Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-31-2016, 12:07 AM - 2 Likes   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Yes, I guess most people understand that. So, why did you want to kill the fun of other people when saying that shooting with a K1 changes your experience as a photographer? (that was basically the point for that thread "updgrade k3 K1 is it worth?).
If you go there sure to want that FF, take it. No issue. Whatever people will say, you'll take it at some point. If you can afford it. (And waiting could help a lot there, to not want it that badly anymore or to spend much less on it). But that's a piece of gear is costing more than the monthly average salary here. If you add some more lenses with it, that become more than most people salary. If you are really not sure, and ask, honestly you may not need it that badly. Not sure at all you'd have a worse experience taking photos with more basic gear. That'll save you at least half the money. And it is not like the more basic gear is that different. It still get somewhat the same picture and it is still the photographer that make the most difference. It is not like a K3 or K50 would be that bad piece of gear...

So even if you, me or whoever else got fun with this luxury item or another (FA31 why not), we should be quite conservative with our advices. Making other asking for assistance to spend a lot of money so we can feel better about our own spending behavior, not sure tha's that nice to them.

When people ask me about my gear I explain what I have. When people ask we what they should buy I'd explain them the good deal they can have from what I think is very nice, affordable gear. Only if the person look to be really willing or having lot of money will I speak of the most expensives solutions.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-31-2016 at 12:14 AM.
07-31-2016, 01:11 PM   #47
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,118
To me the answer is no. What I need is camera equipment that it is with me; I don't really need more resolution (although I would have been nice). My current carry around gear is the K-3, 16-50/2.8, 77 Limited and the FA* 200/4 Macro. I can feel it on my back. I will shortly replace the 16-50 (due to its flare performance) with the 15 Limited and the 20-40 Limited. Next year I'll buy that new compact 55-300 and replace the K-3 with its replacement (it might have more than 24mp and certainly pixel shift). This will cover a focal length range (in FF terms) from 23.5-450mm at only little more than 900g (about the same weight as the K-1 body alone)! In the film days this would have been pure science fiction. FF is simply too large and heavy, but I might buy a K-1 down the line for shooting close to the car...

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 07-31-2016 at 01:21 PM.
07-31-2016, 01:35 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,052
I must be so happy to have it that I don't feel the weight
07-31-2016, 02:11 PM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,750
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
To me the answer is no. What I need is camera equipment that it is with me; I don't really need more resolution (although I would have been nice). My current carry around gear is the K-3, 16-50/2.8, 77 Limited and the FA* 200/4 Macro. I can feel it on my back. I will shortly replace the 16-50 (due to its flare performance) with the 15 Limited and the 20-40 Limited. Next year I'll buy that new compact 55-300 and replace the K-3 with its replacement (it might have more than 24mp and certainly pixel shift). This will cover a focal length range (in FF terms) from 23.5-450mm at only little more than 900g (about the same weight as the K-1 body alone)! In the film days this would have been pure science fiction. FF is simply too large and heavy, but I might buy a K-1 down the line for shooting close to the car...
Yes but that 900g left out the K-3 itself which pushes this to 1714g, admittedly about 1kg lighter than your current load.

You can get close to this using FF also but not quite that light. Also not quite as wide and not quite the resolution in telephoto you have now. So if lighter is important I can see your point. However what is the macro solution in your new K-3 kit?

DA 15 189g
DA 20-40 Ltd 283g
DA 55-300 (PLM) 442g (2g more than the current DA non-WR version, nearly 20g more than the DAL version)
K3 800g (including SD card and battery)
---------
Total Future: 1714g



DA* 16-50 565g
FA 77 Ltd 270g
FA* 200 f/4 Macro 1080g
K3 800g (including SD card and battery)
--------
Total Today: 2715g

K-1 1010g (including SD card and battery)
D FA 28-105 440g
DA 55-300 (PLM) 442g (2g more than the current DA non-WR version, nearly 20g more than the DAL version)
---------
Total Possible Future: 1892g (lacks 24mm wide view and uses crop on Telephoto where necessary.

