[btnapa]

I would appreciate feedback from fellow forum members who own both cameras. Do you print very large prints, 30"x40", 40"x60" and beyond from a single frame? I am interested to know how much better the 645Z files are compared to K1 for super big prints.

The price difference for the two comparable systems is quite substantial. Are the results that much better such that it warrants the jump from K1 to 645Z?

[CDW]

I own both and I print on a Canon ipf8400 44" printer. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, disregarding DOF differences between the format, when you compare color and resolution. The 645Z has a bit more dynamic range but if the situation allows pixel shift shooting, the K1 can match or better the Z. The K1 has an advantage for astrophotography with the AstroTracer function and a wider range of ultra wide lenses. The lack of affordable 645 ultra wide lens options is a disadvantage although stitching multiple frames can provide even higher resolution files and equivalent ultra wide views, if you have a need to print very large mural size.

[texandrews]

Sooooooooooooooooo busy this fall. About to get even busier. But I hope in the next day or so to be able to take a good look at some results. I can say several things already:

• Weight and bulk differences are substantial, as you have probably guessed. The K1 isn't a lightweight, but it is certainly far more compact and lighter.
• I think it's easier to run the Z in the field and in dark conditions. The size of it means the buttons are a bit more spread out and that helps me. OTOH, I do like the K1's feel. To me it's a decent compromise between an ideal haptics for me (the Z) and something as compact as it can be. My A7R had a great feel, but it also felt slightly cramped for me. I don't have especially large hands, btw---I'm 5'-11".
• Even though it's a FF camera with a fine OVF, it seems puny and dim next to the Z's big, beautiful OVF.
• The video works better on the K1 than the Z. Still not as good as a Canon 5dmkIV.
• Battery life is comparable as far as I can see.
• There's a lot of legacy glass out there for the K1! Some interesting things. And I lot I don't need...
• Doesn't seem as prone to highlight clipping as the Z (the Z doesn't exactly clip, imo. To me, it's more like the metering is set oddly. I have my Z semi-permanently set to -1 or 2 ev's exposure compensation. i jus tleave it there and bring it up in post, no problems).

I'm betting I am going to see something similar to the comparison between my A7R (which I sold to get my K1) and my Z: in good light, have to look hard to see differences. But in low light,tonality transitions between darks into lighter tones, a distinct difference. The A7R was a very good performer, make no mistake. But in similar subjects, lighting, I could immediately see the differences. Mind you, I was looking for them. Most people would scratch their heads about what I'm talking about even if shown. But cognoscenti would see it right away if they looked in the right places.

So, is such a fine distinction worth an extra $5K to you?

I'll be interested to see what happens with pixel shift. But remember, pixel shift has some serious limitations....If you are wondering why I got a K1, it's because I felt it would be smart to have a backup camera---which I had with the A7R, purchased before the Z was even announced---and to be all in Pentax. I can use my 645 lenses with my K1, and of course all my flash stuff and other accessories. And the K1 is such a deal!

[2351HD]

I had both the Z and K1. Sold the K1 and bought a Canon 5DmkIV.

Some may say I am crazy but I found the K1 to be lacking. I still have the Z and it's my main camera. The Z takes better images handheld than the K1 in my view, which is important for travel. Also, I felt the K1 was lacking the lenses that I wanted, such as a high quality 70-300 and 100-400.

Don't get me wrong, I wish every day that the 5D4 had the body and controls of the K1, with the guts of the 5D4.

I now use the Canon 16-35/4 in place of the 15-30 Pentax and it's much better. I found the AF to be unreliable on the K1 with the ultra wide and my testing proved it. In Australia you can't just test one camera after another like you can in the US, but my camera went in for eval at the distributor and they said it was fine.

If I didn't already have the Z, I would still have the K1 as my tripod camera for landscape, but have something else for handheld, like a 5D4 or even an A7rII or Fuji XT2.

All this being said, file quality from the K1 is outstanding and leaves little to want. If I had never owned a 645z then I wouldn't know how much better the files are and a K1 would do everything you need. It's a lot of extra money for a 10-15% better file.

[btnapa]

stitching multiple frames can provide even higher resolution files

Thank you CDW. That is what I do to get wider shots. I was mainly interested in knowing the limits of each camera in a single frame mode. From all the responses, it seems the difference is not significant. I print on an Espon 9800 (44") printer and the K1 results are light years ahead of my previous camera which was a K3 and Canon 6D and 7D before that. My reference panoramic image 1:4 aspect ratio is a canvas print produced from a 7D file at low ISOs. The K1 image shot at dusk (same subject and composition), completely blows the 7D file out of the water.

Since I am getting ready to offer my work for prints and the need to expand the image library, I was trying to figure out if a move to 645Z would offer significant advantage. It looks like I should probably stay put and think about the 645 move when the next gen higher res 645 is offered by Pentax.

---------- Post added 01-01-17 at 05:56 PM ----------

And the K1 is such a deal!

Thanks @texandrews.

