[snostorm]

I wonder why people keep posting picture, claiming they prove the K-1 is better than my K-3 for small birds, and posting pictures i wouldn't post. I know they think they are doing otherwise but they are just proving my point.

My hope with the K-1 for birding rests entirely with the K-1 being able to accurately focus with my A-400 and F1.7x AF adapter, which my K-3 won't do. 300mm and a 1.4 seems to be the basic K-3 birding set up. You'd need 450 with a 1.4 to get the same reach on a K-1. The you'd have something. You'd have a lot of weight.

Anything I can do with my DA*250 with no TC's, I will be able to do with my A-400, but honestly, in birding, that isn't very much. For birds I almost never take my 60-250 out without at least the HD DA 1.4 on it. It is getting quite annoying K-1 users, saying "ignore the math, ignore the images look how much I love my K-1." Be cool if you post there, don't post an image and tell us how great it is, post an image and see if people like act. At like you've been around a while.

Listen guys, if you think you have proof you've got some images that prove how great the K-1 is for birding, there is the[URL="https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club-discuss-your-long-lenses-1453.html"]

Look at what's posted see if what you've got measures up. So far the guys posting with K-1 are shooting in crop mode for the additional frame rate, the importance of which is seriously undervalued by non-birding shooters, and personally, I'm still waiting for some image in crop mode. I know it physically possible for the K-1 to blow the K-3 images away. I'd expect an A-400 image where I nailed the focus, taken at the same range I'd use the 60-250, would produce better images. I'm just not sure that's practical. And once you get to 400 plus the 1.4 on my K-3, I know 600mm and a 1.4 on the K-1 isn't going to be as practical. it's going to be, a portable system I can walk around with, compared to a huge heavy lens with a gimble head.

Pinhilecam has posted an amazing pixel shift image that shows the strength of the K-1 in landscape and cityscapes. It has a place, I'm not sold that it's a one step solution for wildlife and landscape though.

Hi Norm,

I won't say that the K1 is the answer for birding, but after three weeks shooting in crop mode almost exclusively, with an FA* 300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (a lens combo I've been shooting with with various bodies for over a decade, The K1 in crop mode works well for me.

This lens combo is very slow (max aperture of f7.7) and though AF has worked well with all bodies, including the DS, it really works a lot better with the latest versions of SAFOX, and it's noticeably better for me in lower light which is all too common. The K1 allows me to shoot at higher ISO, so I can choose faster shutter speeds, stop the lens down a bit, or both. The wider FOV allows me quicker acquisition of my subject in the VF, and being able to instantly change from FF to Crop mode or back gives me some framing versatility if the subject gets "too close". and I can't move back. I normally shoot at under 15 feet, so this can be more common than some might think, and the FA*+ 1.7x AFA combo will focus to @ 6 ft, so it's easily possible. AF-S is quicker to lock, with fewer or no micro adjustments while it's focusing depending on the light. For me, the quicker acquisition and more positive lock helps offset my age induced slower reaction times, and the AFA, though quick to lock critical focus, needs to be prefocused manually (as you know), so if the camera is quicker, I'm capable of getting more shots.

I would limit my K5 to ISO 1280, and only use the upper reaches if absolutely necessary. The K3, I limited to ISO 1000. With the K1, I let ISO go up to 4000-5000, but try to keep it below 2000. This extra stop is very valuable because (in addition to what I feel is better SR performance) feather detail is destroyed by very minor camera shake, and I shoot almost exclusively handheld. I'm finding that I get a significantly higher percentage of acceptable shots per shoot, and that works for me.

I have the luxury of having two of each FA* 300/4.5 and F 1.7x AFA, so I was able to shoot both a K5 and a K3 directly against the K1, and though I'm not immune to the novelty of using a new toy, I find myself grabbing the K1 when I go to shoot some birds.

I also picked up a DFA 150-450 (so it's been an expensive spring!) and it's a great lens, but over twice as heavy as my 510mm combo. It's WR and a bit faster, so it has a place, but my main birding lens kit will remain the same.

Here are a couple of shots that show some of the advantages. They may not be up to your standards, but they're pretty good, especially considering the conditions some were shot at.

Chipmunk -- note ISO is 2000 -- conditions overcast with little or no shadow

Brown Headed Cowbird -- also ISO 2000 by mistake, but it really didn't hurt the shot, and it showed me some possibilities if I need really high shutter speeds -- Both of these were with the 150-450 @ 450mm

House Finch -- ISO 500 so I could get 1/250 FA*300 + AFA

Scarlet Tanager -- ISO 400 so I could get 1/250. I used EV-1 and still blew out the red channel a bit, but I was able to stop down the lens 1 stop. FA* 300 + AFA

I'm not recommending this as the best body for birding for most people, but as a Pentaxian birder, it's working for me.

