[Risxsoul]

Hello K1 Pentaxians!

Currently my Camera is a K50 (and I have a K10D). Im planning to buy the new K3 III when it comes out. But before I do , I thought I would ask what are Y'alls thoughts on the current K1 II vs the new K3 III? As the prices are dropping, etc etc.
My glass includes DA 40L, DA 70L , 55- 300 PLM, 16- 45, 10-17 Fisheye, all Pentax. Also I have a 70- 200 Tamron.

Also, are there any rumors about the K3 III technology going into a 'K1 Mark III' ?

Risx

[aslyfox]

first, I am no photography expert, I just post a lot

what are your photography interests

IMHO, full frame sensor vs. ASP-C which is better depends on what you are using the camera for -

Who Is It For
With its superb imaging capabilities, weather resistance, built-in GPS, durability, and exceptional ergonomics, the K-1 II might be the best full-frame landscape camera available today. Improvements in noise handling and pixel shift, when compared to the K-1, will be beneficial to anyone shooting static scenes. In general, the camera is also an excellent choice for astro photography with bulb shooting up to 20 minutes, a dedicated red LCD mode, and the Astrotracer.

Read more at: Pentax K-1 Mark II vs K-1 Review - Conclusion | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[zapp]

K50 to K3iii is already a significant resolution and performance update within apsc. Be sure that some Knew features will show up in the next K full frame. For me K1 is for resolution and K3 for speed. In your case you have apsc glass and already gain resolution with Knew. It would make most sense to stay in apsc.

[mattt]

I have a K-1 (upgraded from a K-5 IIs) It creates fine images with very nice files. On crop mode the files are very similar to what I was getting from the K5 IIs IMO.
When compared to APS-C/mirrorless models it has a low FPS (4 in FF and 6 in crop) and small buffer (# of frames wise).
I use the Astro tracer and gps functions on occassion, and put the weather sealing to use regularly.



A draw back is the size of the glass, and limited options for using the nice auto focus (it's got no benefit to manual glass). I have my Focal Lengths covered, but my long end is legacy Sigma HSM APO glass (1/3 cost of DFA equiv but only available used).

I am interested in K-3 III because on occassion I shoot song birds and sports.



The crop will let me carry smaller / lighter tele glass when shooting all day tournaments.
I am keen for the new AF, and the 12 FPS and larger buffer (# of frames wise).
Optically there is zero investment for me because I kept my DA lenses ( 8mm fisheye, 15mm ,21mm , 12-24, being the priority).

I see the K-3 III as an alternative to D500 /D7500 from that guy, and EOS 80D from the other one. While the K-1 (ii) is an alternative to the D850 or EOS 5D.
The two style cameras are designed for two different use cases.

[sundown]

Hello K1 Pentaxians!

You have some magical glass - stick to crop sensors and go for the K3 III, I'd be eternally content with a KP even.

[jatrax]

are there any rumors about the K3 III technology going into a 'K1 Mark III' ?

Nothing but wishful thinking, though it is a logical progression. But it might be several years before that happens.


I shoot with both a K-3II and a K-1II depending on the shoot. For day to day shots it is difficult to see much of a difference but for things on the edge such as astro, sunset, low light etc the K-1II images have a clear edge. However, I do not plan to give up on APS-C yet, I find both formats have their place. At this point my only remaining APS-C lens is the DA 16-85, everything else is FF and is shared on both cameras.

In your case if you move to a K-1 at some point you will need to replace nearly all of your glass, assuming your Tamron is FF capable. Based on that and your desire to buy a K-3III it would seem a move to FF might be in the far future. I would not expect a K-1III until late 2022 or 2023 and the cost of new glass to support it will be significant.

[aslyfox]

. . . My glass includes DA 40L, DA 70L , 55- 300 PLM, 16- 45, 10-17 Fisheye, all Pentax. Also I have a 70- 200 Tamron.. . .

this article might be of interest:

Full Frame Coverage of DA Lenses: Comprehensive Test
Which DA lenses cover the full 24x36 mm frame?
By PF Staff in Gear Guides on Jan 7, 2019

Read more at: Full Frame Coverage of DA Lenses: Comprehensive Test - Gear Guides | PentaxForums.com

[stevebrot]

Y'alls thoughts on the current K1 II vs the new K3 III?

