[reh321]

Thank you all for the input on this. Has helped me just to read through the comments. I have been considering trying to upgrade from a K5II and thought about picking up a used K3 or K3II (K1 pics looks so supreme but would rather pick up better glass and the cropping factor is a consideration, too). The one feature I would want to upgrade to is the tilt screen (on the K1) and the K3 and K3II lack.
Now that the K70 is coming out I am considering throwing my hat in the ring for that. At first I thought it was a step back but it really looks like a rugged little camera with some great features for a good price that the K5II also, lacks.
If only the K3 or K3II only had that tilt screen .....

My experience is similar to yours, except I currently have a lower-priced K-30. A few months ago I was thinking in terms of a K-3ii, but then the K-1 came out {and my comments in #8 on previous page are the results of my thinking about that option}. Right now, my eye is on the K-70 {which looks really good to me}, but I keep thinking that Pentax needs more of a "splash" around Photokina, which may mean a K-3ii replacement, so my current plan is to wait until Black Friday and see what is available then {of course, if everyone follows that course, Pentax won't have much cashflow, other than from K-1 sales, for the rest of the year}

[cg57]

My experience is similar to yours, but I keep thinking that Pentax needs more of a "splash" around Photokina, which may mean a K-3ii replacement, so my current plan is to wait until Black Friday and see what is available then }

I'm glad I'm not alone in my quest ...... I, too, am thinking Pentax will do something more positive for the K3, and am holding back, a bit ------ maybe a K3II with tilt screen and an upgraded sensor? C'mon Pentax keep the ball rolling on these great new products!!!

[TB-000]

When I bought my K-1 I kept my k-3 for telephoto work. Now that I've actually used the K-1 with my tele lenses l'll be selling the K-3.

Exactly what happened with me as well. After a little session with the k-1 and DA300 I decided to put the k-3 up for sale, sacrificing some reach for what was to me improved IQ.

I think you might actually like the Crop Mode on the K1....I love it. It lets you define your framing with that big red outline that shows you exactly what you will get. The low light abilities of the K1 are amazing, a definite plus for long lens shooting.

As for MP, unless you are doing a lot of large prints, it matters little for posting on the web. I have seen a real improvement with the K1 over my K5IIs and for me it has been a very nice experience with the K1.

As a K3 and K1 owner, who shoots a lot with a DA300mm, I find the K1 in both crop and full frame mode to be superior. Reason - improved autofocus....

Thank you for these helpful replies. It seems that those who have had the chance to use both K3ii and K1 with the DA*300mm, prefer the K1 even if it means cropping... This is really helpful information for me.

Also thanks to everyone else replying. The answers and comments are helpful. (And I will continue to follow the discussion for more helpful ideas.)

[snostorm]

For those of us who consider AF to be a bit of a frill, maybe you could comment on IQ? And provide a couple images? It would be appreciated.

As a long time pentax user, I've been dealing with inferior AF since the Nikon D4 came out close to 30 years ago. My question has always been, can I get a better image if fight through the non- IQ limitations of Pentax cameras. Now I have the same question of the K-1. I'll happily take the cheaper body and save $1000 if I can overcome the limitations of the camera with technique.

For me, the K-1 is starting in a big hole, because it's burst rate is half the speed, which right off the top cuts your odds of getting a keeper in half. The AF would have to be a pile better to make up for that. I'm not sure that it could.

Hi Norm,

I've also dealt with the AF limitations of all of my Pentax bodies since the DS over 10 years ago, and have upgraded bodies just to get the incremental improvements in AF performance that each has offered. When the K-1 was announced, I placed myself in the "probably won't get one" category as I assumed about $2500 in price, and there really isn't any "full frame advantage" for what I shoot (birds mostly). My "local" (70 mi away) B&M dealer knows what I shoot, and suggested I make the trip to try the K-1 despite my misgivings.

I made the trip, bringing my goto birding lens kit --FA*300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (I have two of ea of these), my DFA 150-450, and my Tamron 28-75/2.8, FA50/1.4, and FA77 Ltd.

