[Rupert]

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.

I don't save the raw files or even the original jpegs unless I intend to print, which is very rarely. I do believe this shot would have equaled or exceeded anything from my K5IIs...which is plenty good enough for my needs.

The better SR and fast AF with the great low light abilities applies to the Crop Mode just as it does to the FF shots......so the advantage is a definite plus with the K1.

The extra resolution means little if you can't get the shot to begin with........with the K1, you will most often get the shot!

Regards!

[noelpolar]

To the ops question...... from. my experience (K3 and K-1 owner). and from what I've read, most K-1 owners having upgraded from a K3, when using long lenses are finding themselves mostly using just the K-1. Most of us had thought the K3 would be useful still for use on the longer lenses, but in practicle use we find the K-1 the first choice when going shooting.

This seems to be because the K-1 focus tracking is better, the view finder is better, the low light performance is better, IQ is better when you fill the frame etc.

Also, when I head out to shoot, even when intending to shoot a particular thing, such as some small birds, I tend to see other interesting things so reach isn't everything even on those trips.

To sumerise...the K3 is a very capable camera.... and the K-1 is a very capable camera........haha

[normhead]

This seems to be because the K-1 focus tracking is better, the view finder is better, the low light performance is better, IQ is better when you fill the frame etc.

I'm staying with the K-3 for the moment because the frame rate is higher, I find the tracking adequate for my needs, there is more magnification when the same lens is cropped, 24 MP allows as much cropping as I'm ever likely to need, an APS-c package like my DA*200 2.8 compared to a K-1 with a 300 ƒ2.8 (which currently does;t even exist except in very expensive legacy glass ) is minuscule, inexpensive and light weight.

So there we go. Why to go with a K-1, why to go with a K-3.

[noelpolar]

I'm staying with the K-3 for the moment because the frame rate is higher, I find the tracking adequate for my needs, there is more magnification when the same lens is cropped, 24 MP allows as much cropping as I'm ever likely to need, an APS-c package like my DA*200 2.8 compared to a K-1 with a 300 ƒ2.8 (which currently does;t even exist except in very expensive legacy glass ) is minuscule, inexpensive and light weight.

So there we go. Why to go with a K-1, why to go with a K-3.

Warning to all Pentax tragics.......just don't go into a camera shop and try a K-1....... resistance is futile...

[Rupert]

So there we go. Why to go with a K-1, why to go with a K-3.

Can't argue with your reasoning Norm. Your work speaks for itself time after time. The camera that works best for you is always the best camera.

Here are two shots of the same subject.....one by my K1+Tamron 70-200 2.8 and one by Mrs Rupert with her Toy Camera X10.





She would argue that her's was the best shot....and I'd have to agree. She had a camera that worked for her....and that is what matters most of all.

Regards!

[normhead]

Warning to all Pentax tragics.......just don't go into a camera shop and try a K-1....... resistance is futile...

After talking to a couple of sceptical dealers who didn't order anywhere near enough to meet the demand, I'm following that advice to the T. As far as I can tell the only way to resist this camera is to never hold it in your hands.

[fwcetus]

I'm staying with the K-3 for the moment because the frame rate is higher, I find the tracking adequate for my needs, there is more magnification when the same lens is cropped, 24 MP allows as much cropping as I'm ever likely to need, an APS-c package like my DA*200 2.8 compared to a K-1 with a 300 ƒ2.8 (which currently does;t even exist except in very expensive legacy glass ) is minuscule, inexpensive and light weight.
So there we go. Why to go with a K-1, why to go with a K-3.

I agree with Norm (who succinctly summed up the K-3's advantages - at least for for certain of us Pentaxers - and in far fewer words than I would have had to use), as long as there is such a difference in price. [If the prices were a lot closer, then the story might be different.]

My current strategy is to buy a second K-3 in the near future... [And I'll likely eventually get an "old" K-1 or perhaps its successor...]

---

Last edited by fwcetus; 06-19-2016 at 03:02 PM.

[skierd]

What are the DNG files sizes coming from each camera k-1 vs k-1 crop vs k-3? Mb not mp, even at 16mp I'm filling hard drives faster than I should, mostly because I'm lazy when I transfer off my card and sort post transfer typically.

[Barry Pearson]

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.

And I didn't claim it was. I said it was nearly as fast.

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.

I don't use tracking. I use center-spot focusing.

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.

The K-1 compares well in practice. The AF is better, which helps. The sensor is less noisy, which helps. But I haven't done a precise comparison. The K-1 is simply a better all round camera than the K-3II, so I leave the K-3II in the car in case the K-1 breaks.

