Advice / Opinions

**BarryE** · 01-29-2021, 01:23 PM - **1 Like**

The simple difference to me between the K-3 and the K-1 with, say the 15-30, apart from the size, is the tolerance and manipulation of the images possible in post. The K-1 wins hands down - as would the 645z over the K-1. If that is important, the the K-1 wins. Posting processed images of K-3 v K-1 is not especially relevant, I feel. The K-1 would have more keepers in a challenging situation because of it's greater DR. Get it right and the K-3 is fine, but life isn't always like that.

If the combination of the K-1 and a heavy lens is pain, and it often is for me, then the K-3 system is best. Personally, I keep changing my mind when carrying either system. For 'studio' type work, the K-1 is a clear winner.

stevebrot · 01-29-2021, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Since he has the Sigma 10-20 and a K-3 I think we can assume he does know what he wants in FL coverage.

Exactly my point. He knows the FOV range and use cases and if there is a "pain point" for shooting with the K-1, the choice should be obvious.

Steve

MaineNative · 01-29-2021, 04:04 PM

I have a K-5 and a K-1. I don’t have the Sigma, but I rented the DFA 15-30 and the quality is incredible on the K-1, but it was just too heavy for me. If I were just shooting in a studio or from the trunk of my car, it would be fine, but for a walk-around lens or for hiking it was a lot of extra weight.

I would recommend renting the 15-30 before buying it. I ended up buying a used FA 20/2.8 instead, plus I have the DFA 28-105 for my K-1. For portraits, I have a manual focus, full-frame 28-90/2.8 lens. I have a Samyang 14/2.8 for Astro. (The 15-30 is almost as good as the Samyang for Astro.)

Roadboat24 · 01-29-2021, 10:28 PM - **1 Like**

Thank you all for your comments, suggestions and opinions.
It is nice to have a venue to ask a naive question without ridicule.

I have read and contemplated each of your responses, A few items bubble to the top.

I do enjoy the focal range/Field of view provided by the 10-20mm on crop/15-30mm on ff.
While I'm sure the 15-30mm on K1 would have extended capabilities over the K3 and 10-20mm, With my current skills it would be a marginal gain at great cost.
Filtering the 10-20 is easier or at lest less expensive.
The K3 with 10-20mm does have its flaws, But, Until my skill level can press its capabilities stick with what I've got.

Pentax K3 with Sigma 10-20mm somewhere in South Mountain Park, Phoenix AZ.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

**interested_observer** · 01-29-2021, 11:33 PM - **1 Like**

I'll reply, but - I'm going to be all over the place here with opinions. Take it for what's it's worth....

I was shooting with the K5IIs - doing astro, well milky way over night landscapes. I couldn't get the star colors I wanted. The solution I knew was to go to FF for better dynamic range. I did go with the K1 and yes the star coloring are out of the ball park - exceeded my expectations. However, a bit over 18 months ago I ran into a guy who just picked up a K70 and we were talking out in the field. I pulled out my GPS and my Sigma 18-35/f1.8, set up his K70 and took a shot of the milky way. Essentially the same as or very close to what I was getting with the K1. We have been going out shooting now quite a bit now, shooting together over the last year and a half - and his K70 has been keeping up very nicely. I attribute this to 2 specific items - 1) the acceleration chip in the K70 and my K1 not having it - so in terms of dynamic range they are about equal. 2) he shoots with the Sigma at f1.8 and I shoot with the 15-30 at f2.8, so the f1.8 is a stop and a third faster which is a bit over 2x more light.

The moral of the story is that yes the K1 is a beast of a camera, but the Pentax crop bodies (especially the newer ones) are no slouches. I wouldn't write them off at all.