He let me use his own personal K-1 body, let me set it up however I liked, and let me shoot as much as I wanted in the store and outside in the parking lot. I brought my Asus Zen 15" laptop so I could play with the files there onsite. I alternated shooting with my K-3 and the K-1 with the FA*300+AFA and was surprised at how well the f7.7 max combo locked focus especially indoors compared to the K-3. Just chimping on the LCD, I could see that the K-1 was giving me better AF accuracy.

I was allowed to use an empty desk to play with the files on my laptop. Examining the images on the 4K laptop screen, I was pleased to see that critical AF lock was consistently more accurate with the K-1, especially in the lower light situations. I was shooting single shots, refocusing with AF each shot, even if I was shooting the same subject, as this is how usually I shoot when out in the field. The lower light AF performance is important to me because birds don't always choose the best lit branches to sit on, and often I'm shooting deep in the woods or in very shaded areas. I shoot opportunistically, so I need to be able to shoot in any lighting conditions that present themselves, and with an f7.7 max aperture, need all the help I can get from AF.

Also, with such a slow max aperture, high ISO comes into play more often than for most. With the K-3 I try to keep it under ISO 1000. With the K-1, I'm finding that 4000 takes about the same amount of work in PP to give me very good final images, and 5000-6400 might work as I'm still experimenting with some different techniques in PP.

I must admit that I don't shoot a lot of bursts, as I mostly shoot perching songbirds. I do always set up my shutter in Continuous High in case I want a burst, but burst speed is not a high priority for me, and 6.3fps in crop mode is easily good enough for my use -- and even 4fps in FF mode would not decrease my keeper rate.

Bottom line, the higher ISO capabilities plus the more versatile (lower light capable) consistently critically accurate AF made the difference, and I wrote a check and walked out with a brand new K-1. Another factor was the wider FOV VF, and the ability to change from FF to crop mode and back with a click of the dial. I've had enough situations where using a prime was a bit of a problem because I was too close, and stepping back wasn't an option because my subjects would spook.

Body weight difference is also not much of a problem for me though my aging joints do complain. I find myself picking spots that are easier to get to, so this is really not an issue. Also I'm not counting cost as an issue, though I realize that this is a high priority for many.

Bottom line, I'm getting more keepers than with previous bodies. I'm surprised at the higher percentage (maybe 20-30% better) of shots with acceptable or better feather detail because of the AF-S improvements in lower light and its decisiveness. I'm now able to get better IQ because I can shoot at higher ISO for faster shutter speeds and I can even stop the lens down for better resolution if I want.

I don't crop much for extra "reach". I generally shoot pretty close, which is why I prefer the 300mm+AFA which will mostly focus to @ 6ft as opposed to longer optics which typically have 10-13ft MFDs. I do shoot the K-1 in crop mode a lot because there's little sense to shooting in FF mode and capturing 20 or so MP that I'm going to crop out anyway. When I crop, 90% of the time it's very slightly for composition.

I'll include a few samples, but I've yet to develop a downsizing to 1400 pixels on the longside workflow that do the images much justice. Note that the first is at ISO 2500.

You've asked for samples showing IQ improvements in a number of posts, and I can understand this, but I would ask that you actually shoot a K-1 and compare it directly to what you currently shoot before stating that there would be no reason for a tele shooter to upgrade. It's fine to argue specs and try to imagine the differences in shooting experience and results, but it may be quite different in the actual shooting.

I'm very happy with my decision to get a K-1, and think you might actually be impressed if you tried one.

Scott

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by snostorm; 06-17-2016 at 06:07 PM.

[cg57]

Hi Norm,

I've also dealt with the AF limitations of all of my Pentax bodies since the DS over 10 years ago, and have upgraded bodies just to get the incremental improvements in AF performance that each has offered. When the K-1 was announced, I placed myself in the "probably won't get one" category as I assumed about $2500 in price, and there really isn't any "full frame advantage" for what I shoot (birds mostly). My "local" (70 mi away) B&M dealer knows what I shoot, and suggested I make the trip to try the K-1 despite my misgivings.

