[Rupert]

When it is so dark you can't see your subject in the viewfinder and have to guess at the composition, the K1 will lock focus quickly and get you the shot. I'm not sure the K3 or any other Pentax body can do this?


Wonderful camera, just amazing. I never thought Pentax would make a camera this terrific! If you shot with one even a few minutes, it is definitely your choice!

Regards!

[totsmuyco]

You guys are so lucky. You can take pictures of Otis and his raccoon friends. Probably even some of Bugs' friends. The wildest wild life I can shoot here are uncared for street dogs and alley cats.

[Blacknight659]

I didn't read the other posts so I apologize if I repeat any other posts here.

IMO, you should go with the K-3ii or wait for the next flagship APS-C body (could be here by the end of the year or early next year).

Why?
>>> Cost
>> Lens Selection
> Size/Weight

You can purchase a complete kit for less money, have suburb lenses to cover your needs, and save on the overall weight of your kit. Not to mention this is the first gen FF camera. I always stay away from first gen cameras.

At the end of the day, only you can say if you need FF. I think the K-3ii with sensor shift and a nice sharp lens will do more for you than the more expensive K-1.

Just my opinion tho....

[Gravity]

Thanks for that, Blacknight659. Most others posting to this thread say go with the K1 - for a number of different reasons. My instinct is to go with the K1: as the the old Harley Davidson strapline used to say "Ya cain't beat cubes" so I feel that the larger sensor should deliver better images. However, I am a bit concerned that I shall need to spend a lot more on lenses that can take full advantage of that. I guess there is no single "right" answer to this type of question but it has been helpful to gain input from other members here. Thanks again.

[UncleVanya]

Congratulations on your decision. I'm not sure you actually will "need" the camera but you will enjoy it. Both cameras will easily outperform your current camera without any difficulty on low light and overall resolution. The Pixel Shift available in both cameras will particularly help your landscape options should you have limited movement in the scene. The larger sensor will make it easier to find legacy wide angle lenses if you want to do so.

If you start to second guess the decision just open it up for more discussion - there are reasons for buying the K-1 and "I want one" is perfectly valid. I doubt you will regret the decision.

My advice is to start with the 24-70 lens since it is wide enough for most people on landscape and 70 is a little short but can be used for portraits. Your existing 18-55 and 50-200 can be used in crop mode (or at some focal lengths on FF) as well. Add a longer portrait lens or a telephoto or extreme ultrawide at your leisure. Add some manual focus prime lenses anytime. Enjoy.

[Nuno Almeida]

Just ordered the K1, should be here next week...........

[northcoastgreg]

However, I am a bit concerned that I shall need to spend a lot more on lenses that can take full advantage of that.

I would be more than a little bit concerned about that. FF may be "better" than APS-C, but I still think glass is more critical to image quality than the size difference between FF and APS-C sensors. A K-1 and a DFA 24-70 will cost roughly $2800. For that price, you could easily get a K-3, a DA 16-85, a DA 55-300 and a DA 12-24 and have close to $500 left over.

For landscape photography, all the K-1 gets you is the ability to print larger (or crop more) and a bit more DR. Do you really plan to make large prints? Do you have the computing power to handle K-1's mammoth files? Are you prepared to put up with the size and weight of an FF DSLR system?

[Simen1]

I think the K-1 will do just fine with decent quite cheap lenses if you choose carefully and stay away from the new and expensive D-FA lenses.

[Nicolas06]

I would be more than a little bit concerned about that. FF may be "better" than APS-C, but I still think glass is more critical to image quality than the size difference between FF and APS-C sensors. A K-1 and a DFA 24-70 will cost roughly $2800. For that price, you could easily get a K-3, a DA 16-85, a DA 55-300 and a DA 12-24 and have close to $500 left over.

For landscape photography, all the K-1 gets you is the ability to print larger (or crop more) and a bit more DR. Do you really plan to make large prints? Do you have the computing power to handle K-1's mammoth files? Are you prepared to put up with the size and weight of an FF DSLR system?

+1

There no much cheap FF lens available new in Pentax mount. They are all huge and expensive only the 28-105 look to be affordable. Otherwise you have to go the use/old lenses route that will often be MF... And theses old lenses come with their own issues. Chromatic aberation, weak resistance to flare. Not that sharp for wide angles.

The FF body is not the issue and soon you'll have one for $1000-1300 like an APSC flagship. But what really count are the lenses. Their quality, their price and their size/weight.

It make no sense to spend 1800$ on the body and then be restricted to a few old basic lenses, maybe have less choice in focal length or apperture because you switched and don't have the money. Buying that FF to be consistent should be a commitment from yourself to spend 1500-3000$ in lenses at least to get something nice to pair with it.

[Gravity]

+1

There no much cheap FF lens available new in Pentax mount. They are all huge and expensive only the 28-105 look to be affordable. Otherwise you have to go the use/old lenses route that will often be MF... And theses old lenses come with their own issues. Chromatic aberation, weak resistance to flare. Not that sharp for wide angles.

The FF body is not the issue and soon you'll have one for $1000-1300 like an APSC flagship. But what really count are the lenses. Their quality, their price and their size/weight.

