[jspi]

I have a K-3 II which I have enjoyed but am considering a second camera. Why two? Because I can. Oh, and I shoot basketball games for a local school. My 70-200mm is too tight for the near end of the court. My 17-50mm is too wide for the far end. So I need two cameras. That or a 18-200 f/2.8 lens...

I see the K1 shoots slower which is why I'm considering the KP (along with price). I have a few lenses which are full frame (11mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm). But the K1 will use APSC lenses and I hear so much hype about full frame...

Is either one similar to the K3 concerning the menus? The KP looks a lot different physically but I can learn new controls. I also shoot wildlife, macros, landscapes, etc. so there's no one specific need I have.

I guess I'm wanting to hear from people who have used both. KP looks better for sports but I'm sure the K1 has a list of benefits too. There's no local store where I can look at either so I'll have to buy without seeing...

[Adam]

Is either one similar to the K3 concerning the menus? The KP looks a lot different physically but I can learn new controls. I also shoot wildlife, macros, landscapes, etc. so there's no one specific need I have.

Both the K-1 and KP are similar, but evolved- the menu graphics are nicer, there is more button customization, and most significantly, the control panel (which lets you quickly access your favorite settings) is now fully customizable. All this is described in detail below:
Pentax K-1 Review - User Interface | PentaxForums.com Reviews


In crop mode the K-1 is not far behind the KP (6.5 FPS vs 7), and it has a much larger buffer. The KP would have better (APS-C) image quality, however, at 24 megapixels.

Since you already have a K-3, which fills the high-speed shooting role, my recommendation would be to get a K-1.

[cport]

I would not buy any of them for shooting basketball - K-1 seems to be too slow, KP is not fast either but the buffer size seems to be too limiting. I would rather wait for K-3II successor ...


... and buy 50-135/2,8

[reh321]

I would not buy any of them for shooting basketball - K-1 seems to be too slow, KP is not fast either but the buffer size seems to be too limiting. I would rather wait for K-3II successor ...

... and buy 50-135/2,8

If the K-3ii replacement has as good, or better, ISO performance as the KP, the 55-300 PLM lens might do just fine.

[BigMackCam]

Do you need - or do you want - another camera?

I ask because my recommendations would be different depending on your soul-searched answer to that

If you truly need another one, then I'd probably go with the K-1 or K-1II. It gives you a wider field of view for your 70-200, and the full-frame body will open up a whole bunch of new possibilities for you. Plus, you can switch it to APS-C mode and get extremely good quality shots in that format... not at quite the same resolution, of course, as a KP - but the resulting files will be more than detailed enough and reproducible at large sizes. And, whilst the continuous shooting frame rate of the K-1 & K-1II is slower than its APS-C stablemates, the buffer is much deeper.

If, however, you only really want another body and can afford to hold off for a while, I'd wait to see what 2019 brings. There's a possibility we might see a replacement for the K-3II, and I believe that will be a special camera. It's likely to have at least the same features (we hope) as - and possibly more than - the K-3II, whilst improving still further on the KP's image quality, and with incrementally (or perhaps considerably) improved AF. In the mean-time, you could add a fast 28-70 (ish) lens to your collection to give you something less wide for the far end. You can do this cheaply, and for little weight, with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (my go-to lens on APS-C), or go for the premium Pentax 28-70 f/2.8. Either will sell quite easily should you ever decide not to keep them

[Saltwater Images]

If the K-3ii replacement has as good, or better, ISO performance as the KP, the 55-300 PLM lens might do just fine.

....but the colours really pop with DA* glass....

[caliscouser]

K-3ii + 50-135/2.8, crop at the long end and wait until 2019 for better options from Pentax.

[SSGGeezer]

....but the colours really pop with DA* glass....

I love my DA* 50-135 but my PLM has very Pentax color rendering. lots of "pop" compared to most Sigma zooms including my Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II that I have since sold.

[jspi]

Want or need? Since I'm not a paid photography, I can't argue that I *need* a second camera. I'm at the games for fun because I get a press pass with the understanding I may have to run a video camera (the games are broadcast live). But my wife has 2 dSLR so I can't let her beat me...

Hmm, the 50-135mm f/2.8 would be an option. Hauling one camera around would be more enjoyable that hauling two. And no worries about banging lenses when switching between cameras as the players run down the court (don't want to miss a dunk!).