I made the trip, bringing my goto birding lens kit --FA*300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (I have two of ea of these), my DFA 150-450, and my Tamron 28-75/2.8, FA50/1.4, and FA77 Ltd.

He let me use his own personal K-1 body, let me set it up however I liked, and let me shoot as much as I wanted in the store and outside in the parking lot. I brought my Asus Zen 15" laptop so I could play with the files there onsite. I alternated shooting with my K-3 and the K-1 with the FA*300+AFA and was surprised at how well the f7.7 max combo locked focus especially indoors compared to the K-3. Just chimping on the LCD, I could see that the K-1 was giving me better AF accuracy.

I was allowed to use an empty desk to play with the files on my laptop. Examining the images on the 4K laptop screen, I was pleased to see that critical AF lock was consistently more accurate with the K-1, especially in the lower light situations. I was shooting single shots, refocusing with AF each shot, even if I was shooting the same subject, as this is how usually I shoot when out in the field. The lower light AF performance is important to me because birds don't always choose the best lit branches to sit on, and often I'm shooting deep in the woods or in very shaded areas. I shoot opportunistically, so I need to be able to shoot in any lighting conditions that present themselves, and with an f7.7 max aperture, need all the help I can get from AF.

Also, with such a slow max aperture, high ISO comes into play more often than for most. With the K-3 I try to keep it under ISO 1000. With the K-1, I'm finding that 4000 takes about the same amount of work in PP to give me very good final images, and 5000-6400 might work as I'm still experimenting with some different techniques in PP.

I must admit that I don't shoot a lot of bursts, as I mostly shoot perching songbirds. I do always set up my shutter in Continuous High in case I want a burst, but burst speed is not a high priority for me, and 6.3fps in crop mode is easily good enough for my use -- and even 4fps in FF mode would not decrease my keeper rate.

Bottom line, the higher ISO capabilities plus the more versatile (lower light capable) consistently critically accurate AF made the difference, and I wrote a check and walked out with a brand new K-1. Another factor was the wider FOV VF, and the ability to change from FF to crop mode and back with a click of the dial. I've had enough situations where using a prime was a bit of a problem because I was too close, and stepping back wasn't an option because my subjects would spook.

Body weight difference is also not much of a problem for me though my aging joints do complain. I find myself picking spots that are easier to get to, so this is really not an issue. Also I'm not counting cost as an issue, though I realize that this is a high priority for many.

Bottom line, I'm getting more keepers than with previous bodies. I'm surprised at the higher percentage (maybe 20-30% better) of shots with acceptable or better feather detail because of the AF-S improvements in lower light and its decisiveness. I'm now able to get better IQ because I can shoot at higher ISO for faster shutter speeds and I can even stop the lens down for better resolution if I want.

I don't crop much for extra "reach". I generally shoot pretty close, which is why I prefer the 300mm+AFA which will mostly focus to @ 6ft as opposed to longer optics which typically have 10-13ft MFDs. I do shoot the K-1 in crop mode a lot because there's little sense to shooting in FF mode and capturing 20 or so MP that I'm going to crop out anyway. When I crop, 90% of the time it's very slightly for composition.

I'll include a few samples, but I've yet to develop a downsizing to 1400 pixels on the longside workflow that does the images much justice. Note that the first is at ISO 2500.

You've asked for samples showing IQ improvements in a number of posts, and I can understand this, but I would ask that you actually shoot a K-1 and compare it directly to what you currently shoot before stating that there would be no reason for a tele shooter to upgrade. It's fine to argue specs and try to imagine the differences in shooting experience and results, but it may be quite different in the actual shooting.

I'm very happy with my decision to get a K-1, and think you might actually be impressed if you tried one.

Scott

A lot to consider here. so glad you and everyone have taken the time to give your personal experiences and tech knowledge. I am learning much.
Thanks for your personal shots, too..

