[normhead]

[off topic]


While I accept your sentiment, the correct term is *moot* point

[/back to topic]

What have you got against mutes?

[aslyfox]

What have you got against mutes?

A "mute" works well with brass instruments but not so good with woodwinds

IMHO, YMMV

[D1N0]

The tilt screen, with even more information, makes the top LCD a moot point.

No it doesn't . The top LCD has more condensed info and it uses less power.

[TER-OR]

The tilt screen might be a major convenience for astrophotography. Does the K70s have a low-light/red scheme to help preserve night vision?

I have the opposite trouble in the field, under full sun it's definitely easier to look at the top LCD panel. A bonus of the photochromic glasses is I don't wear the polarized prescription sunglasses out there now, those really screw with screens and viewfinders.


And just don't tell my dog he's a Malamoot - he commands attention!

[Ketsuppi11]

...
When you weigh up longevity, the K-1 is far better value.

That's a good point. Possible longevity is one of the reasons I started to consider K1. I am hoping to keep my next body at least 3 years but hopefully even 5.

[normhead]

That's a good point. Possible longevity is one of the reasons I started to consider K1. I am hoping to keep my next body at least 3 years but hopefully even 5.

I hope to keep my K-1 5 years. It's such a nice camera to use, the images stand out so much more than my other 3 cameras, (Nikon Coolpix AW 130), Pentax XG-1, Pentax K-3) and as we used to point out in computer sales,, if you buy a camera for what it does now, no matter what comes along later, it will still be great at what it does now.) IMHO what it does now is good enough to last a long time.

[timw4mail]

I hope to keep my K-1 5 years. It's such a nice camera to use, the images stand out so much more than my other 3 cameras, (Nikon Coolpix AW 130), Pentax XG-1, Pentax K-3) and as we used to point out in computer sales,, if you buy a camera for what it does now, no matter what comes along later, it will still be great at what it does now.) IMHO what it does now is good enough to last a long time.

I think the K-1 is close to the point of the mid-70s film cameras (albeit with more automation) -- durable, and with quality at the point where replacement is more for a worn camera, rather than for better image quality / more resolution.

Having done photography with film, the APS-C cameras have never clicked with me as much, but I don't see them as being worse either.

[Cambo]

Hello all!

I am trying to decide whether I should upgrade to K1 or stay with APS-C cameras and would greatly appreciate your input and experiences about the matter (and I think that it might help me to write my reasoning down).

At the moment I have a 3 year old K5IIs, it’s a great camera but sometimes I wish that it would have a better high ISO, dynamic range and a bit more megapixels.

I prefer wide/ normal angle over telephoto. I mostly photograph landscapes and casual portraits.

At the moment I have a 31mm ltd, 50mm Makro-Planar, DFA 100mm WR and 16-85mm. Most of these would work just fine on K1 and I was planning of using 16-85mm on crop-mode (still would get the same sensor size as on K5IIs) until I can sell it and get a 28-105mm.

Size is fairly important for me since I mostly enjoy photographing while hiking and traveling. But K1 is “only” 250g heavier than K5IIs and 28-105mm is actually lighter than 16-85mm. So my FF kit would not be that much heavier than my old kit, though it would cover slightly smaller field of view.
I would probably need to buy a small 20mm lens at some point to cover that end. I would not buy any heavy full frame telephoto lenses. But if I would at some point need more reach I could just grab a 55-300mm PLM and use it in crop mode.

I was also considering waiting for K3III since it would probably have a great sensor but I feel like with not that much more money I would get quite a bit more with K1 and would not lose that much. Since I am not into telephoto stuff (at least not at the moment). Though it would be sad to lose my 16-85mm, I really enjoy that lens. Is DFA 28-105mm as good?

I am mostly worried about covering the 20-24mm focal length which seems to be easier to do (small and not super expensive) on APS-C than on K1 (at least at the moment). But I am also quite excited about trying my current lenses on FF and about extra control over DOF.

Sorry about quite messy post but hopefully you can follow my train of thought.
If you have any comments I would be happy to hear them!