07-31-2016, 02:13 PM - 1 Like   #50
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,248
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
FF is simply too large and heavy, but I might buy a K-1 down the line for shooting close to the car...
I have no doubt the next Pentax FF will lose weight (K1 is 924g), but keep in mind that some FF like the Nikon D610 (760g) weighs less than some APS-C like the Pentax K3 (816g) or the Nikon D500 (860g). And although zooms are heavier than primes, and certainly the limiteds, one zoom can easily replace the FOV of three primes.

I wasnʻt unhappy with 35mm film, but once I started shooting with a MF Pentax 645, I didnʻt continue to shoot 35mm, although I kept most of the equipment. Yes, the weight is a drag, but itʻs not unbearable and the tradeoff is worth it to me. My incentive was that most of my work was selling as 16x20 prints, and at that magnification and media, the difference is significant.

One tip that has helped me deal with a lighter camera bag or backpack is to spread the load in a photographerʻs vest. Primes easily fit into the pockets and the backpack only needs to hold a backup camera, a water bottle, and snacks.

Someone once asked, "What is the best sports car to buy without looking like an A*+hole?" And my answer is, if youʻre buying the car to impress others, you are an A*+hole. But if youʻre buying it for yourself, then who cares? Youʻre buying it for you, not otherʻs to judge you by. Their are rich snobs and poor snobs, Canon snobs and Pentax snobs.

The same applies to the photographerʻs vest. It screams Paparazzi or photographer A*+hole. But Iʻm not a photographer to impress others; Iʻm doing it for me; I donʻt care how people may react...thatʻs their hang up. But maybe Iʻm just weird. I drive a 2005 RAV4. Total chick car (in that a vast majority of RAV4 owners are women). I donʻt care! Strong 2.4 liter, 5 speed manual, great visibility and road clearance, Toyota reliability, and 26 mpg in a SUV.
07-31-2016, 02:47 PM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,542
Each photographer can answer the question for him/herself as to whether or not it is worth it to upgrade equipment. That is true if you are shooting a K20 or a K3 II and true whether you are thinking of upgrading to a K-1 or a K3. These things depend a lot on budget and style of shooting as much as on anything else.

Quantitatively, what a K-1 gives you over preceding cameras is the ability to shoot with more shallow depth of field, more color depth and dynamic range at the same iso, and better noise levels. It also gives you more pixels to deal with, the ability to shoot astro tracer and pixel shift (both of these were present in the K3 II). The biggest negatives to me are the bigger files, bigger size, and slower frame rate/buffer. I shoot landscapes and as long as I stop down more and am on a tripod, I do get better results compared to APS-C. Hand held, I don't think there ends up being much of a difference, since I am stopped down more on full frame to maintain depth of field.

I shoot a lot of landscapes and my wife shoots weddings. For us, it ended up being clear that the K-1 was worth it -- more from a wedding stand point than a landscape standpoint.

As to best lens to get, I would probably get a 24-70 f2.8 (or Tamron 28-75 f2.8) and keep your 31, 40 and 55 for now. That's a good starting place and you can fill in from there.
07-31-2016, 11:38 PM   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
K-1 1010g (including SD card and battery)
D FA 28-105 440g
DA 55-300 (PLM) 442g (2g more than the current DA non-WR version, nearly 20g more than the DAL version)
---------
Total Possible Future: 1892g (lacks 24mm wide view and uses crop on Telephoto where necessary.
Let's be honest and admit that this setup is not really fullilling:
- Not 22/24mm support
- Nothing with fast apperture removing half of the benefit of the FF (sharpness/resolution stay here).
- A telephoto that is made for APSC rather than FF
- Nothing with outstanding rendering and a tele that isn't that sharp (no match even on APSC to 60-250 or 70-200)...
- A setup that is right in the middle on the problem of K1 SR + 28-105 arround 1/100s.

In 2-3 years with drop in price for the body and more FF lenses availables (like a 24-105 f/4 and 70-300 f/4-5.6), there would be far fewer cases for APSC (except compactness). But today is still early for that kind of setup to be really interresting.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-31-2016 at 11:49 PM.
08-01-2016, 01:14 AM   #53
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
In 2-3 years with drop in price for the body and more FF lenses availables (like a 24-105 f/4 and 70-300 f/4-5.6), there would be far fewer cases for APSC (except compactness).
I agree that those factors will make the Pentax FF range much more attractive. But I am suspicious about the lenses you suggest.

