[Wild Mark]

If you're ever in Adelaide you can try mine.
Bring a K28 Hollywood as collateral

Yes I will and I have not forgotten

I have a third too (you must hate me now) but it has very faint haze on the rear element (from fungus now well and truly removed). I would like to recoat this rear element but that is just me being a perfectionist.

[Mallee Boy]

I/we have K3 & K3.2. Have purchased a K1.2. Added in the DFA 24-70 fairly quickly as I was "weak" in that range in FF. Generally the K1.2 lives with the DFA 24-70 & Sigma EX DG 70-200 f2.8......and the FA 43 LTD.
Size is not an issue in reality. I would echo Sandy and encourage you to retain the K3 and add in the K1. My wife uses the K3 and I have the K3.2 set up with DA* 300 + 1.4 to give me around 600mm reach if I need it. At the end of the day what I could get for the body did not make it worth selling.
What I notice most about the K1.2 is the processing capability of the RAW images, I believe I am getting much more out of my images....could be my imagination....but am very, very happy with the end results from the K1.2.

Good Luck.

[LHK]

I found a lightly used K1 for a very good deal, but am on the fence, as I have a number of DA-only lenses, and am concerned the K1 is quite a bit bigger than the K3 I have.

For a K1, I have the 77 FA, DFA 50mm, 35mm FA, and a couple of takumars. On the DA side: sigma 10-20, new 20-40, and 50-135. Is it worth the upgrade from a K3 to K1? In an ideal world I would keep both bodies, but I can't afford that.

I would love thoughts from people who have made the K3 to K1 jump.

ps. I did see a massive thread debating the merits of the K1; so hope I'm not irritating anyone. I'm just looking for advice.

I have both K-3 and K-1. The K-1 is significantly bigger and heavier in the direct comparison, which makes me grab it from time to time despite the better image quality of the K-1, but K-1 takes 95% of all pictures these days.

I'm very strict on finances, and my advice is to stick with our K-3. It's a nice camera. With a K-1 (sell the K-3 and all DA-lenses) you'll get a better IQ, but you'll loose your DA-lenses and you are faced with a bigger and heavier camera. It's always a compromise. Pros and cons. A change only makes sense if you really want or need a higher IQ.

Lutz

[biz-engineer]

Pentax K-1 is a bargain, it's the right time to buy it, but if you don't have full frame glass or don't have the budget to buy new full frame glass, better stick with apsc (Pentax K3, Pentax KP).
It's a difficult time to select a new full frame system.The new mirrorless aren't fully polished yet (still some issues like EVF flickering, time lag of moving subjects leading to subject not being where you want it to be in the frame etc), and limited choice of native lenses. Full frame DSLR doesn't seem to get much investment, except maybe Pentax, we don't know. If I was an apsc shooter with limited budget, I'd just keep using what I have, or get a KP, the KP is close to K1 in terms of image quality.

[johnha]

I went from a K-5 to a K-1 (having shot Pentax for ages I have enough FA lenses), I kept the K-5 because it wasn't worth selling a functioning camera for the low value it was worth. As an old film shooter, FF is much more comfortable as a format and I haven't used the K-5 for a very long time. My only criticism of the K-1 is the AF sensor illumination in the viewfinder isn't as easy to see as that on the K-5.

Sizewise, there's little difference between a K-5 with a grip (needed to make it comfortable) and a K-1 without (I don't need it - I always shoot verticals the 'normal' way with elbow sticking out as did with film and the camera grip is big enough).

Think about your DA lenses, do you use them all, particularly the wideangles (which may be significantly more expensive to buy for FF)? The FA35 gives a similar look on the K-3 that the 50mm will on the K-1, the FA77 is apparently a stunning portrait lens on FF (the 50mm on the K-3 is roughly equivalent to the 77 on a K-1). You can always use the DA lenses in 'crop' mode on the K-1 until you can find suitable FF lenses. I would try to keep the K-3, at least until you've been able assess whether keeping it long term is practical. As has been mentioned, I'd be wary of buying a K-1 without warranty/support if it means selling the K-3.

Ideally you need to handle a K-1 (take your 35mm & 50mm lenses) before buying to see how you feel about it, but an FA35, DFA50 & FA77 is a good start for FF lenses.

