Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2016, 08:26 PM - 1 Like   #61
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,916
My current plan is a K-1 and to retire the K-5II. Then use the K-1 with FF lenses for landscape and walkaround focal lengths, and crop mode with the 55-300 for tele work.

The issue I'd have with long, FF lenses on FF is the heft.. the size and the weight that comes along with that. Look at a 150-450mm lens as example. I'm not a sportsman though, so I'm not that concerned about the aperture speed. I do a lot of walk around until I find something that catches my eye, so I'm not looking to carry a 4 and a half pound lens around with me all day.

If I did a lot more work in tele range, I'd definitely look at either the 150-450mm or the Bigma 50-500mm.

05-26-2016, 08:27 PM   #62
Site Supporter
Suhail's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Mississauga
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 254
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
Isn't it that you would "gain some width" with the K-1 and none of this "lose the reach" thing that has been mentioned from time to time? ......I wonder about a K-1 with a Sigma 20-40 DG (only available used) and what that would be like, or one of the zooms out there that start at 24mm at the wide end, and then have your existing K-5IIs for telephoto tasks to save on lens changes.
pres589,

yes, this is what Adam is suggesting too - buy K-1 now, retain K-5IIs and replace it later with K-3ii.

Regards,

---------- Post added 05-26-16 at 11:30 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
No, it all depends on how we use English, by what we mean by our words. ..... I believe that is the truth that so many people here have experienced and that directs their reaction to the questions raised in this thread.
reh321,

Wow! This is technical information packed in layman's term for easy illustration. I got it now. Thanks for explaining it in this manner by giving an example.

Regards,

Suhail
05-27-2016, 06:05 AM - 1 Like   #63
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
QuoteOriginally posted by Suhail Quote
So I can keep K-5IIs for telephoto shots and go for a K-1 with the macro and the widest sharp wide angle zoom possible?
There is no advantage to keeping a K-5 with a K-1 unless you want it as a second body. The K-1 crop mode has about the same size crop sensor as a K-5II. The K-3 or K-3II will give you an extra 1000 pixels horizontal crop room, if you're shooting a K-5. A K-1 will give you an extra 1300 horizontal pixels. So in terms of pixels the K-5 is to the K3, what the K-3 is to the K-1.

However in crop mode, the K-1 is the same as a K-5 with better AF, more dynamic range and bigger brighter viewfinder.

The advantages to the K-3 over the K-1 would be faster frame rate, and more crop mode resolution, for the majority of those birding images, where you can't get any closer, and you'll be shooting crop mode with either camera.
So, it's pretty hard to argue the K-1 is better for birding, since when birding quite often even shooting APS-c is often heavily cropped. Especially since Nikon has come out with a crop sensor care with FF auto-focus capabilities.

Given the numbers, 5000x3000, 6000x4000 and 7300x5000 if you're going to argue the K-3 isn't better for birding,, using the same standards, you'd have to argue the K-1 isn't better than the K-3 for birding.

Those of us who have gone from a K-5 to a K-3 know exactly what the advantage to 24MP crop over 15 MP crop is for birding. Only a person who hasn't done so could say something like
QuoteQuote:
(Buy a k-1. All this talk about the k-3 being better for birding is complete BS. On paper the pixel density of k-3 is better, in practice the k-1 destroys it. Buy a k-1.
A K-1 doesn't destroy anything. What kind of fool would post such nonsense? (One I've ignored, just to avoid such non-sense.)

The simple fact is, once you get into crop mode, the K-3 "destroys" the K-1, (more magnification, higher frame rate.), if you want to get all hyperbolic about it. And if you're arguing that the 1000 extra pixel in width doesn't make a difference, then a K1 isn't any better than a K-3 because the resolution difference k-1 over K-3 is about 1300 pixels in width. it's about the same in percentage increase. So this line of thought is a complete fallacy. On imaging resources, k-3 image resolve detail a K-5 image can't and K-1 images resolve detail a K-3 can't, but in crop mode i.e., any image that is cropped to the size of an APS_c sensor or less, the K-1 is essentially a K-5 and the K-1 is at a disadvantage.

People who say you don't lose reach with FF are nitpicking semantics. What you lose is magnification, which some people call "reach". You get more magnification over the area of the crop sensor with a K-3. For anything that requires magnification, of a small area, the K-3 will be more compact, and use cheaper lighter lenses and give you more resolution on your small target subject, than a K-1 using the same lens.