The K-33 will not do what the current K-1ii does. Likewise, the K-1ii will not do what that K-33 can do. It is an apple vs. orange comparison. If one does not know which they want, I suggest the K-70. It will be money better spent.


Steve

(...am a fan of the K-70...)

[Alex645]

Hello K1 Pentaxians!

Currently my Camera is a K50 (and I have a K10D). Im planning to buy the new K3 III when it comes out. But before I do , I thought I would ask what are Y'alls thoughts on the current K1 II vs the new K3 III?
My glass includes DA 40L, DA 70L , 55- 300 PLM, 16- 45, 10-17 Fisheye, all Pentax. Also I have a 70- 200 Tamron.

A comparison of the K1ii vs. K3iii is really more about FF vs. APS-C pros and cons. Your lenses are really set up for APS-C and the K3iii, so unless you've got the budget to start a new collection of DFA lenses, the logical step is the K3iii. The true value of your system is in the lenses.

Technically, the FF K1ii is the ultimate goal, but if given the choice of that camera with one or two lenses or the K3iii with six lenses, I'd go with the bigger system if I were in your shoes. Yes, you could use crop mode on the K1ii, but you don't want your upgrade to be a compromise.

[repaap]

My 2 cent. I have K-1 and i went for that mainly because of, well FF and it was something new. It did took me several months to get to know my photography with new tool. After that i did see the -benefit- of FF. and I'm still seeing it. However. I'd say that 30 % of my keepers i do really see that still it is very good, especially when I shoot RAW and with my best lenses. FA 31, 77 and DFA 15-30 and *70-200. I can have fun with other stuff too. FoV. is different and that more shallow Dof does give some extra, and you can stop down lenses more than aps-c(and you have to too in some circumstances)but that is not the golden key to happines.


Sometimes more Dof is great, so you can have lens more opened up for wider Dof. For travel and documenting and some journal work you don't really need FF. Especially K-1 because it is more field or studio camera. It is slow and files are great only if you get job done properly. Every one buying one should think of that. Also some aps-c lenses will never get good enough for FF even if it would look okay. corners are mushy, vingetting, ect. it might be alright for some stuff, but when you want that extra you paid for to get FF, you want good lenses, atleast I do.

now this is apples and oranges explained.


Then.

performance of this K-3 mk.III is going to be very good. you won't find anything like that from K-1. Where K-1 wins, will be resolution and perhaps DR and bigger format will win in narrow Dof and aboility to stop down to f 11-16 to get other advantages.

lenses will be bigger. but you know that.


The thing is, if you like your lenses with your K50 and only thing lacking is better performance in ISO, Fps and SR. K-3 mk.III should be the thing to go for. no question about it, let alone the bells and whistles and smell of 'new camera'.

If you are unhappy with performance with your lenses, want shallow Dof and wider DR and don't mind about slow pace of work. Go for K-1 mk.II. There is plenty of pictures at this forum too. I did see clear change in my style and way of shooting after jump from K-3 to K-1. But then again I'v worked hard to make it work. And i did get a big set of lenses for my K-1 which made the change eventually. Quality is different. but then again. I'm lusting for K-3 mk.III to fill my ned of journal/family photos/travel and fast paced gigs. that and for the smell of the 'new camera'. BUT I'll be using my K-1 too, when I know that I need it. I might go out with just K-1 and some of my favourite lenses or just with K-3 mk. III, or both. Then again, I have big set of lenses for both cameras ready, some I can easilly use in both.

oh, and one thing which catched me with K-1 was that OVF. A big thing to think about. I wanted that, I still love it. If this K-3 mk.III would not come with this new OVF, I'd not even consider it. Then there are some other great things too and most propably even more to be revealed.

edit: my photos in flickr with


K-3: https://www.flickr.com/gp/61234875@N06/G870V3

and K-1: https://www.flickr.com/gp/61234875@N06/86463J

edit, edit: it is alot of photos and I do not recommend going through all of it...but you can look couple of pages from beginnig and from the end. You'll get what I mean.

