[zapp]

Did anyone note that the K1 has 5 f-stop shake reduction while K3 (ii) have 3 and 3.5?
AF is improved on K1
FPS rating is higher for K3 versions
TCs do not work well for APS-C in my opinion and FF tele glass stop at 450 mm - OK, but not perfect for small birds.

Looking at the K1 I would also sell my DA*300 and get the 150-450 - so the investment will be higher than just buying into a new camera. With no other Pentax FF lens on the current road map, I feel lost. The 70-200 is great on my K3, but where are the additional lenses that make for a FF system?

[Tas]

K1 is good for wide angle

But not just wide angle, K-1 and DA*300 set to FF. This is the first motorcycle racing I've had the chance to go to since picking up the K-1. I came from a K5 and used that camera with the DA*300 and sometimes a crappy Kenko 2x converter for approx 5 years. The K-1 has it's limitations but it is a big step forward from a K5 for action shots with AF.

ISO100, f4, 1/1000sec in Tv mode.

I aim to pick up the 150-450 to give me the reach that the crop sensor gave me with the DA*300, however the DA*300 is such an excellent lens I would be reluctant to sell it.

[Barry Pearson]

But not just wide angle, K-1 and DA*300 set to FF. This is the first motorcycle racing I've had the chance to go to since picking up the K-1. I came from a K5 and used that camera with the DA*300 and sometimes a crappy Kenko 2x converter for approx 5 years. The K-1 has it's limitations but it is a big step forward from a K5 for action shots with AF.

ISO100, f4, 1/1000sec in Tv mode.

I aim to pick up the 150-450 to give me the reach that the crop sensor gave me with the DA*300, however the DA*300 is such an excellent lens I would be reluctant to sell it.

Your super photo is just the sort of action photo I would expect from the K-1 in the right hands!

I use it mainly for action photography, and it is better for action than the K-3II or any previous Pentax camera I've used.

I wonder how many of the people who don't think it is good for action, and that its main use is for other things, have actually used a K-1 for action? It is important not to go by what reviewers say, or take too much notice of the numbers, or be deterred by comparisons with other makes of SLR. Just try it!

My Review of the K-1 "in the field"

Photos used in that review to show the sort of action photography that can be done with the K-1

---------- Post added 18th Jun 2016 at 12:42 PM ----------

With no other Pentax FF lens on the current road map, I feel lost. The 70-200 is great on my K3, but where are the additional lenses that make for a FF system?

Pentax K-mount Lens Line-ups: two pages for: "all current lenses"; "current FF lenses".

There are 5 current FF zooms (from 15mm to 450mm), and 10 current FF primes (from 31mm to 560mm).

Pentax K-mount FF roadmap for 2017.

There are 4 future primes and 1 future FF zoom. There will probably be a couple more too, because 2 Ricoh patents for other FF zooms have been spotted.

[normhead]

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

Thanks for the info... but I do configure the k-3 for 8 frames per second, AFs- shutter priority, AV, and no one has shown me that a K-1 in crop mode at 15 MP is better than a K-3 at 24 MP. The K-3 isn' any faster than a K-5 if used in tracking mode, but many of us who grew up using manual lenses are able to get images in burst without AF confirm or tracking. So, you haven't really answered my inquiry. The K-1 is at a disadvantage a number of ways. Slower burst, less resolution in the crop area.

Given a 16 Mp APS-c sensor and a 16 MP FF sensor, you need a 1.5 longer lens to get the same image. That is your baseline.
But the K-3 is 24 MP, and the K-1 is 15 MP in crop.
So it stands to reason, that a K-3 image should have about 35% more resolution than a K-1 crop. And if you compare Imaging Resources images K-5 to K-3 the K-3 has a clear advantage. But IR doesn't test the 35x24 cameras in APS-c mode.

So that is my question is. Not what your favourite camera is at the moment, it was how does a K-3 image compare to a K-1 crop image.

I'm also curious about your assertion that a K-1 is faster in crop, (we haven't established that the K-1 is better I.Q than a K-3 , so I'm not even sure that that is relevant.) much less determine that you can't coax a faster frame rate out of a K-3.

Forgive me, I've been dealing with FF nonsense for years. And folks tha have argued with me for years have only once been able to show me an image that showed why their D800 was better. And that was an image specific to his shooting style where he fudged the parameters.