We went through all this stuff with the D800 crazies when the D800 came out. Now we have our own Pentax K-1 crazies. That's progress for you. The D800 crazies eventually saw the light (like when many of their Nikon compatriots started buying D7100s for birding and wildlife). I wonder how long the K-1 crazies will be drinking and trying to spread the cool-aid. Some people just can't get over that there just is no camera that does everything best. They always get carried away with their latest toy.

IN fact I'd point out how many FF Nikon shooters still carry an APS-c body, because in some circumstances it's the better choice.

The simple fact, if you look at the types of cameras used for birding and wildlife amongst pros and advanced amateurs, high resolution is not particularly valued. Many shoot with cameras that produce well less than 36mp. What's important is frame rate, magnification and speed of AF , pretty much in that order. Overall resolution looks to be pretty far down the list. That's why Pentax calls the K-1 a field camera.

Unbelievable, now we have dudes who probably have not one decent image posted in the 300 plus club or who certainly aren't well known over there, who are experts on birding, because they bought a K-1.

How many "I know everything about photography because I bought a K-1" types will be posting?

We went through it with the D800, D810 , Canon 6D, D750, D600 and D610, why didn't I anticipate this? Sometimes I'm so dense.

Thanks to all the "my camera is the best and your sucks" type posts from the past, the ammunition is ready and lying on the table in front of me. Bring it on suckas.

Last edited by normhead; 05-27-2016 at 07:24 AM.
05-27-2016, 06:19 AM - 1 Like   #64
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,008
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Don't listen to folks that have to get profane to make a point, unless they are telling a joke.
I think you are mostly right Norm.......but if a person is happy with the K5 series for wildlife, then the K1 will not disappoint in Crop Mode. The plus is that you have a FF camera too.
Ideally for more serious shooters, owning the K3 and K1 would be the best combination.....For those like me, the handy factor of the K1 satisfies my needs. Some better faster glass would also make that Crop Mode more effective....but that is another story.

Regards!

05-27-2016, 06:41 AM   #65
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: West Haven, CT USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,067
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
... We went through all this stuff with the D800 crazies when the D800 came out. Now we have our own Pentax K-1 crazies.
Whoa, hey guy, it was cool until you started acting like we're all a bunch of Nikon owners just because this reach/magnification/squirrels in the distance issue wasn't immediately obvious. I think there's been some good statements on all this that do add clarity and I bet a lot of people learned from this thread. I know I did.

(I kid, Nikon folks are fine, but still)
05-27-2016, 11:20 AM - 1 Like   #66
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 514
I'm kinda surprised that people don't seem to use output as a variable in their discussions of K-3II vs K-1.

Yeah, there are features like wifi, tilt screen, etc, and performance gains in some areas like auto focus, low light performance, or controls. And things like depth of field, which could be a plus or minus.

But I would have thought that if one is mostly sharing online or using mobile devices the APS-C might be the choice, and for printing the FF. Just looking at sensor size, and given the price differential, lens availability, and weight/size, wouldn't the APS-C be better if one doesn't print a lot?
05-27-2016, 11:44 AM - 1 Like   #67
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I think you are mostly right Norm.......but if a person is happy with the K5 series for wildlife, then the K1 will not disappoint in Crop Mode. The plus is that you have a FF camera too.
Ideally for more serious shooters, owning the K3 and K1 would be the best combination.....For those like me, the handy factor of the K1 satisfies my needs. Some better faster glass would also make that Crop Mode more effective....but that is another story.

Regards!
Exactly my advice Rupert, you don't need your K-5, the K-1 has it built in , only better. But for squirrel shooters, a K-3 might be better.
It all depends on how much you value resolution on squirrel images. And I have to admit, I've never considered a 30x20 image of a squirrel on my wall. I use the K-3 resolution to crop more, not to produce higher resolution images.

One of the possible advantages to the K-1 would be the ability to shoot 36 MP, and possibly have bigger area to include in your crop.... possibly allowing the K-1 to catch up with the K-3 in resolution, using any lens that produces a larger than APS-c crop circle, even though it doesn't completely cover FF.