K3ii rocks...and it's teeny.

These are all handheld with the 16-85 zoom:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/301618-da-...ml#post4027294

Cheers,
Cameron

[talgarik]

No it doesn't . The top LCD has more condensed info and it uses less power.

it does
not all features are equal: we have objective and subjective ones, ergonomics - I guess the top LCD versus rear screen relates to that - is an extremely subjective feature, on this respect reviews and opinions are useless and the only way to ascertain if you are comfortable with a camera's ergonomics is to try it on the field. Since I shoot digital I have always preferred cameras with an LCD on top, now I am in my 4th week with the KP: I wouldn't renounce to the third dial and I'm comfortable with the info on the rear screen, but that's me.
Less power? maybe, but spare batteries are cheap and they occupy less space than spare films years ago
Ergonomics comes into the equation when you have to choose between FF and APS-C: after trying FF I have chosen APS-C, I see no difference in the A3+ prints I get from the 2 systems, considering the amazing high ISO capabilities of the KP I am only losing a fraction of DOP control, I can live with that, but then again, that's me

[mikesbike]

Many, like Sandy, wind up with both the K-1 and the KP also for times of more extensive trekking, or when light carrying is needed. Image quality will be top-notch either way, so it is a matter of which will fill the bill to best deal with the circumstances.

The only reason I have an interest in a FF model is the fine FF lenses I have that could be used for digital images in their original FOV, like the Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8, and AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 II, Pentax FA 35mm f/2, FA 28mm f/2.8, FA 43mm f/1.9 and FA 77mm f/1.8 Limiteds, FA 28-70mm f/4, and F 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 fisheye zoom, to name my favorite full-framers. I also have a couple of excellent FA* and DA* FF tele primes, and other tele lenses, but I would go to APS-C for tele use anyway. Although I have a couple of Pentax FA 28-105mm lenses, if I should get a K-1 I'd include the D-FA 28-105 anyway for the WR factor.

I've just returned from attending a final formal court hearing, finalizing the adoption of a baby boy upon birth by a couple who are close friends. It was a very pleasant event with many photos being taken with the judge and with family members. I took my K-S2 and its tiny kit lens, which was included for next to nothing upon purchase last year. This is my smallest, lightest DSLR zoom assembly, and it served very well for this occasion. Others were using their phones or P/S cams. But since the judge gave us access to any part of the courtroom, it was only me who was able to get in most of it in a shot encompassing the judge and those at the table as well as the audience, and able to also zoom for closer framing. Later on, my friends downloaded my shots, and they are already on Facebook. I did not need to carry a larger model for this occasion to get fine results. So even if getting a K-1, having a fine APS-C model is also a good idea.

[badtux]

The tilt screen might be a major convenience for astrophotography. Does the K70s have a low-light/red scheme to help preserve night vision?

Yes, it has a red screen mode for night use. Experimented with that on my new K70 last night, just to play with it.

[Nicolas06]

Hello all!

I am trying to decide whether I should upgrade to K1 or stay with APS-C cameras and would greatly appreciate your input and experiences about the matter (and I think that it might help me to write my reasoning down).

At the moment I have a 3 year old K5IIs, it’s a great camera but sometimes I wish that it would have a better high ISO, dynamic range and a bit more megapixels.

I prefer wide/ normal angle over telephoto. I mostly photograph landscapes and casual portraits.

At the moment I have a 31mm ltd, 50mm Makro-Planar, DFA 100mm WR and 16-85mm. Most of these would work just fine on K1 and I was planning of using 16-85mm on crop-mode (still would get the same sensor size as on K5IIs) until I can sell it and get a 28-105mm.

Size is fairly important for me since I mostly enjoy photographing while hiking and traveling. But K1 is “only” 250g heavier than K5IIs and 28-105mm is actually lighter than 16-85mm. So my FF kit would not be that much heavier than my old kit, though it would cover slightly smaller field of view.
I would probably need to buy a small 20mm lens at some point to cover that end. I would not buy any heavy full frame telephoto lenses. But if I would at some point need more reach I could just grab a 55-300mm PLM and use it in crop mode.

