[MaineNative]

The K-1 was a big step up from my K-5 for astro. Much better color depth and great detail in the stars if you nail the focus and get a good calibration with Astrotracer.

I still find the resolution amazing as a full-frame. I was taking a wide shot of a large group of 50+ kids sledding down a hill last winter. You could zoom in and see details of almost every face!

I notice the additional weight compared to the K-5, but with the DFA 28-105, it’s not enough weight to make me leave it at home.

[clackers]

I notice the additional weight compared to the K-5, but with the DFA 28-105, it’s not enough weight to make me leave it at home.

Yeah, I think if people have never seen or held a K-1 before, you're getting twice as much picture, but it's only 33% more weight, not 100%.

[reh321]

The first DSLR that I have owned that made me stop missing film. That includes the K5, K5-IIs and the K3. The detail in the images is amazing.

My K-30 gives me more detail than I ever got from Kodachrome, when same lens is used. I stopped missing film the first day I used digital.

[normhead]

Yeah, I think if people have never seen or held a K-1 before, you're getting twice as much picture, but it's only 33% more weight, not 100%.

My wife and I often have the K-5, K-3 and k-1 on the dining room table beside the door to the great outdoors. I have often picked up the wrong camera and started for the door before realizing my mistake. The weight difference just isn't great enough to make an instant impression.

The difference in weight is only meaningful to us, if we choose to stick a big ole lens on the K-1, And many of us simply choose not to do that. Older lenses like my lightweight plastic FA 35-80 produce great results on a K=1 as do the FA ltd for not much weight at a all.

You will get better results from a K-1 and a plastic FA 35-80 than you will with a K-3 and the same lens or probably any lens.

People should think less about getting the absolute best from their system, which on any system is prohibitively expensive, and coming to compromises that work for themselves. If you are a landscape shooter, the K-1 with the 28-105 and all your older landscape lenses is a wonderful thing. And with lenses like the 31, the weight really isn't going to be an issue.

Now if you stick that big huge 15-30 on it and put the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 in your bag, that's a weight issue.

A K-1 kit can get heavy, but that's a personal choice. It doesn't have to be.

With all the hype about newer glass, people seem to miss the excellent results people get with older, deigned for film glass.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-09-2018 at 01:19 PM.

[rml63]

Everyone, Thank You so much for the help and expertise. This is a great learning experience for me. I am going to my LCS to order a K1 MKII today. I have a line on some vintage glass from a Pentax K 1000, a 50mm, 135mm and 200mm including the K1000 for $80 CDN, which will be good on the K1.

Mike

[normhead]

Everyone, Thank You so much for the help and expertise. This is a great learning experience for me. I am going to my LCS to order a K1 MKII today. I have a line on some vintage glass from a Pentax K 1000, a 50mm, 135mm and 200mm including the K1000 for $80 CDN, which will be good on the K1.

Mike

I live in Canada, so don't be letting me know where that stuff is. I've been scooped enough times I wouldn't even feel guilty.

[rml63]

Lol Norm

[jddwoods]

My wife and I often have the K-5, K-3 and k-1 on the dining room table beside the door to the great outdoors. I have often picked up the wrong camera and started for the door before realizing my mistake. The weight difference just isn't great enough to make an instant impression.

The difference in weight is only meaningful to us, if we choose to stick a big ole lens on the K-1, And many of us simply choose not to do that. Older lenses like my lightweight plastic FA 35-80 produce great results on a K=1 as do the FA ltd for not much weight at a all.

You will get better results from a K-1 and a plastic FA 35-80 than you will with a K-3 and the same lens or probably any lens.

People should think less about getting the absolute best from their system, which on any system is prohibitively expensive, and coming to compromises that work for themselves. If you are a landscape shooter, the K-1 with the 28-105 and all your older landscape lenses is a wonderful thing. And with lenses like the 31, the weight really isn't going to be an issue.

Now if you stick that big huge 15-30 on it and put the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 in your bag, that's a weight issue.

A K-1 kit can get heavy, but that's a personal choice. It doesn't have to be.

With all the hype about newer glass, people seem to miss the excellent results people get with older, deigned for film glass.