You are always going to have more possibilities with the larger sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
But I would have thought that if one is mostly sharing online or using mobile devices the APS-C might be the choice, and for printing the FF. Just looking at sensor size, and given the price differential, lens availability, and weight/size, wouldn't the APS-C be better if one doesn't print a lot?
What would be more appropriate would be unless you print really big, and need the print resolution to hold up when viewed really close. Tess has sold a few images printed to 30 x20 inches, taken with a 10 MP point and shoot. I've would bet on my K-3 images being good enough to sell printed at 40x30. I know a K-3 is slightly overkill for 30x20. My 16 MP K-5 is good enough for 30x20.

A K-5 produces 2100 lw/ph. That's able to print better than 100 distinct lines per inc at 20 inches.That is pretty good resolution for a print. I know people think they need detail finer than 100 lines per inch, but in most cases they are delusional. Most people can't tell the difference between 72 district lines per inch and 100 in a print that isn't a test chart. And they certainly can't tell the difference between the 120 my K-3 would give me and the 150 a K-1 would give me.

Last edited by normhead; 05-27-2016 at 12:25 PM.
05-27-2016, 01:33 PM - 1 Like   #68
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,008
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It all depends on how much you value resolution on squirrel images.
Yeah, what you need or intend to do with them. Most of mine just go on the web, so resolution is not that important. I do like the Crop Mode big frame that lights up in red and shows you exactly what you are composing.

Here is one from this morning...just an average ordinary squirrel, framed as I shot it. I could see a branch in the upper left but knew I could clone it out.
We can't forget the new SR too....1/100 handheld f6.3 (wide open Bigma 50-500) ISO 800 @ 500mm


Squirrels are relatively easy, they photograph well, but birds are a lot more difficult to get fine detail. All in all, the K1 is what you said....pretty much a K5IIs on steroids in the crop mode.

Here is one from my K5IIs that is similar with similar settings......of course this is of a squirrel we all know, so his handsomeness makes a much better shot!

1/160 handheld f6.3 Bigma ISO 800 @ 500mm


Some nice 30X20 squirrel prints would look great on your walls Norm! No one here has better squirrels than you.

Regards!

05-27-2016, 05:31 PM   #69
Site Supporter
Suhail's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Mississauga
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 254
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
I cannot help but wonder all the time why people keep comparing an 800 camera against a 2000 one (even ignoring potentially thousands of euros of necessary lens changes to get the most out of the K-1). .......What would be the very best camera for my needs? Currently K-3 II but waiting to see which of these exciting K-1 features make it into Pentax's next APS-C body.
newmikey,

You have nailed it. There are 3 different systems and you got to choose one. You can't have lenses for one and choose the other camera.

Regards,

S
05-27-2016, 05:33 PM - 2 Likes   #70
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
Buy a k-1. All this talk about the k-3 being better for birding is complete BS. On paper the pixel density of k-3 is better, in practice the k-1 destroys it. Buy a k-1.

.
K-3 | FA77/1.8


I could go on, but suffice to say "destroys" is a bit of overstating.

---------- Post added 05-27-16 at 05:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Suhail Quote
Otoh, if I want to upgrade, my mind says, go for the best body lol.
Nope. It has been, and IMO always will be, about the glass.
05-27-2016, 06:07 PM - 1 Like   #71
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,843
Bodies generally age less well than lenses.
05-27-2016, 06:54 PM - 1 Like   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,390
QuoteQuote:


Hi C_Jones,

This is very nicely explained. I appreciate your advice.

Regards,

Suhail
You're welcome. To the same effect as my last post, the K-3II (great AF and resolution) would definitely advance your aps-c performance if you replaced the K-5IIS with it. The K-1 would give you the full frame at the 36 mp option with the newest AF.

I think, which has already been posted, that the optimal situation you would want is to have both the K-3II to give you the best Pentax aps-c performance available, and the K-1 to give you the full frame 36 mp option. Both are going to give you something, no matter which one you get or when. I know the K-5IIS is a beautiful camera, but if you sold it instead of retaining it, that may help in financing the K-3II or K-1.

What Adam mentioned about buying the K-1 and waiting to replace your K-5IIS with a K-3II would be a method of sooner or later having both the K-1 and K-3II, or you could buy the K-3II to replace the K-5IIS, then buy the K-1 when it is feasible for you. That would be the simple approach, both methods having their benefits.

That being said, anyone could compare the K-1 and K-3II in many ways, but the essence of it is that they are two different type cameras, one whose specialization platform is 24 mp aps-c, and one whose specialization platform is 36 mp full frame. If a person wants the most advanced specialization platform that Pentax makes of both aps-c and full frame, then the K-1 and K-3II will outfit the person.

