[ChatMechant]

Keep the 31 and *50. sell everything else (including the k3) get the k-1 and 28-105. Enjoy your trip.
Just about every time I've upgraded my gear be it body or lens I noticed an improvement in my photographs. "Worth it" is relative(thanks a lot noelpolar). There are much more costly hobbies.

[BarryE]

Not sure if its already been asked but in my case...

Only real lens I can use is my 31mm, so it'll be a whole lot of new glass. I also have a 16-85mm, 18-135mm, 20-40mm, 40mm, *50mm, 55-300mm - I may be wrong but I'm thinking not many of these are keepers after an upgrade. For now I plan to keep the K3 as a backup unless a trade in is worthwhile.

Or do I hold for the inevitable K1 II? I'm going on a trip so of course I'm itching to pull the trigger...

I've similarly been scratching that itch a lot recently. I keep asking myself, really, what would I gain by 'upgrading' to a K-1.
There might be some occasions in which I'd have a better chance of nailing 'The Shot', but at what cost (money, weight, new filters, bigger bag, a small flash, re-learning from the instinctive usage I now have with APS-C etc etc).

So I'd suggest a boring list of pros V cons for your particular usage. I was rather surprised how far the K-3 system came out on top for me - currently. Perhaps then leave this list to settle a bit and see whether the pros v cons change over the next few weeks/months. After a while the dust will have settled and a more informed decision can then be made.

As an aside, for me, printing my images is key. I'm far from convinced that a well taken shot on a k-3 when well processed will be inferior to one taken on a K-1 as the paper compresses the image so much from what we see on screen and sensitive processing will handle any/virtually all differences. Obviously the K-1 will be superior in low light and high ISO, but how often might this affect you, if you print your images ?

Ignore the itch, for now ...

[Culture]

There's about 10 threads all asking the same question, and after reading the 1000's of replies, one starts to get a feel for who's buying, who's not, who's on the fence.

I'm going to stick my neck out with my answer; based on your lens collection AND the fact you are in doubt, no. If you are hoping the camera will make you a better photographer, the answer is no. Based on your lens collection you aren't a legacy shooter and you aren't a semi-pro. you are a hobbyist, and not even a hard core pixel peeper or wanna-be pro. You may be a decent photographer, but you know you have a lot to learn and for you an image that's "good" enough works just fine because you don't take things that seriously yet/ You have dreams, but that's what they are, dreams. The K1 won't magically fix your shortcomings. I'm also guessing you are pushing your budget ceiling with this purchase or you wouldn't be asking for a quantitative value.

Give yourself another couple years and fully develop your style. Learn what you want your camera to do and learn how to push its limits. If you get there, you will be able to answer your own question.

Of course, anyone can purchase any camera they want at any time for any reason... so go right ahead if you feel a subjective want or need. But you asked "me". My answer is, in your case, no, it's not worth it.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!!!

This is exactly the reason why even though I am happy with the FF, i am not thinking of getting one.
My first camera was a k-m. I loved that camera, but as I started learning photography one of the first things I noticed about the camera was noise at low ISOs. I was starting to push the camera to its limits.
I think the shutter speed was up to1/4000. There was no focusing lights. built in flash was not pttl.
After several challenges i realised that i had to upgrade. Then I got me a k-30 when it was released. The noise difference was the first thing i noticed.
I still have my k-30 but because am doing small gigs now, I got me a k-3 when it became very cheap. During this whole time i have been seeing what lenses i need for my craft.
Today I went to the flea market looking for props for a newborn that I am going to shoot in two weeks or so. Its free because I am practicing craft.
Later today I was practicing how to shoot HSS for a wedding that I will be attending this saturday using a flash bracket that I built by myself because I am cheap that way.
Buying a camera is the last thing on my mind now. Unless one of my cameras fails.

And even with all the gear I have to up my game in editing. That is my current focus now. I am watching youtube videos everyday looking for editing technics.

But thanks for explaining myself to me. It was fun to read.

Culture.

[surfar]

55-300 in full frame????