The 15-30 is a really nice lens - but, large and heavy. I shoot with it mainly on a tripod (and I can't live without the articulating screen). My wife and I were up in Alaska on a cruise several years ago. In front of a glacier the ship was doing a 360 and the water from the upper decks came sloshing down (easily 50 gallons) drenching my K1 and the 15-30. My wife just cringed and the collective gasps of everyone else just sucked the air out of the area. I pulled out a little hand towel, dried it off and kept on shooting. Having WR/AW is really really nice.

I probably shoot with the 15-30, 90% of the time. Wonderful colors, nice detail, just all around excellent image quality. I enjoy it a lot.

This time last year, I was bored, so I was thinking that I have 5 lenses that can shoot at 28mm. I packed everything up and drove over to this community college that has a new building with a very different architecture - just to go shooting. I also though that I would compare the lenses somewhat (NOT in anyway a scientific controlled comparison). Here is the link.

5 Lens Comparison @ 28mm using Evening Architecture Composition - PentaxForums.com

Fair comparison - well not really, but enlightening. Yes, the primes were going to do better than the zooms. However....

The 15-30 and the M 28 lenses were at the bottom of the group.

The 28-105, K 28 Shift and the Contax 28 were clustered at the top with superior overall image quality, better detail and sharpness.

The two large surprises were the 28-105 was substantially better than the 15-30 (both at 28mm). I was not expecting that at all. But in thinking about it the 15-30 was designed for wide, and it does wide very well. Also, the 28-105 kept up with the two primes (which I was not expecting at all) - the Contax (Zeiss) and the 40 year old 28 shift with its very large lens elements (for shifting).

In summary - the K1/15-30 pairing is an excellent combination. Both of them are heavy in weight, paired up - they are heavy, but produce excellent results. Also, don't let the 28-105 kit lens designation fool you.

normhead · 01-30-2021, 06:03 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by interested_observer

I'll reply, but - I'm going to be all over the place here with opinions. Take it for what's it's worth....

I was shooting with the K5IIs - doing astro, well milky way over night landscapes. I couldn't get the star colors I wanted. The solution I knew was to go to FF for better dynamic range. I did go with the K1 and yes the star coloring are out of the ball park - exceeded my expectations. However, a bit over 18 months ago I ran into a guy who just picked up a K70 and we were talking out in the field. I pulled out my GPS and my Sigma 18-35/f1.8, set up his K70 and took a shot of the milky way. Essentially the same as or very close to what I was getting with the K1. We have been going out shooting now quite a bit now, shooting together over the last year and a half - and his K70 has been keeping up very nicely. I attribute this to 2 specific items - 1) the acceleration chip in the K70 and my K1 not having it - so in terms of dynamic range they are about equal. 2) he shoots with the Sigma at f1.8 and I shoot with the 15-30 at f2.8, so the f1.8 is a stop and a third faster which is a bit over 2x more light.

The moral of the story is that yes the K1 is a beast of a camera, but the Pentax crop bodies (especially the newer ones) are no slouches. I wouldn't write them off at all.

The 15-30 is a really nice lens - but, large and heavy. I shoot with it mainly on a tripod (and I can't live without the articulating screen). My wife and I were up in Alaska on a cruise several years ago. In front of a glacier the ship was doing a 360 and the water from the upper decks came sloshing down (easily 50 gallons) drenching my K1 and the 15-30. My wife just cringed and the collective gasps of everyone else just sucked the air out of the area. I pulled out a little hand towel, dried it off and kept on shooting. Having WR/AW is really really nice.

I probably shoot with the 15-30, 90% of the time. Wonderful colors, nice detail, just all around excellent image quality. I enjoy it a lot.

This time last year, I was bored, so I was thinking that I have 5 lenses that can shoot at 28mm. I packed everything up and drove over to this community college that has a new building with a very different architecture - just to go shooting. I also though that I would compare the lenses somewhat (NOT in anyway a scientific controlled comparison). Here is the link.

5 Lens Comparison @ 28mm using Evening Architecture Composition - PentaxForums.com

Fair comparison - well not really, but enlightening. Yes, the primes were going to do better than the zooms. However....

