[timcatn]

I have already bought a K-1. Keeping the K-5 as backup or for when i want to travel light.


I'm really surprised that the larger viewfinder made it so much easier to get the composition right.

[kjphilippona]

I decided to purchase a used K3 and pair it with my K5II and sell my other camera bodies!

[Genobreaker]

I was debating what to upgrade my K-r to so waited until the full frame was officially announced. Ultimately chose to get the K-1 for better low light performance and the price was much lower than I thought. Pretty happy with it so far. Although I only have 1 full frame lens, its been a plus in almost everything.

[slip]

I am considering upgrading to a used model a year or two from now. can't justify paying full price after just picking up the K3 not long ago. wish I would have waited? you bet ya!

Randy

[Floggin Rodger]

I will certainly switch...... but not till it's been out for a year or two.
BTW , I don't own any crop sensor lenses

[FoxbatK]

I'll eventually switch. I'm making the move from film to APSC now, so I'll probably miss my full frame shots, but that's a hefty pricetag for now.

[Nicolas06]

Do we really need K1 resolution? For the fun you can actually take the time to respond to this poll to find out what max size the community is actually printing !

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/32-digital-processing-software-printing/3...ting-size.html

[acoufap]

Do we really need K1 resolution? For the fun you can actually take the time to respond to this poll to find out what max size the community is actually printing !

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/32-digital-processing-software-printing/3...ting-size.html

There are thumb rules that indicate what parameters are reasonable for printing. These rules consider image size, our eyes ability to resolve adjacent pixels and viewing distance. According these rules 16MP simply are enough for general printing. So I don’t really need 36MP. In short: my K-5 delivers what I need for printing.

But there are some other reasons to go this route. After some shooting with the K-1, I’d say in comparison to the K-5 I really like …

• the ability to especially use my M1.7/50 and DFA2.8/100WR in FF mode
• the sufficient for printing 15MP APSC mode
• the very fast AF when using a fast lens like DFA 24-70 (… that I dont’t own but played with)
• the high ISO capabilities (even in APSC mode)
• the better layout of buttons on the backside (IMO)
• the slightly higher grip
• the viewfinder
• the flexible screen
• the built-in GPS

At the end of the day I’d say, if Ricoh would bring a K-5 III with 16 MP and characteristics (High ISO, ...) of the 36MP chip and the other nice things like the flexible screen, fast accurate AF and so on, it would be a real hard competitor for the K-1 and K-3 II.

[robert52]

Nah not me my K7 does me find for what I take

[Nicolas06]

There are thumb rules that indicate what parameters are reasonable for printing. These rules consider image size, our eyes ability to resolve adjacent pixels and viewing distance. According these rules 16MP simply are enough for general printing. So I don’t really need 36MP. In short: my K-5 delivers what I need for printing.

But there are some other reasons to go this route. After some shooting with the K-1, I’d say in comparison to the K-5 I really like …

the ability to especially use my M1.7/50 and DFA2.8/100WR in FF mode
To me that's psychological argument I can find equivalent on APSC like sigma 70 macro or sigma 30mm f/1.4. But I guess it depend of what you actually own.
the sufficient for printing 15MP APSC mode
APSC body does that already, a bit better actually and it take 100% of the viewer with more magnification (0.92X instead of 0.71X)
the very fast AF when using a fast lens like DFA 24-70 (… that I dont’t own but played with)
You should get that experience with a K3 + sigma 17-50 or near to it or simply directly buy the 24-70 if you don't need ultra fast AF in the 16-24mm range. But I agree that Pentax should replace the 16-50 with a fast AF version. The 50-135 as well.
the high ISO capabilities (even in APSC mode)
True in FF mode. In APSC mode, you remove the FF advantage so the difference is not really that great and the next APSC body will remove it.
the better layout of buttons on the backside (IMO)
Agree overall on improved ergonomics, I hope next APSC model improve that
the slightly higher grip
the viewfinder
True
the flexible screen
Again, I hope next APSC has better backscreen.
the built-in GPS
Already available either as external module or directly inside APSC body.
At the end of the day I’d say, if Ricoh would bring a K-5 III with 16 MP and characteristics (High ISO, ...) of the 36MP chip and the other nice things like the flexible screen, fast accurate AF and so on, it would be a real hard competitor for the K-1 and K-3 II.
Basically a mix of K3 and KS2 + improved software and latest Sony BSI sensor would do that. After all K3, K3-II and K-1 have same AF module while the A6300 perform better in high iso than K3 and K5. I will likely arrive sometime soon (6 months to 1 year).