So, I'm not only sceptical about some of these claims, I'm almost certain there's not going to be images forth coming to confirm them.

K-1 crop is smaller than a K-5 image, I am acutely aware of the difference between m K-5 and my K-3 for teleshooting. And so far no one has convinced me a K-1 in crop is better than my K-5, in terms of I.Q.

My K-3 when set up for a 8 FPS burst sounds like a Machine gun, sorry you haven't had that experience. Once you figure it out, you do get 8 FPS. I shoot beside guys with the expensive Canon cameras that do 12 FPS, and it does make a difference in some situation. There are certain limitations that simply cannot be overcome by BS. A slow frame rate is one of them. You can prefer to ignore it to take advantage of other strengths of the camera, but it's still there. You've just chosen for whatever personal reasons to write it off.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-18-2016 at 05:04 AM.

[Tas]

Your super photo is just the sort of action photo I would expect from the K-1 in the right hands!

I use it mainly for action photography, and it is better for action than the K-3II or any previous Pentax camera I've used.

I wonder how many of the people who don't think it is good for action, and that its main use is for other things, have actually used a K-1 for action? It is important not to go by what reviewers say, or take too much notice of the numbers, or be deterred by comparisons with other makes of SLR. Just try it!

My Review of the K-1 "in the field"

Photos used in that review to show the sort of action photography that can be done with the K-1

Thanks for the kind words Barry, but I've no idea who uses the K-1 for other than landscapes and more static imagery but there seems to be a few birdies around here and I couldn't think of anything more challenging for a camera AF system. Or my patience for that matter so I'll stick to bigger things. Like Sidecars.


K-1 & DA*300: ISO100, f9, 1/320sec

One thing I will note, I tried a variety of AF settings, I even popped a couple of Zeiss MF lenses on too. I found the fully auto AF setting seemed more effective than spot or SEL (centre) but this was no lab test, it just seemed to be more effective. I missed plenty, but then I was also quite close to the track with a 300mm prime, so when I say missed that might mean a sharp image was deleted as it wasn't correctly framed or there was a head missing etc. I was also playing with panning using slow shutter speeds, so whilst I have to declare missing a number of shots the aim today was practice to see what works and what is less successful before I get to the next meet in July. I still have another >1300 images to look through, so hopefully I get more than two good ones.

Tas

[normhead]

OK since were doing the "lets post a bunch of photos with no comparisons to the second camera being discussed", I'm game.

K-3 uncropped image.


K-3 image cropped to approximately 25% of the frame.


The math says you'd get 25% to 35% more resolution in your 1700 pixel wide image using a K-3, than you'd get on the same crop with a K-1 where your image would be 1100 pixels to cover the same real estate. And to get better than 1100 pixels on subject, you'd need a 50% longer lens.

And I guess the thing is to just throw some images out there showing what the camera can do....

My K-3 action telephoto images.









The relevance of frame rate.

The type of image that depends on a fast frame rate. This pose lasts for a fraction of a second. You shutter either fires or it doesn't. The more exposures in a short time, the more chance of success. More is just better. These taken with the K-3 set up for tracking, which works at about the same rate as the K-1s top speed without focus confirm as far as I know. However, I find it hard to believe a system that can track Terns in flight has something seriously wrong with it's AF system.





I appreciate your enthusiasm gentlemen, but not your lack of relevant information.

I get really tired of people telling me I can't do what I do.

Just to get back on topic, we are discussing K-3 or K-1 for telephoto.

It's great you love your K-1s but, please, curb your enthusiasm.

Let's get rational here.

[Tas]

OK since were doing the "lets post a bunch of photos with no comparisons to the second camera being discussed", I'm game.

K-3 uncropped image.


K-3 image cropped to approximately 25% of the frame.

The math says you'd get 25% to 35% more resolution in your 1700 pixel wide image using a K-3, than you'd get on the same crop with a K-1 where your image would be 1100 pixels to cover the same real estate. And to get that 1100 pixels on subject, you'd need a 50% longer lens.

And I guess the thing is to just throw some images out there showing what the camera can do....

My K-3 action telephoto images.

I appreciate your enthusiasm gentlemen, but not your lack of relevant information.