[btnapa]

I would love thoughts from people who have made the K3 to K1 jump.

Before we get into the merits of the jump, my first question is what type if photography do you do? That would help with the decision a lot.

FYI, I made the jump for better high ISO, better dynamic range and resolution gain. It was easy for me because all my lenses were FF already. The only APSc lenses l had were a 18-55 and a 16-45. Yes the K1 is bigger but not terribly so.

[normhead]

MY upgrade K-3 to K-1 cost my more than twice the cost of the camera.

Specifically for the K-1, I added, a DFA 28- 105, a Rokinon 14 2.8, a DFA 100 macro, and a Tamron 300 2.8, and i still don't have the kind of flexibility I have with my K-3 (which I kept.)

Everyone figures out what they need, but, I planned on $1600 over camera cost for my K-1. (It ended up something like $000 over camera cost.) But honestly, I still need $2000 15-30 and a DFA 150-450 just to get close to the same type of capabilities I have with my K-3. so that's what it would cost me to get rid of it. I just don't have enough K-3 stuff to sell, to raise the $4000 CDN I'd need to sell my K-3.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-27-2019 at 09:50 AM.

[PancakeFlipper]

Im interested in the extra costs involved in upgrading also. Did people feel the need to upgrade their computer to handle the bigger files? Or anything else? I don’t think I’d need to upgrade my tripod, but what other things would make the transition better?

[normhead]

Im interested in the extra costs involved in upgrading also. Did people feel the need to upgrade their computer to handle the bigger files? Or anything else? I don’t think I’d need to upgrade my tripod, but what other things would make the transition better?

Depends on your system. I read some advice on a technical forum, saying the cheapest way for a Mac user to buy computing power was top of the line iMac, which ran 30% faster than the next iMac down the list for not that much more money. So I bought a 2010 quad core i7, 27" screen 2650x1600 pixels, and it still works great. My wife with a much newer but not top of the line model finds the K-1 files noticeably slower. Post Processing needs pure processing power. K-1 files will affect most computers out there, but you just have to wait a little longer. The tripod will be fine.

The biggest difference will be if you shoot telephoto. You need some big lenses to try and match you APS_c output.

[sutherland]

Im interested in the extra costs involved in upgrading also. Did people feel the need to upgrade their computer to handle the bigger files? Or anything else? I don’t think I’d need to upgrade my tripod, but what other things would make the transition better?

It's not uncommon to hear about people working around a 48MP file (like the D850). They'll either tackle it in one of the following ways:
1. batched approach (uploading and working on smaller batches of files)
2. shooting in a downsized RAW file
3. upgrading their computer to support

I think people are too quick to resort to 3, overlook 1. 2...I, personally, would never do.

I am not sure how much of an increase in processing is necessary to support at 24MP file vs. a 36MP file, but I would just work within a batched approach if my computer sounds like it is on the runway, trying to takeoff.

[Nunavut]

Before we get into the merits of the jump, my first question is what type if photography do you do? That would help with the decision a lot.

I prefer landscapes, although as of late - home portraits (have a 3 month old baby). Low light is a problem inside, and although I have a flash setup with cactus v6ii and tripods, I often don't have time to set a scene up; so am shooting the 77 handheld at high iso.

Hiking and travel is a regular pursuit for landscape, so I travel with the 20-40 as general purpose (which I love).

A long time ago I did wide angle, but haven't used my 10-20 in many years.

Lastly, I photograph indoor macro (lego believe it or not!) but on a tripod with controlled light sources.

Thanks for everyone's opinions. Still haven't purchased the camera.

[normhead]

It's not uncommon to hear about people working around a 48MP file (like the D850). They'll either tackle it in one of the following ways:
1. batched approach (uploading and working on smaller batches of files)
2. shooting in a downsized RAW file
3. upgrading their computer to support

I think people are too quick to resort to 3, overlook 1. 2...I, personally, would never do.

I am not sure how much of an increase in processing is necessary to support at 24MP file vs. a 36MP file, but I would just work within a batched approach if my computer sounds like it is on the runway, trying to takeoff.

