[Driline]

I tend to like this shot better than all of Norm's solely due to PP technique.

to each their own.

True. To each their own. The only thing I don't care for is the grey frame that stupid K-3 inserts around Norms pictures

[UserAccessDenied]

Sorry but this is incorrect. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens whether it is on a crop sensor camera or not. It does not become 450mm period. Afaik the 300mm in reference is a non Aps-c designed lens so the only thing that would change is the imaging recorded by each sensor size. So he would not be lengthening or shortening the lens mm going from one to the other.

Finally someone talking sense!

That's why I always say FOV...
Let's talk about what we really want here; it's the field of view that's of concern when moving to full-frame. Focal length is not related.

---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 08:59 AM ----------

True. To each their own. The only thing I don't care for is the grey frame that stupid K-3 inserts around Norms pictures

I don't understand the frame either, perhaps a shameless plus for the business?

Some shots are extremely well composed.
Again, it just comes down to the heavy PP for me... I am very much a naturalist when it comes to my photography, some may disagree with me. Certainly all portrait photographers will - I like natural lighting on a subject that doesn't have artificial elements imposing on the shot.
This means no feeders, no laying seed, no cheater bars or peanut-butter, no drilling holes in trees... Just in the wild capturing nature organically.

This also applies to PP.
If I didn't see it in the field, you shouldn't see it in my photo.

[normhead]

All I'm saying is I wouldn't bag it until you try it.

I'm following kengoh very closely, and so far things seem to be inconclusive.

You'll notice kengoh uses his K-1 for a few of the images in this thread and a K-3 for the last ones posted.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/321944-nature-two-recent-nesting.html

You'll notice the bottom image is shot with a K-3. So, I'll just beg to differ. I can look at what folks are doing and draw conclusions. With all due respect, so far, I'm seeing some issues with the k-1 images, related to the narrower DoF and other focus issues. It may be that those issues get resolved as people use the camera more. I am also seeing some seriously enthusiastic posters who are completely over valuing the quality of their images, based on their belief that an image they wouldn't have posted with a K-3 or K-5 was that taken with a K-1 is better , just because it was taken with a k-1. With the PS landscape Pixel Shift images there are some lights out K-1 images. Something I'm sure my K-3 can't approach. I think what is happening with the K-1 is, you can get better images, birding and other wildlife, but it's so much more trouble that people don't. I am quite comfortable making these observations without owning a K-1. But at the end of the day, if change my mind on this, it will be because of something someone like kengoh says. I don't take advice from folks who don't produce the kinds of quality images I like. The fact that some guy is happy producing an image on his K-1 I wouldn't be happy with taken on a K-5 makes practically no impression on me. Those who don't get lots of appreciation posting over in the 300mm lens club, are going to have to show me they have a clue about what the post about before I pay much attention. For you K-1 ownership is the price of admission to the "discuss the K-1 club". For me discussing wildlife, it's a track record over in the 300mm plus club, in many cases new K-1 owners aren't aren't even aware of the excellent work posted with everything from K20Ds to K-1s. Ownership of a K-1 counts for practically nothing. If you want to know why, I'll analyze and score the last 50 pictures in the 300 plus club, and the last 50 images in the K-1 images club, and the last 50 images in the K-3 club. I think that will pretty clearly demonstrate the correlation between camera ownership and photographic expertise as well as the correlation between the camera used and the number of great images produced.

Simply stated, good photographers produce good images with whatever they use. Having the ability to buy a K-1 doesn't make you an expert on anything.

My prejudice is K-3 for birding, K-1 for landscape, still life, studio etc. (Most of my images are wildlife and birds) I'm looking for a few images that might change that, or some discussion by guys who've used a k-3 and now use either a K-1 or both a K-1 and K-3. So threads like this are definitely of interest.