I get really tired of people telling me I can't do what I do.

Just to get back on topic, we are discussing K-3 or K-1 for telephoto.

Nice honeyeater images there Norm.

I don't care who shoots with what. I made my choice, you made yours, and hopefully after all the discussions the OP will find what they're looking for.

I don't personally subscribe to 'the K-1 is only for landscapes/wide angle lens assertion'. I have my camera and lenses so if I want to capture surfers/motorcycle racing/landscapes whatever, that's what I have to use. It's not perfect, but neither is shooting with any other system. I won't deny the logic of using the K3 with a long lens for certain types of photography, but that doesn't stop anyone putting a wide angle on and go landscaping. Until I got the K-1 that's all I had to work with and you will find lots more landscape and wide angle images than telephoto/action shots on my Flickr page taken with the K10D, K7 and K5.

I most certainly didn't intend to upset anyone by posting K-1 telephoto images, they were just to demonstrate that it shouldn't be written off as an option if it suits the OP.

To balance the ledger, K5 and DA*300


Tas

[normhead]

I don't care who shoots with what. I made my choice, you made yours, and hopefully after all the discussions the OP will find what they're looking for.

Once again. People post stupidity. I call them on it. Someone slags me for countering stupid, but leaves the stupid unchallenged. Typical.

The question is K-1 or K-3 for telephoto. Theoretically people are not here to discuss landscape. Well, at least those who actually took the time to understand what the thread is about. For some reason, the simple fact that you get more resolution for the same lens in many telephoto shots seems to have some folks having kittens to get people to ignore the facts. Same with frame rate. If folks want to show what their camera can do I have no problem with that, given the right forum. I quite enjoy the K-1 images thread. If people want to talk crap about my camera, I do have the right to take issue. I have said continuously and endlessly on the forum, 2 things.

1. if you can't make a case for your camera without trashing someone else's, you probably don't have a case. IN this thread, it makes me suspicious some of the posters don't actually know how to get the most out of their K-3s.

2. When comparing two systems, you need comparison images that demonstrate your point.

Both of those maxims got violated here.

I get really tired of the "my camera is better at everything than yours is" types. It's so immature. Just my personal pet peeve I guess.

My camera does some things better than a K-1. The K-1 does more things better than my K-3. But in telephoto work, the K-3 has advantages, both in terms of cost and weight, and in terms of IQ and resolution. That's what I suspect. I'm looking for photographic examples that show me I'm wrong. It's frustrating wading through the B.S. and listening to the gushers.

K-1 or K3 for telephoto. people, that's the topic. Anyone got some images, same event , same time, taken with both?

I swear some people have their senses and opinions severely affected by new camera smell when they put their face to the viewfinder.

[biz-engineer]

But not just wide angle, K-1 and DA*300 set to FF.

:-) , I haven't written "only good for wide angle". I use it with the DFA150-450 FF mode, and it delivers mode than what K3 can do! (but of course with less reach).

---------- Post added 18-06-16 at 16:17 ----------

2. When comparing two systems, you need comparison images that demonstrate your point.

You need to have both camera to compare in the same situations. And you have only the K3, so you can't answer the question, except if you answer the thread with your opinion , not fact based with images from both K3 and K1 in the same situation :-)

[TB-000]

I did not start this thread to initiate a flame war between K3 owners and K1 owners.

I think that it is very valuable to read if K1 owners are pleased with their cameras in the aspect of tele photo. I would hate to spend that money on a K1 and then have the feeling that I need a K3 for tele photo.

Naturally everyone can compare numbers like pixels. Naturally it is good to compare side by side pictures taken with both cameras. But, that does not tell me everything. How easy/hard is it to get those pictures right with both cameras? Do people feel that less noise on high ISO sometimes makes a cropped K1 image better than a K3 image with more pixels, and does this happen often enough in the forrest with tele to make a difference?

I have read a lot of useful input here.

I think the impressions of those who have both a K1 and a K3ii are really the most valuable to me.

(Some people in the thread have advised that the best thing is to go to a shop and test both cameras for myself. Naturally that would be very good. Unfortunately I live in northern Europe and there are no shops here that have K1 in stock. Very few even have the K3ii.)

