[jk05x]

Thanks Normhead, very valid points.


Sorry, I have been busy for much of the year. I did get a silver KP though I still want a K1, will wait till my budget can afford one in future. I like the KP a lot though, has a nice feel and the images are very appealing to me. Just need more time to play around with it now Looking forward to a trip to Iceland end of September

Stated like this, the interpretation is a bit hazy. Both statements are true, the one missing is "there is more than one way to separate the subject from the back ground or to achieve background separation, shooting ƒ2 or less with a big sensor is one of them.: Looking at the above photos, colour contrast, and tonal isolation are just as important and used more often. In the more environmental portraits subject isolation is usually achieved by lighting and positioning. visual elements of the picture etc.

In asense in travle photgraphy, one could argue that narrow DoF is the least desirable method of subject isolation because the viewer doesn't get to share in a rich exotic environment.

In the four pictures posted, you achieved tonal or colour separation in all four. You really aren't accomplishing anything with the shallow DoF except blurring out elements in the scene that could have been used to add interest to the portraits.

Subject isolation is more than big fat lens, although, if you haven't scouted the area in advance to find appropriate shooting angles to in low light it may be the device of preference. Using a device, like narrow DoF for subject isolation will make your series of photo feel boring real quick. Knowing them all and using the appropriate one to the scene you're shooting is th preferred approach.

[mikesbike]

The real question is why the need for a FF body? Each has advantages, but your needs might already be met. I also have the KP and feel very satisfied. But I do have a desire to use my FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited, FA 35mm f/2, and a couple of other fine lenses in the same FOV with a digital body as I get when using them for 35mm film shooting.

[jk05x]

The real question is why the need for a FF body? Each has advantages, but your needs might already be met. I also have the KP and feel very satisfied. But I do have a desire to use my FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited, FA 35mm f/2, and a couple of other fine lenses in the same FOV with a digital body as I get when using them for 35mm film shooting.

Hi Mike, Agreed, it is more of a want than a need at the moment with the k1


But as you pointed out as well, I would like to be able to use the fa 50mm 1.4 and 77mm limited lens more often while doing indoor portraits simply because i love those lenses. I can use my 35mm 2.4, but I just like the images from the other two lenses better. Currently the framing can be a bit tight. On a K1, it might give some more freedom to compose the shot

[aleonx3]

If I may ask you whether those travel portraits are cropped or not after the shots are taken? The reason I am asking is that close-up shots can make the subject (person) uncomfortable as you are getting into someone "personal" space. As an event photographer, we don't usually do that unless requested, especially for someone unknown to you while traveling, I think in your case, your style, the crop sensor camera gives you more room between you and the subject, with a full frame camera like k-1, you have to get closer.

I have both k-1 and k-3, I seldom take wide-open shots (the days of bokeh fever have subsided ), accurate focusing with enough DOF is the key IMHO. The k-3 provides more DOF for the same f stop, but I prefer the look of shots taken from the k-1. My travel photography style is more like pinholecam's with sufficient background stuff surrounding the subject.

[aleonx3]

OP, just to get an idea of the FF vs APS-C differences, I attached a couple of photos taken on my travel to Tokyo in 2017. First one is the cropped photo from the original image taken with k-1; the second is the original (from DNG file). Back to your original question, narrow DOF does not play any part in my style of photography, and most of my photos are in f4 - f5.6 range, and sometimes f8 (probably the sweet spot in many of the lenses I use). It is not a true comparison but close enough if you were using APS-C camera vs FF camera using the same aperture.

K1_P0386_1

K1_P0386

K1_P0299_1

K1_P0299

[johnha]

The FA43 was the reason I bought a K-1, it's my preferred focal length that's too long for APS-C. I can use an FA28/2.8 as an equivalent, the FA35/2 makes a good "fast fifty" equivalent and a 50/1.4 makes a good "portrait" length lens.

As a medium format film shooter, even FF feels a bit small, I don't always want thin DoF but I want the choice, many of the wider DA primes seem too slow to allow this. I haven't used any (for this reason) so this might be an assumption.

[mikesbike]

The FA43 was the reason I bought a K-1, it's my preferred focal length that's too long for APS-C. I can use an FA28/2.8 as an equivalent, the FA35/2 makes a good "fast fifty" equivalent and a 50/1.4 makes a good "portrait" length lens.

As a medium format film shooter, even FF feels a bit small, I don't always want thin DoF but I want the choice, many of the wider DA primes seem too slow to allow this. I haven't used any (for this reason) so this might be an assumption.

Definitely true. The special qualities and angle of view from the FA 43mm Limited are best served on a FF body from my experience, along with the versatility it affords together with its compactness. Getting all of these attributes for APS-C would require a 28mm f/1.9 or f/2 which would certainly not be a compact pancake lens like the FA 43mm! It is likewise more difficult to design a fast wide angle lens for APS-C in reasonably compact form. However, if you have a desire for a fast WA zoom lens, getting the KP and putting the savings over the K-1 towards a DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 would make sense.

As to the FA 77mm LTD, which I also have had for many years, I find it serves at least as well on APS-C with more reach, and being in the tele range, it is still not hard to achieve a very shallow DOF to blur background for effect. I love it on my KP.