Just take one step at a time, if you buy either one first, it is going to be an upgrade. If you think one is going to be more immediately needed than the other, you can buy that one and look forward to buying the other one next.

Enjoy.
05-27-2016, 07:13 PM - 1 Like   #73
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There is no advantage to keeping a K-5 with a K-1 unless you want it as a second body. The K-1 crop mode has about the same size crop sensor as a K-5II. The K-3 or K-3II will give you an extra 1000 pixels horizontal crop room, if you're shooting a K-5. A K-1 will give you an extra 1300 horizontal pixels. So in terms of pixels the K-5 is to the K3, what the K-3 is to the K-1.

However in crop mode, the K-1 is the same as a K-5 with better AF, more dynamic range and bigger brighter viewfinder.

The advantages to the K-3 over the K-1 would be faster frame rate, and more crop mode resolution, for the majority of those birding images, where you can't get any closer, and you'll be shooting crop mode with either camera.
So, it's pretty hard to argue the K-1 is better for birding, since when birding quite often even shooting APS-c is often heavily cropped. Especially since Nikon has come out with a crop sensor care with FF auto-focus capabilities.

Given the numbers, 5000x3000, 6000x4000 and 7300x5000 if you're going to argue the K-3 isn't better for birding,, using the same standards, you'd have to argue the K-1 isn't better than the K-3 for birding.

Those of us who have gone from a K-5 to a K-3 know exactly what the advantage to 24MP crop over 15 MP crop is for birding. Only a person who hasn't done so could say something like

A K-1 doesn't destroy anything. What kind of fool would post such nonsense? (One I've ignored, just to avoid such non-sense.)

The simple fact is, once you get into crop mode, the K-3 "destroys" the K-1, (more magnification, higher frame rate.), if you want to get all hyperbolic about it. And if you're arguing that the 1000 extra pixel in width doesn't make a difference, then a K1 isn't any better than a K-3 because the resolution difference k-1 over K-3 is about 1300 pixels in width. it's about the same in percentage increase. So this line of thought is a complete fallacy. On imaging resources, k-3 image resolve detail a K-5 image can't and K-1 images resolve detail a K-3 can't, but in crop mode i.e., any image that is cropped to the size of an APS_c sensor or less, the K-1 is essentially a K-5 and the K-1 is at a disadvantage.

People who say you don't lose reach with FF are nitpicking semantics. What you lose is magnification, which some people call "reach". You get more magnification over the area of the crop sensor with a K-3. For anything that requires magnification, of a small area, the K-3 will be more compact, and use cheaper lighter lenses and give you more resolution on your small target subject, than a K-1 using the same lens.

We went through all this stuff with the D800 crazies when the D800 came out. Now we have our own Pentax K-1 crazies. That's progress for you. The D800 crazies eventually saw the light (like when many of their Nikon compatriots started buying D7100s for birding and wildlife). I wonder how long the K-1 crazies will be drinking and trying to spread the cool-aid. Some people just can't get over that there just is no camera that does everything best. They always get carried away with their latest toy.

IN fact I'd point out how many FF Nikon shooters still carry an APS-c body, because in some circumstances it's the better choice.

The simple fact, if you look at the types of cameras used for birding and wildlife amongst pros and advanced amateurs, high resolution is not particularly valued. Many shoot with cameras that produce well less than 36mp. What's important is frame rate, magnification and speed of AF , pretty much in that order. Overall resolution looks to be pretty far down the list. That's why Pentax calls the K-1 a field camera.

Unbelievable, now we have dudes who probably have not one decent image posted in the 300 plus club or who certainly aren't well known over there, who are experts on birding, because they bought a K-1.

How many "I know everything about photography because I bought a K-1" types will be posting?

We went through it with the D800, D810 , Canon 6D, D750, D600 and D610, why didn't I anticipate this? Sometimes I'm so dense.

Thanks to all the "my camera is the best and your sucks" type posts from the past, the ammunition is ready and lying on the table in front of me. Bring it on suckas.
Norm, i realise this post is directed at me. I'm sorry I argued that having a flush on a toilet was more convienient than not having a flush on a toilet. I'm saddened that you could neither see the humour in that ridiculous phrase, nor the fact that it was a rephrasing of your own (somewhat stubborn imho) argument.