I have to decide by January so I have time to think this over. I would like over ISO 800 to be an option. Above that doesn't look great with the K-3 II. At least I can't make it look good. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the camera.

[derekkite]

I've not shot the KP, but the K1 II in crop mode has a quick frame rate that doesn't change when you hit the af button, and a good sized buffer. Full frame is great in very low light.

Get the K1 II. You won't regret it. You probably will look at a KP for a second body pretty quickly.

[Gianclaudio]

A note regarding the DA*50-135mm: it has outstanding image quality (sharpness, colours, bokeh, rendering) but is very, very slow to focus. I wouldn't consider it for any kind of fast action photography.

[mikesbike]

Want or need? Since I'm not a paid photography, I can't argue that I *need* a second camera. I'm at the games for fun because I get a press pass with the understanding I may have to run a video camera (the games are broadcast live). But my wife has 2 dSLR so I can't let her beat me...

Hmm, the 50-135mm f/2.8 would be an option. Hauling one camera around would be more enjoyable that hauling two. And no worries about banging lenses when switching between cameras as the players run down the court (don't want to miss a dunk!).

I have to decide by January so I have time to think this over. I would like over ISO 800 to be an option. Above that doesn't look great with the K-3 II. At least I can't make it look good. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the camera.

For indoor action sports, a fast f/2.8 zoom lens is virtually a necessity. Never mind any of the DA 55-300mm lenses which would be ok for bright daylight use. A fast shorter zoom, maybe the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM but then also the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 would be very fine, plus for other uses too. Its AF is not the quickest, but it can be decently fast. Maybe more responsive on the KP. Then have 2 cameras, each having one of these lenses on it so you don't have to take time to change them. These will allow you to get higher shutter speeds for action under indoor lighting situations, without having boost ISO so much. If you do not do any or not very much burst shooting, the smaller buffer of the KP won't matter. It would be a delightful, more compact alternative companion to your K-3 II. I have both it and my K-5 IIs. I have used the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 to shoot wrestling meets, where it performed well enough for me, but I've never tried it for times when I shoot college level club roller hockey. For that I've mainly used my Sigma 24-60 mm f/2.8 EX DG which uses the camera's screw-driven AF and is quite fast.

[mhoule418]

My 70-200mm is too tight for the near end of the court.

Since money doesn’t seems your first issue , why not buy a FF camera and mount your 70-200 on?
This way, not using a cropped sensor, the near end shouldn’t be too close...

That solve one of your questioning.

[WPRESTO]

What might or might not be a consideration: the K1 is heavier (about 20%) and physically larger than the KP. This might mean either that a K1 would be more tiring to hand-hold for long periods, or it might provide a better grip depending on what would bother or serve you better. And I don't think anyone doubts that when used in FF mode, the K1 wins hands down for IQ (given equivalent quality lenses*). BUT, if you are going to use the SAME zoom lens, to get exactly the same framing, you'd be using the lens at a shorter FL on APS-C than you would on be on the K1 - - for example, if the image is perfectly framed @ 100mm on APS-C the image would have 24mp - - on a K1 the same zoom lens would be at 150mm to get the same framing and the image would have 36mp. IF the lens' IQ is essentially identical at both focal lengths, the K1 image has the potential* to record more detail and will survive cropping better.

*many caveats covered by "equivalent" and "potential" - I hope I don't need to enumerate to prove I'm aware of them.

[jspi]

Another question... How well does the KP and K1 perform with focus tracking?

For basketball, I use spot focus but the K3 II loses focus often (could be me getting the spot off or the lens). Then it takes a couple seconds to regain focus. Usually I give up and compose another shot.

Money is an issue but Adorama has financing... 6 months on a KP and 1 year on the K1 so payments are about the same. Not in a hurry to get into payments but I assume early pay off is an option if I have most of the money on hand.

Weight isn't an issue. I'm using a K3 II with extended battery grip and a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. Hand shooting through two consecutive college basketball games. Yes, lighter is good but I'm already using a heavy setup. I added the grip because my wrist hurt from shooting vertical much more than the extra weight bothers me.

I guess I should share some photos... Here's the last game I shot in February. There's a few other games posted for those who are interested.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/jaster131/51B081