Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-04-2016, 05:20 AM   #16
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,827
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If all you do is shoot landscapes from a tripod and you never prints really big, I don't know that the benefit is there
A) Landscapes:
You can raise the shadows by 5 stops without much noise (5 stops = raising ISO from 100 to 1600, so pulling up noise and signal from the dark to about ISO1600 quality level which on FF is still fairly good, but at the same level on a K3 , noise is visible and colors start to take a hit).

I earlier posted something about what ND filters I should buy again for the K1 due to the fact that my old ND grad filters that I'm using on the K3 lenses, don't fit anymore on the DFA24-70 because of the size of the filter thread.
Now, given the additional DR of the K1, I came to the conclusion that I'll skip the ND grad filters because:
1) I can use the extra DR of the K1 to pull more of the shadows
2) larger ND grad filters are twice the price compared to what I paid for the ones used with K3, so I save money
3) I don't need to carry and put ND grad filters on and off depending on lighting and what's in the frame
4) the problem of ND grad is the use is limited to straight lines otherwise they also attenuate the lighting on where we don't want to

So, I save $250 of filters + convenience of not having to use ND grad at all.

B) Indoor sports:
For indoor sports, dim tungsten lighting, with the K3 and Tamy 70-200 , I have to shoot between from ISO 2200 (best case) to 6400 (worst case), typically ISO 3200, f3.5 aperture (Tamy not sharp @ f2.8) 1/500th shutter speed , resulting image resolution for printing = 6 Mega of good quality pixels, max !!! With the K1 FF mode and Tamy 70-200 , shooting at f3.5, 3200 ISO, I get easily get around 12M of good pixels result, and if I'd use a DFA70-200 wide open, I'd get around 16Mpixels good. So , with the K3 indoor sports you get decent image printed rather small otherwise colors look ugly especially the red, and resolution takes a hit due to noise. Since indoor sport lighting is right at the edge of APSC capability, and visual perception isn't linear (you perceive much more difference in IQ from 5bits depth to 6bits depth compared to 7bits to 8bits depth), in low light ISO2200, a K1 just cross the barrier between mediocre image quality to good looking image quality.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-04-2016 at 05:52 AM.
06-04-2016, 05:21 AM   #17
Veteran Member
jddwoods's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Newark, Delaware
Posts: 419
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I added a FF to my kit well before the K-1 was out, and yes, it's worth it if you use higher sensitivity settings and/or need the added resolution.

The second question is hard to answer because it really depends on what you plan to get out of your gear. IMO you don't need the latest F2.8 zooms to get excellent image quality. Of course, the D FA* 70-200mm is a superb lens, but value-wise the Tamron 70-200mm is a better proposition for many. Personally I'm a fan of fast primes, so that's where I've invested.

Value-wise, the D FA 28-105mm is also an excellent choice, and it even outperforms the D FA 24-70mm F2.8 at 70mm in terms of sharpness, so that would be a walkaround option to consider if you also like primes.
I am yet another considering a K-1. I have a K-5 and K-3 and use mostly DA Limited primes, I have all of them. My only FF lenses are the DFA-100 Macro WR and the DA* 200. I am considering replacing the K-5 with the K-1. Would there be any benefit to me, with the lenses I have, to upgrade to the K-1 without an extensive overhaul of my lenses? For example would my most used lenses, the DA 21 and DA 40 Limiteds be any better on the K-1 crop mode than they are on the K-3?
06-04-2016, 05:31 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
You can raise the shadows by 5 stops without much noise (5 stops = raising ISO from 100 to 1600, so pulling up noise and signal from the dark to about ISO1600 quality level which on FF is still fairly good, but at the same level on a K3 , noise is visible and colors start to take a hit).
Sure. But I seldom need to pull shadows up quite that much, particularly if I use a GND.
06-04-2016, 06:52 AM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Posts: 545
I have recently made the switch to FF after using APSC for the past 12 years. My last APSC camera was the K3II and it was a gem. Sold the K3II and APSC lenses to fund the switch to FF; K1, DFA 24-70, DFA 28-104 and FA 35. Already had the FA 50, FA 77, DFA 100, Tamron 70-200 and DFA 150-450.
Was it worth it? Since I was able to finance the switch be selling old gear it worked out fine. Did I really need FF? Not really, but the promise of better IQ was too much to resist. And yes the IQ is amazing.