It make no sense to spend 1800$ on the body and then be restricted to a few old basic lenses, maybe have less choice in focal length or apperture because you switched and don't have the money. Buying that FF to be consistent should be a commitment from yourself to spend 1500-3000$ in lenses at least to get something nice to pair with it.

Thanks again to all who have taken the time to post to this thread. As I said previously, my instinct is to go with the K1. However, I have been doing a fair amount of research over the last week or so and although most sources agree that a full frame camera such as the K1 will deliver awesome results, the more important consideration is arguably the lens(es) and as one acquaintance described it "the moron behind the camera".

Consensus seems to be that recent advances in sensor technology mean that the practical / visible difference between results from a good APS-C sensor at c. 24MP and a FF sensor at 36MP are not worth worrying about unless you want to print at very large sizes or to crop small areas from a frame (some have posted similar views to this thread). For my needs, a FF camera would therefore be an "I just want one" decision rather than "I need one because..." That is of course OK, but in accepting that good lenses are key, another set of questions arises.

I have a couple of Schneider zooms that came with my Samsung G1 plus a couple of film-era Pentax primes and a couple of similar age zooms from Vivitar. All produce adequate results but are by no means top quality by modern standards. If I put aside the desire to stay with a Pentax DSLR in order to use those older lenses (which have served me well) I could look at a more fundamental question: DSLR versus CSC. I feel that I need to do a bit more work before spending what for me is a fair amount of cash. Back to the drawing board!

[Nicolas06]

Honestly Gravity it depend a lot what are your old lenses. Typically old zoom if not really high end are not that great. A old FA80-200 f/2.8 is sure a nice one and you not need to change it except for the day it stop working but an old 100-300 consumer lens is not worth much and an old FA kit lens isn't going to cut it I think.

For primes, except wide angle it is better. That should be that much issues... You'll still have chromatic aberations to correct and all but that would work...

And of course that may look stupid but few (or none) of theses lenses will have profiles in modern software out of the box and certainly not in camera. So you'd have to spend more time in post to fix that too.

There wouldn't be much to go against K1 + 24-70 from sigma and 70-200 from tamron as a basis I think, and that could be "only" 1300€. But that's also already 1300€ on top of 2000€... And you'll want at least a TC one day for more reach or something... So that will cross the 2000€ in lens one day or another. Pick you own number in your local currency...

The cost of the FF depend a lot of what you have already in lenses. Either how much they are worth for selling and replacing or how good they work on the FF. Many there took care to invest in FF compatible lenses just to prepare...

The one thing that really is an argument for FF is the low light. There nothing around bigger sensor for that. So if that's really key for you that the biggest argument.

[UncleVanya]

As you say this is a personal choice. The number of permutations is endless. Once again you should take to heart that the person and their skills and artistic vision are the most important factor.
Take some time on Flickr to look at smaller camera pics. Print some if they offer full res downloads. Then look for k-3 and k-1 shots. There is a benefit to the larger sensor - but only you can tell if that benefit suits your needs.
Me - I'm a camera junkie - two k-3's and a Samsung nx300, a Panasonic lx7, and 24 lenses in k mount many of which are full frame. My Panasonic gx7 kit is going to my dad with the five lenses I have for it.
Here is my point - all of these and my two smartphone cameras are useful in my desire to make images I like. Pick something taking as much time as you want and enjoy it. The K-70 is another option as is the KS-2. Each of these offers the wifi connected experience and tilting screen that may be of use to you. If you go Mirrorless I highly recommend the Panasonic gx7 and the gx85 looks remarkable as well. The menus and controls are very well thought out and coming from Pentax that is appreciated since our menus and controls are quite good.

[VoiceOfReason]

ISO 6400 on the K1 looks about like ISO 1600 on the K3.

[nomadkng]

I'm assuming you have read the other 293 "Do I get a K1 or something else?" threads regarding this topic? If not, they may be of some help.

But I'll summarize..

Here are the reasons to buy a K1:

You really want it and can afford it.
You like having the newest shiniest toy to impress your friends.
You have at least 5 FF high end (pro) legacy lenses sitting on a shelf somewhere that are feeling lonely.
You are a photographer who can quantify the advantages of a K1 for YOUR shooting style.
You can quantify your shooting style and feel it has been limited by APS-C sensors.

If you answered yes to any one of the above, then get a K1.
If not, get a K-70/S2/3ii.

I own a K1 and I could write an essay on why the K1 is a better fit for me and why my K3 is now on the Marketplace because I will never shoot with it again.
But I also knew 3 years ago I had "outgrown" APS-C.
The K1 is not for everyone. Would you be able to maximize its advantages over a K3?
If not, there's not a lot of reason to spend the extra money and lug the extra weight around.

[Simen1]

and lug the extra weight around.

I keep seeing this argument repeated in both professional reviews, user comments and forums. But are those 210 grams over the K-3II so noticable? Or does the heavy lugging indirectly assume that the chosen lenses are heavier? How much less would those 210 grams mean for us that have no plans on lugging around D-FA zooms?