[uswrdm02]

I'm planning on switching to 35mm from medium format for a number of reasons, mostly health reasons. I've seen reviews and pros and cons for the K1, K-2s, K3, etc, I've also looked at Nikon, so I need some help. The use of an iPhone for taking pictures that are not blurred due to camera shake (due to balance issues) has made me think I could actually get back to using real cameras again. So, camera shake is a big issue. Nikon makes VR lenses and the sensitivity is in the lenses. Pentax has that feature in the camera. Which is better? The K2s is much more reasonably priced than the K1, but the K1 has greater megapixels. I think 24 megapixels would be sufficient so I am leaning there, but I haven't even checked into the K50 - 70.

Another feature I like about the iPhone is the ease and ability to just zap my pictures to my computer. But, even though some Pentax and Nikons I've listed have WiFi, do you lose too much of the image quality once you begin to edit with photo editing software? I haven't used a flash much in the past, but I believe it is the K2s that has a built in flash that could occasionally be useful. Cameras I've used mostly in the past have been the Panasonic Lumix FX50 and the Pentax Medium format 645N and Nii. When I was shooting 4-5 years ago I used the 645Nii mostly.

Last Question is whether I can get close to the medium format "look" with both a full frame or APS-C. I don't shoot video with my cameras - haven't let really gotten into loading those on a computer and editing, etc., etc.

Thanks

[LensBeginner]

I don't think balance issues have much to do with camera shake... most cellphone pictures that are blurred, are blurred because the shutter speed is too slow, and this happens because smartphones are treading on a knife's edge with regard to ISO performance (due to the small sensor).

More total light makes for better ISO performance, and you can use higher ISOs while keeping a good DoF and - more importantly with regard to your first question - a reasonably fast shutter speed.

As for the second question, if you shoot RAW you lose nothing, in fact you do part of the camera job and develop the images to your taste. I'm not saying you can push 4 stops and get away with it... best thing you can do is download a couple of RAW files from the internet and give them a whirl with a free RAW converter (Rawtherapee, Darktable...)

Last question... I really don't know. I suspect your best bet would be a FF with a good-quality large-aperture prime.

[Na Horuk]

Which is better?

Depends. In-camera means you have SR with ALL lenses, even 50 year old manual lenses with no AF. In-lens means you only have it in that lens, and it is only as good as that specific lens. Many lenses do not have that feature (particularly primes and wide angles if I remember right). In-lens also means there is a possibility it might break, as its another complex part in the lens. And it makes the lens bigger. Some people report motion sickness with some in-lens shake reduction due to the floating feeling it produces as you look through viewfinder. But in-lens has the advantage that it is designed specifically for that lens, so it might be more optimized. I think for telephoto and super telephoto the in-lens is probably more effective overall.
In-camera SR also allows the camera to use Astrotracer and it allows you to shift the sensor (so you don't need a shift lens). Recently Pentax added Pixel shift technology, which can only be done with in-camera SR. This is why for a lot of us, SR is superior. But maybe if you want to take super telephoto photos of MotoGP race you would prefer a Nikon VR lens, I don't know.

With Pentax you can get K-70, DA 21mm and DA 40mm and you have a super compact kit with great high ISO and SR. This way you can keep shutter speed really high to avoid blur. The overall package is small, so its not a nuisance to carry it around. If you want to go super compact think about K-S1.

Which is better? The K2s is much more reasonably priced than the K1, but the K1 has greater megapixels. I think 24 megapixels would be sufficient so I am leaning there, but I haven't even checked into the K50 - 70.

K2S does not exist. There is K-1, which is top of the line full frame camera. Big, but it gives some of the best 35mm DSLR performance you can find, especially at that price point. K-S2 is an older camera, which is not a flagship. It is a lower tier camera, it has APSC sensor. It is not bad, people seem to like it a lot, it looks great and it is compact. The APSC flagship, between K-1 and K-S2, is the K-3II. Here is the lineup of recent Pentax DSLRs in order from best/pro to entry level:
K-1 (best, FF)
K-3II (APSC flagship, on its way out, will probably be replaced by a new model within two years)
KP (new APSC model, but not aimed to be above K-3II, even though it has some really cool new features)
K-70
K-S2
K-S1 (affordable, super compact)

Reviews here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/
Comparison tool here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-cameras-compared/

I can't say that any of these are terrible. They all have good sensors and they all have the shooting modes you might use (P, Av, Tv, M,...). I would recommend you go to a shop and actually HOLD the cameras. That will give you the most important information. Hold it, feel its ergonomics, weight, decide how much you like it. I would say this is more important than worrying about SR. K-S1 might be too small for some people's hands, but its great for other people. Really, go do a hands on test.

