[normhead]

My K-5ii and a pocketful of DA Limiteds still does all that I want to do. Then again, I don't take my picture snapping seriously or try to make money out of it.

And guys like you are the majority of the people on the forum. This high end discussion among people who spend way too much money on their camera gear must get tiring.

I'm sure the average forum user doesn't give a hoot about this high end stuff. Most are trying to make the most of a single body and a few cheaper lenses. To a K-30 user, K-1 vs K-3 is all unessesary gibberish.

My Tamron 300, apparently there were only ever 100 made, and they are extremely hard to find. Except for the images, all the information about the lens is pretty much useless to everyone.

[pres589]

I also want to thank Norm for posting up his picture-laden example. This is the kind of explanation + examples that I've wanted to see but hadn't until now.

This thread also helps me not want to replace my K-5 II... unless I want to step up to the K-1. Never really had K-3 envy before and that hasn't changed.

EDIT: inre: Norm's thought that high-end discussion "must get tiring", that's a silly thing to suggest. I also just snap for fun and have yet to sell any photos I've taken. I like learning about lenses. It helps me know when to step up my skills and how to get a good bang for my buck. That Tamron 300? Looks like some kind of piece of industrial equipment. What's the story behind it? How did you get it?

Without "high-end discussion" this forum wouldn't help me improve what I do with a camera.

[normhead]

One of the guys who buys and sells Pentax gear here on the forum and at flea markets etc. befriended a forum member who later died. I think he must have bought the guy's Pentax gear for resale. The exterior is in rough shape (the finshish is worn off over significant portions of the lens) but the glass is excellent. He listed it here in the market place, and I ended up driving to Barrie (maybe 150 miles to pick it up, and also sell him a bunch stuff I was no longer using.) Like my K-5, once I bought the K-1 my K-5 became redundant, similar cameras that do the same job. But I would definitely recommend anyone using a K-5 look into a K-1 if they ever have the funds. A k-1 is a K-5 on steroids, that needs more expensive glass. Kind of like the premium car that only uses premium gas. It costs you, then it costs you again and again.

But the images are addictive. Especially on a 27 inch monitor.

I've had my K-1 two months and already one of my top 20 landscapes is taken with it. Too me, that's impressive. I've had a camera around my neck constantly for 8 years now. To have an image of that quality with a camera I'm just getting used to seems extraordinary.

[pres589]

I can't justify a K-1 at my level of abilities. I do admit to thinking a K-1 and a 40XS would be an excellent pairing for street shooting in places like NYC, et cetera. The wide prime FF situation is still weak but my skill level makes this a non-starter.

Why didn't they make more of that 300? Is it that much better than the DA 300 or similar lenses at that focal length?

[normhead]

I can't justify a K-1 at my level of abilities. I do admit to thinking a K-1 and a 40XS would be an excellent pairing for street shooting in places like NYC, et cetera. The wide prime FF situation is still weak but my skill level makes this a non-starter.

Why didn't they make more of that 300? Is it that much better than the DA 300 or similar lenses at that focal length?

Better than a DA 300 ? I don't know, it's the one stop of extra aperture to aid in AF that I most notice. The DA 300 is a heck of a lens. But, it's not ƒ2.8, and as soon as you stick a TC on it, that makes a difference.

As to why they didn't make more... I think probably a case of Tamron trying to nose into the high end market, like Sigma is doing with their art lenses. That doesn't always work with 3rd party manufacturers. My suspicion is, they made 100, it took them so long to sell the first hundred they never ran another batch. More were sold in Nikon and Canon mounts, and it's hard to find a site where they even acknolwledge it was even made in a Pentax mount.

And the 40 XS is awesome on the K-1.