[normhead]

A lot to consider here. so glad you and everyone have taken the time to give your personal experiences and tech knowledge. I am learning much.
Thanks for your personal shots, too..

Ditto, some really good stuff.

I talked to a guy in St/ Catherine's at Fredderick's Photo Source. He said everyone whop's touched one bought it. I'm not going in until I can spare 3k.

[jrpower10]

That makes sense.
Why use the crop mode on the K-1 to loose IQ (not likely the proper term to use here) when you can crop a bit on the computer? Is this what you mean?
Stupid question, but I know nothing about this K-1.

---------- Post added 06-17-16 at 12:23 PM ----------



Now that's a real comparison!
Seriously, do you find that your images are that much better?
Have you any pics for perusal?
(sorry, OP, I am hacking your thread!)

JP

On the road this weekend but I'll find something Monday. what I like is a bit better af so better keeper rate, and the improved high Isi performance let's me shoot at faster shutter speeds to freeze action. And cropped to the same frame as the K-3 I still have 16mp which is plenty for any wildlife prints I'll make.

[Des]

I have found this informative too. I see that the legendary @KenGoh is still using both - I have the impression that he uses the K-3 when he needs a fast burst speed but generally the K-1 otherwise: e.g. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/321944-nature-two-recent-nesting.html (Hope Ken will chip in here.)

[reh321]

Hi Norm,

I've also dealt with the AF limitations of all of my Pentax bodies since the DS over 10 years ago, and have upgraded bodies just to get the incremental improvements in AF performance that each has offered. When the K-1 was announced, I placed myself in the "probably won't get one" category as I assumed about $2500 in price, and there really isn't any "full frame advantage" for what I shoot (birds mostly). My "local" (70 mi away) B&M dealer knows what I shoot, and suggested I make the trip to try the K-1 despite my misgivings.

I made the trip, bringing my goto birding lens kit --FA*300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (I have two of ea of these), my DFA 150-450, and my Tamron 28-75/2.8, FA50/1.4, and FA77 Ltd.

He let me use his own personal K-1 body, let me set it up however I liked, and let me shoot as much as I wanted in the store and outside in the parking lot. I brought my Asus Zen 15" laptop so I could play with the files there onsite. I alternated shooting with my K-3 and the K-1 with the FA*300+AFA and was surprised at how well the f7.7 max combo locked focus especially indoors compared to the K-3. Just chimping on the LCD, I could see that the K-1 was giving me better AF accuracy.

Were the two pictures you displayed taken in crop mode? I notice that the EXIF data is displayed as Focal Length 500mm (35mm equiv 765mm)

[snostorm]

Were the two pictures you displayed taken in crop mode? I notice that the EXIF data is displayed as Focal Length 500mm (35mm equiv 765mm)

Yes, these are in crop mode. The K-1 exif shows APS-C equivalent FL only when the shot is taken in crop mode, so it's easy to tell which mode the camera was in.

Scott

[Barry Pearson]

I do currently have a Pentax K5. I am thinking of upgrading to either the K1 or the K3-II.

I have a number or lenses, but I find that I am mostly using my 2 favorite lenses. Almost half of my photos are taken with the Pentax DA* 300mm (sports, nature, yachting). My other favorite lens is the Pentax FA 77 mm 1:1.8 (people, close-up documentation for manuals) . I take vey few photos with my other lenses.

For the kind of photos I take with Pentax FA 77mm, I think that K1 has a definitive advantage over the K3-II.

But how would K1 perform with the Pentax DA* 300mm compared to the K3-II?
As I need the length of the Pentax DA* 300mm on the K5 and K3-II, I would need to either crop it or use the HD Pentax DA 1.4x AW AF Rear Converter with the K1.
Do you think that the K3-II or K1 will perform better in this situation?

How does a cropped K1 image compare to a K3-II image? (I can calculate the number of pixels in the cropped K1 and compare it to the K3-II, but are there other aspects to consider as well?)