What's the true reality folks?

Uncle, have a look at the Pentax Full Frame group on Facebook.....there are numerous images there without vignetting

[Wild Mark]

SR was off as I had the camera mounted no a tripod for stability (slow shutter speed). I am of the understanding that SR is only necessary if you are holding the camera hence my manual overide of this great in body feature. Does that make sense?

[Nicolas06]

Only you can really choose if it worth it or not.

Basically if you upgrade and get all the equivalent lenses (except the 31) you'll spend a LOT. Few thousand dollars, even if you resell. If you restrict yourself to say to 2 zooms it would not be that expensive.

Now for the benefit, this is all your practice and priorities:
- High iso performance is much better with K1 than K3. You can get a zoom, even a slow one like that 28-105 and get quite decent low light shoots. With an f/2.8 zoom, you get very nice low light shots. Me I shoot mostly in daylight so that not really an argument for me, but that would be conveniant. Really conveniant at time.
- There more details on the shots. 36MP instead of 24MP. Honestly if the lenses are good 24MP on APSC is already more than enough. So either you are the type to love to stare at your picture alone in front on the computer at 100%... And you'll love that... or you are not really notice. Nobody else will care or see the difference anyway. It there so why not, but really, that just because we want to have the bigger numbers.
- Pixel shift: well 36MP is already more than what is needed. That here so we can speak handlessly about it in threads. But really nobody looking at your picture will care... Except you if you are a pixel peeper.
- AF: Better than K3 I think but K3 is already good anyway. Not a game changer and technically the AF hardware the same, they just enabled a few more AF points on K1 (33 vs 27).
- OVF: more clarity and more comfortable with K1.
- FPS/burst rate: K3 is better.

To me in the end, that really that low light thing that the real deal. And so that depend a lot of your practice. If you think this is essential for you or not. The rest are sure improvement (except burst rate) but nobody will care in practice.

[normhead]

Uncle, have a look at the Pentax Full Frame group on Facebook.....there are numerous images there without vignetting

Look at the DA 18-135 group here, there are numerous images without vignetting, yet I can also produce as many images as you'd like with clear vignetting. With SR, the fact that a lens doesn't vignette sometimes, doesn't mean it doesn't vignette all the time. SO looking at people's best images on line would be a complete waste of time. People don't post their ruined images.

People who have K-1 tend to answer, yes it's worth it.
People like myself who've examined all available information and come to the opposite conclusion, say it's not.

Why would I stay with the K-3?

Faster burst rate is sometimes applicable to me.
You can use shorter lighter telephotos for the same field of view.
You get more magnification of the crop subject area.

For all but shooting wide open you can again the same image using a K-3, and that image can be just as sharp, although it won't have the same resolution, in those rare images where the image exceeds tha k-3 resolution but is lees than the K-1s upper limit. There are four scenarios in this.
1, both cameras have sufficient resolution to adequately portray the subject
2. the k-3 has insufficient resolution but the K-1 does
3. Both cameras are inadequate and you need a 645z or something with even more resolution.
4. NO camera can resolve your subject.

Of the 4 possible scenarios, only one favours the K-1.

I have a DA 35mm ƒ.2.4
The comparable FoV and DoF on FF is my FA 50-ƒ1.8
With a lens like the 50 ƒ1.4 I have the following rangers of ƒ-stop
1.4-2, 2-2.8, 2.8-4-4-5.6-5.6-8, 8-11, 11-16.
That is 7 distinct ranges on DoF.

Using those two lenses, The FA 50 ƒ1.8 is going to have the advantage in smooth OoF areas as it opens more than a stop wider. If I did have 35, 1.4, the only place the FF would have the advantage would be between 2 an ƒ3.5, one seventh or 14% of the time at most. If you regularly shoot landscape of snapshots at ƒ5.6 it's probably less than 2% of the time the FF provides a narrow DoF advantage.