06-04-2016, 07:02 AM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 810
I think there are two separate questions. One question is whether it's "worth" moving from the K-3 to the K-1. The secondary question is whether it is worth moving from APS-C too FF. From the way most people describe the K-1, it is more about how much of a pleasure to USE the K-1 is. That's because they designed a great camera. People also describe some benefits being directly linked to the fact that it is FF, and IQ improvements related to that.
06-04-2016, 07:03 AM   #21
Veteran Member
zmohie's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: egypt
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 373
yes it worth.
i have k3ii and since i bought k1 i handled my k3ii for sale.
first thing you will notce is the OVF.
I SEE K1 IS A mixed between k5 and 654z. it counted the best of the two cameras a huge details and a well noise control . you know k 5 was at release time 1600$ now k1 is 1800$.

I bought a 28-105 it is sharp , not expensive , not heavy,.wr at 70 mm it is prime like.
06-04-2016, 10:05 AM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,827
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ?
This question is roughly the same as having a small car and asking if it is worth getting the bigger model. Any car in good working conditions, even the smallest, can take you from A to B. That does not prevent people from buying $7K cars and other people buying $70K cars. I often see folks with 4x4 cars shiny pain never used for what a 4x4 drive cars were originally designed for. APSC, FF and MF are different formats. I think, one of the reason why Ricoh introduced a FF camera now is because the sensors have improved and their cost went significantly down with the ramping up of 300mm wafer fabs, making FF affordable for a wider user base. The K1 is the kind of camera that could be had for $1.5K or even less in the future, so basically, a fully featured multipurpose camera for nearly the price of high-end mirrorless. The K1 is one of the best value for money DSLR FF of its class. Unless size is a problem, it's a good choice. There's no hurry, maybe, in a year or two from now, it's going to sell for cheaper, with the same image quality.
06-04-2016, 11:34 AM   #23
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,481
Is it worth it? IOW is there is there enough value to warrant investing another $1,800 and keeping the K-3, or whatever extra money after selling the K-3?

The answer is awfully subjective, and technical improvement (aside from internal GPS, PS and AT) are really pretty small. We've been coping with the format difference quite successfully for well over a decade now.

On the other hand, I intentionally bought about the same value of legacy manual focus lenses as the cost of the Holy Trinity Zooms because I like to use manual lenses in manual mode a lot of the time. For that use alone it is worth it because I can focus in the viewfinder now instead of guessing with the beep or cheating in LV.

What I didn't expect was deciding to keep the K-3 and 4 DA Limiteds as a lighter travel kit. That's really worth it. I'm actually getting better manual telephoto files with K-1 over K-3 because I can focus on K-1, so I had decided to sell the K-3. The FoV 'reach' excuse wasn't worth it (to keep the K-3) for me.

Sure, it's money, but it's just a decision.

06-04-2016, 01:13 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I added a FF to my kit well before the K-1 was out, and yes, it's worth it if you use higher sensitivity settings and/or need the added resolution.

The second question is hard to answer because it really depends on what you plan to get out of your gear. IMO you don't need the latest F2.8 zooms to get excellent image quality. Of course, the D FA* 70-200mm is a superb lens, but value-wise the Tamron 70-200mm is a better proposition for many. Personally I'm a fan of fast primes, so that's where I've invested.

Value-wise, the D FA 28-105mm is also an excellent choice, and it even outperforms the D FA 24-70mm F2.8 at 70mm in terms of sharpness, so that would be a walkaround option to consider if you also like primes.

What he said, particularly about faster primes. Faster primes often times eliminates the need for a tripod in low light conditions, saves weight, and saves money because there are some good manual ones out there (some of us can still focus manually). Good primes are far more likely to be sharper at f/2.8 or faster than a zoom.
06-04-2016, 01:25 PM   #25
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,647
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ?
From K20Ds... yes most certainly.

Never had anything newer in Pentax since then, so I can't really comment of your situation of K3 to K1.
06-04-2016, 01:46 PM   #26
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 78
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Dear K-1 owners,

I am contemplating switching from my K-3 to the K-1.

1st question:

Is it worth it, and how much better is the K-1 over K-3/K-3ii in terms of IQ, ISO and overall performance ?

2nd question:

That performance benefit coupled with buying some FF zoom lenses - does the performance outweigh the added costs of zooms?