[UserAccessDenied]

I'm following kengoh very closely

You'll notice kengoh uses his K-1 for a few of the images in this thread and a K-3 for the last ones posted.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/321944-nature-two-recent-nesting.html

You'll notice the bottom image is shot with a K-3. So, I'll just beg to differ. I can look at what folks are doing and draw conclusions. With all due respect, so far, I'm seeing some issues with the k-1 images, related to the narrower DoF and other focus issues. I am also being some seriously enthusiastic posters who are completely over valuing the quality of their images, based on their belief that an image they wouldn't have posted with a K-3 or K-5 was taken with a K-1. With the PS landscape Pixel Shift images there are some lights out K-1 images. Something I'm sure my K-3 can't approach. I think what is happening with the K-1 is, you can get better images, birding and other wildlife, but it's so much more trouble that people don't. I am quite comfortable making these observations without owning a K-1. But at the end of the day, if change my mind on this, it will be because of something someone like kengoh says. I don't take advice from folks who don't produce the kinds of quality images I like. The fact that some guy is happy producing an image on his K-1 I wouldn't be happy with taken on a K-5 makes practically no impression on me. Those who don't get lots of appreciation posting over in the 300mm lens club, are going to have to show me they have a clue about what the post about before I pay much attention. For you K-1 ownership is the price of admission to the "discuss the K-1 club". For me discussing wildlife, it's a track record over in the 300mm plus club, in many cases new K-1 owners aren't aren't even aware of the excellent work posted with everything from K20Ds to K-1s. Ownership of a K-1 counts for practically nothing. If you want to know why, I'll analyze and score the last 50 pictures in the 300 plus club, and the last 50 images in the K-1 images club, and the last 50 images in the K-3 club. I think that will pretty clearly demonstrate the correlation between camera ownership and photographic expertise as well as the correlation between the camera used and the number of great images produced.

Simply stated, good photographers produce good images with whatever they use. Having the ability to buy a K-1 doesn't make you an expert on anything.

My prejudice is K-3 for birding, K-1 for landscape, still life, studio etc. (Most of my images are wildlife and birds) I'm looking for a few images that might change that, or some discussion by guys who've used a k-3 and now use either a K-1 or both a K-1 and K-3. So threads like this are definitely of interest.

I couldn't agree more with you regarding the K-1 being a tool and not a solution to good photography...

To be fair though, members here have had much more time to shoot with the K-3 series and the 300 club is a result of that.
Given enough time, there may be an inspiring number of K-1 posts at the top rankings in that club thread...

Also, if you look at the photos you linked for Kengoh, the first image is ISO 6400. That same photo is not going to be achievable on the K-3 or K-3ii. Even the last few shots at ISO 2000/2500 have more noise than the K-1 at ISO 6400.

Again, I agree that for most wildlife shooters, the K-3ii would be the better choice.
I have achieved incredible results with my K-3ii + DA*300. By no means do I have enough reputation on the 300 club to convince anyone here, but I am happy with the results of my gear and they have taught me more about photography in the last 6 months than I could have ever imagined. If I jumped on the K-1 bandwagon back then I may have been overwhelmed and given up already.
The K-3ii still overwhelms at times, but that helps me learn. I am comfortable enough with the K-3ii that I can take it pretty much anywhere now and know I will get a few good shots.



I'm just arguing both sides, because if you can't argue both sides you really shouldn't be "debating" at all - you need not argue against your own morality to argue for a position you oppose.

---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 10:12 AM ----------

Hi,

I own a K-5IIs, a K-S2, and a K-r for back-up usually left at home. I keep a 300 mm lens over K-5IIs all the time for wildlife photography, and use either a 100mm/F2 macro or a 18-135 mm for nature (flowers and landscapes with my dog in it) photography on K-S2.

Reading about K-1 and K-3ii on the web, I am salivating. Given my interest of wildlife and nature photography, should I buy a K-1 or K-3ii or perhaps invest in a good quality wide angle zoom lens for landscapes.

I bought my 300mm and 100mm after seeking advice on these forums and I have not been disappointed by these two. I thought it's about time I sought more advice.

I will be looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Suhail

To the OP.

Sorry we got a bit off track...

Is your 300mm the DA*?
I do not believe that was ever confirmed...
Sorry, just noticed it in your signature

The K-3ii is an incredible camera, if you find one used for around $600 I would go that route.

I'd also consider that HD 1.4xTC to pair with the DA*300.