I am aware of the advantages of the K1 in weight and wider range of lenses. I was willing to make the move to the more limited (in lenses) 654Z for a significant improvement in the image quality. From the responses, it seems the difference is marginal. Having shot Canons for years and the K5IIs and the K3, K1 is unmatched in quality and value. The quality of the images far exceed all the cameras I have owned or shot with in the past.

---------- Post added 01-01-17 at 06:03 PM ----------

It's a lot of extra money for a 10-15% better file.

Thank you @2351HD.

That seems to be the consensus on this thread. I find it interesting to see you adding Canon to the mix. I am a former Canon shooter and loved the system. Certain limitation enticed me to move to Pentax (nostalgia played big role too). I have no regrets with the Pentax move. And now with the K1, still side of my photographic needs are met. I had a video project which I shot with a pair of Sony A6000 cameras. I briefly considered a complete switch to Sony FF and APSc combo for a single system convenience but the cost of switching made me shelf the idea for now. I am going to go to a hybrid solution for the short term and wait to see what happens to the various systems (brands) in the next few years.

[Fontan]

Unless you shoot for a living, the best camera is the one you have it on you most. Since I got my K-1, the use of 645d has decreased dramatically. Lately I got myself a GR, and now I cannot let go. You see where I am getting at. Size has lots of implications.

[btnapa]

Unless you shoot for a living, the best camera is the one you have it on you most. Since I got my K-1, the use of 645d has decreased dramatically. Lately I got myself a GR, and now I cannot let go. You see where I am getting at. Size has lots of implications.

I totally agree. I have been wanting a GR for sometime now. However, I do get paid for most of the work I do these days. I am not a full time pro but do charge for my pics. As a result, I have to go with something that gives me max results. The other thing that is also ironic is the client response to the camera size. You know what I mean. I can show up with a GR and deliver pro results but I am gonna get the looks from my clients.

I had a situation a few years ago. We were shooting in a studio doing some products for an industrial client. I had my K3 at the time and the lens of choice was the FA 43 f1.8. Now you know how small the set up looks. So in order to compensate for the look, I put on one of those accordion lens shades (Mamiya 645 shade) and extended it pretty far out. Low and behold, I got a "wow" response from my client who thought I had a "very professional" camera. Go figure. Needless to say the results were good enough to be used for all sorts of applications including mega size trade show posters.

[Gyroscope]

I have both. I purchased the 645z around the time the Canon 5DS came out and am now in the throes of getting rid of all my canon gear to go 100% Pentax simply because I would rather have cameras that can share batteries, flashes and are similar to use. I use the K1 with the 15-30 which covers the ultrawide range that I can't get with the 645z but my go-to for the best results is still the Z. I haven't tried to print large with the K1 yet but comparing files I would say in good conditions the K1 will go very large and look almost as good as the Z but the Z will get better results in trickier light conditions and is MUCH better for super long exposures and low light conditions (DR). BTW I am making these comments based on my landscape shooting. I will also use the K1 for a telephoto option (probably 150-450). I actually have reviews for both of these camera's published on my website if you are interested. Photography Articles ? Morden O'Hare | Photography

I have to say the 645Z has been a revelation to me. The standard of my work has improved out of sight compared to what I was getting with my Canon 5Dmk3 (at least for landscapes).

[btnapa]

I have both. I purchased the 645z around the time the Canon 5DS came out and am now in the throes of getting rid of all my canon gear to go 100% Pentax simply because I would rather have cameras that can share batteries, flashes and are similar to use. I use the K1 with the 15-30 which covers the ultrawide range that I can't get with the 645z but my go-to for the best results is still the Z. I haven't tried to print large with the K1 yet but comparing files I would say in good conditions the K1 will go very large and look almost as good as the Z but the Z will get better results in trickier light conditions and is MUCH better for super long exposures and low light conditions (DR). BTW I am making these comments based on my landscape shooting. I will also use the K1 for a telephoto option (probably 150-450). I actually have reviews for both of these camera's published on my website if you are interested. Photography Articles ? Morden O'Hare | Photography

I have to say the 645Z has been a revelation to me. The standard of my work has improved out of sight compared to what I was getting with my Canon 5Dmk3 (at least for landscapes).

Thank you Morden for your feedback. BTW, I checked out your site. Your images are what I aspire to do. Great work. I don't know if I will ever have the chance to go to Africa. That is one of the few places I want to see the most.

[texandrews]

I have both. I purchased the 645z around the time the Canon 5DS came out and am now in the throes of getting rid of all my canon gear to go 100% Pentax simply because I would rather have cameras that can share batteries, flashes and are similar to use.

Exactly why i ant all Pentax. Have you used any of your 645 lenses on your K1?

I haven't tried to print large with the K1 yet but comparing files I would say in good conditions the K1 will go very large and look almost as good as the Z but the Z will get better results in trickier light conditions and is MUCH better for super long exposures and low light conditions (DR). BTW I am making these comments based on my landscape shooting.

Exactly my experience again...

I have to say the 645Z has been a revelation to me. The standard of my work has improved out of sight compared to what I was getting with my Canon 5Dmk3 (at least for landscapes).

Yup, once again my experience exactly. Will be visiting your site, look forward with anticipation.