Yes, I know you've ignored me. Yes I appreciate that I don't really post much online (I have done since owning a K-1, not because the pictures I'm posting are good, but because others have a genuine interest in seeing what the camera is capable of). I'm an old man. I've had a long career in the production of images, admittedly more in the 'art' realm than 'photo', but I do have some opinions and experiences to bring to this forum, as does every member here. Deriding others as fools or crazies, isn't really in keeping with the welcoming spirit of PF.

I may not have as much experience with Pentax cameras as others here. I've only experienced 20 or so Pentax camera bodies, and 50 or so Pentax lenses; I know that rates me in the 'newbie' category around here! But i do have an opinion, it may not match your opinion, but that doesn't make it worthless.

So now I've said all of that, I will say this. I don't post in the 300mm lens club. I don't post in any lens clubs. Some people have had some interest in the K-1 of late, so I've posted more public photos than I usually would (mainly as a result of having a K-1, and a lot of free time of late). The idea that someone must post in a given thread of your choosing, to be qualified enough to venture an opinion, is just elitist nonsense.

FWIW, I've owned a K-5, K-3, and K-1. So whilst I appreciate that you think I'm a fool for offering my opinion on the K-1, it is at least based on experience. Your opinion of the K-1 is based on what exactly? Intuition and divining rods?

Now, APSC has a numerical advantage for birding, I'll grant you that. But this isn't a discussion about whether APSC is better than FF, this is a discussion about whether the K-3ii is a better option for the OP than the K-1. In my honest opinion, I have yet to find a single area where the K-3 out performs the K-1. As we've already ascertained however, only those who post in the 300mm lens club are qualified to venture an opinion, so feel free to disregard mine
05-27-2016, 07:23 PM - 1 Like   #74
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,843
One small point. Comparing equal pixels is silly. Comparing equal objective image size on the framed area make more sense. Put another way - I wouldn't compare a crop of 1000x1000 on the K-1 to a similar 1000x1000 pixels on the K-3 they don't have the same density of pixels. When the K5iis was held up as having better noise I saw some people argue that if you took the 24mp image and downsampled to 16mp and then compared the two images that didn't really hold up. I can't run that test - I don't have anything except a K-3. The point I am making however is that if you have to crop away the FF excess and you are left with an APSC or less sized image, the same size in pixels isn't your comparison point - it's going to be 24/15 times as many pixels to reflect the inherent density. Perhaps I'm misthinking this and all you have to do is downsample the K-3 pixels or upsample the K-1 pixels to give a level playing field - an image that represents what you would actually print from or at least one that has the same baseline resolution.

Now I have no dog in this fight, I am slightly biased to think that APSC at high density of sensor produces better long range shots than FF - and this is in part based on things like the Q and based on the ability to frame and capture images and crop away unwanted bits and still have sufficient MP left to work with. HOWEVER I have zero FF digital experience so I could be blowing smoke up my own butt.

Feel free to tell me why my thinking is twisted and wrong - but also if anyone feels like doing it - go for it. Oh and please use rational ISO's that reflect a range that both cameras work well at. Then later you can crank the ISO up to show the FF can crush the APSC under lower light conditions - which is an important potential consideration.
05-27-2016, 07:59 PM - 1 Like   #75
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
I'm pretty sure, as is often per usual 'round these parts, there needs to be more picky-snappy, less talky-snappy.

No one will ever, EVER convince me that the performance and differences therein between ANY of these cameras mentioned throughout this thread are worth arguing about.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advice, birds, camera, crop, dslr, frame, image, images, k-1, k-3, k-3ii, k-5iis, k-s2, k1, landscapes, lens, love, macro, nature, people, photography, pm, post, quality, sensor, wide-angle, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bought a k-3II instead of K-1 Venom3300 Pentax DSLR Discussion 77 05-08-2016 06:35 AM
Why I wouldn't buy a K-1 onlineflyer Pentax K-1 6 02-19-2016 12:57 PM
Why I will not buy a K-1 Franc Pentax K-1 24 02-17-2016 05:28 PM
For Sale - Sold: New in box: 16GB Pentax FLUcard O-FC1 (tether your K-3, K-3II, K-S1, or 645z) cheekygeek Sold Items 3 10-28-2015 05:08 AM
Do I buy a Q S-1 or 08 Lens? sapporodan Pentax Q 31 06-08-2015 03:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top