The 15-30 and the M 28 lenses were at the bottom of the group.

The 28-105, K 28 Shift and the Contax 28 were clustered at the top with superior overall image quality, better detail and sharpness.

The two large surprises were the 28-105 was substantially better than the 15-30 (both at 28mm). I was not expecting that at all. But in thinking about it the 15-30 was designed for wide, and it does wide very well. Also, the 28-105 kept up with the two primes (which I was not expecting at all) - the Contax (Zeiss) and the 40 year old 28 shift with its very large lens elements (for shifting).

In summary - the K1/15-30 pairing is an excellent combination. Both of them are heavy in weight, paired up - they are heavy, but produce excellent results. Also, don't let the 28-105 kit lens designation fool you.

Whenever I've done testing I get the same surprises. Like most people, I set out to prove something like "for landscape my K-1 is better than my wife's K-5." If you feel ambitious, you might want to strip the exif form your images and post a blind poll to see what everyone else thinks. That's always surprising as well.

The moral of the story for me is even after you share the results, you can't share the process. The guy who does the tests understands the results better than anyone else.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-30-2021, 06:28 AM

I think the biggest differences between the K3 and sigma 10-20 and the K1 and a 15-30 are the differences in higher iso performance with the K1. That coupled with the 1 stop gain at maximum aperture should suggest that the K1 plus 15-30 would produce better shots.

I shoot a lot indoors when travelling (churches and historic buildings) and find the K5 high iso performance is very important. My K1 MK2 is even better. It is rumoured that the upcoming k3 mk3 might be just as good. If so, I might be tempted to replace my rather beat up (now) k5

normhead · 01-30-2021, 06:38 AM

One needs to remember, the K-3 is almost 14 EV, the K-1 is almost 15. A one stop difference. Forgetting that EV is exponential and just using straight math the difference between a K-3 and a K-1 is about 6%. (it's actually less than that.) When you consider EV is measured from 1, the value down is 50% going higher the next stop is 200%, 6% is not going to make a significant difference in many situations, if at all.

01-29-2021, 11:33 PM - 1 Like	#20
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	I'll reply, but - I'm going to be all over the place here with opinions. Take it for what's it's worth.... I was shooting with the K5IIs - doing astro, well milky way over night landscapes. I couldn't get the star colors I wanted. The solution I knew was to go to FF for better dynamic range. I did go with the K1 and yes the star coloring are out of the ball park - exceeded my expectations. However, a bit over 18 months ago I ran into a guy who just picked up a K70 and we were talking out in the field. I pulled out my GPS and my Sigma 18-35/f1.8, set up his K70 and took a shot of the milky way. Essentially the same as or very close to what I was getting with the K1. We have been going out shooting now quite a bit now, shooting together over the last year and a half - and his K70 has been keeping up very nicely. I attribute this to 2 specific items - 1) the acceleration chip in the K70 and my K1 not having it - so in terms of dynamic range they are about equal. 2) he shoots with the Sigma at f1.8 and I shoot with the 15-30 at f2.8, so the f1.8 is a stop and a third faster which is a bit over 2x more light. The moral of the story is that yes the K1 is a beast of a camera, but the Pentax crop bodies (especially the newer ones) are no slouches. I wouldn't write them off at all. The 15-30 is a really nice lens - but, large and heavy. I shoot with it mainly on a tripod (and I can't live without the articulating screen). My wife and I were up in Alaska on a cruise several years ago. In front of a glacier the ship was doing a 360 and the water from the upper decks came sloshing down (easily 50 gallons) drenching my K1 and the 15-30. My wife just cringed and the collective gasps of everyone else just sucked the air out of the area. I pulled out a little hand towel, dried it off and kept on shooting. Having WR/AW is really really nice. I probably shoot with the 15-30, 90% of the time. Wonderful colors, nice detail, just all around excellent image quality. I enjoy it a lot. This time last year, I was bored, so I was thinking that I have 5 lenses that can shoot at 28mm. I packed everything up and drove over to this community college that has a new building with a very different architecture - just to go shooting. I also though that I would compare the lenses somewhat (NOT in anyway a scientific controlled comparison). Here is the link. 5 Lens Comparison @ 28mm using Evening Architecture Composition - PentaxForums.com Fair comparison - well not really, but enlightening. Yes, the primes were going to do better than the zooms. However.... The 15-30 and the M 28 lenses were at the bottom of the group. The 28-105, K 28 Shift and the Contax 28 were clustered at the top with superior overall image quality, better detail and sharpness. The two large surprises were the 28-105 was substantially better than the 15-30 (both at 28mm). I was not expecting that at all. But in thinking about it the 15-30 was designed for wide, and it does wide very well. Also, the 28-105 kept up with the two primes (which I was not expecting at all) - the Contax (Zeiss) and the 40 year old 28 shift with its very large lens elements (for shifting). In summary - the K1/15-30 pairing is an excellent combination. Both of them are heavy in weight, paired up - they are heavy, but produce excellent results. Also, don't let the 28-105 kit lens designation fool you.

