[panonski]

Frankly I think you are kidding yourself here with your 'mathematics'. There is a recognisable difference between the E-M1.2 and the KP in terms of noise, the KP is slightly better and particularly so at higher ISO over 3200. As to weight, my E-M1.2 with 12-100 f4 is significantly heavier than my KP with 18-135WR. Many people think a heavier system is easier to hold steady than a lighter one, not sure myself. The main benefit for the Olympus I have found so far in my (limited) comparison of my two systems is that the shake reduction of the E-M1.2 12-100 combo is significantly better than the KP 18-135. In real everyday shooting there really isn't much difference in terms of IQ that is truly significant and it's not really possible to show any difference convincingly by posting photos on a forum like this. Sadly as a very long time Pentax user (since 1981) I prefer the feel and handling of the E-M1.2 to the KP and I think the handling of the KP is inferior to my old K5. But of course that's just me, each to their own.

the math is acceptable in terms of real life situations when you have older body to compare - like K3 ...

With the KP, it's a clear thing - the KP would be winner....

I was just trying to show, how quickly you can lose advantage of bigger sensor, because of the depth of field , when you're taking photos in concerts, because you have to choose more ISo, to compensate higher shutter speeds, and also "equialvalent" apperture.

In m43, there is a double (2x) factor, so when you choose f4, it's like you choose f8 in full frame, or f 6.7 - at APSC.

that lead to less high ISO value, and add to this slightly lower shutter speed, you can manage from your hand - and that's a full stop advantage, over tha same settings in APSC.

---

Needless to say, new sensors from SONY, is unbeatable, and yes Sony produces m43 as well, as Apsc, and FF.

So, I except alternative design, as a step further - in m43 also, like we see it right now with apsc. ----

Math of sensor sizes, and depth of field, would be again correct.

Of course, I really don't want to get me missinterpreted,

APSC has a real advantage, but yet, m43, can do some tricks, to compensate that ...

With higher and better image stabilisation solutions - apsc can really get far away, like now in KP...

---

Personally when we are tlaking about that here, I don't believe in FF sensors, and bigger, because APSC have already many advantages, and the picture quality is at least three times better, then just several years ago

---

Last edited by panonski; 04-23-2018 at 01:49 AM.

[BruceBanner]

The KP is straight up awesome camera, with some real unique benefits not seen on other Pentax models (even K-1). Some of these benefits;

1) It's compact and light. Sure it might feel a tad weird to use at times but that's just a learning curve that's overcome with time, you can also change the size of the grips if you like. The K-1 feels more comfortable to shoot, but then it's heavy and big, sometimes I want a dslr with me that's lighter and less footprint in my bag, that's when I grab the KP (and like another user here I also use a DA 40mm XS, a great tiny compact combo indeed
2) Changeable grips... did I mention that?
3) Av Bracketing Shooting Mode. Say what? An underrated shooting mode imo. Use it and the camera fires of 3 shots in succession with varying apertures but same exposures. This can speed up the workflow and provide you with more options in post as to which DoF you think actually works better. Does the shot with aperture 2.8 look better or the f4 or f5.6. Yes you can manually do this but it's nice with a single click to get this. I've used it with demanding shooting conditions, where perhaps I missed the focus slightly on the thinner wider open shots, but have come away with a narrower aperture shot that 'saves the day' so to speak.
4) Focus Peak with that grey mode thingy, works a treat, K-1 doesn't have it.
5) Genuine Ninja Mode! You can have the KP running with Electronic Shutter which is virtually silent, use this with Manual Focus and Live View and it's dead silent!
6) Continuous ES! You even get to burst shoot with ES mode now!
7) Pixel Shift
8) Excellent ISO
9) Awesome customisable dial
10) 5 Custom User Modes
11) Pop up flash.

It's a fantastic little piece of kit. I feel very comfortable that should my K-1 fail me on the day I have a very capable back up camera.

12) It comes in silver

[SSGGeezer]

It is good with big lenses and a battery grip also!
I like it since it really isn't that heavy, even with the grip attached. I even have less issues with keeping my horizon level with the grip attached.

[shiner]

It is good with big lenses and a battery grip also!
I like it since it really isn't that heavy, even with the grip attached. I even have less issues with keeping my horizon level with the grip attached.