If the performance of K3-II is better than K1 for the longer tele range, is the difference big enough to make K3-II better overall? Or, is the difference in the longer range small enough, to make K1 a better overall camera for my mix of photos?

I have both cameras. I use long lenses most of the time. The K-1 is much better than the K-3II for this. I've given reasons for this in my review of the K-1 "in the field".

The DA* 300mm f/4 lens is officially a full frame lens.

I also have the Pentax HD 1.4x Converter. It often isn't ideal on the K-1, depending on what lens is being used. At the moment, my policy is not to use it, because the K-1 sensor is so good that I'm happy for most purposes to crop heavily.

Here is my 7-part review of the K-1, with lots of photos.

[noelpolar]

I'm with pathdoc. K-1, always shoot ff and crop to your preferred frame. When I bought my K-1 I kept my k-3 for telephoto work. Now that I've actually used the K-1 with my tele lenses l'll be selling the K-3.

+1 for me...

and.... I'm amazed you can still pay by cheque and walk out with the goods!

[Barry Pearson]

For me, the K-1 is starting in a big hole, because it's burst rate is half the speed, which right off the top cuts your odds of getting a keeper in half. The AF would have to be a pile better to make up for that. I'm not sure that it could.

I discussed this in my 7-part Review of the K-1 "in the field". Specifically in the part concerned with using the K-1 for action photography.

Extract:

My previous camera was the K-3II, with a stated burst rate of 8.3 fps. I suspect that applies where there is no auto-focus demand. With older lenses, such as the DA* 60-250 f/4, and the sort of subjects described above, that typically fell to about 5 fps. With the modern D FA lenses, that has risen to about 6 fps.

The K-1 has a stated burst rate of 4.4 in FF mode, and 6.5 in Crop mode. Therefore, when I need the highest burst rate, I switch to Crop mode, 4800 x 3200 pixels. I keep the Function dial on top of the K-1 at "Crop", so that I can switch between FF and Crop in a second or two using the Setting dial. It is easily seen in the viewfinder which mode is in use.

I appear to get close to 6 fps in Crop mode with the modern D FA lenses. This is similar to the K-3II. In other words, the K-1 has, in practice, nearly the same burst rate in Crop mode as the K-3II, when using the same modern lenses.

When I shoot an airshow or motor sports, I have my K-1 and my K-3II available. I use the K-1, and keep the K-3II in the car in case the K-1 breaks. I end up with a higher proportion of keepers than I used to get when I used the K-3II for similar shooting instead. Mostly I use FF mode. I use Crop mode where I need a higher burst rate, which isn't as often as I had originally thought.

Based on more than 6 weeks experience with the K-1, it is now my go-to camera for action photography, in spite of having a K-3II available.

Links to lots of action photos taken with the K-1 since 29th April

[noelpolar]

I'm not going in until I can spare 3k.

Very wise!

[biz-engineer]

Summary from owning both K1 and K3. K1 is good for wide angle, out of focus portraiture, and low light. For all the rest, K3 is adequate, better FPS and for macro. Then it depends if we want to run a single camera body or if we can afford to have two camera bodies.

K3 as single system is small, fast and affordable, but does not perform as good as a K1 only in some situations (wide angle, out of focus portraiture, and low light). K1 as a single system is better performer in specific conditions (wide angle, out of focus portraiture, and low light), but is also heavier, and significantly more costly as a system, and performs in crop mode about as well as a K3 at ISO higher than 400. At ISO 00 or lower, the K3 performs better than the K1, simply because the K3 engine and sensor filters are tuned to the max sharpness, whereas K1 image processing looses some details along the way in order to cope with the data flow of the 36Mpixels and using the same image processing hardware as the K3... 100% crops with same lens, show that K3 images are slightly sharper than K1 images cropped at the same size. The K3 also has the edge over the K1 for macro photography, i.e more pixels for the same magnification. K1 is a low light machine, K3 is a speedy machine.