01-30-2021, 06:03 AM - 1 Like	#21
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by interested_observer I'll reply, but - I'm going to be all over the place here with opinions. Take it for what's it's worth.... I was shooting with the K5IIs - doing astro, well milky way over night landscapes. I couldn't get the star colors I wanted. The solution I knew was to go to FF for better dynamic range. I did go with the K1 and yes the star coloring are out of the ball park - exceeded my expectations. However, a bit over 18 months ago I ran into a guy who just picked up a K70 and we were talking out in the field. I pulled out my GPS and my Sigma 18-35/f1.8, set up his K70 and took a shot of the milky way. Essentially the same as or very close to what I was getting with the K1. We have been going out shooting now quite a bit now, shooting together over the last year and a half - and his K70 has been keeping up very nicely. I attribute this to 2 specific items - 1) the acceleration chip in the K70 and my K1 not having it - so in terms of dynamic range they are about equal. 2) he shoots with the Sigma at f1.8 and I shoot with the 15-30 at f2.8, so the f1.8 is a stop and a third faster which is a bit over 2x more light. The moral of the story is that yes the K1 is a beast of a camera, but the Pentax crop bodies (especially the newer ones) are no slouches. I wouldn't write them off at all. The 15-30 is a really nice lens - but, large and heavy. I shoot with it mainly on a tripod (and I can't live without the articulating screen). My wife and I were up in Alaska on a cruise several years ago. In front of a glacier the ship was doing a 360 and the water from the upper decks came sloshing down (easily 50 gallons) drenching my K1 and the 15-30. My wife just cringed and the collective gasps of everyone else just sucked the air out of the area. I pulled out a little hand towel, dried it off and kept on shooting. Having WR/AW is really really nice. I probably shoot with the 15-30, 90% of the time. Wonderful colors, nice detail, just all around excellent image quality. I enjoy it a lot. This time last year, I was bored, so I was thinking that I have 5 lenses that can shoot at 28mm. I packed everything up and drove over to this community college that has a new building with a very different architecture - just to go shooting. I also though that I would compare the lenses somewhat (NOT in anyway a scientific controlled comparison). Here is the link. 5 Lens Comparison @ 28mm using Evening Architecture Composition - PentaxForums.com Fair comparison - well not really, but enlightening. Yes, the primes were going to do better than the zooms. However.... The 15-30 and the M 28 lenses were at the bottom of the group. The 28-105, K 28 Shift and the Contax 28 were clustered at the top with superior overall image quality, better detail and sharpness. The two large surprises were the 28-105 was substantially better than the 15-30 (both at 28mm). I was not expecting that at all. But in thinking about it the 15-30 was designed for wide, and it does wide very well. Also, the 28-105 kept up with the two primes (which I was not expecting at all) - the Contax (Zeiss) and the 40 year old 28 shift with its very large lens elements (for shifting). In summary - the K1/15-30 pairing is an excellent combination. Both of them are heavy in weight, paired up - they are heavy, but produce excellent results. Also, don't let the 28-105 kit lens designation fool you. Whenever I've done testing I get the same surprises. Like most people, I set out to prove something like "for landscape my K-1 is better than my wife's K-5." If you feel ambitious, you might want to strip the exif form your images and post a blind poll to see what everyone else thinks. That's always surprising as well. The moral of the story for me is even after you share the results, you can't share the process. The guy who does the tests understands the results better than anyone else.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Box O' Stuff - Opinions and Advice Welcome	troika	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	25	09-11-2018 08:58 PM
Linux photo import and management - advice / opinions, please	BigMackCam	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	37	05-26-2018 06:22 AM
60-250mm/f4 to cover all needs between 100-250mm?? Opinions/advice welcome	gda13	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	08-17-2016 06:01 PM
advice or opinions on samyang 14 aspherical	Vihmameister	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	07-18-2014 06:14 AM
Opinions, Advice, Tips	Flaco	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	11-28-2006 10:08 PM