[C_Jones]

The difference between them is that one is for APS-C shooting (K-3 III) and the other is for full frame shooting (K-1 II). I have the K-3 II and the K-1 II and use them for different purposes. Basically the K-3 II is used for shooting distance if I need it on my Sigma 150-500 DG OS for Pentax, and the K-1 II is used for shooting people and other closely distanced subjects (plants, flowers, for example). If a newer K-1 line model came into existence, any newer technology that shows up in in the K-3 III may be nice if it was qualified to be appropriately applied to a newer K-1 model.

Happy shooting!

[cooks333]

Generally agree with the other responses thus far. I'm certainly no expert on the matter and don't have the experience of others on the board, but will add a couple of my own cents to the pool. As a previous K3 owner and now a K1 mk ii owner, I notice (and have very much enjoyed) a boost in image quality with the K1 because of better resolution and dynamic range. The higher resolution also allows cropping to be a more useful tool with the K1 ii, which I've found quite useful during post-processing. I find my best shots with the K1 ii are technically superior to the best shots I was able to achieve with my K3 and my keeper rate is also higher. Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't still like some of my K3 shots quite a bit and that boost also doesn't come for free. I very much miss shooting with the DA* 70mm Limited sometimes, for example. The biggest cost of the K1 for me is the larger lens sizes. I don't think I fully appreciated just how good of a hiking/travel setup I had with my K3 + 21/35/70 Limited kit. Carrying the K1 mk ii on the trail doesn't bother me, but lens changes are now more of a pain as is bringing more than one lens on an outing. On balance, I think the benefits of the K1 outweigh the costs for me and I have a lot of fun using it, but I can certainly see how that may not be the case for others.

[surfar]

thoughts on the current K1 II vs the new K3 III?

One is a truck, the other is a sports car.

Both will get you from A to B....buy both!

[Rondec]

Honestly, with your lenses, I would go for the K-3 III.

I really imagine the K-3 III will match up pretty well versus the K-1 II. The K-1 would have a little better dynamic range at base iso and a little better high iso performance (I'm guessing the K-3 III will be improved over previous generation of APS-C cameras). Full frame cameras can do a little more narrow depth of field if portraiture is a big interest. Pretty much everything else the K-3 III will be equal or better than the K-1 II, particularly when it comes to speed of operation, buffer clearing, video, etc.

I do think we will see a K-1 III down the road that includes a lot of the K-3 III tech, but it would be shocking if it came out before spring of 2022. I'd like it the end of 2021, but Pentax only seems to have one gear -- slow and steady -- and there is no rushing their new camera output.

[Risxsoul]

First of all. Thank You all for responding. I have read through the articles suggested. All of your posts made valid points, so far as I am concerned.

My interests in Photography are varied. I am still trying out different areas. I have come to learn that My little K50 is a good tool to learn some of the ropes. When to zoom and when to use your feet. Exposure tactics. Carry an extra battery and card. Leave the hood on. An old issue still comes back. Even, Digital APS-C is not extremely detailed at 16M. So, will 24 MP be enough? I see, for instance the APS-c sensor is about 1/4 of medium format, inch for inch. Medium Formats go up around 100MP. So a quarter of that would be 25MP, about what the KP and K3 Mark III have. On a monitor, more pictures resolve to look sharp, detailed, in focus, nice color, etc then when one prints them out and edges blur and color is not the same. So, I added a spyderX. Now at least the color is comparable Yeah I am set on the K3 3. K1 II or a 645 if I start doing alot of sitting portraits where I can do with 1 lens or 2.
I like to shoot birds, and my Dogs, and people at the campsite. An occasional softball game. I love takin pics of flowers and leaves. Im just sorta shamed by the 16MP limitation. Filling the frame is just so absolutely necessary in order to allow any kind of crop that works. You know the thing about song birds is that they are so tiny tiny. Compared to my small dogs for instance a little zoom fills the frame. Not so with an 5 ounce bird. my PLM at 300 and 6 feet distance and the bird fills almost a quarter of the screen. So now thats at most a 4M pic. No real resolution for anything more than 4x6in. Yes I creep closer and closer, So a 24MP would give a whole 2 more MP in that 1/4 crop. Well that 50 % more! I am optimistic. And having fun!

Thank You All again for your input.

Everything is a work in progress...

Risx