Consider the current 28-105mm lens, which gives me very high image quality. My own tests indicate that it is only f/3.5 right at the wide end, and by 31mm has become f/4. In other words, it is more like a 28-105mm f/4-f/5.6 lens, with a slight aperture bonus at the very widest setting.

I've seen regrets that it doesn't reach 24mm and/or that it isn't a constant aperture. But I'm convinced that either of those would have greatly increased the size, weight, and cost. And/or would have reduced the image quality. I believe that, given the (mostly) no-compromise Pentax FF lenses that are currently available, Ricoh should introduce new zooms that concentrate on high image quality, small-size, low-weight, and "affordability". And I think such lenses would be much more limited in their parameters than your suggestions.

My observation is that as the sensor gets larger, providing a lens with a largish zoom-ratio rapidly escalates in size, weight, and cost. Compare typical zoom-ratios for medium format, FF, APS-C, m4/3, and smaller sensors. Physics gets in the way!

I think the best strategy for Ricoh would be to take it for granted that people wanting a lower-price FF system will buy the 28-105mm lens, then they will want a wide zoom and a longer zoom that overlap just a little bit with it. In other words, offer a 3-lens range, each of them biased towards the above parameters, including cost. Perhaps an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture zoom and a 100-300mm variable aperture zoom.

(Although I have the 4 recent professional-class FF zooms, I also have the 28-105mm lens, simply because it is light enough with high image quality to be worth having near my K-1 all the time. I might buy the two lenses I've just suggested for similar reasons, perhaps as a convenient FF travel-system).

08-01-2016, 01:50 AM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,626
@Barry Pearson

I agree that different people will want different lenses. A 24-105 f/4 is great because even if it might be bigger/heavier/expensive it can be really a single lens solution for many outings. f/4 at the long end is quite fast already even for some low light with a modern FF, the shallow dof is reasonable and 24mm is quite convenient for some landscape or tight interiors at time. 105mm give reasonable reach and can be cropped a bit as necessary. You get the same pratical reach at the 18-135, better wide angle and quite decent low light and bokeh. Something that doesn't exist on APSC.

Other people might prefer a 15-30 f/4-5.6 in addition. More possibilities but likely also finally heavier and more expensive if you have to get both. The good thing is you may not get with both all the time and may not buy both at the same time neither.

Me I am more after primes, so I have DA15, DA21, FA31, FA77, F135 but I am not likely to take the 5 at the same time. Likely only 3. Using 2-3 primes max is what give me the most joy.

So to get matching on FF there a missing 20-24mm lens that should be small and light and a 200mm... That should be small and light too. that's possible with the right aperture, not sure it will be what we get...
08-01-2016, 01:53 AM   #55
Pentaxian
ZeljkoS's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Banja Luka
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 303
If I were you, I would stick with K-3.

I think having just 16-85 and 55-300 would be enough for most of the situations you will encounter, as a hobby photographer.
Also, having the 31mm fast prime, you pretty much covered 95% of usage cases.

On the other hand, if you are thinking about going semi-pro or full professional, then it would make sense to invest in FF system, for better dynamic range and less noise in low light.

Personally, I don't see why would any hobby photographer invest in a FF unless you have money to throw around.

That said, no one can tell you what to do, if you feel like buying K-1, go ahead, I'm sure you will be happy.
I had a chance to try it out, and it's probably the best FF camera you can get for that price.
08-01-2016, 03:27 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,542
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Let's be honest and admit that this setup is not really fullilling:
- Not 22/24mm support
- Nothing with fast apperture removing half of the benefit of the FF (sharpness/resolution stay here).
- A telephoto that is made for APSC rather than FF
- Nothing with outstanding rendering and a tele that isn't that sharp (no match even on APSC to 60-250 or 70-200)...
- A setup that is right in the middle on the problem of K1 SR + 28-105 arround 1/100s.

In 2-3 years with drop in price for the body and more FF lenses availables (like a 24-105 f/4 and 70-300 f/4-5.6), there would be far fewer cases for APSC (except compactness). But today is still early for that kind of setup to be really interresting.
If money is important then it might be best to stay with APS-C.