Just got the battery grip, although it's no longer is available in silver . It's the first battery grip I've bought that I might end up using!

[acoufap]

the math is acceptable in terms of real life situations when you have older body to compare - like K3 ...

With the KP, it's a clear thing - the KP would be winner....

I was just trying to show, how quickly you can lose advantage of bigger sensor, because of the depth of field , when you're taking photos in concerts, because you have to choose more ISo, to compensate higher shutter speeds, and also "equialvalent" apperture.

In m43, there is a double (2x) factor, so when you choose f4, it's like you choose f8 in full frame, or f 6.7 - at APSC.

that lead to less high ISO value, and add to this slightly lower shutter speed, you can manage from your hand - and that's a full stop advantage, over tha same settings in APSC.

---

Needless to say, new sensors from SONY, is unbeatable, and yes Sony produces m43 as well, as Apsc, and FF.

So, I except alternative design, as a step further - in m43 also, like we see it right now with apsc. ----

Math of sensor sizes, and depth of field, would be again correct.

Of course, I really don't want to get me missinterpreted,

APSC has a real advantage, but yet, m43, can do some tricks, to compensate that ...

With higher and better image stabilisation solutions - apsc can really get far away, like now in KP...

---

Personally when we are tlaking about that here, I don't believe in FF sensors, and bigger, because APSC have already many advantages, and the picture quality is at least three times better, then just several years ago

From my investigations about getting a more lightweight solution I know that highend Olympus m43 brings some interesting things to the table. But the costs of the top line are high and the image processor only works on 12 bit base compared to 14 bit of todays Pentax DSLRs or Fujifilm APSC solutions. So I think in more problematic situations Pentax is the better solution (noise, dynamic range). And with a KP and APSC lenses you don‘t have a much heavier setup.

[normhead]

I guess from my perspective there are a number of reasons for getting a K-P. If my wife would haaccept one to replace her K-5 I would have already bought her one, and probably borrowed in numerous times.

The reasons for the, #1 being Pixel Shift. I only have it on my K-1 now, and there are some images for which it works really well. There i nothing that compares from the other brands being discussed.

2. Pentax engineers have said with the Accelerator chip it's on par with he K-1 for high ISO use. Once again, I doubt you're going to get that from the other brands being discussed although if someone wants to suggest a model number I can use the image compare function at Imagian Resources to show me I'm wrong, I'll be happy t change my mind. Just the possibility of having images as clean as K-1 images from a smaller camera is pretty exciting by itself.

The only thing I'd be likely to miss based on comparison with my K-3 would be the 23 shot buffer for RAW. I do fill my buffer on a regular basis.

[bkpix]

I guess from my perspective there are a number of reasons for getting a K-P. If my wife would haaccept one to replace her K-5 I would have already bought her one, and probably borrowed in numerous times.

The reasons for the, #1 being Pixel Shift. I only have it on my K-1 now, and there are some images for which it works really well. There i nothing that compares from the other brands being discussed.

2. Pentax engineers have said with the Accelerator chip it's on par with he K-1 for high ISO use. Once again, I doubt you're going to get that from the other brands being discussed although if someone wants to suggest a model number I can use the image compare function at Imagian Resources to show me I'm wrong, I'll be happy t change my mind. Just the possibility of having images as clean as K-1 images from a smaller camera is pretty exciting by itself.

The only thing I'd be likely to miss based on comparison with my K-3 would be the 23 shot buffer for RAW. I do fill my buffer on a regular basis.

Norm:

Just go buy yourself a new or gently used KP, and let your wife steal, er, borrow it from time to time. It's nearly convinced me I don't need to buy a K-1.

Bob

[normhead]

Norm:

Just go buy yourself a new or gently used KP, and let your wife steal, er, borrow it from time to time. It's nearly convinced me I don't need to buy a K-1.

Bob

There was one image I liked from last week, taken multiple times with both cameras an on at least one, the only good image was taken with the K-3. When you're shooting hand held, you don't know if that means anything , there are too many other factors but I could make an argument based on couple of images in support of the K-3 having better AF. But the big thing with the K-1 is the dynamic range.

Even though the K-P has great low noise performance, it still doesn't have K-1 dynamic range. That being said. I'm not selling images anymore and if I already didn't own a K-1, I doubt I'd buy one now. It's overkill for my retired existence.