Originally posted by leekil Why is the K-1 your most used camera, if it is ranked second after APS-C?
The K-3 is better at landscapes than the K-1 is at doing birds and wildlife. If it came down to what I'd miss most it would be the fast frames per second rate, but more importantly the 23 shot buffer, and the speed at which the buffer is cleared. For small birds and wild life those things are really important. 3600 lw/ph instead of 2700 lw/ph is barely noticeable in most images.I never print more than 20x30. 90 distinct line per inch using a K-3 or 120 distinct line per inch using a K-1. It will be barely noticeable in most photos. In fact we have trouble telling the difference between the difference between a K-5 and the K-1 in everyday images. 1/90 is .0111. 1/120 is .0083. .0111-.0083, is .0028, or approximately 3 thousandths of an inch. It's amazing how many people think that will make a huge difference to an image. From 5 feet, you can't even see .003 of an inch.
You get slightly less quality with a K-3, but you get a lot of images you won't even get with a K-1. And I swear the K-3 clears it's 23 shot buffer faster than the K-1 clears it's 8 shot buffer, although maybe it just seems that way, because you rarely fill the K-3 buffer, but I consciously slow my frame rated down to probably about 2 frames per second with the K-1 to avoid filling the buffer. To many times I've sat there and watched as good images went by, waiting for my buffer to clear. It's a big performance hit. The K-1 has some advantages to be sure, but for me they don't make up for it's shortcoming in speed.
But when I'm out on a hike doing maybe landscapes or sunsets or whatever, I don't need the high frame rate and the superior Dynamic range, better high ISO performance, superior resolution and many other features, make the K-1 the one to have. But my K-3 is still in the holster with the DA*200 with the 1.4 on it and the 1.7x close by, incase I need reach and speed.
It's just a question of what you are prepared to live without. And I can see 99% of the Pentax shooters, making the opposite choice. It's all about what makes you happy. Reality says, you get many more photo ops for stationary objects than you do for living, moving targets. For stationary targets the K-1 and 28-105 is an amazing combo. But for the difference it makes, I won't give up the other things that the K-3 has that the K-1 doesn't. Speed, and magnification.
I did say the K-1 gets more use. I spend more time with it in my hands, but out in the blind shooting the little birds or in the park shooting wildlife, I may shoot 500 images in a single session. I'll spend a lot of time with a K-1 in my hands before I get 500 images. 60-120 per session is the average.
As I said previously, you need both.
Last edited by normhead; 03-13-2017 at 12:31 PM.