01-29-2021, 01:23 PM - 1 Like	#16
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	The simple difference to me between the K-3 and the K-1 with, say the 15-30, apart from the size, is the tolerance and manipulation of the images possible in post. The K-1 wins hands down - as would the 645z over the K-1. If that is important, the the K-1 wins. Posting processed images of K-3 v K-1 is not especially relevant, I feel. The K-1 would have more keepers in a challenging situation because of it's greater DR. Get it right and the K-3 is fine, but life isn't always like that. If the combination of the K-1 and a heavy lens is pain, and it often is for me, then the K-3 system is best. Personally, I keep changing my mind when carrying either system. For 'studio' type work, the K-1 is a clear winner.

01-29-2021, 01:44 PM	#17
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by normhead Since he has the Sigma 10-20 and a K-3 I think we can assume he does know what he wants in FL coverage. Exactly my point. He knows the FOV range and use cases and if there is a "pain point" for shooting with the K-1, the choice should be obvious. Steve

01-29-2021, 04:04 PM	#18
MaineNative Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Photos: Gallery Posts: 280	I have a K-5 and a K-1. I don’t have the Sigma, but I rented the DFA 15-30 and the quality is incredible on the K-1, but it was just too heavy for me. If I were just shooting in a studio or from the trunk of my car, it would be fine, but for a walk-around lens or for hiking it was a lot of extra weight. I would recommend renting the 15-30 before buying it. I ended up buying a used FA 20/2.8 instead, plus I have the DFA 28-105 for my K-1. For portraits, I have a manual focus, full-frame 28-90/2.8 lens. I have a Samyang 14/2.8 for Astro. (The 15-30 is almost as good as the Samyang for Astro.)

01-30-2021, 06:28 AM	#22
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	I think the biggest differences between the K3 and sigma 10-20 and the K1 and a 15-30 are the differences in higher iso performance with the K1. That coupled with the 1 stop gain at maximum aperture should suggest that the K1 plus 15-30 would produce better shots. I shoot a lot indoors when travelling (churches and historic buildings) and find the K5 high iso performance is very important. My K1 MK2 is even better. It is rumoured that the upcoming k3 mk3 might be just as good. If so, I might be tempted to replace my rather beat up (now) k5

01-30-2021, 06:38 AM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	One needs to remember, the K-3 is almost 14 EV, the K-1 is almost 15. A one stop difference. Forgetting that EV is exponential and just using straight math the difference between a K-3 and a K-1 is about 6%. (it's actually less than that.) When you consider EV is measured from 1, the value down is 50% going higher the next stop is 200%, 6% is not going to make a significant difference in many situations, if at all.