So with that:
K-1 = $1800 (brand new)
K-3ii + HD 1.4xTC = $1000 (used market)

I'd take the latter - every day, no questions asked. + $800 to spend elsewhere

Just remember, bodies will always become obsolete.
If you invest in good glass now, it will serve you well for many more years to come.

---

Last edited by UserAccessDenied; 05-26-2016 at 07:15 AM. Reason: typos

[biz-engineer]

Listen guys, if you think you have proof you've got some images that prove how great the K-1 is for birding

It's easy, I have both K3, DA300, K1 DFA150450 and I've shot birds with K1 full frame mode, images are clean but I was able to get closer. Otherwise, I've compared the K1 crop and K3 with the same lens , same settings, and the K3 images resolved more details, which honestly was a bit of a disappointment since I expected that I wouldn't see any difference. BTW, this is not true that the K1 produces less noise per pixel, for the same number of pixels the noise is about the same for both K1 and K3, the K1 gets its noise advantage when all 36Mpixels are interpolated for printing or displaying on LCD at smaller than 100% zoom. People are dreaming too much. At higher ISO, K1 images look better than K3 images when the full images are compared, in crop mode, there is no difference.

[UserAccessDenied]

It's easy, I have both K3, DA300, K1 DFA150450 and I've shot birds with K1 full frame mode, images are clean but I was able to get closer. Otherwise, I've compared the K1 crop and K3 with the same lens , same settings, and the K3 images resolved more details, which honestly was a bit of a disappointment since I expected that I wouldn't see any difference. BTW, this is not true that the K1 produces less noise per pixel, for the same number of pixels the noise is about the same for both K1 and K3, the K1 gets its noise advantage when all 36Mpixels are interpolated for printing or displaying on LCD at smaller than 100% zoom. People are dreaming too much. At higher ISO, K1 images look better than K3 images when the full images are compared, in crop mode, there is no difference.

Thank you for that clarification!

The more I hear first-hand accounts from members here, the less I want a K-1...
Perhaps if it drops below $700 one day I'll consider it, but the K-3ii is a darn good camera for the price I got it for!

Sure there are advantages to the K-1, just not for my shooting.

Thanks again!
Cheers!

[northcoastgreg]

Reading about K-1 and K-3ii on the web, I am salivating. Given my interest of wildlife and nature photography, should I buy a K-1 or K-3ii or perhaps invest in a good quality wide angle zoom lens for landscapes.

That depends on your budget. The K-1 is the best K-mount DSLR Pentax has ever brought to market, and probably the best field camera ever offered under $2,000. But as good as the camera is, any camera, regardless of sensor size, is only as good as the glass you attach to it. So if you can afford both the K-1 and the glass you want (for landscape shooting, top recommendations are the DFA 15-30 and the DFA 28-105), get the K-1. Otherwise, stick to APS-C. Get the lenses you want and can afford, and then buy the camera most appropriate for those lenses.

[robthebloke]

BTW, this is not true that the K1 produces less noise per pixel, for the same number of pixels the noise is about the same for both K1 and K3

I was very sceptical of this claim, so ran a little test. Both of these photos are taken with the same lens (DFA100 WR), the same shutter speed, both at ISO 20,000. All noise reduction and sharpening has been removed, and I used the same white balance settings for both. Both of these images are a 1000x1000 crop of the same subject. Otherwise, they are straight out of the camera. Can you guess which one is the K-3, and which one is the K-1?

[biz-engineer]

I was very sceptical of this claim, so ran a little test. Both of these photos are taken with the same lens (DFA100 WR), the same shutter speed, both at ISO 20,000. All noise reduction and sharpening has been removed, and I used the same white balance settings for both. Both of these images are a 1000x1000 crop of the same subject. Otherwise, they are straight out of the camera. Can you guess which one is the K-3, and which one is the K-1?

There is more magnification in the second picture. You haven't used the crop mode on the K1 and you are using ISO20000. Please use the crop mode of the K1 and use the same subject distance so that you can compare the same things.

[Driline]

Perhaps if it drops below $700 one day I'll consider it,

Fall of 2018. You can count on it

[robthebloke]

There is more magnification in the second picture. You haven't used the crop mode on the K1 and you are using ISO20000. Please use the crop mode of the K1 and use the same subject distance so that you can compare the same things.