If I did not have the FA 43mm LTD, the FA 35mm f/2, the FA 28mm f/2.8, and a fine Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens, getting a FF digital body would not cross my mind... and it has been just to that point- crossing my mind only! Getting one would also necessitate including the DFA 28-105mm lens in order to have a high-quality, versatile WR FF kit.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 07-20-2019 at 11:52 PM.

[Kerrowdown]

I sure you will enjoy the K1, but be aware that due to the very narrow depth of field at these larger apertures your discussing, it's easier to miss the precise focus on the eyes.

My advice would be to take a few shots at slightly different focus points to ensure you have got the image you want, it takes no extra real time to do.

Below is an image with "Lady Luck”(Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8) wide open @ F1.7

[jk05x]

OP, just to get an idea of the FF vs APS-C differences, I attached a couple of photos taken on my travel to Tokyo in 2017. First one is the cropped photo from the original image taken with k-1; the second is the original (from DNG file). Back to your original question, narrow DOF does not play any part in my style of photography, and most of my photos are in f4 - f5.6 range, and sometimes f8 (probably the sweet spot in many of the lenses I use). It is not a true comparison but close enough if you were using APS-C camera vs FF camera using the same aperture.

K1_P0386_1

K1_P0386

K1_P0299_1

K1_P0299

Hi Aleonx3, Thanks for sharing the pics, nice ones Yes, i do crop pics a bit and yes I am not comfortable getting too close to the subject either. During travel I agree that it is better to have more depth of field and that was one of the reasons I used to convince myself to get the KP over the K1 knowing it would serve my purpose for travel. Where I feel I can justify a K1 is for indoor portraits and boudoir shots, sometimes the rooms are quite small and tight, and would be nice to be able to go wide without having to depend on wide angle lensse and the accompanying distortion

---------- Post added 07-22-19 at 01:59 AM ----------

The FA43 was the reason I bought a K-1, it's my preferred focal length that's too long for APS-C. I can use an FA28/2.8 as an equivalent, the FA35/2 makes a good "fast fifty" equivalent and a 50/1.4 makes a good "portrait" length lens.

As a medium format film shooter, even FF feels a bit small, I don't always want thin DoF but I want the choice, many of the wider DA primes seem too slow to allow this. I haven't used any (for this reason) so this might be an assumption.

Hi Johnha, very true, its nice to have options. Although I feel i am well covered for now with my K3 and KP, someday I would like to own a K1, more for want than need actually

---------- Post added 07-22-19 at 02:07 AM ----------

Definitely true. The special qualities and angle of view from the FA 43mm Limited are best served on a FF body from my experience, along with the versatility it affords together with its compactness. Getting all of these attributes for APS-C would require a 28mm f/1.9 or f/2 which would certainly not be a compact pancake lens like the FA 43mm! It is likewise more difficult to design a fast wide angle lens for APS-C in reasonably compact form. However, if you have a desire for a fast WA zoom lens, getting the KP and putting the savings over the K-1 towards a DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 would make sense.

As to the FA 77mm LTD, which I also have had for many years, I find it serves at least as well on APS-C with more reach, and being in the tele range, it is still not hard to achieve a very shallow DOF to blur background for effect. I love it on my KP.

If I did not have the FA 43mm LTD, the FA 35mm f/2, the FA 28mm f/2.8, and a fine Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens, getting a FF digital body would not cross my mind... and it has been just to that point- crossing my mind only! Getting one would also necessitate including the DFA 28-105mm lens in order to have a high-quality, versatile WR FF kit.

Hi Mike, yes I love the 77 on my KP and K3 too. I do not have a 43 but have a fa 501.4 and a supertakumar 50 1.4. The focal length and optics of lenses in these ranges has a desirable quality in my opinion and sometimes for indoor portraits, it would be nice to be able to use these lenses at the focal length it was intended for like you say


Having said that, I do enjoy using these lenses on the K3 and KP as well. The 11-18 is on my long list of stuff i want to buy some day when i can afford it, but mostly for landscape and architecture

---------- Post added 07-22-19 at 02:11 AM ----------

I sure you will enjoy the K1, but be aware that due to the very narrow depth of field at these larger apertures your discussing, it's easier to miss the precise focus on the eyes.

My advice would be to take a few shots at slightly different focus points to ensure you have got the image you want, it takes no extra real time to do.

Below is an image with "Lady Luck”(Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8) wide open @ F1.7

Thanks Kerrodown, thats a nice pic, sharp eyes!! looks like a wonderful lens too. I agree, getting eyes sharp is a challenge wide open, definitely need to take a few. I usually shoot portraits closer to 2.8 unless I have the model stationary and I can take my time to focus on the eye, maybe one day pentax will have eye af too

[Rondec]

If you would get a K-1, I would recommend the FA 135 f2.8. It is a sharp, small sized prime that gives really nice results. It may be a little long for some situations, but it does give nice subject isolation.

[jk05x]

If you would get a K-1, I would recommend the FA 135 f2.8. It is a sharp, small sized prime that gives really nice results. It may be a little long for some situations, but it does give nice subject isolation.

Thanks Rondec, will be happy to try it out one day . I currently have the Jupiter 37A, it has a lovely rendering too, and also a DA*200, although a little bit longer, I really like this lens as well

[Kerrowdown]

Thanks Kerrowdown, thats a nice pic, sharp eyes!!

Thank you.

maybe one day Pentax will have eye AF too

That'll be of absolutely no help to my "Ladies".