[reh321]

The K-1 is definitely a very nice upgrade to what you have already. The benefits of full frame have already been mentioned -- the biggest one is better dynamic range and noise at any iso -- this produces better landscapes and high iso snapshots.

This stated advantage is so minor as to be ignorable. There are reasons to choose a K-1, but this is not one of them.

Attached Images

 

[Rondec]

This stated advantage is so minor as to be ignorable. There are reasons to choose a K-1, but this is not one of them.

The KP is a nice camera, but lets not get into an argument about what the accelerator does. You really can get similar results running any camera's RAW files through noise reduction before processing. You have less noise in the shadows after it works, but that doesn't exactly equal more dynamic range. Beyond which, the chart you posted does show that the K-1 has better dynamic range by 1.4 EVs at iso 100, which is more than enough difference that you could see it on a processed landscape photo.

I used to HDR a lot in order to get enough dynamic range in my photos without having crazy amounts of noise in the shadows. I don't remember the last time I did that, particularly when I use a K-1 at iso 100 with pixel shift enabled.

[Zivelot]

Go for the upgrade. The K-1 is still a relevant camera, and its 36MP will still be for a good while. I do not think Pentax will release anything for a long time that would make me change or upgrade from my K-1. Not unless they intentionally brick my camera with a firmware upgrade to make me buy something new... LOL

[reh321]

The KP is a nice camera, but lets not get into an argument about what the accelerator does. You really can get similar results running any camera's RAW files through noise reduction before processing. You have less noise in the shadows after it works, but that doesn't exactly equal more dynamic range. Beyond which, the chart you posted does show that the K-1 has better dynamic range by 1.4 EVs at iso 100, which is more than enough difference that you could see it on a processed landscape photo.

I used to HDR a lot in order to get enough dynamic range in my photos without having crazy amounts of noise in the shadows. I don't remember the last time I did that, particularly when I use a K-1 at iso 100 with pixel shift enabled.

I still think there are better reasons to prefer full frame - but if you're happy with your K-1, stay happy with it.

[Rondec]

I still think there are better reasons to prefer full frame - but if you're happy with your K-1, stay happy with it.

I mentioned the things I have found useful. I own a K-1 II which like the KP has an accelerator, I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference in the output between the two cameras, although using the K-1 II is more efficient as I don't need to use noise reduction as quickly.

To me the biggest reasons to go with full frame have to do with lenses (you have ones that work on that sensor size) and desire. Assuming you have funds and want a full frame camera, you really don't need another reason. Beyond which, a used K-1 costs less now than I spent on my new K5 back in the day -- particularly when you consider inflation. And that's a good deal in my book.

[reh321]

To me the biggest reasons to go with full frame have to do with lenses (you have ones that work on that sensor size) and desire. Assuming you have funds and want a full frame camera, you really don't need another reason. Beyond which, a used K-1 costs less now than I spent on my new K5 back in the day -- particularly when you consider inflation. And that's a good deal in my book.

Now you are being reasonable. "I want my lenses to act as themselves" was the original reason given for wanting a full frame camera. I have five 50mm lenses. I do carry one in my K-30 bag, but it is virtually useless to me on that camera.

[bertwert]

Please... Don't...

You just had to start it up Bert! Bad Bert!

I just couldn't resist. Though, in fairness, there's nothing wrong with changing ones opinion...

[pinholecam]

Hi all, I have been using a pentax k-70 for the last couple of years but I feel I'm ready to move to a full frame camera. Will a used pentax k1 be a good upgrade. I don't shoot fast moving objects. In my free time I do landscape, street shooting and travel. Photography for me is a relaxing hobby. Thanks in advance for your response

Personally, I feel that I won't even buy a new Pentax camera unless its mirrorless (for my many manual lenses).
The K1 is already very good and I don't see any new whiz bang on newer cameras (ie. Sony, Canon, Nikon) that makes my images any better. (the rest is really finding the time to shoot and the learning of better shooting/processing techiques)

The K1 is as good/relevant a camera now as it was and will be for forseable years.

[lesmore49]

I have the K10D, Km, K5...all ASP-C DSLR cameras and although I enjoy them all, I enjoy using my K1 more. It's a great camera. I like the full frame, but then I used a medium format film camera for many years and I like to have 'room' to play with...film size or sensor size. It is quite an advanced camera and IMO if it won't break the budget I'd go for it.

As others have said, do you have the lenses for it and that is a good point to consider.