For my work, batch processing is not an answer. Each file still needs individual processing. I gave up on the utility of batch processing at least 10 years ago. Also, I often process 800 files in a sitting. Computing power is huge in getting the job done quickly and efficiently. A slower computer will also process batch files a lot slower.

But I'm willing to concede, if you never come home with more than 30-40 files (I often come home with 200-800) and after a 6 day canoe trip that will be over 2000.) It's all about how much time you are willing to spend waiting for your computer.

It's definitely a case where non power users can get away with a lot less.

If it takes an extra 15 seconds on 80 files, you've lost 20 minutes. On 800 files, almost 4 hours. One is bearable, the other isn't.

[twilhelm]

I prefer landscapes, although as of late - home portraits (have a 3 month old baby). Low light is a problem inside, and although I have a flash setup with cactus v6ii and tripods, I often don't have time to set a scene up; so am shooting the 77 handheld at high iso.

Hiking and travel is a regular pursuit for landscape, so I travel with the 20-40 as general purpose (which I love).

A long time ago I did wide angle, but haven't used my 10-20 in many years.

Lastly, I photograph indoor macro (lego believe it or not!) but on a tripod with controlled light sources.

Thanks for everyone's opinions. Still haven't purchased the camera.

The K-1 is an amazing camera and really outdoes the K3 in low or dim light situations. I purchased mine to use with the FA Limiteds, my SMC K and Takumar glass. I've transitioned from the K3 to the KP as my everyday camera for a couple of reasons. The DA Limiteds are great lenses and very compact for what they are. While some will work on the K-1 to one degree or another (I won't get into that discussion here) they are really made to compliment the Aps-c cameras. The DA20-40 is one of my favorite lenses on both the K3 and KP. The size of the KP with something like the DA40 Limited is nothing compared to the other bodies.

For shooting weddings, I had the K-1 and K3, and each had their merits. With Pentax, I would not likely do a wedding without one of each format.

For what you are shooting primarily, I would consider the KP and use the extra money to add a lens where you feel you are lacking.

[sutherland]

For my work, batch processing is not an answer. Each file still needs individual processing. I gave up on the utility of batch processing at least 10 years ago. Also, I often process 800 files in a sitting. Computing power is huge in getting the job done quickly and efficiently. A slower computer will also process batch files a lot slower.

But I'm willing to concede, if you never come home with more than 30-40 files (I often come home with 200-800) and after a 6 day canoe trip that will be over 2000.) It's all about how much time you are willing to spend waiting for your computer.

Yup, I apply individual processing to each image. If I return home with 400+ files, I will usually just drag over 40 or 50 at a time to process them.

[normhead]

Yup, I apply individual processing to each image. If I return home with 400+ files, I will usually just drag over 40 or 50 at a time to process them.

I plow through mine at a rate that makes my wife dizzy, looking over my shoulder. I like speed. I can reduce 800 files to 20 and do all necessary post processing in under an hour. I've learned to be ruthless.

---------- Post added 01-27-19 at 12:24 PM ----------

I prefer landscapes, although as of late - home portraits (have a 3 month old baby). Low light is a problem inside, and although I have a flash setup with cactus v6ii and tripods, I often don't have time to set a scene up; so am shooting the 77 handheld at high iso.

Hiking and travel is a regular pursuit for landscape, so I travel with the 20-40 as general purpose (which I love).

A long time ago I did wide angle, but haven't used my 10-20 in many years.

Lastly, I photograph indoor macro (lego believe it or not!) but on a tripod with controlled light sources.

Thanks for everyone's opinions. Still haven't purchased the camera.

The K-1 is a better landscape camera, with it's extended DR and low light capability. Your 77 will work marvellously on a K-1.

Th K-P frame rate and cleaned up accelerator chip files are a great answer to K-1 high ISO files.

If you like the 20-40 on a K-3 the 28-105 on the K-1 will be a pretty big improvement in terms of flexibility.

But overall, I'd stick with a K-P. You know the lenses on that body. You're used to shooting APS-c. A K-1 is a whole new learning curve. KP files stack up pretty well against K-1 files for low light, with the added depth of field at the same exposure values likely to get you better images, overall. For macro, it's a toss up. If that was the only thing, I'd probably go with the K-1.

But the frame rate is enough better on the K-P, I'd definitely go with that for kid shots unless they are sitting still.