.

I'm not a "true" pixel-peeper but I like to give the images a look at the pixel level too while pp:ing to compare and get a sense of what the lenses are capable of, and while I went from a K5 to the K1 (so given the about same pixel density I already knew older glass would work good at least in the center), I have been far more challenged to readjust to new ways of looking at focal lenghts, and never been bothered by any IQ change that jump meant....mostly it's the other way around, the older glass gets more sensor area with the K1 and overall IQ (not pixel-level) increases I'd say so in a sense it's easier to get images of acceptable IQ than before.

Another effect is that higher ISOs become possible so less need for flash, or "easier" (higher shutter speed or smaller aperture) setting then become usable compared to smaller formats...so while I knew that in theory, experiencing it in practice gave me a few chuckles when seeing what's possible when postprocessing.

So lastly, even if pixel-peeping, even smaller formats with higher pixel density will probably be more "unforgiving" regarding older glass (at least in the center part of the lens since the edges are cropped then), so compared to the A6000, the K1 has larger pixels and won't be as "revealing" of the flaws, while using a larger part of the lens and still ending up with more pixels for the full image...

But generally speaking, no matter the camera, we always want better glass, no matter what if that's what you're asking =)

[Pentax Syntax]

Most of the film era full frame lenses I had collected still work great on the K-1. The FA* zoom lenses (28-70 aand 80-200) and the FA limiteds work really well and rival the recent zooms in most respects. With the proper adapters all of the vintage glass can be made to work. The oldest lenses that I routinely use are the A series though just because of the convenience factor. If I still had some of the highly regarded Takumars I would certainly use them. Unfortunately, I sold most of them to acquire newer lenses in the pre-digital days. I don't think your choice would be foolish. Actually I find that the FA* series and the FA zooms have a magic on the K-1 and K-1ii all of their own. With regard to which body, I have upgraded my K-1 to the K-1ii so now I own two of the K-1ii bodies. I may be in the minority, but I think the upgrade is worth it for autofocus speed, accuracy and low light performance. I find that it is easier to use two bodies with identical functionality so that I don't have to 'think' when changing to the second body-lens combo.

[kiwi_jono]

The K-1 is great with old glass IMO.
They are easy to use on the K-1 and personally I like the feel and ergonomics of the K-1 better than the Sony bodies but everyone is different and you experience may differ.

Yes the K-1 will push the old glass (often past their limits) but I'm surprised how good some of the old glass is, and some of the old lenses have an unique character that I like. For example I really like the bokeh (not to mention build!) of the Super Takumar 50 f1.4 (although its flare and CA control leave a bit to be desired!).

[normhead]

I would definitely expect to buy at least the 28-105. Just for walk around flexibility. But I use older glass quite a lot. I do like to have auto-focus however. For some reason, I'm under the impression some Sony's might have better focussing options for older glass, A, M SMC and K glass.

[pcrichmond]

The K-1 performs wonderfully with vintage glass if you use the glass for it's known behaviors.
Sadly since I've picked up the K-1 my K-3 and all my modern glass sit on the self neglected.
Think I've shot one digital lens in the past two years and that was a rental.
Even my F & FA's don't get brought out unless I'm looking for something specific with that lens.
The A's down through the M42's seem to get most of my attention and I feel as if I'm back out with my trusty old K1000.
The older Sigma's, Tokina's and Vivitars are pleasant to use too.
If you can, rent a K-1 to give it a try, the bug might bite you to bring out the best of the old glass again.

[interested_observer]

I've been contemplating since acquiring the K1 that it might be fun to just do a comparison. Not very scientific but perhaps interesting with the variety of technology available at hand. I have a number of lenses at 28mm, the DFA 15-30/f2.8, a M 28/f2.8, the K28/f3.5 shift and a Contax Zeiss 28/f2.8 Distagon. [Just thought of this - the Sigma 18-35/f1.8 should be pretty reasonable at 28 on a full frame sensor.] There really isn't a dog among them, they are all excellent lenses. Since the K1 has focus peaking, that should level the field across the bunch in terms of focusing. It would also be interesting to see how the new computer designed ultra hunk of glass, compares to the old K28, and M28 and then the well regarded Zeiss. Regular lens size vs oversized shift lens elements (better edge and corners), old vs new coatings, etc., etc., etc.

Just what pleases the eye the most - the overall best balance of image quality. But, to do that - I should really find some spectacular Arizona landscape view, rather than some boring brick wall.

Gotta think about this a bit more. Find a really nice location. A good time of day that would provide 30 minutes of consistent and interesting natural lighting. Determine the best aperture (the shift lens shoots best at f8 to f11 which is recommended for optimum sharpness per the manual). F8 should be pretty optimum for all the lenses. Perhaps upload all the full resolution unaltered raw files somewhere and let everyone who wants, to download them and let the forum do the comparison and whatever assessment you folks want to do.

It might be interesting.

[matroxication]

I believe the main reason for lot of people are still loyal to Pentax is due to support for legacy lenses. Especially for K1, being the full frame can unleash the full potential for the legacy lenses. I have Sigma 35 1.4 Art, Pentax 100mm 2.8 WR macro, Pentax 77 1.8 limited, SMC 50mm 1.4, SMC 24mm 2.8 and each one has their strength and weakness. And some of legacy lenses are lighter as well. For eg: 77 limited, the legendary lens is so much lighter to use and great for travel. I just bought it recently and yet to test its full potential


If using legacy lens on Pentax K1 is foolish, am more than happy to be a fool in that case

[Jonathan Mac]

I don't see any reason to rule out the K-1 just because you don't have modern lenses. Old manual lenses make sense with Pentax (or mirrorless) if that's what you enjoy using (as I do) and they make even more sense on FF due to the field of view and better viewfinder for focusing.

If you can afford it and you enjoy using those manual lenses on an APS-C camera then I suspect you'll enjoy them even more with a K-1.