If I were purchasing a (relatively) low cost line up for full frame, I would get a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, keep the FA 31 and DA *55 and add either a 20-ish mm legacy prime or Samyang 14mm/Irix 15mm lens. Auto focus is certainly not really important on your wide angle and I think that would cover things pretty well. The only question is telephoto, but unfortunately, that starts to get pricey. Cheapest option there is the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, which is a very nice lens, but even that is pretty expensive.
08-01-2016, 04:07 AM   #57
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,065
Ok....I think I've been given confirmation that the K-1 is worth it..... today I was pondering over this dilema whilst walking through an old cemetary (with the trusty K-1 of course).... hoping for some sign or answer to this never ending Pentax fourums APSC/FF reflection ..... then I looked up and saw a sign..... an apparition confirming the K-1 is blessed..... debate over! I am a believer!


Apparition from West Terrace Cemetery (Adelaide)
by Noel Leahy, on Flickr
08-01-2016, 04:15 AM   #58
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by ZeljkoS Quote
Personally, I don't see why would any hobby photographer invest in a FF unless you have money to throw around.
Speaking as a pensioner without "money to throw around", who has decided to use Pentax FF instead of APS-C because it is a better photographic experience that more easily gives me the results I want, I accept that your statement is personal to you, and I won't attempt to persuade you otherwise.
08-01-2016, 04:29 AM   #59
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,065
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
Speaking as a pensioner without "money to throw around", who has decided to use Pentax FF instead of APS-C because it is a better photographic experience that more easily gives me the results I want, I accept that your statement is personal to you, and I won't attempt to persuade you otherwise.
I'm in a similar position to you Barry (retired)..... but now we have a K-1 we are no longer hobbiest.... we are professional!

Rupert had concerns over this status change some time ago..... I think he's in denial still, only shooting in crop mode. One day I suspect he will come out...... and broaden his frame of reference.
08-01-2016, 04:46 AM   #60
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
@Barry Pearson

I agree that different people will want different lenses. A 24-105 f/4 is great because even if it might be bigger/heavier/expensive it can be really a single lens solution for many outings. f/4 at the long end is quite fast already even for some low light with a modern FF, the shallow dof is reasonable and 24mm is quite convenient for some landscape or tight interiors at time. 105mm give reasonable reach and can be cropped a bit as necessary. You get the same pratical reach at the 18-135, better wide angle and quite decent low light and bokeh. Something that doesn't exist on APSC.
I don't claim that such a lens wouldn't be useful! Obviously it would be significantly more expensive, as well as bigger and heavier, than the recent 28-105mm lens, but you accept that.

But when you talked of ".... drop in price for the body" I thought I would take the total system cost into consideration. Until that happens, your statement "there would be far fewer cases for APSC" won't happen. A K-1 plus any single lens isn't likely compete well with an APS-C camera plus 2 or 3 lenses covering between them a large focal length range. I would want something lightish and "affordable" shorter than 24mm, and something lightish and "affordable" well beyond 105mm.

Also, I was trying to think of this from Ricoh's point of view. With limited development resources, I think their highest priority should be to supply lenses that are as different as possible from the existing ones, (but with high image quality, which should be a given when selling to someone with a K-1), rather than lenses that are close enough to compete with them. The lenses I suggested might be bought by someone who already has all 5 recent FF lenses, because they are so different and can be used both for entry-level and for travel purposes. (Ricoh won't make money from legacy lenses, so they need lenses in their current line-up).

There would be time to add greater variety later, once the customer base for Pentax FF has expanded as a result of the more "affordable" range.

Last edited by Barry Pearson; 08-01-2016 at 04:57 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, car, da18-55, details, dslr, experience, fa31, ff, gear, home, k1, k3, k3 to k1, kit, lack, lens, lenses, ltd, pentax, people, photography, post, review, shots, upgrade, weight, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is upgrade worth it to Pentax 16-85 lens for K-3. Themdragons Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-18-2016 05:03 PM
Is it worth going from my K5 to the K3? VoiceOfReason Pentax DSLR Discussion 26 08-11-2014 12:49 PM
Is it worth it to upgrade from kit lens to DA16-45 ? Ben E Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 05-26-2013 12:36 PM
Is it worth trying to fix a kr or upgrade? Kricket Pentax K-r 13 07-15-2011 10:29 PM
k10D Is an upgrade worth it? emptydam Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-11-2007 04:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top