[BarryE]

Adding into the mix having had a K-1 after extensive K-3 use, here are a few K-1 v K-3 thoughts:

#The idea that the K-1's greater MP allows greater print size maybe true in theory, but I've printed and sold several A-1 prints from the K-3. An interpolation of around 1.5 gives outstanding quality from the k-3. Maybe the K-1 will be better at A-1 ? I haven't tried, and don't think I will. So the K-3 wins here for now.
#If I print onto A2 with a reasonable border with the K-3 I need now interpolation. This is my 'standard' size. On the K-1 I have to reduce the image to get the same size as the K-3 to fit my established workflow and frames I use. This has created many issues with the final output sharpening. I haven't got it right yet. On the K-3 printing at this size did not require any reduction, so output sharpening was easier. I'll probably get there with the K-1, but I do ask myself why I'm bothering.
#The K-1 wins in the two areas I'd planned for: the ability to crop square and keep pixels; and to a much lesser extent the DR and noise in the range of ISO I use. I have about 2 stops extra in the K-1 (in the way I use them), which is sometimes (only sometimes) useful, as I use a tripod/MUP etc. It's helpful when it's windy and I can push the ISO to 400 (maybe 800) on the K-1. Yes that seems low, but going above that and the DR and colour range starts to slide, I find. I kept the K-3 at 200 tops.
# The K-3 is sharper. Ok this is a subjective statement, but using the same lens, eg D-FA 100, the image on screen is crisper from the K-3. Yes, it uses a small area of the sensor, so comparing the extremes of the bigger sensor, maybe unfair, but the reality is for a composition the K-3 image with this lens, is just sharper part of the frame. This sharpness difference can be recovered a little with careful input sharpening, but it seems to be less easy to work with. I guess this will improve. But, then when I print I'm struggling with the output sharpening.
#The pixel-shift of the K-1 is ... well different. It can be sharper, but it is tends to look rather gritty. Then when printing from it, the appearance is hard to control and bigger print sizes (gritty plus !)
#The K-3 and the smaller lenses are so much better to handle than the the K-1, albeit I'm using the heavy 24-70 and 100mm, so not entirely fair, but the lens choice is better for my needs with the K-3
#I've yet to work out a two camera option when I'm out that I'm happy with. With two K-3s one could have a DA* zoom and on the other I'd swap primes. The lens choices/sizes/weights on the K-1 hasn't worked out so far for me to carry two bodies - one K-1 and another K-3. (I resorted to carrying two bodies as I regularly shoot in poor/misty weather and I just don't like changing lenses in lousy weather and it's quicker, but heavy, I admit)

In summary, the K-1 does offer me options that I struggled with on the K-3s (I carried two K-3, which gave me fantastic flexibility with lens choices in the field). On these occasions the K-1 is a winner, but the K-3 based kit gets so close and is better than the K-1 in many ways. I like my K-1 but I've more work to do than I expected to reach what I was achieving with the K-3. It's given me other options, but it's certainly not a game changer for my needs. The K-3 IQ is probably getting about as good as it gets for cropped sensor that it meets the vast majority of needs. The K-1 fills in a few gaps, but at a "cost". Am I happy with this "cost", not really sure to be honest. Fun trying, though :-)

[biz-engineer]

That's a trade-off. With the K1 you are getting sleek images even staying relax on ISO especially when using fast lenses and DoF isn't limiting, and ability to crop while keeping good IQ, all at the expense of burst rate, reach, size weight and cost. The K3 provides sharp images and x1.5 crop factor for macro and long lenses, smaller size, smaller cost, but as soon as exceeding ISO 400 resolution drops, and this is where the struggle comes into play, you need a faster lens on K3 because long lenses require faster shutter speed hence higher ISO in many situations. With Pentax the trouble is , beyond the DFA70200, the DFA150-450 is slower than the 300 f4, so except for AF, there is not benefit of shooting K1 + DFA150450 versus K3 + DA300 f4, and even the DA300 render better the OoF areas. My experience with K3+DA300 and K1 + DFA150-450 says that, except when there is plenty of time available (static subject), there is not difference but bokeh/color rendering. Equivalent works. Now , if Pentax would do a 500 f4 for the K1, that would bring back the K1 IQ advantage but at a significantly higher cost. For focal length up to 200mm, hand held, the K1 brings better IQ, and I suppose, if Ricoh release new fast primes for the K1, the gap in IQ between the K1 and K3 will still prevail.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 12-19-2016 at 11:48 PM.