Scott

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[UncleVanya]

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.

You just convinced me! Lol. I have an analytical side and just want to understand the factors. Any optimization problem is interesting. I have no delusions that one camera or the other will magically make me a better photographer.

And yes I was out doing some shooting tonight.

[luftfluss]

Bodies generally age less well than lenses.

My body is certainly ageing less well than my lenses...

[C_Jones]

Nice shots snostorm.

[Eyewanders]

You just convinced me! Lol. I have an analytical side and just want to understand the factors. Any optimization problem is interesting. I have no delusions that one camera or the other will magically make me a better photographer.

And yes I was out doing some shooting tonight.

I'm not really poo-poohing anyone specifically - and there've been some great debates over the years no doubt.... It's just that these do have a tendency to sometimes drift dangerously close to vitriol... much ado about nuttin. I have that analytical side too though - got it from m'grandpappy.

[UncleVanya]

My body is certainly ageing less well than my lenses...

Ah for me that may be different. Eye surgery before I was 25. Cataracts slowly starting... looks like eye surgery in the future again - hopefully many years away.

[noelpolar]

My few cents worth.... I've had the K-1 for a bit now and have done a bit of everything with it ...... landscape, wildlife, people and used it for a week traveling around Fiji..... lenses used are 31/43/77, F*300/4.5, DA 10-15, 15, 21, 70-200/2.8 , DFA 150-450, and some K primes... 30/2.8, 50/1.2 and 85/1.8. Other bodies I have are the K3 and K5II.

......my view is..... a bit mixed.... in a K3 v's K-1 "which camera did I wish I had with me at that particular moment?" the differences between these cameras is such that even on a two hour walk through a park in Fiji I could have used the high ISO of the K-1 (under tree canopy) and the extra reach of the K3 (bird in direct light) ........

Anyway, think a bit about the size and weight step in going K-1 ...... it is significant with certain lens choices.....and probally won't change the world with regard to images captured in 99% of circumstances. That being said, it is a quite natural path (FF digital) for most to desire and subsequently explore at some stage....wallet permitting.

To be clear, my current view is that for most of us, a K3III would likely be the single best compromise that we don't have yet. K3 size with a bit better dynamic range and noise performance with K-1 tilt screen and autofocus improvements... Then of course, with lenses like the 31/43/77 you really appreciate the K-1.....

---

Last edited by noelpolar; 05-27-2016 at 09:59 PM.

[newmikey]

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.

The voice of reason, finally! Fully agree with you. The cameras are worth the debate though but any talk of one of these outstanding Pentax bodies "destroying" the others is hyperbolic nonsense of course.

......my view is..... a bit mixed.... in a K3 v's K-1 "which camera did I wish I had with me at that particular moment?" the differences between these cameras is such that even on a two hour walk through a park in Fiji I could have used the high ISO of the K-1 (under tree canopy) and the extra reach of the K3 (bird in direct light) ........

Anyway, think a bit about the size and weight step in going K-1 ...... it is significant with certain lens choices.....and probally won't change the world with regard to images captured in 99% of circumstances. That being said, it is a quite natural path (FF digital) for most to desire and subsequently explore at some stage....wallet permitting.

To be clear, my current view is that for most of us, a K3III would likely be the single best compromise that we don't have yet. K3 size with a bit better dynamic range and noise performance with K-1 tilt screen and autofocus improvements... Then of course, with lenses like the 31/43/77 you really appreciate the K-1.....

And the voice of experience as well. Thanks for putting things into perspective on the basis of your own hands-on experience.

[normhead]

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.

The resolution charts will tell you what your set up is capable of but it isn't a all about pixels or image size. On the test charts a K-3 24 MP camera runs 2700-2800 lw/ph. ( Line width per picture height.) A D750 will come in a 2800-2900 or 200 lw/ph more. SO theoretically a D750 will resolve 2900 equally spaced black and white lines. It will need 4000 pixels to do so.

A K-3 at 2700 lw/ph, would probably make a mess of the same image also in 4000 pixels. A Canon 6D comes pretty close to K-3 resolution with 20 MP. But would make mush of a 2700 lw/ph image. So different sensors do produce different resolutions given the same number of pixels, and same size of image with the larger sensors coming out on top. As rule of thumb cameras produce about .7 to .75 lw/ph per pixel, with as a general rule the larger formats being more efficient.

The issue here, is will your camera resolve what you need it to resolve in our images?

Most of us who don't print over 16 inches wide, can't see more than 1600 lw/ph just to pick an arbitrary number as a guess. A K-5 will give you 2100 lw/ph. A K-5 will give you 100 distinct lines per inch printed 30x20.