[sactodaddyo]

Following this thread as I am too pondering a jump to the K1. I have a K30, it's OK, but I desperately want to increase the resolution. I have two FF lenses, HD D FA 70-200mm 2.8 and HD D FA 24-70mm F2.8. I'm struggling with the 3 options. 1- Get a K1.....2- Wait to see what the new flagship camera has to offer......3-Get a K3 or KP just to move up now (maybe that's enough resolution for me...but I fear I'll always wonder how much better the K1 would be)

[Paul the Sunman]

Following this thread as I am too pondering a jump to the K1. I have a K30, it's OK, but I desperately want to increase the resolution. I have two FF lenses, HD D FA 70-200mm 2.8 and HD D FA 24-70mm F2.8. I'm struggling with the 3 options. 1- Get a K1.....2- Wait to see what the new flagship camera has to offer......3-Get a K3 or KP just to move up now (maybe that's enough resolution for me...but I fear I'll always wonder how much better the K1 would be)

The resolution jump from the K30 to the KP is not very large: 16 MP to 24 MP gives a resolution increase of sqrt(1.5)=1.22. There are far better reasons to prefer the KP over the K30 (though the K30 is a very fine camera). The real question to ask is whether you want to use your two high-end FF lenses at their nominal focal lengths, or are happy with them as effectively longer lenses on APS-C.

[noelpolar]

Following this thread as I am too pondering a jump to the K1. I have a K30, it's OK, but I desperately want to increase the resolution. I have two FF lenses, HD D FA 70-200mm 2.8 and HD D FA 24-70mm F2.8. I'm struggling with the 3 options. 1- Get a K1.....2- Wait to see what the new flagship camera has to offer......3-Get a K3 or KP just to move up now (maybe that's enough resolution for me...but I fear I'll always wonder how much better the K1 would be)

Honestly, your situation is simple. Get a K1 or K1ii..... then a 15-30..... then a 150-450....

[James also]

Honestly, your situation is simple. Get a K1 or K1ii..... then a 15-30..... then a 150-450....

Agreed done this as well and I haven't looked back.

[gatorguy]

The resolution jump from the K30 to the KP is not very large: 16 MP to 24 MP gives a resolution increase of sqrt(1.5)=1.22. There are far better reasons to prefer the KP over the K30 (though the K30 is a very fine camera). The real question to ask is whether you want to use your two high-end FF lenses at their nominal focal lengths, or are happy with them as effectively longer lenses on APS-C.

I don't know that specs are "all that" when it comes to image quality. I personally think you're short-selling the image improvements offered by the KP, as well as the K-70 for that matter.

I had a K5. Liked it. Liked images from it more than my at the time newer K-50, even if I typically would pick up the K-50 on the way out the door. Can't remember why tho. Anyway the K-S2 was a noticeable improvement, and both my K-70 and KP are even far better in a number of shooting scenarios. Strict sensor resolution is perhaps 60% of it.

The OP is certain to be served well by any of the recent three Pentax bodies over his K-30. IMO the difference in imaging between a KP and a K1 is far less than he'll see jumping to either from his K-30. TBH I just haven't seen much of a difference in shots taken with my K-70 or KP compared to the ones shot with a rented K-1. And I really wanted to like the K1, convinced ahead of time it was going to make a major difference in my photography. It didn't so I'm glad i rented one. Twice just to make sure LOL.

Just as an aside: While I didn't test it on the K1 I suspect that my very highly rated and well-liked FA77 would not be as impressive on a full-frame K1 as it is on my crop KP. Maybe someone here who has both currently could comment. Also I personally think in the case of the OP he might find he likes the range of the DA*50-135 more than the FA70-200 if he decides to stay with crop. More adaptable to being a walk-around at events and such IMO.

Anyway, good glass makes far more impact and he has that. Combining his very good HD lenses with a modern 23+MB sensor along with the in-camera processing and low-light improvements will be a revelation IMO. He won't need a K1 to see it. At the same time I totally get that some folks absolutely love their FF cameras and won't consider buying a crop body. I just don't see image quality as being the defining difference.

Oh and for anyone sitting on the fence curious about whether an HD FA50 makes sense on a an APS-C... It does and you'll see it immediately. Amazing rendering, perfectly sharp, zero distortion, creamiest bokeh of all my current modern lenses, I'd even call it perfect bokeh. The strong resistance to flare was an expected plus. (or minus this past weekend when trying to intentionally introduce it on a certain landscape photo). Will definitely give it a run on my next portrait shoot.