[zoolander]

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.

[Adam]

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.

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.

[jatrax]

I'm happy!

Is it noticeably better than k-3 in an average picture under average conditions? Probably not.
Does the performance outweigh the cost plus the cost of new glass? Maybe, maybe not depends on your use scenario.
Will it make my photography noticeably better overnight? Nope. At least not so far.
Am I having more fun than a pair of kittens with a ball of string? Yep.
Am I really, really glad I made the k-1 the first (anything) I ever pre-ordered? Yep.

[jrpower10]

Yes, it's worth it. I'd start with the 28-105. Spending my 1st week with it and so far very pleased. I have it and several primes.

[BROO]

The K1 is my first dslr camera and so far I'm really impressed with it. For me it's a bit of an extravagance but I am happy to use my kit of old lenses, both primes and zooms. I did consider a K3 and some limiteds but in the end I snapped up the K1 when it became available. The K3 must be a great camera too. Just like a little brother really. If I owned a K3 I would be happy with that. I guess it just depends on your photographic demands, but I would be leverage off the smaller form factor of the K3 and purchasing compact limited lenses instead.

[surfar]

I cant answer the first Q because ive never owned k3s.


Q2/ the retail cost of the DFAs is 1000-3500 A$, I cant afford any this year.The 28-105 can be had for A$800ish from the US and Japan.


I'll believe the owners of the latest lenses that they are good !


Some of the DA lenses work fine on K1(wheres that review Adam?) and some work partially.Others only work in crop mode, Which is still a very high level of image.


Theres Sigmas and Tamrons that are ok AND all the manual K mounts do a job too.


Don't think that you need the most recent lense offerings, rather think that you need a K1 because everybody DOES!

[zoolander]

Thanks everyone for your responses but I can't decide still.

I looked at what Adam suggested the 28-105 and the review page has a few reviews. Looking at some of the photos, it looks a little too soft for my liking. Having some sharp 2.8's and primes then going back to a kit lenses is like moving from champagne to cordial.

I like the look of the Sigma 24-70 HSM and its 70-200 brother, I think if I found second hand copies it might be the go. Look, I don't want screw drive. I've got a Sigma 50mm HSM and the AF is clunky ......... zip-clunk-clunk as it moves the focusing elements and hesitates (Which is noisy for HSM). But its still better than SKREEEEEEEEEECH-SKREECH, like you're stepping on a rat every time you auto focus. Gonna have to sell off some lenses to fund the change over.

[germs]

I had originally bought the k3II but didnt see a huge difference coming from a k50... so I waited pentax long wait until the FF. I told my fiancé that I would get the Pentax FF no matter how broke I would be... Sure enough I did and I don't regret it at all. Its amazing! Even better that I'm able to use the majority of all my lenses with little or not vignetting on FF mode. DA35 DA50 etc. I am able to get great shots even at 6400 iso. Yea iso 6400 = mind blown. I posted a few pics over at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314413-post-your-k-1-pictu...ml#post3666604

[surfar]

coming from a k50

Yes, that's the difference I noticed too!

[snpsht]

Ooooh yes.....K-1 is gorgeous.

I bought a 28-105 for it, and it is pleasingly sharp, not too heavy, and versatile as a walk-round-in-the-rain lens ...but I am not obsessed with edge-to-edge sharpness and use mainly primes.

The performance of the primes is excellent... I have the 3 amigos and a few others .

[bpv_UW]

I just got a K1, other camera is a K3. Agree with the above. I've only had it for a few days, and while I doubt it will turn me into a Pulitzer-winning photographer, it's tons of fun. Big/bright viewfinder, crazy resolution, accurate AF, better DOF/isolation abilities, fantastic high ISO performance, etc, etc. Definitely the most I've enjoyed a camera.

-Brandon

[biz-engineer]

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

Yes and no. I still think there is no perfect camera for everything. It depends on what type of photography you do. In crop mode, the K1 is less performing than the K3. 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. Then there is the depth of field thing; and yes, with fast lenses the K1 can render amazing where the same picture taken with the K3 will look good but ordinary. So some artistic portraiture, FF beats APSC. What I did, I considered that I'd keep the K3 for use with long lenses / wildlife or traveling with a couple of limited primes, and have the K1 for stills, landscape and portraiture. Then I revamped my lenses so that it made sense to use both formats, so I could sell some lenses and finance the K1 and a standard zoom with it. Basically, when having ASPC and FF or both from the same camera, it reduces the number of lenses you need because the x1.5 crop factor gives an additional option. You can also crop the 36Mp into a 24Mp image. In short, the K1 is big and slow but offer flexibility for post processing cropping etc... The K3 is faster, smaller and cheaper, but less room for cropping and processing the files.

About JPEG processing: I still have a Nikon coolpix2100, small sensor 2.5Mpixeln, JPEG look flashy, very colorful with lots of contrast (Nikon style :-) ) but... better not compare the photos with the real life gradation of tones and colors... Simple, for phones and point and shot cameras, a lots of effort is put into image processing to make images stand out to the eye of the purchaser, but that's fine for most people in hurry (take a shot a post it over the web).

[kenspo]

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 ?

Yes, its not even in the same league.

2nd question:

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

Yes, without a doubt. It feels like a whole new world


My advise is; can you afford it, do it!

[Rondec]

It is a really tough question to answer. Basically with the K-1, you get more resolution and about a stop and a half better high iso performance and dynamic range -- that is to say that iso 1600 on a K3 has about the same noise and dynamic range as iso 4500 on the K-1 (a very rough estimate). In addition, you have the side benefit of being able to shoot more narrow depth of field, if you do a lot of portraits.

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, but if you shoot high iso, want to experiment with pixel shift and astro tracer, and have some full frame compatible lenses, then it is really reasonably priced, at least here in the US.

[geomez]

Worth it? Worth what? The money? Well if you can't afford it, than no, definitely not worth it. If you can afford it and it makes you happy than yes, it's worth it.