[C_Jones]

The K-1 is a very nicely constructed and control featured camera for those that would like to shoot full frame. I myself opted for the Pentax K-1 II camera, and it is an excellent performer. I presently have it on my Pentax 70-200. I also have a Pentax K-5 and Pentax K-3 II for use with my aps-c lenses.

[VSTAR]

I love both my K5 and my K-01,

I have nevertheless been pondering upgrading the K5 for some time now (though would not consider parting with the K-01).

Ricoh has announced a new APS-C flagship but I think I’d want my K5 DSLR replacement to have a 24x36mm “full frame” sensor in order to take advantage of the full image circles of the legacy glass in my lens connection.

Here are the main reasons why the K1 has not enticed me:

- I have a lot of DA lenses and the sensor resolution of the K1 in crop mode is 16MP, so no upgrade from the K5 in that respect;
- the heft of the K1.

What would make me buy a Pentax “full frame” DSLR:
- marginal increase in sensor resolution from 36MP so I can at least tell myself that I’m also upgrading the APS-C resolution for my DA lenses in crop mode (more than 16MP);
- size factor: a more svelte camera that doesn’t compromise on battery power
- attention to aesthetics would be nice: there has been a resurgence in interest in film and film cameras and a certain other manufacturer has caught on and brought back that aesthetic. Ricoh should develop a “FF” DSLR using the design and materials of the ME Super or SuperA.

Just some thoughts. Maybe others were thinking the same thing.

You don't buy a K1 to use the crop mode, you buy it so that you can take FF photos
If you are planning to shoot and store photos on your computer, and not print much, you would probably remain happy with APS
If you are planning to shoot photos and blow it up to poster size prints, then the K1 is the way to go and that resolution difference does indeed make a difference
The K1 is a very well ergonomically designed and well manufactured FF camera. It just feels right in your hand. The camera is not going to be made smaller or lighter...the pentaprism is large, heavy, and clear as can be. The extra features make it a swiss pocket knife camera (excluding video of course).

Lenses..if you do not want to sell your APS camera and lenses....then yes it will be a costly proposition going to FF. On the other hand there are many used FF Pentax lenses available and many 35mm FF lenses available. It becomes addictive after a while because there are so many lenses available.

Suggestion...if you want one buy it from a store/outlet that allows returns in case you do not like it...or rent/borrow one and try it out.

[normhead]

You don't buy a K1 to use the crop mode, you buy it so that you can take FF photos
If you are planning to shoot and store photos on your computer, and not print much, you would probably remain happy with APS
If you are planning to shoot photos and blow it up to poster size prints, then the K1 is the way to go and that resolution difference does indeed make a difference
The K1 is a very well ergonomically designed and well manufactured FF camera. It just feels right in your hand. The camera is not going to be made smaller or lighter...the pentaprism is large, heavy, and clear as can be. The extra features make it a swiss pocket knife camera (excluding video of course).

Lenses..if you do not want to sell your APS camera and lenses....then yes it will be a costly proposition going to FF. On the other hand there are many used FF Pentax lenses available and many 35mm FF lenses available. It becomes addictive after a while because there are so many lenses available.

Suggestion...if you want one buy it from a store/outlet that allows returns in case you do not like it...or rent/borrow one and try it out.

The amount of resolution increase from a K-5 will be rather acute even with APS-c lenses. My DA 55-300 gave me cropped 24 MP field that would have been 11 MP on a K-5.

DA 55-300 on K-1

Still a 26 MP file, even better than I could do with a k-3.Twice the resolution of a K-5 file, even using a crop lens.

If you shoot in FF mode and do the cropping yourself, many APS-c lenses will still give you much better than APs-c performance.

[mikesbike]

Ricoh has announced a new APS-C flagship but I think I’d want my K5 DSLR replacement to have a 24x36mm “full frame” sensor in order to take advantage of the full image circles of the legacy glass in my lens connection.

This exactly reflects the reason I have an interest. It is a matter of the FOV with certain lenses. Especially if already having some fine legacy guess, but there are other reasons to have both formats if your photography includes a variety of types and scenarios, such as fast action, some telephoto and some WA, low light, landscapes, portrait including candids, etc. etc. Each format has its own advantages. I too often shoot with my older K-5 IIs, but most often with my newer KP, which I also love. I am like you, I am very fond of the K-5 design, and the K-5 IIs still has very admirable imaging capabilities. But the new APS-C flagship might be a game-changer for a flagship style body.

My thinking is when I make such a move to include FF it will be for long-term keeping. The K-1 design is starting to get a bit long in the tooth. There have since been significant advancements in sensor technology. Not that a K-1 II is not a very fine camera, but for me making a move like that when it is more a luxury, and being I don't like coming in toward the end of a design run before knowing what the replacement will be like, seems unnecessary and maybe unwise. I already have excellent APS-C capabilities with my K-5 IIs and KP. I can be patient enough to find out what is likely to come down the road. My KP quality wise does closely approach that of the K-1 II. You might consider what will best suit your particular needs in a FF body and what advantages a FF body would deliver for those needs.