My comments inside the quote...

[monochrome]

K10D for the CCD sensor
K-01 for the 16Mp sensor (too bad it's only 12-bit)
K-3 for FoV with long lenses
K-1 for . . . Well. I've been waiting a long time for FF.

[philbaum]

Do we really need K1 resolution? l

Its not a "WE" decision, its a "ME" decision. I bought my Sony FF in August 2015 and I like what its done for my photography. No way would i go back and change that decision 9 months back.

I'm so glad i didn't listen to the naysayers! Bravo FF.

[Sportsgal501]

Maybe,although I might be eyeing a K-3II.

[snostorm]

I'm primarily a birder and had thought that there couldn't be any advantage to going with a full 35mm format. I was wrong, and that's why just relying on numbers on a spec sheet can be so misleading. I see a lot of post where people assume that the 15MP crop mode of the K1 will be essentially the same as the 16MP K5II, and that just doesn't take into account advancements in sensors and the in-camera processing engine. For my purposes, the K1 in crop mode is almost as big a step forward from the K5II/K3 in high ISO performance as was the K5 from the K7. AF-S is noticeably quicker and more positive to lock focus, the center focus point seems to be a bit smaller and more discreet, and fine focus lock seems to be more consistent. This includes performance at lower light levels -- faster and more accurated. Add the wider FOV in the VF which helps me acquire my subject faster with ultra and super tele lenses, this is simply a better body for what I do. Being able to quickly change from 35mm to APS-C has also helped in a few instances where I was actually too close. I shoot with primes primarily, so being able to "step back" without actually moving has improved my ability to get the whole bird in frame in such instances.

I also have a Sony A7S for indoor candids without flash. The K1 is proving to be close enough in performance at ridiculously high ISO (12800 and up) that I can use it in most cases where I'd normally use the A7S. Since I already had a good Tamron 28-75/2.8, I can use the K1 for these situations unless I want completely silent operation, and that's really the main reason why I plan on keeping the Sony. The K1's shutter is pretty inconspicuous though, but the Sony can be shot totally silent. I've also found that my DA 12-24 covers the full frame from @ 18mm to 24mm, so if I need something wider, I have it.

I'm finding that I get a significantly higher percentage of shots with good to excellent feather detail. This is due to a number of things.

1. My main birding lens kit is an FA* 300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA, so it's slow (510mm f7.7 wide open). With significantly higher ISO (about 2 stops), I have both the luxury of higher shutter speeds or being able to stop down the lens for a little more sharpness.

2. Faster subject acquisition and faster AF lock gives me a fraction of a second advantage to get a shot off, and that's even more important as age slows down my reaction time.

3. I feel that the SR is more effective, and this definitely helps because I mostly shoot handheld, and a tiny bit of camera shake just destroys fine feather detail.

4. I could be wrong, but the jpegs seem to show a bit more shadow deinition than previous sensors, so it seems that the jpeg processing in the camera has been improved a bit.

5. The files seem to be a bit more flexible in PP, even though I shoot mainly jpeg.

Bottom line, even just shooting in crop mode, the K1 is a significant step up for me, and I've upgraded bodies at almost every generation -- DS, K100DS, K10, K20, K7, K5, K5II, K3, and now K1 so I am aware of just about all of the incremental upgrades Pentax has made with their bodies.

Scott

[abacus07]

I was pretty excited about FF Pentax when it was rumors but I doubt I will get one. I use my camera for hiking and my favorite and most used lens is the DA15. Many of my DSLR hiking friends complain about how large their cameras (and lenses) are but the K5/DA15 doesn't bother me while hiking. The other problem is that if I upgrade then I will be buying new lenses. And then filters to go with them. And then a new tripod since mine is fine for a K5/DA15 but not the K1 with a larger lens.

I am also in a perpetual state of brokeness from traveling so much. Hopefully I will be able to buy the new APSC model in a year or whenever it comes out.