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.

The K-1 has noticeable faster burst rate in Crop mode than FF mode. But since it is rated at 6.5 in Crop mode, against 4.4 in FF mode, that shouldn't be a surprise. But I only said that it nearly as fast as the K-3II in practice.

I think the reason that I haven't coaxed a higher frame rate out of the K-3-series is that I'm limited by the AF speed of the lenses. That is why I was down to about 5 fps for some of the older lenses, and up to about 6 fps for the newer lenses such as the D FA 70-200mm and D FA 150-450mm lenses.

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.

Please note that I nearly always use the K-1 in FF mode, because I don't need a higher rate even for aircraft in flight or motor sports. There are very many photos taken like this linked to in the review I cited earlier. Here is the page with all the links on:
Review: K-1 photographs

I switch to Crop mode occasionally when I need a higher frame rate, often just for a short period, perhaps when there isn't time to switch cameras and swap the lens across. I don't normally run for long periods in Crop mode, simply because I don't need to. And when I'm able to run in FF mode, obviously I get better photos than I get with the K-3II!

I too have stood next to such people with the top-tier Canon's and Nikons, while using the K-3-series, and where a high frame rate is needed, obviously they outgun the K-3-series. Pentax simply doesn't supply a camera to match.

But that wasn't what I was discussing here. I was comparing the use of the K-1 with the use of the K-3II for similar action with the same lenses, in practice. If I can manage with the K-1's frame rate in FF, then I get better results with it. If I temporarily need a higher rate, and there isn't time to switch cameras for the purpose, then I can switch to Crop mode in seconds, and the result is sufficiently close to what I would get by changing cameras.

As I suggested above, I think in practice I am being limited by the AF speed of the lenses, which slows down the K-3-series to a rate that can nearly be matched by the K-1 in Crop mode. In other words, about 6 frames per second in practice.

[Barry Pearson]

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.

I've posted in this thread, but I don't think I've replied directly to you.

I have both the K-3II and the K-1. I have stood in the same spot on the same day, shooting with the same lens (D FA 70-200mm f/2.8) at the same subject (motor sports - racing cars). In summary, as long as I don't need the maximum frame rate obtainable, I got better results with the K-1. It has better AF, better image quality overall, and wider FOV, enabling me to get cars in the frame at 70mm after they're too close to fit the frame with the K-3II. So I get more keepers, and a higher percentage of keepers, including photos I couldn't even capture with the K-3II.

Starting May 2015, I used the D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-f/5.6 on the K-3, later the K-3II, for airshows. Since I got the K-1 at the end of April 2016, I've used it at airshows with the same lens. Once again, as long as I don't need the maximum frame rate obtainable, I get better results with the K-1, for similar reasons.

What about frame rate? In practice, when shooting a burst on the K-3-series at a subject moving fast towards and across me, (such as a car or bike or airplane going past while I stand by the side), I get about 6 fps (hardly more) with "modern" lenses. (About 5 fps with older lenses). I assume the reason that I don't get the full 8.3 fps is because the AF delays each frame a bit.

In Crop mode on the K-1, I get nearly 6 fps with "modern" lenses in the same circumstances. So: I'm getting a slightly lower burst rate, and 15 MP instead of 23 MP, on the K-1 compared with the K-3-series. But with the K-1, the AF is better, and the sensor quality appears better, so the advantage of the K-3-series isn't as dramatic as numbers might suggest. My experience is that most of the time when I'm using the K-1 shooting motor sports or airshows I simply don't need the higher frame rate. When I do, it is sometimes at times when there isn't time to swap cameras on the lens I'm using. For example, I want a high fps for a "Pass" where two airplanes head (nearly) towards one-another as an element in their display. I keep the K-1 Function dial set to "Crop" and can switch between FF mode and Crop mode with the Setting dial in seconds. It is actually convenient using Crop mode on the K-1, because I can see around the APS-C area, and this makes it easier to find and track the subject.

When I bought the K-1, I expected to continue to use the K-3II much of the time for action. But now I keep the K-3II in my car in case the K-1 breaks. The K-3II just doesn't offer such an advantage that it is worth the hassle for the small proportion of the time when shooting in APS-C is required.

I kept a "diary" of my first month with the K-1, with lots of photos and analysis. Later I wrote a review of the K-1, linking to lots of photos. Most (not all) of the photos are action photos. See:

My K-1 first month "diary"

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

Links to lots of photos from the K-1 review

[christiandre]

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...

Very interesting
Someone can confirm or invalidate ?