K-1 As Your Only Body?

shiner · 02-25-2016, 01:27 AM - **1 Like**

This guy makes some pretty good points about FF vs APS-C. I think anyone selling their other bodies to go FF exclusively is making a huge mistake.

**RobA_Oz** · 02-25-2016, 01:59 AM - **1 Like**

He makes some good points in the article, which are the converse of the usual arguments for narrower DoF with the larger format sensor.

Nonetheless, someone with a current 16MP or less APS-C camera won't lose much, if anything, on that score by moving to a K-1, as the crop mode will mimic that camera's sensor resolution. Those of us with a 24MP body will be at something of a disadvantage, I agree, but the later sensor and camera capability will provide other benefits, that may balance what's lost in resolution.

**BigMackCam** · 02-25-2016, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by shiner

This guy makes some pretty good points about FF vs APS-C. I think anyone selling their other bodies to go FF exclusively is making a huge mistake.

While APS-C offers greater depth of field and narrower field of view, FF offers shallower depth of field and wider field of view - so whether it makes sense to switch completely from APS-C to FF will depend on the individual photographer's requirements. For many people, getting rid of their APS-C bodies (and dedicated APS-C lenses) will be *exactly* the right thing to do... for others, not so. In an ideal world, we'd all have complete camera and lens collections in medium format, FF and APS-C, but for the majority of us that's just not economically viable, so we're more likely to concentrate on one format. Part of the skill of photography involves getting the best from whatever we have available to us, and working around any limitations. As far as FF is concerned, many decades of 35mm film photography have shown us that those limitations are quite minor.

pathdoc · 02-25-2016, 05:01 AM

This is why my intended upgrade path to the K-1 is the death of my K-5; I am one of those who stands to lose almost nothing, and I almost pity K-3 owners. But I am also not a heavy extreme telephoto shooter, so I don't lose much in that respect either. If I were the sort for whom a 560mm lens with a 1.4 X TC was not quite enough lens, I would be hoping for an APS-C variant of the K-1 with a K3 sensor or better.

kislotiq · 02-25-2016, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

and I almost pity K-3 owners

Don't pity us, we already own a perfect telephoto system, and with K1 we gonna get perfect "normal" system

**TER-OR** · 02-25-2016, 07:15 AM - **1 Like**

I'll scrape by with my new K3II for a while.

I look forward to using it for field macro this year, I have high hopes to get even better shots without the AA filter. My keeper rate last year was already much higher than 2014, I must be doing something right. I'm not sure a FF with 100mm macro would be a better solution for my work.

**BigMackCam** · 02-25-2016, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by kislotiq

Don't pity us, we already own a perfect telephoto system, and with K1 we gonna get perfect "normal" system

I think what @pathdoc meant was, for those owners of the K3 with the same strategy as his (ie. wait for the camera to die before "upgrading"), we have an even longer wait ahead...

Ron_Man · 02-25-2016, 08:08 AM

I have a K-7, K-5, and K-3 so that may "force" me to get rid of my K-7 before getting a K-1. Although I don't necessarily need to.

With that said, I usually have 2 cameras for myself when shooting photo jobs and my wife will need a second body as well if our work gets us to that level of necessity.

For me I don't mind having two systems. The aps-c line has already been proven successful when paired with awesome lenses in my book. The K-1 just adds more to the party.

tjstimbo · 02-25-2016, 08:45 AM

I suppose I will get a K1, err lets be honest here.... I can't wait to get, I mean, try it. I will keep my two K3 bodies (one is a prestige edition) and my wife will keep on using the K5IIs as she loves it and I still think it is a great camera. I've never had a FF digital camera and I can't wait to explore the possibilities.

Tim

pete-tarmigan · 02-25-2016, 09:10 AM - **1 Like**

To carry the author's argument a step further, we should all be using one of the Q series cameras for the depth-of-field and super telephoto advantages that the smaller sensor brings.

Fenwoodian · 02-25-2016, 09:19 AM - **1 Like**

My only other Pentax body is the K3ii.

After I receive the K1 that I've ordered, I will certainly keep the K3ii. Here are the two reasons I will keep it:

1. Much of my photography is far from home on extended vacations or photo safaris. If I have only one body and it fails, that's the end of my photography for that trip. I'll keep the K3ii as the backup to the K1.
2. I believe in having a camera with me at all times. When I receive the K1, I will keep the K3ii in a camera bag in my car 24/7 with a couple of zoom lenses. I will not be leaving the K1 (and it's more expensive lens) in the car 24/7 because I can not afford to have it stolen.

pathdoc · 02-25-2016, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by kislotiq

Don't pity us, we already own a perfect telephoto system, and with K1 we gonna get perfect "normal" system

For those who can afford both, yes. For those who will have to sell their K3-series camera to help fund the purchase of a K-1 they want more badly, they lose out when it comes to the number of megapixels they get in APS-C mode. I suspect they are the ones who will probably also get rid of a lot of their DA glass and either cough up for the kit zoom (which I hear is quite the performer nonetheless) or use FA and/or other legacy lenses according to individual taste.

