K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ?

**jatrax** · 06-05-2016, 11:31 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by dafbp

I read something along these lines in the PF review, but didn't have time to look better. Now I don't need to.

So out of literally 1,000s of positive posts about the k-1, (that you don't have time to read), you pick out one sentence of one post, take it out of context and decide the K-1 is rubbish?

And then post that comment in a thread asking for the opinions of owners of the camera? Thanks for your opinion, but I think I'll ignore it.

osv · 06-05-2016, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by dafbp

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 .

so you are claiming that the only way to shoot action is with jpeg? lol, that is complete rubbish.

no hi-rez ff camera on the market can record a high burst rate, the 5dsr for example is limited to 5fps or less regardless of what combination of photo formats is used: Canon 5DS R Review - Performance

k-1 has nearly the same burst speed, regardless of format, with a slightly bigger 17-frame buffer: Pentax K-1 Review: Initial Test - Performance

since jpeg does not increase the burst rate with these cameras, and it records lower quality pq, there is little incentive to use it.

Kunzite · 06-05-2016, 02:16 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

'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.

'Rubbish' is a pretty damning word. And a perfect description of dafbp's "conclusion".
Especially the part about the K-1 not being "photographer oriented". Because it can't sustain high FPS shooting in RAW, it doesn't "bring more IQ"? Really?

dafbp · 06-05-2016, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

'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.

Don't fret, I'm not rubbishing the camera, I think it has a very fresh approach to camera features.
I was referring solely to the loss of detail on the JPEGs vs RAW, in the way that if you want to get [FF IQ] what you paid for, you have to shoot RAW, therefore limiting the camera seriously in terms of specific output (hence the term "average FPS").
The performance difference between FF and crop is somewhat expected and accepted, but I don't think anybody expects a FF JPEG to give the same detail as a APS RAW(?).

I know pretty well that Pentax cameras aren't sports/action specialty cameras, and I deal with it as well as I can. I (and many others) complain about AF,etc., but we keep buying their stuff.

For the record: I don't have a K-1, just K-5 and K-5iis, I'm merely posting my opinion regarding the post made by biz-engineer, with some extra data from the recent review made by PF, which states about the same [visible quality difference between JPEG and RAW], and only that.

**monochrome** · 06-05-2016, 03:09 PM

Well - I think if you buy a FF camera for the image output, you don't shoot in camera jpeg mode and accept compressed output. You shoot RAW, post-process, and extract your image files in your (much more powerful) PC.

I believe the criticisms are invalid.

**jlstrawman** · 06-05-2016, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by dafbp

For the record: I don't have a K-1, just K-5 and K-5iis, I'm merely posting my opinion regarding the post made by biz-engineer, with some extra data from the recent review made by PF, which states about the same [visible quality difference between JPEG and RAW], and only that.

I just love opinions from "experts" who have no hands on experience. So many "experts", so much BS. Boris Cletoed.

dafbp · 06-05-2016, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

'Rubbish' is a pretty damning word. And a perfect description of dafbp's "conclusion".
Especially the part about the K-1 not being "photographer oriented". Because it can't sustain high FPS shooting in RAW, it doesn't "bring more IQ"? Really?

You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts.
I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY).
Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish!

The K-1 review here in PF also says that the jpegs have visible loss of quality. I never said that, merely commented on a post stating the same. The post I quoted says "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". The rest of the phrase is about ISO, so not really taken out of context.

To the OP (only) that was asking for opinions about the K-1, I'm sorry for not giving the expected feedback and causing a lot of unrelated replies.

---------- Post added 06-05-16 at 11:41 PM ----------

Originally posted by jlstrawman

I just love opinions from "experts" who have no hands on experience. So many "experts", so much BS. Boris Cletoed.

I never said I was an expert, nor an "expert". But I know a few people who should stop speed reading...

Kunzite · 06-05-2016, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by dafbp

You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts.
I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY).
Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish!

Oh, really? You NEVER said this?

Originally posted by dafbp

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.

I imagined it, then

dafbp · 06-05-2016, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Well - I think if you buy a FF camera for the image output, you don't shoot in camera jpeg mode and accept compressed output. You shoot RAW, post-process, and extract your image files in your (much more powerful) PC.

I believe the criticisms are invalid.

I believe your criticism is valid, but that reasoning also applies to APS relative to m4/3 and others above the usual compacts/mobile phones...
Or, from another angle, if you buy a MF camera for the image... (No sarcasm)

**clackers** · 06-05-2016, 04:12 PM - **1 Like**

It's a lot of money for something that won't improve most photos we take, or for some people, any photos they take. APS-C is an excellent compromise on the various available formats.

I have the K-1, and an A7 before it, but understand anyone sceptical of whether it will improve their photography. It will improve certain kinds of shots, and all of us have to decide whether the extra money, weight, softer corners and reduced depth of field are worth it. I will still also be using my K-30 as I've always done.

No different from debate about buying an expensive lens, IMHO.

noelpolar · 06-05-2016, 05:41 PM - **2 Likes**

A lot of the discusions regarding the K-1 seems to focus on it's ability to produce "better output" over x, y and z. I would suggest, for many, it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner.