SO basically, those who say an FF gives you narrower DoF are greatly oversimplifying to the point of lying. Saying FF gives you narrower DoF is very different from saying it gives you the opportunity to shoot narrower DOF in some shooting circumstances, that you may or may not encounter very often. It is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Same with low light performance. It's only relevant if you shoot a lot of low light images. One stop is just not that much difference. I've successfully shot up to 3200 ISO on a K-3. Something folks tend to to ignore when they top out their K-1 at 6400 ISO. Selecting the best image you can get with one camera and comparing it to the "average " images from another camera can produce biased results on matter how you stack them.

SO, in the end, I'd say, don't buy into the hype. A K-3 is much cheaper. Unless you specifically need something the K-1 has to offer, buy it only if you think you might like it. Despite the relatively minor difference between APS-c and FF you may actually appreciate the difference and favour one or the other way more than any technical discussion might suggest you would. But to my mind the K-1 hasn't sold me, and it hasn't sold many others as well.

I definitely would think long and hard before I got rid of a lot of APS-c lenses and had to buy new glass. It's personal, only you can decide if it's worth it, but try and stay away from the hype. No one is less reliable as s source of solid unbiased information as someone who just bought into a new camera system.

For my needs, printing up to 20x30 inches, 14 MP worked (K20D) 16 MP was overkill (K-5) , 24 MP gives me lots of room to crop and still have overkill, 36 MP? I haven't really found a use for that yet.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-26-2016 at 02:13 PM.

[Nicolas06]

"Worth it" is relative(thanks a lot noelpolar). There are much more costly hobbies.

And what give experience and emotion is also very different from people to people

I prefer to spend the price of K1 + DFA70-200 on a trip to Tanzania so I can get a fantastic experience here... Rather than get the gear and experience handless joy while pixel peeping my shots or taking the tripod with me while shooting landscapes in the local area. Or even thinking of the 40x60" print I'll never order in practice.

But maybe another one can have both, or don't like to travel. I don't really buy the "experience" thing you get with an FF. This will not change my life or how I enjoy it overall. Just a small detail. But again we are all different. I don't care that much for low light shots. And I feel I more see an improved life experience with a new car or continue of being able to do at least 1 nice trip to visit the world every year... Than upgraded my photo gear more often. I already have many great lenses and a decent body.

My father was on a cruise... And remember another guy that didn't want to pay for the extra to have more visit etc... Because he recently upgraded it photographic gear and had no more money. His wife didn't enjoy the experience and said it loudly several time. She didn't care of the camera. She cared when the husband wanted to restrict what they could do because of the gear expense...

[surfar]

Look at the DA 18-135 group here

Norm can you post a link please, 2 searches reveal zero.


Also, why post a quote that refers to the 55-300 and refer to the DA18-135? I stated that my 18-135 vignettes badly right through the focal range and I find that highly disappointing because its a very convenient lens on ASP-C.

[normhead]

Hey surfar
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-1...an-do-111.html

By the way, if your 18-135 vignettes badly all through it's focall range, there's something the matter with your 18-135. Mine vignettes on occasion, my guess is because it's not quite a big enough image circle to handle the SR. I rarely have 4 vignetted corners, usually the top 2.

I used the 18-135, as an example, because it's a lens that is known to vignette, yet there are hundreds of images with no vignetting. Just saying, if you looked through that thread, you wouldn't know it vignettes, because no one posts badly vignetted images. That's just not a good way to know if you have might have vignetting problems with a new lens.

Whether or not the 55-300 vignettes on the K-1, I am not offering an opinion. Just saying, ask someone who uses the combination.

[slip]

to me it's all about the $$$$ and weight of the telephoto lenses.
is it worth spending hundreds more to get a stop or 2 less noise? also, I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and man it weighs a ton compared to my crop sensor lenses.
If I really got serious about portraits, I would buy the K1 in a flash. but for now the K3 meets my needs

Randy

[surfar]

Thanks Norm, will check it out


Ive not noticed vignetting on ASPc with my 18-135....my observation is when the K1 is set to full frame mode(are we talking the same language now?)