I could afford it now in strictly monetary terms, but the wish-fulfilment things which would have made it a "must have now" camera aren't there. My professional picture-taking activities are slow and deliberate images of subjects that do not move, so those elements of the K-1 which make for a rapid, adaptive workflow (the new option control system with the extra fancy knobs) aren't as vital to me as those working with moving subjects (models, airplanes, birds, etc), and are only relevant in my personal hobby photography. So this becomes a want camera, not a need camera, and at the price... not yet.

For the full time professionals, who can absorb the camera cost in their shooting fees, tax depreciation etc., it is another matter. You guys enjoy, and report back to us.

**TER-OR** · 02-25-2016, 01:43 PM

Oh, don't get me wrong, I will keep an eye on the reviews and look at the undoubtedly beautiful images produced by this beastie. And I'm sure I'll start lusting after it eventually. The design work on it looks really outstanding. But liberating the $750 for the K3II was tough enough....

**BigMackCam** · 02-25-2016, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by TER-OR

Oh, don't get me wrong, I will keep an eye on the reviews and look at the undoubtedly beautiful images produced by this beastie. And I'm sure I'll start lusting after it eventually. The design work on it looks really outstanding. But liberating the $750 for the K3II was tough enough....

Same here, Terry... I have more than enough invested in my gear already. In terms of shutter life, my K3 is less than 10% used and my K3II is virtually new. Even my "old" K5 has more than half its shutter life left, and still serves me well for many duties (I had intended on retiring it soon, but I honestly don't see that happening)... Of course I would like a K1, but I won't have the need (or justification) to buy one for a loooooong time!

**TER-OR** · 02-25-2016, 02:30 PM

My K5 was starting to act up. It's a tank, and I've abused it a bit. I'm tempted to send it in and have the IR/UV filter and AA filters removed. Taking shots with some UV sensitivity is something I've thought about while doing the insect survey work. I know the flowers don't look the same to us as they do to insects which can see well into UV. I'll have to see how much that costs...and figure out how easy or hard it is to actually use such a camera!

Having a brand new camera doesn't seem to have the "cred" of my old beat-up K5 with paint wearing off, broken LCD protector etc. That just looks like field kit.

02-25-2016, 01:27 AM - 1 Like	#1
shiner Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N GA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,127	K-1 As Your Only Body? This guy makes some pretty good points about FF vs APS-C. I think anyone selling their other bodies to go FF exclusively is making a huge mistake.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-5IIs Body, Only 1 Months Old, Under 300 Clicks	ddjchemist	Sold Items	2	12-28-2014 08:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-01 black (body only), shutter count is only 45!	transam879	Sold Items	2	11-09-2014 11:22 PM
Pentax K-5 II $769 body only including delivery (today only) at Kogan Australia	Foma2	Pentax Price Watch	2	10-22-2013 07:34 PM
Hey photogs! You're only as good as your gear. Says Nikon...	einstrigger	Photographic Technique	76	10-11-2011 05:43 PM
K-m to be available as Body Only in UK	manuletterbox2	Pentax News and Rumors	11	09-25-2008 03:03 PM

02-25-2016, 01:59 AM - 1 Like	#2
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,191	He makes some good points in the article, which are the converse of the usual arguments for narrower DoF with the larger format sensor. Nonetheless, someone with a current 16MP or less APS-C camera won't lose much, if anything, on that score by moving to a K-1, as the crop mode will mimic that camera's sensor resolution. Those of us with a 24MP body will be at something of a disadvantage, I agree, but the later sensor and camera capability will provide other benefits, that may balance what's lost in resolution.

02-25-2016, 02:23 AM	#3
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,645	Originally posted by shiner This guy makes some pretty good points about FF vs APS-C. I think anyone selling their other bodies to go FF exclusively is making a huge mistake. While APS-C offers greater depth of field and narrower field of view, FF offers shallower depth of field and wider field of view - so whether it makes sense to switch completely from APS-C to FF will depend on the individual photographer's requirements. For many people, getting rid of their APS-C bodies (and dedicated APS-C lenses) will be exactly the right thing to do... for others, not so. In an ideal world, we'd all have complete camera and lens collections in medium format, FF and APS-C, but for the majority of us that's just not economically viable, so we're more likely to concentrate on one format. Part of the skill of photography involves getting the best from whatever we have available to us, and working around any limitations. As far as FF is concerned, many decades of 35mm film photography have shown us that those limitations are quite minor.

02-25-2016, 05:01 AM	#4
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	This is why my intended upgrade path to the K-1 is the death of my K-5; I am one of those who stands to lose almost nothing, and I almost pity K-3 owners. But I am also not a heavy extreme telephoto shooter, so I don't lose much in that respect either. If I were the sort for whom a 560mm lens with a 1.4 X TC was not quite enough lens, I would be hoping for an APS-C variant of the K-1 with a K3 sensor or better.

