[D1N0]

K-3 II $850 K-1 $1900 645z $7000 and there is the size and weight question.

[ripper2860]

Pentax has had a digital medium format camera since the 645D. The full-frame K1 represents the 1st FF digital camera introduced by Pentax and was probably the most highly anticipated of cameras on this forum. Many were lamenting the fact Pentax had no FF in their line-up and some had even jumped ship to another vendor after getting tired of waiting. Anyone desperately awaiting Pentax to introduce a digital medium format likely made that jump already w/ the 645D or Z. And my curiosity was related to the K1, which is more affordable and can reuse much of the glass folks amassed for use with their APS-C cameras (K and M42). It would represent the most likely upgrade path from APS-C

[Rondec]

K-3 II $850 K-1 $1900 645z $7000 and there is the size and weight question.

And that's just the cost of the camera. Lenses are an expense and would be upgrading your computer if you don't have adequate processing power to deal with larger K-1 files, much less 645z files.

[Derek Zeanah]

I don't think this question is sufficient.

It should be considered along with another one:

Why hasn't everyone with a K-1 moved to the 645Z by now?

In other words, why 'stop' at the K-1?

Well, speaking for myself...

I like to print big - I've never gone larger than 30x40", but I like that size quite a bit. I also like the "look" of medium format - the 80mm Zeiss Planar for Hasselblad is one of those lenses that I just loved the rendition of, but all of the medium format gear I owned rendered things well whether we were talking about Hassy, Rollei, or even the cheap Bronica 150mm lenses that were never that sharp but really took advantage of the short DOF medium format offered with the way it handled the transitions between in-focus and out of focus areas.

So photography for me the last few years has been squeezing in the time to take photos on vacations (which we took a lot of), and that's it. I've been shooting with a Fuji XT1 kit because the lenses were amazing and the kit size was so small, but that meant my prints were never quite capable of the enlargement I wanted. I've got a 30" print from the XT on the wall that looks good, but it's about as big as it's going to get.

So now that I'm taking fewer vacations, and photography can be a more deliberate pursuit all on its own, it was time to re-evaluate medium format. And I discovered that I could purchase my old, beloved Hasselblad 500 bodies and lenses again and use a digital back with it, but those digital backs are out of production, with limited support, and high prices that show the value others place on them. But 10 year old autofocus hasselblad bodies that resolve under 40 megapixels were in my price range, so I started asking about those on another forum, and lots of the responses recommended the K1 or D810 as more practical alternatives.

So in my limited case, I want to be able to print to 40-45" along the longest edge of a print, and while I'd love to have the detail to allow for nose-to-print evaluations, I know I'm pretty comfortable with around 180DPI at a print level. So 36 megapixels work for me, and the K1 is just a gem of a camera. I would love the 645Z, but when you talk about the cost of a K1 versus a 645Z each with a basic lens kit (call it a wide prime, normal lens, portrait lens, macro, and maybe a zoom) you're talking about a huge difference in cost. One that I just can't afford or justify.

TLDR: the resolution of the K1 is good enough for photographers who print at even large sizes, and is affordable enough for most everyone. The 645Z looks like an amazing imaging machine, but the additional bang-for-the-buck isn't there for most people, unless we're talking about the 1% of working photographers or well-heeled individuals who don't find it hard to write a $30,000 check for something that brings them joy and pride of ownership.

[E-man]

Could be they were trying to avoid a divorce...

Or maybe they just got a bill from the divorce attorney.

[pathdoc]

The 645Z looks like an amazing imaging machine, but the additional bang-for-the-buck isn't there for most people, unless we're talking about the 1% of working photographers or well-heeled individuals who don't find it hard to write a $30,000 check for something that brings them joy and pride of ownership.

The body alone is nowhere near that, of course, but once you've coughed up for a decent spread of lenses (and some flashes etc.) for paid work, it'll start to add up, I suppose. The pros, at least, have the advantage of being able to sink their costs into the business and ultimately recoup it from the clients; the enthusiast, unless very well off, is not so well-positioned.

[stevebrot]

In pure resolution terms, yes. In practice, the integrated software packages for the film-capable scanners appear to simplify the workload enormously, to the point where I am still sorely tempted to buy one. Some of them will even detect and crop the individual frames of a multi-shot strip for you and present them as separate images, ready to deal with and save as such. And as they will also often handle 120-size negatives, the upgrade path to the small end of medium format is there if you want it. They will also convert colour negatives with ease, which is something I haven't worked out a post-processing workflow for yet.

Yep...the practical considerations tend to win the day. One can proof scan a full roll of 35mm on my Epson V700 in the time it takes to set up a 5 frames using a dSLR. (Most of the time is in loading the negative holder.) What's more, the scanner is already set up to deal with a host of distractions. Where the dSLR comes into its own is for high quality reproduction. I don't use my V700 for critical 35mm work because it is not up to the challenge. That is what the Nikon 5000 ED is for.*


Steve

* Yes, I have both. The V700 purchase dates back to when I was needing a medium/large format solution and I had the cash. The Nikon I had purchased a few years earlier.

[Derek Zeanah]

Thanks, folks. Sounds like the V600 is back to the front of the line for digitizing old negs. Now, back to our discussion of K1s for sale.