[skierd]

So what if you use a telephoto for landscapes? K-30, K300mm f/4, 5 vertical shots stitched in Lightroom

[Tas]

People post stupidity.

What's with the name calling? I didn't think I was arguing with you but actually agreeing with the concept that using teles on APSC is a good thing, just not exclusive.

I haven't written "only good for wide angle".

Sorry if I gave you that impression, I certainly wasn't suggesting that was the case.

There's a strong argument to go with APSC when using teles, but it seems my attempt to be supportive of both options didn't convey too well.

How easy/hard is it to get those pictures right with both cameras?

I find it easier with the K-1 when it comes to action shots because my original K5 was harder to focus there was a lot more hunting on the DA* 300. I can't make comment on the AF improvements of the K5 II cameras or the K3 cameras.

Hopefully somebody has both cameras to post some noise comparos for you.

Tas

[osv]

I aim to pick up the 150-450 to give me the reach that the crop sensor gave me with the DA*300, however the DA*300 is such an excellent lens I would be reluctant to sell it.

they both have their place on ff, that 150-450mm also looks pretty strong, judging by some of the photos that have been posted.

great action pics, btw... i wouldn't pay much attention to normhead, lol, he doesn't shoot action, and the last time that he was bragging about k-3 af performance, it was k-3 vs. the nikon d750, and he got put down hard with real pics.

---------- Post added 06-18-16 at 12:29 PM ----------

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.

like that choice of 1/1600th shutter speed for the bikes, you can still see the spokes in motion... good background angle for the faster shutter speed, don't need to worry about having to blur the background so much.

looks like the af delivers... well done sir.

[Rupert]

I'm not about to do a head to head with Norm....his K3 work speaks for itself and anyone that denies that doesn't have clue enough to be here.

However, most of us are not in Norms league when it comes to shooting skills, and that is where I think the K1 makes perfect sense. You have a FF camera for great landscapes and fantastic portraits, second to none, and a crop shooter too!

For me, the superb fast AF of the K1 is simply amazing...like no other Pentax camera I have ever used, and I've used some of the best to date.

I've told this several times but it warrants one more time here......I have been shooting the big ol' slow Bigma 50-500s for ten years. Many thousands of shots were missed trying to get focus on a squirrel or bird.....in particular in low light. You just get used to it and learn some new curse words.... a lot of them!

So I got this new K1 and immediately mounted my Bigma......it is a FF lens but I set it to the Crop Mode (Love the Crop Mode!) and guess what? Focus is jackrabbit fast and accurate...and even in very low light! Must be a dream? Nope...over and over it has simply amazed me! You want fast and accurate? Then you for certain want the K1!

Low light shooting........If you shoot wildlife you know that you don't always have the light you want. No problem with the K1....bump that ISO all you need and you will still get a shot you will be pleased you got. Even my K5IIs which was wonderful for low light is not a match for the K1 in low light....not even close!

Go over all the features of the K1 and you will quickly see that it has the best of the best all in one camera. If you are hung up on resolution of cropped shots, or do a ton of large prints, then Norms points are certainly with some validity as is the fps issue. Neither of these have any effect on how I shoot. Most of my shots are web posted and those from a Toy Camera often look as good as FF when posted here. The K1 gives adequate fps for my needs..most of my shots are still single frame anyhow.

Once you shoot with the K1 my persuasions are not needed..you will see and feel the wonder immediately without any further prompting.

Did I mention the SR is also greatly improved and wonderful too? Well, it is!

Crop Shooting......Such a delight on the K1......a big red frame appears in your viewfinder, and you can precisely outline just what you want in your shot...focus is instant, you fire and what you see is what you get. My post processing cropping has been mostly eliminated.

That is my perspective.....this is one fine camera, and as more come on board, more will be singing its praise...I have no doubt about it!

This shot is one of many that sums up my thrills with the K1...it was almost dark, I pointed and got instant focus, fired and got the shot I wanted. Happens all the time with the K1.

1/80 handheld (Great new SR!) 240 mm Bigma ISO 12800 (Great low light shooting!)



Best Regards!

[TB-000]

1/80 handheld (Great new SR!) 240 mm Bigma ISO 12800 (Great low light shooting!)

Very nice photo. Could you crop out a detail and post? I would like to see how much you can enlarge a picture taken under such "bad" conditions.