In this area I believe the K-1 is almost unprecedented.

**jatrax** · 06-05-2016, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by noelpolar

it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner.

Very well said! "switching to FF" is the title of this thread, but I think "switching to K-1" is closer to the truth. To be honest, it is not the FF aspect that has enthused me. I do not have any recent FF experience so I was not pining away for the FF look, or to use my lenses as designed or anything else.

This camera has so many pluses it would be a great camera even if it was APS-C. The FF is just icing on the cake.

**monochrome** · 06-05-2016, 08:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by noelpolar

A lot of the discusions regarding the K-1 seems to focus on it's ability to produce "better output" over x, y and z. I would suggest, for many, it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner.

In this area I believe the K-1 is almost unprecedented.

That has been my point since May 6h. It's just so much fun that I'm getting out every day; looking in my drawer to pick a lens s or two for a walk; making lists of things I want to do (Macro, downtown street, Astro, PS) and places I want to go. K-3 is a great camera and I have several DA Limitess. But it isn't fun like K-1.

My sig tells the story.

noelpolar · 06-05-2016, 08:34 PM - **1 Like**

Yes, we are all happy parents!

**Rondec** · 06-06-2016, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by dafbp

You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts.
I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY).
Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish!

The K-1 review here in PF also says that the jpegs have visible loss of quality. I never said that, merely commented on a post stating the same. The post I quoted says "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". The rest of the phrase is about ISO, so not really taken out of context.

To the OP (only) that was asking for opinions about the K-1, I'm sorry for not giving the expected feedback and causing a lot of unrelated replies.

---------- Post added 06-05-16 at 11:41 PM ----------

I never said I was an expert, nor an "expert". But I know a few people who should stop speed reading...

Jpegs are OK, but certainly could be a little better. I haven't spent a lot of time trying to tweak the jpeg output, as if I am shooting something where I need full resolution, I am going to take time to post process it in Lightroom.

This has been a criticism of Pentax for a long time. When I bought my first digital SLR, a K100, I started shooting RAW, because folks said the jpeg output wasn't that great. As for action photography, I don't think that those folks care if a little resolution is thrown away using jpegs. Most of them don't need more than 10 or 12 megapixel output anyway -- 36 megapixels is going to be over kill for their purposes and cameras with high megapixels aren't really designed for high frame rate shooting anyway -- not the 5ds or the D810 or the A7r II or the A7r either.

06-05-2016, 04:12 PM - 1 Like	#40
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	It's a lot of money for something that won't improve most photos we take, or for some people, any photos they take. APS-C is an excellent compromise on the various available formats. I have the K-1, and an A7 before it, but understand anyone sceptical of whether it will improve their photography. It will improve certain kinds of shots, and all of us have to decide whether the extra money, weight, softer corners and reduced depth of field are worth it. I will still also be using my K-30 as I've always done. No different from debate about buying an expensive lens, IMHO. Last edited by clackers; 06-05-2016 at 09:45 PM.

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

06-05-2016, 11:31 AM - 2 Likes	#31
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by dafbp I read something along these lines in the PF review, but didn't have time to look better. Now I don't need to. So out of literally 1,000s of positive posts about the k-1, (that you don't have time to read), you pick out one sentence of one post, take it out of context and decide the K-1 is rubbish? And then post that comment in a thread asking for the opinions of owners of the camera? Thanks for your opinion, but I think I'll ignore it.

06-05-2016, 02:11 PM	#32
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by dafbp 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 . so you are claiming that the only way to shoot action is with jpeg? lol, that is complete rubbish. no hi-rez ff camera on the market can record a high burst rate, the 5dsr for example is limited to 5fps or less regardless of what combination of photo formats is used: Canon 5DS R Review - Performance k-1 has nearly the same burst speed, regardless of format, with a slightly bigger 17-frame buffer: Pentax K-1 Review: Initial Test - Performance since jpeg does not increase the burst rate with these cameras, and it records lower quality pq, there is little incentive to use it.

06-05-2016, 02:16 PM - 1 Like	#33
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by monochrome '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. 'Rubbish' is a pretty damning word. And a perfect description of dafbp's "conclusion". Especially the part about the K-1 not being "photographer oriented". Because it can't sustain high FPS shooting in RAW, it doesn't "bring more IQ"? Really?

06-05-2016, 02:48 PM	#34
dafbp Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 233	Originally posted by monochrome '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. Don't fret, I'm not rubbishing the camera, I think it has a very fresh approach to camera features. I was referring solely to the loss of detail on the JPEGs vs RAW, in the way that if you want to get [FF IQ] what you paid for, you have to shoot RAW, therefore limiting the camera seriously in terms of specific output (hence the term "average FPS"). The performance difference between FF and crop is somewhat expected and accepted, but I don't think anybody expects a FF JPEG to give the same detail as a APS RAW(?). I know pretty well that Pentax cameras aren't sports/action specialty cameras, and I deal with it as well as I can. I (and many others) complain about AF,etc., but we keep buying their stuff. For the record: I don't have a K-1, just K-5 and K-5iis, I'm merely posting my opinion regarding the post made by biz-engineer, with some extra data from the recent review made by PF, which states about the same [visible quality difference between JPEG and RAW], and only that.