So when I think of a K-1, the only thing I'm really thinking of is low light performance, which I probably wouldn't use much, resolution, which I'm not convinced I would ever use. I was trained on 8x10 film cameras, as far as I'm concerned the kings of resolution. But I never owned one, and never used on after I left Ryerson Politech.

To me, part of a professional / advanced attitude is understanding what you need and not succumbing to overkill out of anxiety.

But many people do need a K-1, for non-photographic reasons. They need to identify with "the big boys". I think many people wouldn't be comfortable being out there crawling around, claiming hills , looking for the best angle for an image, if they had a cheap camera. The big camera gives you permission to try and excel, at least out in the real world.

I'm not recommending this as the best body for birding for most people, but as a Pentaxian birder, it's working for me.

That's all anyone should care about.... "how does this work for me." I still have my K-5 and rarely use it, especially not for birding, so my suspicion is a K-1 in crop would be the same. I didn't buy a 150-450, because I suspected your experience would be what would happen to me. it would become a blind lens or a shelf lens, but I want my best gear to be portable.

The bottom line for me is, with the same gear, my K-3 in good light conditions gives me the best possible image for the circumstances I find myself in the majority of the time. At the same time I realize an awful lot of people need better low light performance more than they need the ultimate resolution on a heavily cropped bird shot. And there are a lot of other reasons some people could find for preferring a K-1. I look at my low light images and think "they are good enough on the K-3, I don't need more."(Although I prefer the K-5 images in low light and would definitely prefer the K-1 images, even in crop.) Other people look at their heavily cropped low light K-3 images and think "I want better than that," and look at their bird images and think, "I'm happy with my K-5, a K-1 will be better, even though I probably don't need it.". It's all about preferences.

Every camera is the best at something and fits the price range someone wants to pay. Everyone should own that camera that is in their price range that does the best at what they value most. I'm not sure why i value little bird images at this point, but hey, you can't argue with the numbers, and my numbers say, I shoot more little birds than anything else.

I'm sure most people just think, "well those are very nice, but i'm not wasting my time to get images like that, what do you do with them?" And I often think "that's an amazing image, think what that guy could do if he put his mind to little birds, he could accomplish something."

As a photographer you define what's important in terms of what it is you shoot. Part of that is understanding which camera will help you excel in the getting the images you take.

SO the K-1 is great camera, is it for you? no one else can tell you that.

My theory is never second guess what makes you happy. What makes you happy is not negotiable.You can't talk yourself into what should and shouldn't make you happy. And respect what makes other people happy. Whether or not it would make you happy is irrelevant to them. If someone says they are happy with their 10 MP point and shoot because it fits in the pocket of a dress shirt, far be it from me to argue with that. If that's what makes them happy, I'm just glad someone makes something for them.

[luftfluss]

Ah for me that may be different. Eye surgery before I was 25. Cataracts slowly starting... looks like eye surgery in the future again - hopefully many years away.

Ugh, the nascent cataracts not good for photography. My sweetie is scheduled for cataract surgery later this summer which will also correct her astigmatism.

[grispie]

btw, been playing with a K1 this morning. Haven't looked at the images yet, but one: i had the feeling (using my fa31, da70) much faster AF vs my k3. and ofcourse much better ability to play with bokeh, which is sthing i like doing with these two lenses. I also played with the da300. What a nice lens!
two: Unfortunately they didn't have the 15-30 around. the movable screen would be a joy for landscape photography. I took some underexposed whots, since i am really keen on seeing how much i can pull vs my K3. That would be a reason to buy the K1 for me, together with the 15-30.

not sure i am adding sthing to the discussion, but whatever :-)

[Suhail]

Hi Norm,

I won't say that the K1 is the answer for birding, but after three weeks shooting in crop mode almost exclusively, with an FA* 300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (a lens combo I've been shooting with with various bodies for over a decade, The K1 in crop mode works well for me. ........
Scott

Nice shots Scott (snostrom)!

Regards,

S

[Suhail]

I apologize for I was out and about and rarely checking the internet.

I would like to thank everybody for great advice and suggestions.

I have pretty much made up my mind on the basis of my photographic interest and these forums have been very helpful.

Best Regards,

Suhail

[UserAccessDenied]

I apologize for I was out and about and rarely checking the internet.

I would like to thank everybody for great advice and suggestions.

I have pretty much made up my mind on the basis of my photographic interest and these forums have been very helpful.

Best Regards,

Suhail

what's the result?!
I bet we're all curious...

[Oldbayrunner]

You may lose some reach with the 300 on the k-1, but when that bird comes close, pow pow pow! It nails it!

Huh, you don't lose any reach, if using a lens with a circle designed for full frame, such as the 300mm, you gain more image captured on the sensor at the same distance as an Aps-c camera due to the larger sensor.