02-25-2016, 06:43 AM	#5
kislotiq New Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 22	Originally posted by pathdoc and I almost pity K-3 owners Don't pity us, we already own a perfect telephoto system, and with K1 we gonna get perfect "normal" system

02-25-2016, 07:15 AM - 1 Like	#6
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I'll scrape by with my new K3II for a while. I look forward to using it for field macro this year, I have high hopes to get even better shots without the AA filter. My keeper rate last year was already much higher than 2014, I must be doing something right. I'm not sure a FF with 100mm macro would be a better solution for my work.

02-25-2016, 07:53 AM	#7
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,645	Originally posted by kislotiq Don't pity us, we already own a perfect telephoto system, and with K1 we gonna get perfect "normal" system I think what @pathdoc meant was, for those owners of the K3 with the same strategy as his (ie. wait for the camera to die before "upgrading"), we have an even longer wait ahead...

02-25-2016, 08:08 AM	#8
Ron_Man Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: MD Posts: 221	I have a K-7, K-5, and K-3 so that may "force" me to get rid of my K-7 before getting a K-1. Although I don't necessarily need to. With that said, I usually have 2 cameras for myself when shooting photo jobs and my wife will need a second body as well if our work gets us to that level of necessity. For me I don't mind having two systems. The aps-c line has already been proven successful when paired with awesome lenses in my book. The K-1 just adds more to the party.

02-25-2016, 08:45 AM	#9
tjstimbo Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Daventry Posts: 84	I suppose I will get a K1, err lets be honest here.... I can't wait to get, I mean, try it. I will keep my two K3 bodies (one is a prestige edition) and my wife will keep on using the K5IIs as she loves it and I still think it is a great camera. I've never had a FF digital camera and I can't wait to explore the possibilities. Tim

02-25-2016, 09:10 AM - 1 Like	#10
pete-tarmigan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Conception Bay South, New-fun-land Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,272	To carry the author's argument a step further, we should all be using one of the Q series cameras for the depth-of-field and super telephoto advantages that the smaller sensor brings.

02-25-2016, 09:19 AM - 1 Like	#11
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	My only other Pentax body is the K3ii. After I receive the K1 that I've ordered, I will certainly keep the K3ii. Here are the two reasons I will keep it: 1. Much of my photography is far from home on extended vacations or photo safaris. If I have only one body and it fails, that's the end of my photography for that trip. I'll keep the K3ii as the backup to the K1. 2. I believe in having a camera with me at all times. When I receive the K1, I will keep the K3ii in a camera bag in my car 24/7 with a couple of zoom lenses. I will not be leaving the K1 (and it's more expensive lens) in the car 24/7 because I can not afford to have it stolen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2016, 12:09 PM	#12
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by kislotiq Don't pity us, we already own a perfect telephoto system, and with K1 we gonna get perfect "normal" system For those who can afford both, yes. For those who will have to sell their K3-series camera to help fund the purchase of a K-1 they want more badly, they lose out when it comes to the number of megapixels they get in APS-C mode. I suspect they are the ones who will probably also get rid of a lot of their DA glass and either cough up for the kit zoom (which I hear is quite the performer nonetheless) or use FA and/or other legacy lenses according to individual taste. I could afford it now in strictly monetary terms, but the wish-fulfilment things which would have made it a "must have now" camera aren't there. My professional picture-taking activities are slow and deliberate images of subjects that do not move, so those elements of the K-1 which make for a rapid, adaptive workflow (the new option control system with the extra fancy knobs) aren't as vital to me as those working with moving subjects (models, airplanes, birds, etc), and are only relevant in my personal hobby photography. So this becomes a want camera, not a need camera, and at the price... not yet. For the full time professionals, who can absorb the camera cost in their shooting fees, tax depreciation etc., it is another matter. You guys enjoy, and report back to us.

02-25-2016, 01:43 PM	#13
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Oh, don't get me wrong, I will keep an eye on the reviews and look at the undoubtedly beautiful images produced by this beastie. And I'm sure I'll start lusting after it eventually. The design work on it looks really outstanding. But liberating the $750 for the K3II was tough enough....

02-25-2016, 01:55 PM	#14
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,645	Originally posted by TER-OR Oh, don't get me wrong, I will keep an eye on the reviews and look at the undoubtedly beautiful images produced by this beastie. And I'm sure I'll start lusting after it eventually. The design work on it looks really outstanding. But liberating the $750 for the K3II was tough enough.... Same here, Terry... I have more than enough invested in my gear already. In terms of shutter life, my K3 is less than 10% used and my K3II is virtually new. Even my "old" K5 has more than half its shutter life left, and still serves me well for many duties (I had intended on retiring it soon, but I honestly don't see that happening)... Of course I would like a K1, but I won't have the need (or justification) to buy one for a loooooong time!

02-25-2016, 02:30 PM	#15
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	My K5 was starting to act up. It's a tank, and I've abused it a bit. I'm tempted to send it in and have the IR/UV filter and AA filters removed. Taking shots with some UV sensitivity is something I've thought about while doing the insect survey work. I know the flowers don't look the same to us as they do to insects which can see well into UV. I'll have to see how much that costs...and figure out how easy or hard it is to actually use such a camera! Having a brand new camera doesn't seem to have the "cred" of my old beat-up K5 with paint wearing off, broken LCD protector etc. That just looks like field kit.