06-05-2016, 03:09 PM	#35
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Well - I think if you buy a FF camera for the image output, you don't shoot in camera jpeg mode and accept compressed output. You shoot RAW, post-process, and extract your image files in your (much more powerful) PC. I believe the criticisms are invalid.

06-05-2016, 03:11 PM	#36
jlstrawman Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Midwest US Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,058	Originally posted by dafbp For the record: I don't have a K-1, just K-5 and K-5iis, I'm merely posting my opinion regarding the post made by biz-engineer, with some extra data from the recent review made by PF, which states about the same [visible quality difference between JPEG and RAW], and only that. I just love opinions from "experts" who have no hands on experience. So many "experts", so much BS. Boris Cletoed.

06-05-2016, 03:36 PM	#37
dafbp Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 233	Originally posted by Kunzite 'Rubbish' is a pretty damning word. And a perfect description of dafbp's "conclusion". Especially the part about the K-1 not being "photographer oriented". Because it can't sustain high FPS shooting in RAW, it doesn't "bring more IQ"? Really? You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts. I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY). Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish! The K-1 review here in PF also says that the jpegs have visible loss of quality. I never said that, merely commented on a post stating the same. The post I quoted says "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". The rest of the phrase is about ISO, so not really taken out of context. To the OP (only) that was asking for opinions about the K-1, I'm sorry for not giving the expected feedback and causing a lot of unrelated replies. ---------- Post added 06-05-16 at 11:41 PM ---------- Originally posted by jlstrawman I just love opinions from "experts" who have no hands on experience. So many "experts", so much BS. Boris Cletoed. I never said I was an expert, nor an "expert". But I know a few people who should stop speed reading...

06-05-2016, 04:02 PM	#38
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by dafbp You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts. I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY). Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish! Oh, really? You NEVER said this? Originally posted by dafbp 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. I imagined it, then

06-05-2016, 04:03 PM	#39
dafbp Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 233	Originally posted by monochrome Well - I think if you buy a FF camera for the image output, you don't shoot in camera jpeg mode and accept compressed output. You shoot RAW, post-process, and extract your image files in your (much more powerful) PC. I believe the criticisms are invalid. I believe your criticism is valid, but that reasoning also applies to APS relative to m4/3 and others above the usual compacts/mobile phones... Or, from another angle, if you buy a MF camera for the image... (No sarcasm)

06-05-2016, 05:41 PM - 2 Likes	#41
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	A lot of the discusions regarding the K-1 seems to focus on it's ability to produce "better output" over x, y and z. I would suggest, for many, it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner. In this area I believe the K-1 is almost unprecedented.

06-05-2016, 07:35 PM	#42
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by noelpolar it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner. Very well said! "switching to FF" is the title of this thread, but I think "switching to K-1" is closer to the truth. To be honest, it is not the FF aspect that has enthused me. I do not have any recent FF experience so I was not pining away for the FF look, or to use my lenses as designed or anything else. This camera has so many pluses it would be a great camera even if it was APS-C. The FF is just icing on the cake.

06-05-2016, 08:05 PM - 1 Like	#43
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by noelpolar A lot of the discusions regarding the K-1 seems to focus on it's ability to produce "better output" over x, y and z. I would suggest, for many, it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner. In this area I believe the K-1 is almost unprecedented. That has been my point since May 6h. It's just so much fun that I'm getting out every day; looking in my drawer to pick a lens s or two for a walk; making lists of things I want to do (Macro, downtown street, Astro, PS) and places I want to go. K-3 is a great camera and I have several DA Limitess. But it isn't fun like K-1. My sig tells the story.

06-05-2016, 08:34 PM - 1 Like	#44
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	Yes, we are all happy parents!

06-06-2016, 02:52 AM	#45
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by dafbp You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts. I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY). Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish! The K-1 review here in PF also says that the jpegs have visible loss of quality. I never said that, merely commented on a post stating the same. The post I quoted says "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". The rest of the phrase is about ISO, so not really taken out of context. To the OP (only) that was asking for opinions about the K-1, I'm sorry for not giving the expected feedback and causing a lot of unrelated replies. ---------- Post added 06-05-16 at 11:41 PM ---------- I never said I was an expert, nor an "expert". But I know a few people who should stop speed reading... Jpegs are OK, but certainly could be a little better. I haven't spent a lot of time trying to tweak the jpeg output, as if I am shooting something where I need full resolution, I am going to take time to post process it in Lightroom. This has been a criticism of Pentax for a long time. When I bought my first digital SLR, a K100, I started shooting RAW, because folks said the jpeg output wasn't that great. As for action photography, I don't think that those folks care if a little resolution is thrown away using jpegs. Most of them don't need more than 10 or 12 megapixel output anyway -- 36 megapixels is going to be over kill for their purposes and cameras with high megapixels aren't really designed for high frame rate shooting anyway -- not the 5ds or the D810 or the A7r II or the A7r either.