As I am more into zoom lenses for general photography, I don't have FF 24-200mm 2.8's, but I have a few FF primes. This is a cost I'm concerned about of $1200-2000 AUD, then the body @ $2800 AUD.
Well I love both cameras but I would say that if you have a collection of Pentax Full frame lenses it is worth the upgrade. I carry both cameras. I Ilke the APC format 24 MP K3 for telephoto and the K1 for wide to standard. Easy to carry two bodies and it is an excellent solution. You won't see much difference in the two cameras except the K1 is EVEN BETTER in low light than the K3 which is already excellent.
06-04-2016, 02:12 PM   #27
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,973
QuoteOriginally posted by jddwoods Quote
I am yet another considering a K-1. I have a K-5 and K-3 and use mostly DA Limited primes, I have all of them. My only FF lenses are the DFA-100 Macro WR and the DA* 200. I am considering replacing the K-5 with the K-1. Would there be any benefit to me, with the lenses I have, to upgrade to the K-1 without an extensive overhaul of my lenses? For example would my most used lenses, the DA 21 and DA 40 Limiteds be any better on the K-1 crop mode than they are on the K-3?
The DA 40mm covers the full image circle, so you could use it in FF mode.

Wide lenses used in crop mode are generally a waste, IMO. You'd at least need to add a few new lenses.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-05-2016, 05:46 AM   #28
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 70
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
And when using the K1 in full frame mode (36Mp), beside less high iso noise there is no much advantage in IQ when using the camera JPEG processor, in order to keep the file sizes and burst rate, most of the 36Mp vs 24Mp details are lost.
Which means they turned a great camera into rubbish [for action photography], because you have to shoot RAW to get the FF quality you paid for (that's almost deceitful on their part, no matter what the reason, considering we don't have a menu option for [real] high quality JPEGs).

That means buffer gets full in no time ( I "guess" average FPS will come down to 1), and post-processing those hundreds or thousands of images will make your ordinary nightmare look like a fairy tale.

That is not photographer oriented, and certainly not what you'd expect from a Pentax camera that's supposed to bring more IQ.

I read something along these lines in the PF review, but didn't have time to look better. Now I don't need to.
06-05-2016, 06:13 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
QuoteOriginally posted by jddwoods Quote
...For example would my most used lenses, the DA 21 and DA 40 Limiteds be any better on the K-1 crop mode than they are on the K-3?
There may be some other benefits to using a K1, but the crop lenses won't provide images any better than those you will get with either a K5 or K3.

If the two full frame lenses you have are your favorites [&/or that DA 40], maybe consider buying the K1 and adding other lenses as you go. Remember these lenses will give you a different field of view!

If the DA lenses cover your favorite fields of view, I might wait before buying a K1... Maybe hunt a good price for the FF equivalent of your favorite DA lens (prices were low in US at the start of the year), buy that lens, then buy a K1.

In the meantime, you will have lost no image quality using your DA lenses and K3 relative to K1+DA. Plus, the cost of the K1 may have dropped a bit when you are ready to buy.

Last edited by Tan68; 06-05-2016 at 06:21 AM.
06-05-2016, 06:19 AM   #30
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,481
QuoteOriginally posted by dafbp Quote
Which means they turned a great camera into rubbish [for action photography], because you have to shoot RAW to get the FF quality you paid for (that's almost deceitful on their part, no matter what the reason, considering we don't have a menu option for [real] high quality JPEGs).

That means buffer gets full in no time ( I "guess" average FPS will come down to 1), and post-processing those hundreds or thousands of images will make your ordinary nightmare look like a fairy tale.

That is not photographer oriented, and certainly not what you'd expect from a Pentax camera that's supposed to bring more IQ.

I read something along these lines in the PF review, but didn't have time to look better. Now I don't need to.
'Rubbish' is a pretty damning word, I think.

It is well accepted that Pentax in no way claims to make sports/action specialty cameras. Pentax makes High-Image-Quality optimized Field Cameras and generlaist cameras that defy categorization.

If you need an action camera there are plenty of other cameras optimized for action.
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!
aud, camera, d750, dslr, ff, field, iq, iso, jpeg, jpegs, k-1, k-1 owners, k-3, lenses, lines, lot, money, months, opinions, owners, performance, photography, photos, post, question, rubbish, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k 135 f2,5. It's worth the money (waiting for FF to come)? bm75 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 05-31-2016 03:03 PM
Have 50/1.8, is it worth it to buy a 35/2.4? keanex Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 54 02-28-2016 12:52 AM
International travel, is it worth upgrading from K-30 to K-3/3ii? Newtophotos Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 12-27-2015 11:30 AM
Is it worth it to switch to K-5 II for the sake of ultrasonic dust removal? rrstuff Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 12-26-2013 05:53 AM
is it worth it to upgrade to the K-r? raf02 Pentax K-r 6 11-03-2010 11:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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