(Sorry for the diversion)

[jpzk]

I don't think that was the real intent of the OP. The post might have been phrased a bit strongly but I think he was really just trying to start some conversation on the K-1. In other threads he has stated he is intending to buy a K-1. Anyway, after doing a little research I am amazed at how few used K-1s have been listed either here or on Ebay. Very, very few. People are keeping them, not trading them.

I would have thought so.
According to the reviews, the K-1 is a superb camera.

[Kerrowdown]

and I can't afford a K-1 yet!

What I can't believe that, you told me you were a man of means... or I did I get the mean and the man, the wrong way round.

[stevebrot]

And my curiosity was related to the K1, which is more affordable and can reuse much of the glass folks amassed for use with their APS-C cameras (K and M42). It would represent the most likely upgrade path from APS-C

...Unless the most likely upgrade path is APS-C and perhaps several years out. In case it is not obvious, I am not fond of the concept of upgrade path. I have been driving a Nissan Altima Coupe (3.5 SR) since 2012 and should probably be considering the intended upgrade path to a G-series Infinity. After all, so much is the same between the brands and I could have the undeniable benefits of RWD or AWD. (insert rolls-eyes icon here) and pride of ownership.

Enough of the car analogy. My upgrade path is driven by pain and right now my pain level with the K-3 is pretty low. My previous Pentax dSLR (K10D) kept me pain free for about seven years. On that basis, I don't anticipate considering an "upgrade" until probably 2021.


Steve

[pathdoc]

And had the K-1 been in the mid two-thousands US, I would never have upgraded from the K-5 until it died. But the relative cheapness of it, and the fact that I did not need to buy any more lenses in order to shoot it straight out of the box, helped enormously.

Of course the amount I had already spent on film-era lenses would easily have paid for a D-FA 28-105, or maybe even a D-FA 24-70 instead, but that's beside the point. All those film-era lenses had already seen use on my Spotmatics and K-mount film bodies, which the D-FA's can never* do, and they continue to do so.


* = Okay, technically the P3, P30T and Super Program can USE the D-FA series because their program modes can handle the aperture and the Super Program can indirectly alter the aperture via the shutter speed control, but there is a world of difference between that and having full manual (or even explicit aperture) control.

[PDL]

.. snip
Why hasn't everyone with a K3(II) moved to the K1 by now?

Because the majority of my lenses are APS-C. The APS-C crop on the K-1 is 15MP, my K20D has 14.7MP. almost $2K for 1 more MP. ---- Ah ---- no.
I get higher resolution for the format used with the K-3II, GPS, Pixel Shift, dual SD cards and my lenses all work as designed. If the K-1 was at 54MP (APS-C crop would equal 24MP of K-3II) and at the same price, I would bite. But I will not "upgrade" my camera body for a dinky increase in MP's.

The K-1 has some nice things added, articulated LCD, LED's, bigger viewfinder etc. but that is not enough to make me take that sort of monetary bite. Add into this that I shoot non-profit events with my manual 300mm lens, with a K-1 I would have to get a 450mm lens just to get the same basic image size - which I crop - meaning that the overall resolution would be smaller with a K-1 than it is with my K-3II.

That is one reason why.

[Fenwoodian]

I would have thought so.
According to the reviews, the K-1 is a superb camera.

Yes, the K-1 is certainly a superb camera. I own two of them.

The problem that I could see might cause someone to jump ship and sell their K-1 is disappointment with the available "super-premium" lenses for the K1!

Like many, I purchased my first K1 thinking that some of my dozens and dozens of older M42 and K mount lenses would work well on it. Well, after lots of testing, I've found that most of my older glass (Pentax's included) disappointed me on my K1.

Further, I have been exceedingly disappointed in the lack of new full frame primes for the K1. Pentax is dragging their feet on new lens releases; AND the better lens manufacturers no longer offer offer their new lenses in the K mount.

I have found a work around that has worked for me... I convert Zeiss "Classic" lenses (and a few of the newer Zeiss "Milvus" lenses) to K mount using the superlative Leitax F to K adapter mounts. These lenses produce images on my K1's that far exceed what I've seen from the dozens older lenses I've used on my K1.

Just yesterday a Pentax K1 shooting professional landscape photographer told me that he's dumping his Pentax HD Pentax-D FA zoom in favor of Zeiss primes.

Hey, if I had not discovered how superb the Zeiss lenses are on the K1 camera, I probably would have sold all my Pentax equipment and gone to the Fujji GFX50! But I'm convinced that Zeiss glass on K1's (especially in pixel shift mode) produce images whose IQ is every bit as good as the new Fuji medium format camera (and have large enough files to make great large prints).

[mikesbike]

The K-1 is considered as pretty compact for a FF DSLR, but I am wondering if Pentax will emerge with a KP style FF version, being of even more compact design. I am only interested in having a FF model to again make more use of some fine FF lenses I have, especially those of wide-angle to normal FL. Something I'd use with the car close at hand, not for any extensive toting. I figure my APS-C quality is now so good the toting aspect is what is better served, while having a FF model is more like an extra luxury in my case.