Last Question is whether I can get close to the medium format "look" with both a full frame or APS-C.

Maybe. Probably not. There is a reason why there is still a market for medium format, despite so many DSLRs available at lower prices. To come close to MF look you will probably want high end prime lenses, like DA* 55mm f1.4 and a camera with Pixel shift. Then you can shoot raw and do post processing to make the shot look great. APSC photos still won't have the same amount of "air" in the frame as MF photos, though.

[Adam]

Sounds like you're after the best possible image quality, assuming the big and heavy K-1 is off the table, either the KP or K-70 would be the best bet as far at that goes. They have the latest sensors and image processing technology.

As for stabilization, both systems work great. The latest 5-axis Pentax SR is very impressive, and it has the added benefit of working with any lens (even old ones).

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[pschlute]

But, even though some Pentax and Nikons I've listed have WiFi, do you lose too much of the image quality once you begin to edit with photo editing software?

No is the simple answer.

The more complex answer is if you want to do extensive PP on your computer you will be better off shooting raw. I don't think you can transfer raw files over wifi.

Best to use a card reader

[The Squirrel Mafia]

The only Nikons I'd shoot would be the D7200, D7500, or the D500. They have excellent AF performance & other features like 2 control dials & a pentaprism viewfinder not found in the D5xxx & D3xxx lines. The D500 is currently the king of AF performance in any APS-C DSLR available. It's really pricey, though. Not having stabilization in the body means that you'll have to resort to using a tripod or shooting at a higher ISO & shutter speed handheld with some non-stabilized lenses. Lenses that have stabilization tend to cost a lot more than the ones that don't, but they do work very well.

On the other hand, having the stabilization built into the body like Pentax cameras allows any lens to be stabilized. The K-1 & KP have the newer 5-axis stabilization. The K-70 & everything before have the older SR, but still quite effective. This will allow you to use a slower shutter speed & lower ISO in low light hand held & still get a very good looking image.

Before you plop down some money, think of the type of shooting you plan on doing. Trying to catch little kids moving around, pets running around, birds in flight, sports, wildlife, & other moving stuff like that is easier with a Nikon, but still very doable with a Pentax body. It just requires a bit more effort. If you do a lot of still life, low light shots, landscapes, portraits, & related, you'll find that Pentax really excels here. You can also do that with a Nikon, but having that pixel shift feature in the latest Pentax bodies really brings out the fine detail.

Pick your poison.

[Des]

Lots of excellent information already. I'll just add a couple of points.

I don't think you can transfer raw files over wifi.

You can actually, but it's pretty slow because of the larger sizes of RAW files. I have a K-S2 and I transfer the files the same way as for my K-3 (and K-30 and K100D S before them), by taking out the SD card and putting into a card reader in the computer and copying with Windows explorer.

I don't know whether wi-fi is better implemented in other systems, but I find it too clunky for file transfer with the K-S2. It's good for remote control of the camera though.

As for stabilization, both systems work great. The latest 5-axis Pentax SR is very impressive, and it has the added benefit of working with any lens (even old ones).

I think only the K-1 and the K-P have the latest 5-axis stabilization?

I haven't used a flash much in the past, but I believe it is the K2s that has a built in flash that could occasionally be useful.

The K-1 and K-3ii don't have an inbuilt (popup) flash. The K-P does, but it's quite low-powered (GN6). The K-3 (predecessor of the K-3ii, and only available second-hand), the K-70 and the K-S2 all have a popup flash which is GN12 or GN13. But most people get at least one external flash anyway - that's a complex topic, perhaps for another thread.

Last Question is whether I can get close to the medium format "look" with both a full frame or APS-C.

I can't answer that, because I haven't used MF. There are compromises at every shrinkage of the sensor. But if you have a look at photo samples on this site (or a photo-hosting site like Flickr) you will get a better idea of how images taken with MF, FF (36x24) or APS-C compare. My guess is that you will be pleasantly surprised at how good APS-C can be these days.

Here's a couple of threads to start with:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/3...es-2017-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/3...es-2016-a.html

One thing to remember is that the lenses are just as important, or more important, than the camera. Pentax now has a wide range of lens choices in each format, but the choice is wider in APS-C because every lens designed for full-frame (e.g. the Pentax K, M, A, F, FA and DFA series) will work perfectly on an APS-C camera, but the converse isn't necessarily true. Some of the designed-for-APS-C lenses in the DA series will work perfectly on FF, but others will cause vignetting or other issues. There are some outstanding landscape photographers here who have stuck with APS-C because they prefer the lens options. In particular there are some excellent compact light-weight wide-angle lenses in the DA series that don't have a direct counterpart in full-frame - the Pentax DA 15 Limited is an example. The other gap in the full-frame lineup is a compact light-weight telephoto zoom - a counterpart of the Pentax DA 55-300. Where there are rough counterparts they are often more expensive - for example the DFA 15-30mm f2.8 lens (for full frame wide angle) is much bigger and heavier and more expensive than something like the DA 12-24 f4 or the Sigma 10-20 f3.5. Similarly the DFA 70-200 f2.8 compared with the DA*50-135 f2.8, or the DFA 24-70 f2.8 compared to the DA*16-50 f2.8.