[Gyroscope]

Exactly why i ant all Pentax. Have you used any of your 645 lenses on your K1? Exactly my experience again...

Yup, once again my experience exactly. Will be visiting your site, look forward with anticipation.

Its interesting but unsurprising that your experiences mirror my own😊

No I haven't tried using my 645 lenses on my K1. The only lens that would be useful to do this with potentially is the 28-45 but this is so damn heavy I would be concerned about damaging the K1 mount.

[btnapa]

Its interesting but unsurprising that your experiences mirror my own😊

No I haven't tried using my 645 lenses on my K1. The only lens that would be useful to do this with potentially is the 28-45 but this is so damn heavy I would be concerned about damaging the K1 mount.

I tried 645 lenses on my K3 but have been too busy to take them for a real-life spin on my K1.

On K3 the FA45-85 was super sharp. Ghosting is terrible when you shoot against a strong backlit situation. I also tried the FA200 f4 and wide open it is tack sharp. The star of the 645 on my K3 was the A120 macro. I actually used it to shoot products for one of my clients. I have native shorter macros for my K mount but the A120 gave me the most separation from the subject and the results were stunning.

BTW, the other lens that I am yet to try on my K1 is the 165LS from the 67 line. On my K3 and K5IIs, wide open, it was as sharp as my Sigma 150 macro which I was shooting on a Canon 6D body at the time.

[texandrews]

No I haven't tried using my 645 lenses on my K1. The only lens that would be useful to do this with potentially is the 28-45 but this is so damn heavy I would be concerned about damaging the K1 mount.

Well, as btnapa suggests, the 120 would certainly be one to try...I'm wondering about the 35, 75, 120, 150 and 200----all of them modest sizes and weights. Just been so...horribly....busy....arrrrggghhhh. I have all these lenses and the adapter and still haven't had time to try them. Well, now that the blower fan and brakes are done on my truck maybe I'll have time this weekend before the big crush happens at work on Monday.

---------- Post added 01-04-17 at 06:52 PM ----------

I tried 645 lenses on my K3 but have been too busy to take them for a real-life spin on my K1.

so I'm not the only one...

I also tried the FA200 f4 and wide open it is tack sharp. The star of the 645 on my K3 was the A120 macro. I actually used it to shoot products for one of my clients. I have native shorter macros for my K mount but the A120 gave me the most separation from the subject and the results were stunning.

And this is what has me really excited.

BTW, the other lens that I am yet to try on my K1 is the 165LS from the 67 line. On my K3 and K5IIs, wide open, it was as sharp as my Sigma 150 macro which I was shooting on a Canon 6D body at the time.

Interesting....I'm going to try my 75's, the regular and the LS, and my 135LS as well....

[btnapa]

Well, as btnapa suggests, the 120 would certainly be one to try...I'm wondering about the 35, 75, 120, 150 and 200----all of them modest sizes and weights. Just been so...horribly....busy....arrrrggghhhh. I have all these lenses and the adapter and still haven't had time to try them. Well, now that the blower fan and brakes are done on my truck maybe I'll have time this weekend before the big crush happens at work on Monday.

---------- Post added 01-04-17 at 06:52 PM ----------

so I'm not the only one...

And this is what has me really excited.

Interesting....I'm going to try my 75's, the regular and the LS, and my 135LS as well....

I wish Pentax would introduce an autofocus adapter for 645 FA lenses to be used on K1. I remember an early reference to such an adapter just before K1 was introduced. Perhaps this is one of the surprise Pentax has in store for us in the coming year. As it is, all the 645 A lenses are stop down which is a bit of pain to use. At least the FA lenses are a lot easier.

The irony of the 645 vs K mount lenses is that all the K lenses that I have are so good that I hardly have a need for a 645 lens as good as they may be. The only exception is a focal length that I may not have in K mount such as the 120 macro.

[texandrews]

The irony of the 645 vs K mount lenses is that all the K lenses that I have are so good that I hardly have a need for a 645 lens as good as they may be. The only exception is a focal length that I may not have in K mount such as the 120 macro.

Boris, that's true about the native FF lenses, and I think there's little "need" for K1 people to look at the 645 options. But the big reason I sold my excellent Sony gear (and some excellent legacy lenses) was that in Pentax one now has this amazing and IMO underappreciated ability to move up and down(mostly just down with the lenses) through 3 current formats, plus one legacy one, with accessories and lenses. Pentax is the only manufacturer to make this happen, and to have planned it that way. So, I can use all of my 645 lenses with my K1 if I need or want to, and of course all my flash gear plus several other gadgets. APSC through 645, significant compatibility, and legacy 6x7 thrown into the bargain. Just take a moment everyone to ponder that.

That's something that is driving me bats about Pentax/Ricoh at the moment: If I was in charge of marketing, you can bet this would be broadcast about among the pro community as the big deal that it is, and then used as leverage for the aspirational enthusiast communities. It really is a big deal!

Btw, Boris (and you, too, Gyroscope!), have you seen this?
Available with the K mount mounting plate and 645 lens mounting plates....