[Erictator]

In my case, I skipped the K3 series and went to the K1 from my K5 classic.

Oddly enough, I find your argument persuasive for buying a K3 or K70 as a second body, but maybe not for the reason you may think.

When I hike, I started to use a large sling, Lowepro 302aw and am not afraid to lug some weight because this bag distributes it so well, though my back does still complain sometimes and would not mind lightening the kit when I can.

Hiking with the K1, a ultra wide zoom, and a super tele prime like the 6.7 lb Tamron MF 400mm f4 I bought recently, and my dfa 100mm macro, is pretty heavy kit.

BUT... if I got say... a K70, and swapped the 400mm out of my bag for my DA300, and an APSC second body, and my other lenses stay the same, i just reduced my over all bag weight by a couple pounds, gained AF, and as you say, more pixels on the subject, while still carrying my K1 for wide and short tele landscape work. That, and I dont have as many lens swaps because i might be able to finagle both bodies in the bag with a lens mounted.

And... the 400mm becomes a specialty use lens I would only haul when I know ahead of time I will use it, prolly with just the K70/K3 or whatever I would buy.

Hmmm.... dang you Norm! Heh... sorta teasing you, as it already crossed my mind, but seeing your post reaffirms my suspicions and alleviates some self doubt I had about it. This is going to take some serious thought.

Eric

[normhead]

I plead the fifth.

[Scorpio71GR]

I keep thinking and saying the same thing as well. Unless you possess unlimited funds a K1 just does not seem to make sense for wildlife over a K3. I would need a 600mm lens to compete with my K3. Unfortunately there are not any 150-600's out there in K mount. A FA600 is not an option either, simply just too much money. I do have some full frame lenses but I lack a wide angle. My 16-50 is my most used lens on my K3. A K1 and DFA 24-70 is out my price range, besides at that size it no longer is a walk around set up. Until a more affordable 24mm zoom comes out I think the K1 may have to wait. I recently picked up a DFA 28-105 on Amazon for $350 but it is still not 24mm. I keep asking myself what will the K1 give me with my FA 50 Macro, DFA100wr, DA 40xs, DA50, DA35, Tamron 70-200, 60-250, 50-500, and DFA28-105 that my K3 is not already giving me besides dynamic range. Those are all of my lenses that will work on full frame. Right now the only way I can afford a K1 is to sell off some of my ASP-C gear which is not something I am ready to do.

[noelpolar]

Like most things, one has to define in some detail their photographic requirements along with their budget, both now and into the likely future, before one could really decide on the best tools to invest in now, and the compromises associated with it.

In my case I'm still undecided, when using the 150-450 for a walk in the bush, which body to attach.... reach'n frame rate v's the FF benefits..... 95% of the time FF wins.... unless I'm specifically targeting a wary little thing.

[Kerrowdown]

K-1's place in the world

Usually in my right hand.

[normhead]

Usually in my right hand.

You must have sold your K-3.

The K-1 as an action camera.
K-1 - FA 50 1.7
ISO 3200, ƒ2, 1/100
Get'er done.

I took the K-1 with the FA 50 ƒ1.7 to the grand daughters's place for Boxing Day. Tough sledding, but, acceptable results, the 3200 ISO definitely would have been a downer on the K-2, and ƒ2 was totally necessary..

I asked their father about decent lighting, his answer was " I installed low level lighting because it was supposed to be the TV watching room, now I have two gymnasts in the family, and it's a gymnasium." Just goes to show, you have to be prepared for everything.









Oops, focus locked on the sofa, not the whirling dervish.