That makes no sense. Yes I used FF crop for the k-1 image, but a 1000x1000 square section was cropped from within the APSC crop region. I took another 1000x1000 pixel crop from the k-3 image in roughly the same place. Both images were both taken at the same subject distance, with exactly the same lens, same aperture, same ISO, same white balance, same noise reduction level (none), same sharpening (none), and same shutter speed. The k-3 has a higher pixel density, and so it may appear more magnified, but these are 100% crops.

You originally stated that 'it is not true that the k-1 produces less noise per pixel'. Well here are two crops of 1000x1000 pixels (which matches your 'same number of pixels' caveat), taken with both the k-3 and k-1. It may look like I've done something nasty to the k-3 image to make it look blotchy, but I honestly haven't. These are the results I am finding. Feel free to repeat my tests for yourself.

---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 06:15 PM ----------

And also, what is wrong with using ISO 20,000?

[biz-engineer]

You originally stated that 'it is not true that the k-1 produces less noise per pixel'.

yes , I was incorrect for the per pixel. Pixels of the K1 are slightly larger, so less noise per pixel. But for the same image cropped , same focal length and subject distance, I did not find the K1 to be significantly less noisy, but I found that the cropped image from the K1 is slightly less sharp. I see a significant difference of noise robustness with the K1 when used in FF mode.

[Rupert]

Nothing I've seen from a K-1 to date has changed my mind.

I don't think anyone would want to argue that your wildlife is not 1st class!

Don't worry norm, you will change your mind. I'm no birder, but when I say the k-1 is better for birding, I do honestly mean that. I'm hoping Rupert will be along with a squirrel shortly. I've been reading through a lot of his comments regarding chasing squirrels with a high ISO, and my experiences match those completely. I'm sure once you have the camera in your hands, and can get a decent play with it, your k-1 isn't for birding stance will change

I'm with you. For shooters like Norm there may not be an astounding difference, but for the rest of us it will be instantly noticeable. I'll tell this once again.....my 10 year experience with the Bigma 50-500 series has most often been frustrating in the AF category. Slow and hunting like an old blind hound in low light. On the K1 it is lightning fast and accurate in most any light. You immediately notice this...to your delight!

Wildlife.....I assume that even Norm does some cropping, and doubt he would argue that cropping more pixels with less noise is a negative?

I shoot mostly in the Crop Mode...and love it for wildlife. That big crop frame lights up in red when focused and you can see exactly how you have the shot framed......no more cropping in processing is usually necessary. For web posting it is totally adequate, and for most prints too...unless you want to go very large.

If you shoot FF for wildlife, you had better have a long lens and a lot of cash to buy it...or hope you can sneak up on your subject as if you were invisible. If not...you will be cropping and the K1 has it built in!

That's just one aspect...the rest of the K1 brilliant features are too long to list......just take the shortcut and get the K1, you absolutely will not regret it!

Did I mention the great new SR...or the high ISO benefits.....

1/80 handheld ISO 12800 Crop Mode


Look these wildlife shots over....they are all K1 and all in Crop Mode.....the good, bad and ugly are all there and so is the Exif.
Not "Norm Quality"...but I am not either....I'm just an average or below amateur! Shooting has never been easier or more fun since I got the K1!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129469263@N03/albums/72157668217340465

Regards!

[UserAccessDenied]

There is more magnification in the second picture. You haven't used the crop mode on the K1 and you are using ISO20000. Please use the crop mode of the K1 and use the same subject distance so that you can compare the same things.

I disagree, I think this comparison is legitimate...
We're not trying to compare the same FOV between cameras, obviously the K-3 will have a narrower FOV everytime when using the same subject, lens, ISO, aperture, distance to subject, etc.
This comparison shows both at 1000x1000, so they both have equal number of pixels.
That's what the skepticism was based on, right?

[TER-OR]

If you miss a dedicated wide-angle lens, get that. You'll use it. I really like the 21mm on both the K5 and K3II. I haven't checked whether that lens is useful on the K1, but it would be very wide on that.

You could look for a WA or UWA which is rated as usable on the FF K1. That way you'll have it if you eventually want to get one.