[cali92rs]

What lenses do you have?
What lenses with each camera do you need?
What lenses do you think you will add in the next two years?
What is your dream lens lineup?
What type of photography do you see using these for?

These are the important questions.
Unfortunately, if you are into new and autofocus, or exotic (think tilt shift, f2.8 telephotos), then some of those do not exist in Pentaxland.
But for most folks I think, Pentax should have what you need/want.

[cdd29]

Didn’t have much time to post initially but I have some time now. Over the last 6 months I’ve been rediscovering photography and initially decided to replace my long in the tooth Canon EOS Rebel XS. It was a decent camera in its day but decided to buy something newer. Local store had a too good to pass deal on the 3300 so I bought it. Looking back, wish I would have waited but what’s done Is done.

I do primarily landscape and night photography (a littleastrophotography, using available light & some flash photography) and some special FX photography. I don’t really do a lot of work with people or sports photography, so FPS and super fast focusing aren’t a must have. Nor do I do video. Based on that criteria, I’m naturally leaning towards the K-1.

Current lens wise, I have the kit 18-55mm (f/3.5) and 55-200mm (f/4) and a 35mm (f/1.8). I mainly switch between the 35mm and the 18-55. WhatI would want initially is something comparable to what I have now with thefaster prime lens and the smaller zoom. I do have an older Vivitar Series 1500mm I believe I could find a Pentax adapter for. Initially looking, I had found that lenses for the Nikon were typically a bit cheaper than for the Pentax.

I had originally thought about a K-3. A friend has one andwhen comparing some of the photographs between that and my Nikon (same subject & settings), the K-3 had a better dynamic range. I’m wanting to go fullframe as I’ve been told that typically a full frame will have a better dynamicrange and work better in low light (pending on the lens of course) than a cropsensor. I also just found out that a friend has some older auto focus lensesthat would work on the K-1 (he has a K-1 and the K-3).

Also, one of the main things that is driving me to get a different camera is not to have the newest, TOTL camera to say I have it. I want something with more flexibility than what I have now. The Nikon does takedecent pictures, but I do feel that I’ve pushed it as far as I can in ways no rdoes it have some of the features I used before (bracketing being one.) For example, I’ve shot some very vibrant sunsets & sunsets and I feel the camera didn’t do an adequate job of capturing them. My friend’s K-3 seemed to do a much better job of capturing scenes than my Nikon.

[Driline]

Current lens wise, I have the kit 18-55mm (f/3.5) and 55-200mm (f/4) and a 35mm (f/1.8)

Wow. Kit lenses. If it were me I'd be investing in some decent glass. The 35 looks nice though at F 1.8...........

[Adam]

Long time lurker first time poster. Long story short, I've currently got a Nikon D3300. While it was a significant upgrade from a 10 year old Canon, I'm finding I wasn't something a little better and also make the jump to full frame. A friend is a huge Pentax fan and has come close to selling me on the K-1. I do like the pixel shift and astrotracer features. However with the D750, lenses seem to be more plentiful and cheaper. Plus I can use my current lenses, even though it would switch to crop sensor mode and I wouldn't get the full benefit of full frame. Recommendations?

Both the D750 and K-1 are fantastic cameras with excellent image quality. The K-1 is a bit more advanced in many ways, and a bit heavier.

If you don't currently own any stabilized FX lenses, I think making the jump to Pentax would make sense. With in-body SR, things are really straightforward with the Pentax system and you can reach for just about any lens.

On the other hand, like you said, Nikon does have a more mature lineup of modern lenses, as well as more weather sealed prime options. I guess it really depends on how much you plan to invest into the system, how much you already own, and what your goals are.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[normhead]

You are a wonderful guy my friend! And I'm not being ironic here but you have a special ability to create issues from nowhere!
One of our members asked a specific question. K-1 or D750? I completely agree with your points in your first reply and having used both cameras (they are both great by the way) I go one step further and recommend the K-1 having in mind all the plus and cons of each one (that you have elaborated correctly - at least to my opinion). I only added the gap in Pentax as a system that I believe it will be covered some day. I know about the Signa offerings but even those are not as rich as the relevant for Nikon. The issue here is not what I want or I believe, it is what our friend the OP wants. It is a fact that there are plenty more options from the Nikon system and that is what I said. I can't really see where do you disagree with my saying. Did I make any comparisons with other brands or opened up a different discussion? I can't even understand why I'm typing this message and I apologize to the OP for my irrelevant post. My recommendation and my whole point was clear I have nothing more to add.
Normhead you are the guy I would like to drink beers in the pub and watch soccer! I would never be bored for sure, we could fight for anything even by supporting the same team!

Well, if you're ever in the neighbourhood...