I have 2 out of 3 of the bodies in your post, K-5 and K-3 and am considering K-1 Mk 2 as upgrade. Where did you see the biggest improvement of the K-1 over the K-3? I would think the low light performance would be better but are there other aspects where the K-1 is better? Your experience with these bodies could really help me with my buying decision. Looking at my lenses I do not have any zooms that I could use in FF mode but I have 5 FF primes: F28mm f2.8, FA50mm f1.7, DFA 100 macro WR, DA*200 and DA*300 so I would have a really nice FF prime kit right from the get go. Weight would not be a significant issue, especially with the compact F28 and FA50.
I suppose one other area where I could see an upgrade improvement is my computer. Currently I have a 2009 iMac which I will be upgrading to a new iMac with the retina display and that comes first before the camera.

[Des]

Looking at my lenses I do not have any zooms that I could use in FF mode but I have 5 FF primes: F28mm f2.8, FA50mm f1.7, DFA 100 macro WR, DA*200 and DA*300 so I would have a really nice FF prime kit right from the get go. Weight would not be a significant issue, especially with the compact F28 and FA50.

I'm in much the same boat. DA 35, FA 43, FA 50 macro, FA 77, DFA 100, FA*300 and Sigma 400 f5.6 would all be good on a K-1ii. But I'd have to shell for a wide-normal zoom, and the wide options would be limited.

[normhead]

I would think the low light performance would be better but are there other aspects where the K-1 is better? Your experience with these bodies could really help me with my buying decision.

We found the K-3 to be a step back from the K-5 in terms of Dynamic range. It is a better action camera but a little disappointing for landscape.

For images like this the Dynamic Range of the K-1 is really good. We've never been able to actually document this but so far after 3 or 4 tries we just don't have evidence that shows that advantage. Basically, using both cameras about equally, I get more images I'm really happy with the K-1, if you don't count the action and bird shots taken with the K-3.


I use the K-1 whenever I can, but half the time it just isn't the right tool for the job. Without my wildlife and action shots, I'd probably just go with the K-1.

[Wheatfield]

Hello All,
I have been using my friend's K1 for a few days and what a great piece of gear. I like the control knobs on the outside of the camera for common settings and not having to go into the menu. I have been using the K1 for landscape and astrophotography (with limited success) but still having fun. While it has been discussed before the camera is heavy even with the old glass I have been using on it.



I am struggling with the idea of getting a K3 MKii to ad to the fleet or stay with the heavy but wonderful performing K 1. I use it mostly on a tripod with very few hand held shots. I have a Fuji X70 that I use for street photography and a Sony RX 100v for travel and family/pet photos.

What do you guys think?

Thanks
Mike

I think the D FA*50/1.4 is a really good reason to use the K1.
That is a reason no other camera maker can entice you with.

[reh321]

We found the K-3 to be a step back from the K-5 in terms of Dynamic range. It is a better action camera but a little disappointing for landscape.

For images like this the Dynamic Range of the K-1 is really good.

That is exactly what DxOMark shows - DR 14.6 Evs for K-1, then 14.1 Evs for K-5, and K-3 way down at 13.4 Evs.

Pentax K-1 vs Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-5

In fact K-1 is 8th best of all sensors tested.

[builttospill]

I think the D FA*50/1.4 is a really good reason to use the K1.
That is a reason no other camera maker can entice you with.

And then add the FA Limited lenses. More reasons to use Pentax which no other company can compare with.

I just delivered family portraits to a client using the K-1 and FA 77 and Nikon D800E and 24-70/2.8G. I did the family group with the Nikon and individual portraits with the Pentax. After delivery they called me and asked why the individual family-member portraits looked so different than the entire family photos, and could I give them family images that looked like the individuals. After some discussion, it was the 3D-effect (subject-background separation) they were trying to describe.

[UncleVanya]

And then add the FA Limited lenses. More reasons to use Pentax which no other company can compare with.

I just delivered family portraits to a client using the K-1 and FA 77 and Nikon D800E and 24-70/2.8G. I did the family group with the Nikon and individual portraits with the Pentax. After delivery they called me and asked why the individual family-member portraits looked so different than the entire family photos, and could I give them family images that looked like the individuals. After some discussion, it was the 3D-effect (subject-background separation) they were trying to describe.

Were the 77 shots at a wider aperture, or was it just rendering?

[builttospill]

Were the 77 shots at a wider aperture, or was it just rendering?

Rendering, microcontrast, and color.

The aperture was slightly wider, but not much (2/3 to 1 stop) due to needing more depth of field for group shots.