[Nunavut]

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.

---

Last edited by Nunavut; 01-26-2019 at 10:16 PM.

[Sandy Hancock]

If you can't afford to keep the K-3, you certainly won't be able to afford the full frame lenses you will soon be craving.

Stick with crop for now - that trio of zooms will serve you very well. Or find a way to afford to keep both bodies.

P.S. the jump in size is not as big a deal as you might think.

[hcc]

I think that a major step from K-3 to K-1 is the transition from APS-C to FF, especially the field of view. For example, the field of view of your FA77 on your K-3, would look on the K-1 to have been taken from further away. In plain term, the usage of your primes will be changed, as you move from APS-C to FF body. It is neither a criticism nor an advantage, but something that prime users need to consider IMHO.

Personally I have a K-3 and a good collection of primes. I do not need a FF camera body IMO and I will await for the successor of the K-3ii.

My take...

[dms]

As the DA lenses you have cover the shortest FL's, the K-1 would not be an advantage there. If you had FF wide angle lenses and wanted to get their full benefit then I would think the K-1 would be a real advantage.

As it is, if the cost of the K-1 would be a significant factor, I would pass.

And what if that K-1 develops a problem/needs repair, or a complete loss? Then you have no camera. Actually if you don't have another competent Pentax dslr, a 2nd back up body may make more sense.

[kiwi_jono]

Well only you can really make that decision but the jump from K-5 (yeah the K-3 is generally better) to K-1 was big for me.

That said its handy (for me anyway) to have one WR lens. The DFA*50 could certainly fill that role if you really like using that focal length (equivalent field of view to say 35 with K-3). Personally I ended up getting a DFA 28-105 and have no regrets (its small enough to take everywhere and surprisingly good optically - producing plenty of keepers).

The FA 35 f2 is good on the K-1, as is the FA 77. The FA35 was my most lens on the K-1 until I got a FA31 that is. But everyone has there own focal length preferences.

As far as size goes, the K-1 is not much bigger than the K-5 / K-3 - except a little extra height certainly makes the hand holding more comfortable for me. Fits in the same camera bags I have and I carry it around the same way. However it is noticeably heavier which is a factor to consider.

[Wild Mark]

I can only comment through my experience and what I found.

The K-1 was, better ......., and worse at the same time. It is for this reason that I kept both (the K1 and K3ii).

I use the K-1 for astro, landscape, macro and short tele (portrait).

I use the K3ii for wildlife/ sports and macro (when I take only one body and I am shooting wildlife)

My experience is that both formats compliment each other very well. So, if you can manage to buy the K-1 and keep the K3 then I think you will enjoy the benefits - if the photography interests above match yours.

---------- Post added 27-01-19 at 06:00 PM ----------

If you can't afford to keep the K-3, you certainly won't be able to afford the full frame lenses you will soon be craving.

Stick with crop for now - that trio of zooms will serve you very well. Or find a way to afford to keep both bodies.

P.S. the jump in size is not as big a deal as you might think.

I tend to agree with this thinking. As both systems compliment each other, you really only see a little more benefit (although the benefit is there and it is real). The upgrade does come at a cost so this is worthy consideration.

I do note, however, that you have the DFA 50mm ...... that lens is really designed for the FF, so, if that lens is what you shoot with a lot then perhaps you are already slowly stepping up to a FF???

[Nunavut]

I've always intended to shoot full-frame, given that I had takumars and film lenses before dslrs. (My first dslr was the ist *ds, bought to use my dad's takumars from the 70s)

I agree aps-c and ff are complimentary systems with avantages to each.

I had a look at the iso noise for the k1 compared to the k3. Outstanding. I find my 77mm too long on the k3, I think it would make a great portait lense on the k1.

Thanks for the advice. I'll buy it. Worst case it doesn't work out and I sell it.

[Sandy Hancock]

I do note, however, that you have the DFA 50mm ...... that lens is really designed for the FF, so, if that lens is what you shoot with a lot then perhaps you are already slowly stepping up to a FF???

I read that as the old DFA 50 (macro), not the new DFA* 50/1.4

Might be wrong though....

[Nunavut]

I read that as the old DFA 50 (macro), not the new DFA* 50/1.4

Might be wrong though....

Yes the dfa 50mm macro which also works ff

[Ash]

Ah, big difference between the 50s, but all your FF lenses will indeed look quite different on the K-1, and that is where you will find the benefit. But there is no rush if funds are limited. You have a great kit as it is, and you can save up further for more FF lenses with time should such an opportunity occur again for you.

[Sandy Hancock]

I'll buy it. Worst case it doesn't work out and I sell it.

Oh, I'm sure you'll love it. The APS-C zooms will work fine in crop mode, but you'll be sacrificing some resolution.

I'd still try to hang on to your K-3 if at all possible

[Nunavut]

I'd still try to hang on to your K-3 if at all possible

Yes that's the plan now

[Wild Mark]

I read that as the old DFA 50 (macro), not the new DFA* 50/1.4

Might be wrong though....

AHH yes I defaulted to the new f1.4 lens (I wish I could afford that lens!)

[Joe Dusel]

Well, if you do much shooting in places with awful lighting you are going to love the K-1. I took my K-1 and K-3 for a shoot today in a dimly lit auditorium and ended up taking about 800 shots with the K-1 and only a dozen or so with the K-3 and a wide angle lens. The K-1 has much better high ISO capabilities.

[Sandy Hancock]

AHH yes I defaulted to the new f1.4 lens (I wish I could afford that lens!)

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