[screwdriver222]

I bought my K-1 a week ago after months of considering getting a Nikon D810 and possibly a D500 for action. The Tamron equivalent zoom lenses for Nikon were much cheaper and this swayed me in favour of Nikon. However I rarely shoot action/sports and the K-1 has everything I want , The Nikon D810 does not. I got a good deal on the DFA 15-30 and the DFA 24-70. The D750 has less megapixels and has an anti-aliassing filter so I really didn't consider it.

What ever you choose will be the right decision for you.

Jeff

[redpit]

Well, if you're ever in the neighbourhood...

A bit difficult but the same goes to you too!

[Nicolas06]

I'll try to provide advise without taking into account the brand/fanboyism one could have.

DO you really need an FF or better camera?
First you want an FF. That understandable, but I'll ask you first are you SURE you need it? Are you sure that the thing that will get your photography to the next level rather than say improving your photographic skills or even buying some lenses? The manufacturers and people here all want an FF because it is technically better. Sure FF is overall better but you may not see it that often in practice. If money and size/weight are no issue at all, still an FF is likely the right buy.

But the key point to understand is that if you get a friend that is a better photographer than you and he use even often an smartphone, his photos will continue to look better because the framing, composition and lighting are all much more important than the gear. Sure I'll not advise anybody to stick to a smartphone and APSC or m4/3 to be really better overall, but you must really understand that. I can't say it is you case but maybe 95% of people investing in an FF auto convince themselve they need it etc etc while the money would honestly have been better spend on photography courses. You may be part of the remaining 5%, I don't know. You sure think you are part of theses experienced, skilled guys. In statistics, that's quite unlikely.

What do you get anyway with K1 or D750 and with high end cameras in general ?

Ok, what the high end camera dooes provide, really ?
- More resolution.
- Better AF
- Overall more reactivity like more FPS, reacting faster to your orders
- Better ergonomics like more direct access controls
- "Gadgets" that are conveniant like wifi, gps and alike

For things really related to photography honestly more resolution is kind of useless if you have enough. 16-24MP is more than enough really. Eyes can't see more than 8MP worth of detail if you want to see the whole image. it is only really if you do a fine art print and go with a manifying glass you'll notice any difference. Think about it. The best movie blockbusters have 4K at the cinema. For a screen that is maybe 15meters wide. 4K is 8MP. And until recently, many blockbuster have 2K master (so only 2MP) and are still viewed on the same screen. You don't see people complaining that much.

The K1 has more resolution and does have pixel shift, but this is not at all important. This isn't what will allow you to get better photos. It will not be visible at all in practice except to you to get wet when looking at 100% crops. Your clients if you are a pro, you friends, familly etc otherwise will never notice the difference. So yes K1 has better resolution, but honestly that completely irrelevant to what photography is overall.

AF is VERY important because it is the difference between a photo that go to trash and a keeper. And the worst photographer you are, the most likely you'll benefit from better AF as you'll not be able to compensate. Still overall all high end camera have good enough AF for most use. It will matter on action/sport mostly and here the D750 is honestly better.

For reactivity, D750 has the edge but that matter only in select conditions.

The rest like dumping the photo to your computer using either wifi or a card reader shouldn't matter. The card reader likely to be faster, the wifi avoid to spend 30 seconds to move the card to the card reader. That's about it. GPS, astrotracer etc are really specialized use, some will really benefit of it, many will buy the feature, try it 3 time, find it to cumbersome (tripod, calibration...) and never use it again. You may be the guy that is has a passion about astrophoto but then really I don't get why you wouldn't invest on a fully motorized head that can follow endlessly and do not have the limitation of the astrotracer.

So what I should choose ?

You should invest into a system, not a camera. Whatever its features, 3 years from now, there will be something better anyway. The lenses are longer lived and many that are 10, 20, 30 years old still make for stuning photos. An f/2.8 lens on APSC still provide better low light than an f/5.6 kit lens on FF. A prime with great rendering keep its great rendering at 8, 16 or 36MP. But a clinical lens with lot of resolution at 24 or 36MP look clinical all the time.

So the advice is choose the lenses first and get the camera that can mount them.The big benefit of Pentax is small light high quality primes like the DA ltd (for APSC) or FA ltd (for full frame) line that have no equivalent among other DSLR systems. This is also in body shake reduction, cheap weather resistant lenses (mostly on APSC). Pentax entry level APSC bodies are also great for the money.

Main benefit of K1, Pentax FF, that is basically the pentax version of D800/D810 from Nikon is that it can mount K-mount lenses and provide the feature of all FF plus lot's of details. Details that neither on Nikon D810 or Pentax K1 you'll be able to notice outside of 100% crop in your post processing software.Yes D750 has much bigger echosystem of lenses available, many from Tamron/Sigma, a much stronger used FF lenses echosystem and you'll be able to get 95% of the quality this way for half of the price. The AF is also better and that's a key feature for some select use cases.

For somebody not invested in Pentax and that feel the need for an FF, Nikon D750 is likely a better choice overall. It is better were it really count. Better echosystem, better reactivity and AF.Still this depend what your practice really is.