I was also considering waiting for K3III since it would probably have a great sensor but I feel like with not that much more money I would get quite a bit more with K1 and would not lose that much. Since I am not into telephoto stuff (at least not at the moment). Though it would be sad to lose my 16-85mm, I really enjoy that lens. Is DFA 28-105mm as good?

I am mostly worried about covering the 20-24mm focal length which seems to be easier to do (small and not super expensive) on APS-C than on K1 (at least at the moment). But I am also quite excited about trying my current lenses on FF and about extra control over DOF.

Sorry about quite messy post but hopefully you can follow my train of thought.
If you have any comments I would be happy to hear them!

From your plan, basically if you get K1, you'll get bigger/heavier body, lot of money spent. When chooting the 16-85, you'll not take any benefit of K1 vs say a KP. Your prime lenses would become wider suddently. The 50mm would replace the 31, the 31 would frame like a 21 and you'd get less effective reach for macro with the 100WR while if you used it for portrait or any reach, you'd have to crop.

The day you replace the 16-85 with a 28-105, you'll loose a lot in term of framing. Not as wide, not the same reach. The 24-135 zoom that would be necessary doesn't exist, at least yet. Worse the 28-105 + K1 combo is know to have issues with shutter shake at the most common shutter speeds arround 1/100s...

For the price of the K1 you could just buy a KP + a 17-50 and still have money in the bank and get better high iso with it than with K1 at least when using the zoom. You could start with the 17-50 alone. The sigma is measured as one of the sharpest lenses in K-mount APSC... Doesn't look like a bd deal.

When using the primes, if you don't manage right now great high iso performance, you'll not manage it with the K1. The K1 give you 1.1EV and less dof, not 4-5EV closed down. A fast zoom give you 2EV. Learning to process raw for high isos give you easily 2EV too... And at any apperture for that last one.

It is quite possible to manage high iso with an APSC body. See pictures below...

FA77 f/2.5, K3, iso 8000



F135, f/2.8, K3, iso 800



FA31, f/2.8, K3, iso 1600, pushed 1EV (equiv iso 3200)



DA15, f/4, K3, iso 3200



DA15, f/4, K3, iso 6400



K1 or KP withj fast prime/zoom would do as well or better. K1 or KP with a slow zoom, would do worse.

[badtux]

Nice pics.

I have no boats in this canal, since for my purposes (shooting wildlife) a full frame makes no difference -- assuming the sensors have similar pixel density, I'd just have to crop it to the same number of pixels anyhow in the end regardless of whether there is an APS-C or full frame camera behind my 300mm lens, since I'm shooting well beyond the distance at which the bird I'm shooting fills even the APS-C cropped frame. So for me, APS-C is fine, and loads cheaper. If I were shooting weddings or landscapes or something like that, having the extra pixels at the sides might be useful, but I'm not doing that. I'm doing this, which is a crop of a hand-held shot at 300mm with a zoom lens:

[totsmuyco]

The K-1 is a great Pentax Jedi's tool. However, if you want to maximize your Jedi skills, I would suggest you stick to APS-C. Shooting with APS-C will make you think how to minimize noise considering the noise level versus FF. Though a little bit inferior than the K-3/II in terms of features, the K-P is an excellent equipment when it comes to image quality. I have not maximized my skills as a Jedi Pentaxian. So I'm sticking to APS-C and max things out. I like to go super wide and enjoy the 1.5 factor making my focal length really powerful. I like to do things the hard way, I like challenges so my tools will be APS-C. Long live APS-C. It will make you a tougher Jedi.

Watch out Canikony ninjas and m4/3 samurais. You are ordinary warriors. Pentaxian Jedi will win in the end.

[AtitG]

if you're not a professional I suggest you buy what will make you happy, rather than what you need. You'll end up saving more money. If youre eyes are already set on the k-1, buy the k-1.ü