My copy is totally unuseable on FF


check out waynelr.smumug.com nice monark butterfly with the 55-300

[Darj]

There's about 10 threads all asking the same question, and after reading the 1000's of replies, one starts to get a feel for who's buying, who's not, who's on the fence.

I'm going to stick my neck out with my answer; based on your lens collection AND the fact you are in doubt, no. If you are hoping the camera will make you a better photographer, the answer is no. Based on your lens collection you aren't a legacy shooter and you aren't a semi-pro. you are a hobbyist, and not even a hard core pixel peeper or wanna-be pro. You may be a decent photographer, but you know you have a lot to learn and for you an image that's "good" enough works just fine because you don't take things that seriously yet/ You have dreams, but that's what they are, dreams. The K1 won't magically fix your shortcomings. I'm also guessing you are pushing your budget ceiling with this purchase or you wouldn't be asking for a quantitative value.

Give yourself another couple years and fully develop your style. Learn what you want your camera to do and learn how to push its limits. If you get there, you will be able to answer your own question.

Of course, anyone can purchase any camera they want at any time for any reason... so go right ahead if you feel a subjective want or need. But you asked "me". My answer is, in your case, no, it's not worth it.

I think this is the best response. It's along the lines of what I tell anyone asking me about cameras, we all know an expensive camera does not magically equal better shots. My thoughts about it is that if you're not dreaming of going pro or anything you should stick to what you have fun with and you can have fun with most any camera, even if you are going down the pro path then nomadkng is on point.

Personally I have an original K5, I love the thing and I am only a hobbyist but I will get a K1 at some point because I do anticipate having a lot of fun with it. My current favourite lens (the 100mm macro) is full frame plus I have a lot of old glass I can use as there's been Pentax cameras in my family for about 50 years or more and I really want to play with those on an FF. By all measurement of skill I do not need a K1 (hell I probably don't need a K5) but I sure will have a lot of fun using it.
If you still enjoy your K3 then stick with it, it should provide more than enough enjoyment to get you to a K1-II or beyond.

[Barry Pearson]

I'm amused at some of the responses here and elsewhere in threads similar to this. Not just K-1 versus K-3-series. But Q versus m4/3, m4/3 versus APS-C, APS-C versus FF, FF versus 645z, etc.

When I switched from 35mm film, (which I'd used for over 40 years), to Pentax APS-C, that was right at the time for me. But I couldn't claim it was right for others, because I couldn't assume I comprehended how they experienced photography.

For carry-around purposes, a simple m4/3 system, (in addition to my APS-C system), proved wrong for me, but others might be happy with it. Ditto the Q-system. It was wrong for me, but other people clearly enjoy using it. I eventually realised that for carry-around purposes, any system camera was wrong for me, and I'm happy with my Panasonic LX100 non-system camera when I don't want to carry any system around.

Now I've made the switch to Pentax FF as my system. K-1 plus all 5 recent zooms. (No legacy lenses). I've used it for about 3 months, lots of events and other shoots, perhaps approaching 25,000 frames, 100s of photos uploaded to DPReview threads. There is no doubt whatsoever that this decision was right for me. But since I had already bought the new 150-450mm and 70-200mm lenses for use on the K-3-series, they didn't contribute towards the cost of switching to the K-1. (Now my K-3II has become my back-up in case the K-1 breaks).

Viewed from my position as a now-confirmed Pentax FF system user, I don't expect Pentax APS-C system users to justify their decision. What is right for me won't necessarily be right for them. (Obviously I don't need to justify my decision to them either! The logic they use to explain why they like APS-C often misses the point for me).

I observe that sometimes when people argue in favour of a particular system or sensor-size, what they are really doing is describing their own history, their own views on photography, their own thought-processes in making purchasing decisions. But people differ massively, of course.

(In the unlikely event that anyone wants to know about my history with photographic equipment, I keep my Gear List at DPReview pretty-well up-to-date).

[robr7]

Ok, say you do go K-1 and money was no object for one lens, what would be your first lens for the K-1?

I tend to lean towards the walk-around types but I do have plenty of those to hold me over so should I go the other way then?