If you buy full-frame you will probably need to allow a bigger budget for lenses, and if you want zooms, be prepared to carry more weight.

If you want a relatively light-weight compact body to use with compact light-weight lenses, with lots of features and outstanding image quality, the K-P would be hard to beat. Pair it with some of the Limited lenses (FA 31, FA 43, FA 77, DA 15, DA 20-40, DA 21, DA 35 macro, DA 40, DA 70) or star lenses (e.g. DA*55, DA*200, DA*300) and you would have an outstanding compact kit that would be hard to match in any other system.

---

Last edited by Des; 01-10-2018 at 03:42 PM.

[pentageek]

K-S2 is an older camera, which is not a flagship

... but it has one of highest ratings among all Pentax cameras - higher even than K-1 itself. Of course it cannot compete with the latter in terms of image quality, but K-S2 is relatively small, weather sealed, and fun to use.

[uswrdm02]

The only thing I forgot to mention that I want do is also take portraits or images in or outside and blur the background. Camera, setting recommendations for that/
Thanks. I'm also now looking others in the K series, there are so many, now the KP...
Why does Pentax have so many Ks. Anyway, thanks to all of you for your input.

[aslyfox]

not sure what the OP's budget is or really what type of Pentax is best

but if it is within budget and desires and the OP is interested in a K 3 II

BH is still running its special where you can get the K 3 II + designated battery grip for $ 7 over the cost of the K 3 II alone

Pentax K-3 II DSLR Camera with Battery Grip Kit B&H Photo Video

Pentax K-3 II DSLR Camera with Battery Grip Kit B&H # PEK32G (B&H Kit) $836.50

this deal has been offered since November so who knows how long it will be available.

_________________________

another option, since the OP is from the US, there are rental companies where it might be possible to rent equipment to try out before buying

borrowlenses.com

lensrental.com

[Des]

The only thing I forgot to mention that I want do is also take portraits or images in or outside and blur the background. Camera, setting recommendations for that/

Essentially there are two main methods: use a wide aperture for short depth of field, or shoot with a distance between the subject and the background. Using a telephoto lens makes it easier to achieve the latter effect. See this article:
Image Composition Guide: Subject Isolation - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

These effects can be achieved with a variety of settings (using an auto-aperture lens), but you generally want to use one of the camera modes that gives you direct control over the aperture (Av, TAv or M). You might not be familiar with TAv mode - it's a Pentax original (I think): you set the aperture and shutter speed (by default, with the rear and front dials respectively) and the camera sets the ISO (within a band you pre-determine). Another handy Pentax special is HyperProgram mode - when the camera is in Program (P) mode you can override its selected aperture or shutter speed, using the dials.

[Na Horuk]

... but it has one of highest ratings among all Pentax cameras - higher even than K-1 itself. Of course it cannot compete with the latter in terms of image quality, but K-S2 is relatively small, weather sealed, and fun to use.

Yes, its popular and it looks amazing. I did not mean to belittle it, only mentioned that it was not aimed to be the top top pro tier. It can still do everything you need and it still has great IQ from what I've seen

The only thing I forgot to mention that I want do is also take portraits or images in or outside and blur the background. Camera, setting recommendations for that/

Av mode and low f-number, hopefully lower than f2. Subject being close to the lens (so you have to focus close) also makes DoF thinner and makes bokeh (background blur) stand out more.

Why does Pentax have so many Ks. Anyway, thanks to all of you for your input.

Haha because they are K-mount! Why does Nikon have so many D's? And Canon, as well, only they put the number on the other side of the D. In general the camera labels from most brands are kind of confusing. You have to look at individual cameras

[pschlute]

You can actually, but it's pretty slow because of the larger sizes of RAW files

With my K1 I failed to transfer a single raw using the Ricoh app. Had to convert it to jpeg in-camera.

[Adam]

With my K1 I failed to transfer a single raw using the Ricoh app. Had to convert it to jpeg in-camera.

Yeah with the wireless transfer rate of 1-2 Mb/s (and lack of a progress bar), it'll definitely keep you waiting

Hopefully they can improve this via updates.

[Des]

With my K1 I failed to transfer a single raw using the Ricoh app. Had to convert it to jpeg in-camera.

It was barely usable at all on the K-S2, the bigger files on the K-1 would have tipped it over!