[jeryst]

I have been reading that the image quality of tge KP is at or near the image
quality of a K-1. If that is true, how does it tranlate to enlargements?
At some point, does the K-1 image become markedly better than the
KP image, and if so, at what size of enlargement does this occur?

[Sandy Hancock]

I have several A3 size prints on my walls at home from both cameras, and you'd be hard pressed to to pick a difference.
Considerably larger prints might reveal a gap, but they are generally meant to be viewed from further back.

[Adam]

The K-1 delivers 50% more resolution, so you'll always have more detail to work with assuming a technically sound photo. This translates to a 24x16 print from the K-1 at 300 DPI, versus a 20x13 print from the KP. You can of course print much bigger than this, depending on the target viewing distance of the photo.

With the larger sensor, the K-1 will have a further edge in terms of dynamic range and noise, especially in lower light. Also, don't forget about cropping flexibility.

[D1N0]

It depends greatly on the lenses you own. Do you have legacy full frame glass? Then the K-1 is the better choice. Do you have DA limited lenses? Go with the KP. Legacy glass (especially the primes) is a joy to use on the K-1.

[monochrome]

Legacy glass (especially the primes) is a joy to use on the K-1.

KP is a highly capable camera when using the DA Limiteds. K-1 is the FF dSLR those of us who own legacy Pentax manual lenses always hoped for.

[mikesbike]

I have the unique and marvelous KP, as well as the fine workhorse K-5 IIs, and my little casual-shooting ultra-compact fun DSLR- the KS2 (which can also deliver serious quality images). I am interested in the K-1 essentially because I do have a considerable arsenal of fine legacy glass, in addition to some fine newer DA acquisitions. My 35mm film bodies have served for my full-frame needs. It would be enjoyable to use these older lenses on a digital body in their original FOV. Combined with certain of these lenses, I could also do a few things I cannot fully accomplish with APS-C- but very few. Otherwise, I would probably pass on the idea of getting a full-frame body altogether. APS-C has now become that good and serves nearly all my needs very well.

[clickclick]

Try to figure out if you think you are going to do more telephoto or wide angle type of shots or something in between. If you knew you were after birds and doing a bunch of telephoto work, I'd get the KP. If you thought you were leaning to the landscape/architectural end, then I'd look hard at the K1. I have the K3II and K1, and my use of them breaks out along those lines. The only thing I'd say is when the light gets low, the K1 is killer and so much better with noise, but this is where I think the KP looks to have a really nice advantage over the K3II and would be closer to the K1.

[bkpix]

Measured conventionally, as a linear quantity, the resolution of the K-1 is only about 22 percent greater than that of the KP. That's not a very significant amount, even for large prints.

At low ISOs -- like up to 1600 or so -- you're not going to see much difference in image quality, though my seat of the pants judgment from using them both would be that the K-1 is richer and a little more vivid in its rendering. Above ISO 1600 that the K-1 pulls ahead noticeably in terms of clarity and lack of noise.

The KP has very good image quality for a crop sensor camera, but it's not completely the equal of a full frame like the K-1.

[jeryst]

So, at current prices, the K-1 is about twice the price of a KP, or to put it another way, for the same
amount of money, you could buy 2 KPs or 1 K-1.

I know I am over simplifying this, but is the K-1 twice the camera that the KP is?
If not, how can anyone justify buying a K-1?

[Nicolas06]

So, at current prices, the K-1 is about twice the price of a KP, or to put it another way, for the same
amount of money, you could buy 2 KPs or 1 K-1.

I know I am over simplifying this, but is the K-1 twice the camera that the KP is?
If not, how can anyone justify buying a K-1?

What mean twice ? The KP overall is smaller/lighter and take smaller/lighter lenses for the same framing. The lenses are also also often less expensive too. The KP is better for somebody that favor light/small and want to spend less overall than the K1.

The K1 provides more resolution but also more typically used with very expensive, heavier lenses that perform better. Focussing on the difference it allows for more subject separation, has better low light performance and tend to better leverage the sweet spot of the lens used. The question is more what is "good enough". With the proper investment the K1 will provide satisfying image in a few more cases than the KP on top of providing a more satisfying photographic experience if you focus only on that.

The Kp will provide a less obtrusive experience, being a lighter/smaller overall but there will be a few more case where the image will not be good enough.

Both are more than good enough for fantastics shots, large print and all (and ask yourself how many large print like 30x40" you'll have in your home for show !!!). What will make for an interresting photo is the subject, the light, the composition, the right moment, the photographer technique first rather than the gear.