It make no sense to buy a cheap kit lens + an FF body. You should consider that your investement on lenses should at least match the body price, likely be twice the amount. So if you buy a $2000 (rougly) D750 or K1, I'd expect you to spend as least $2000, likely $4000 on lenses to match. Otherwise a guy with a $300 APSC body, $300 17-50 f/2.8 and $600 70-200 f/2.8 from tamron for $1200 will get same or better results. It make no sense.

Most likely you don't need an FF at all. and as for what is best overall, I much prefer the small light prime of Pentax that give me unique rendering in a small light package that huge "pro" lenses that would stay at home most of the time and will make people looking at me like I am a paparazy and increase the likelyness the security will go say to me no, I can't take photos.

The best camera is the camera you have with you, and the pleasure you have to shoot with it is as important as the technology inside...

And remember !
Your photographic skill, your choice of the right moment, subject, lighting, composition count many time more than the gear. I can't stress that enough. If your photos are not good enough, this is quite unlikely it is mostly a gear issue. It is quite likely a lack of skill/experience/training.

[noelpolar]

Based on your last post, where you outlined your likely use..... I would lean towards the K-1.... as you seem to be. Don't underestimate the advantage and fun of shooting the same equipment as your friend.... nice to be able to share lenses, experiences etc.

Most lens needs can be covered off with Pentax....and you might learn to enjoy some of the old lenses along the way as a few of us have.

The vast majority of K-1 shooters find it a most rewarding and enjoyable camera to use.

[Nicolas06]

In the end, my recommendation is that you show us a subset of the picture you tend to take and we will be able to provide advise if you really need a better camera, better lenses or to train to get better skill.

Myself, I don't think I am any good, I am on APSC, I can't compare by far to the great shooter out there, I get picture like that, some with the kit lens on APSC... Ask yourself if you do much better already...

DA55-300 + K3. So APSC and consumer zoom. Iso 1600. You could have done that with a m4/3 and a consumer telezoom.



Again K3 + 55-300



FA31, quite high end lens, but still on APSC body, K3. Could have been K10D, very old APSC body that it would have changed anything



F135 @f/2.8. Not only the lens is like 25 year old and cost me $300 used, but it is far from perfect at f/2.8. Iso is 800, K3, APSC body



Again F135, not much detail here. This photos got explored on flickr with 300+ favorites and near 10K views



DA35 ltd, K3. Yes a prime, but any lens and any camera body could have done that really.



FA77, f/3.2, K3. I'am sure you could have done that with the tamron 70-200 or maybe even with the 55-300.



DA15 pano, K3, APSC



DA35 pano, K3, APSC



DA35, K3



FA77, K3

[Nicolas06]

For example, I’ve shot some very vibrant sunsets & sunsets and I feel the camera didn’t do an adequate job of capturing them. My friend’s K-3 seemed to do a much better job of capturing scenes than my Nikon.

This look very unlikely. I mean yes maybe your friend with his K3 did a better job and maybe the K3 a much more high end APSC camera than D3300 is a bit easier for that, but to think that the D3300 could not capture absolutely stunning sunset is quite naive.

[Kunzite]

For the record, getting a FF camera and improving your photographic skills are not mutually exclusive.

[Nicolas06]

For the record, getting a FF camera and improving your photographic skills are not mutually exclusive.

100% agree but the first one is responsible for 90% of the improved result you'll get and if you say plan to do it seriously, that may include getting some photographic courses, and that cost some money. Honestly if money is not an issue as well as size/weight, there no reason to not get the best, D5 ($6000 ?) + a few pro lenses, $2000 each, or in Pentax 645Z + a bunch of matching lenses. Or why not? Some Leica M. I would personnally prefer the last one for size/weight but each to its own. That put you in $10K-20K.

If the goal is to get noticably improved results rather than just being happy with a new toy, in particular when you start from a low end APSC body and kit lens and didn't yet show a single of the picture you are able to take, in all honestly my advice would not be to ruch spend $2000 on an FF body, regardless of the brand. It doesn't make sense except if money doesn't matter at all, and we both know it.

If there was to be some gear upgrade, a few lenses make much more sense first and if you take care to buy used, the cost could be nearly 0 if you were to resell later on.

[Kunzite]

I never said money are not an issue; usually it is, but to what measure, that depends on each of us.

I'm also a bit skeptical when hearing about "the best". The best for what, and the best for whom? I can easily think up some scenarios where the mighty D5+pro lenses is not the best. While I have the K-1, you won't see me declare that FF is "the best", nor even "better" than APS-C. There's no "one size fits all" in the camera world.

Of course, one shouldn't think about buying new equipment as a "default" method of solving his/her problems (without even thinking about the problem and possible solutions); that's the worst reason to buy. Much worse than "I want it"

[noelpolar]

Buy the K-1.... mostly to just annoy the long typers..... did somebody just post 12 photos... none with a 750 or K-1?