And speaking of KP, you can also buy a K3 or K3-II that have almost the same set of feature and cost significantly less. They are older bodies so come with some limitations (like worse high iso performance) but also benefit like "pro" level feature like 1/8000s max shutter speed or 2 SD card support.

Whatever you choose you'll be able to shoot fantastics photos as long as you also get the proper lenses. The lenses are actually often more important to the final outcome than the camera and they keep their value longer.

If you are a beginer, I'd go for something cheap/basic, in particular for the camera body and some not so expensive lens. A used K3 or a new K70 shall be more than enough, coupled with a sigma 17-50 + Pentax 55-300, you should have something not so expensive to start with ($1300-1500 total), maybe around $1000 if buying everything used. That should sell back well without much money loss if you don't like it or want to change gear and also be capable enough to cover many situations.

Remember that the most likely outcome is that you'll grow bored or get only quite average photos (or even bellow average photos) not due to the gear, but to yourself. You may not like the practice that much, pratice enough or simply not be a natural with it, maybe not having the artistic fiber for it. In all theses cases it is certainely not worth it to spend too much on it and you can't really know in advance so if you are a beginer I'd avoid buying the K1.

[Lord Lucan]

for the same amount of money, you could buy 2 KPs or 1 K-1. I know I am over simplifying this, but is the K-1 twice the camera that the KP is? If not, how can anyone justify buying a K-1?

No it is not twice the camera, but as you say you are over-simplifying. You can buy cameras for a tenth of the price of the KP, but the KP is not ten times better than they are. All things, from cars to food, tend to rise in price on a curve much more steeply than their quality does, and it is for the buyer to decide the balance point.

In this is another curve - the relationship between the cost and the buyer's perception of it, comes into play. A dollar is far more significant to a beggar than to Bill Gates, say; but more than that, the importance and interest to me of taking a photograph might be much higher than it is to some billionaire even if he is tens of thousands times richer than I am. Which is why a billionaire might only own a P&S or phone camera when you and I have $1000+ DSLRs as part of our hobby.

[Mikesul]

The K-1 is as wonderful as people say and I certainly enjoyed mine. What intrigues me about the KP is that it seems in some ways to be a continuation of the Pentax tradition of small, tough bodies with great specs. I have still not gotten over the shock I felt 10 years ago at how much bigger DSLRs are than my beloved MX which I had used for the previous 30 years. I am tempted by the silver model to see if it has any of that wonderful MX elan I have been missing. Please pardon my personification of treasured cameras

[normhead]

I don't have a K-P, Have a K-3, which costs me dynamic ranges and high ISO performance. But honestly, I don't notice a lot of difference between the two.

K-3 or K-1? From yesterday's shooting. Sometimes I change camera bodies like I used to change lenses.





I shoot K-3 when I can for wildlife, action etc. , K-1 in low light or for extra dynamic range for landscape. And if you do telephoto, you get more resolution in the narrower APS_c field of view with the K-p. IN cases like this, where the lens I'm using is going to be the same on both cameras and you're going to have to crop the K-1 image you get more subject detail with the K-P. IN the images above, the K-1 image is cropped to not much bigger than K-3 size. SO the resolution thing is iffy. If and only if you don't crop. The K-1 gives you more resolution. On the area of the crop sensor, the K-P will give you more resolution 24 MP to 15 MP. So shooting a bird a distance from the camera with your longest lens, the K-P will give you the best resolution, because you're just going to crop away the excess anyway.

If you are shooting at full reach and have to crop, the K-P gives you more resolution. For the most part for me, it's a toss up in the field. I use one or the other based on circumstances. . But if I only had one camera body it would definitely be a K-P. There is a much more extensive series of lenses for it, if memory serves me well there are roughly 40 APS-c lenses for the K-P. IN modern glass, there are maybe 5 for the K-1 and some of those are actually older designs that need to be updated, like the DA*200 and DFA 100 macro.. There's just not that much difference and the K-P costs a lot less. More money for lenses.

Looking at my libraries for this year, 2700 K-3 keepers, 2500 K-1 keepers, , K-3 for telephoto and macro, K-1 for High ISO, low light situations and wide dynamic range images (like sunsets), but both do well what the other does best, just not quite as good.

[robtcorl]

I am tempted by the silver model to see if it has any of that wonderful MX elan I have been missing.

In case you haven't seen my comparison of the KP to some older Pentax film models.
KP with the large grip attached.
The KP's pedigree - PentaxForums.com

[Mikesul]

Thanks for putting that compilation together. I did see it and enjoyed it a lot The KP still dwarfs the little ME which would be closest to my MX.