Since you already have a K-5 (original design), the forthcoming APS-C flagship would be a very significant upgrade in quality for you. The KP already proved to be so over my K-5. Then you'd be set to wait for the new FF flagship, to see what it brings. Time will tell. You could then be preparing your finances until that time. If it doesn't bring anything more useful to what you need a FF body for, then a new left-over K-1 II will be extra-cheap upon clearance.

My legacy lenses of primary interest for FF are the FA 35mm f/2, FA 28mm f/2.8, FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited, and Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II. I have others of some interest for FF, like a wide angle Tokina zoom lens- AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ATX II (77mm filter size) that I would like to put back into use, and a few others. I also have the FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited, which I do like very much on APS-C but would also be nice for FF, and couple of fast 50's, FA 1.4 and "F" 1.7, as well as the DA* 200mm f/2.8 and FA* 300mm f/4.5 but my strategy is to assign most tele activity to APS-C, while keeping the FF use in the shorter lenses range. I would get the FF body with the fine DFA 28-105mm lens to have WR capability.

My APS-C equipment is very well developed and covers a large FL range. It is simply those fine old FF lenses that beckon to me for FF use, and are of moderate to compact weight and size

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 03-06-2020 at 09:45 PM.

[mtl_pentaxian]

This exactly reflects the reason I have an interest. It is a matter of the FOV with certain lenses. Especially if already having some fine legacy guess, but there are other reasons to have both formats if your photography includes a variety of types and scenarios, such as fast action, some telephoto and some WA, low light, landscapes, portrait including candids, etc. etc. Each format has its own advantages. I too often shoot with my older K-5 IIs, but most often with my newer KP, which I also love. I am like you, I am very fond of the K-5 design, and the K-5 IIs still has very admirable imaging capabilities. But the new APS-C flagship might be a game-changer for a flagship style body.

My thinking is when I make such a move to include FF it will be for long-term keeping. The K-1 design is starting to get a bit long in the tooth. There have since been significant advancements in sensor technology. Not that a K-1 II is not a very fine camera, but for me making a move like that when it is more a luxury, and being I don't like coming in toward the end of a design run before knowing what the replacement will be like, seems unnecessary and maybe unwise. I already have excellent APS-C capabilities with my K-5 IIs and KP. I can be patient enough to find out what is likely to come down the road. My KP quality wise does closely approach that of the K-1 II. You might consider what will best suit your particular needs in a FF body and what advantages a FF body would deliver for those needs.

Since you already have a K-5 (original design), the forthcoming APS-C flagship would be a very significant upgrade in quality for you. The KP already proved to be so over my K-5. Then you'd be set to wait for the new FF flagship, to see what it brings. Time will tell. You could then be preparing your finances until that time. If it doesn't bring anything more useful to what you need a FF body for, then a new left-over K-1 II will be extra-cheap upon clearance.

My legacy lenses of primary interest for FF are the FA 35mm f/2, FA 28mm f/2.8, FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited, and Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II. I have others of some interest for FF, like a wide angle Tokina zoom lens- AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ATX II (77mm filter size) that I would like to put back into use, and a few others. I also have the FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited, which I do like very much on APS-C but would also be nice for FF, and couple of fast 50's, FA 1.4 and "F" 1.7, as well as the DA* 200mm f/2.8 and FA* 300mm f/4.5 but my strategy is to assign most tele activity to APS-C, while keeping the FF use in the shorter lenses range. I would get the FF body with the fine DFA 28-105mm lens to have WR capability.

My APS-C equipment is very well developed and covers a large FL range. It is simply those fine old FF lenses that beckon to me for FF use, and are of moderate to compact weight and size

Right on. I’ll assess the new APS-C flagship if and when it is released, though I’m thinking that I’d like to have one 24x36mm DSLR (I’ve always hated the term “full frame”) and my K-01 as my APS-C camera.

In the meantime, I’m appreciating the full image circle projections of all my legacy Pentax glass by shooting 35mm film with my Pentax SuperProgram.

I’m also shooting medium format with and old Yashica 635 TLR and a brilliant Mamiya Six Automat folder rangefinder.

[Not a Number]

The amount of resolution increase from a K-5 will be rather acute even with APS-c lenses. My DA 55-300 gave me cropped 24 MP field that would have been 11 MP on a K-5.

I think the increased DR and improved high ISO performance will probably be worth the upgrade from a K-5 even in crop mode too.

[VSTAR]

The amount of resolution increase from a K-5 will be rather acute even with APS-c lenses. My DA 55-300 gave me cropped 24 MP field that would have been 11 MP on a K-5.

DA 55-300 on K-1

Still a 26 MP file, even better than I could do with a k-3.Twice the resolution of a K-5 file, even using a crop lens.

If you shoot in FF mode and do the cropping yourself, many APS-c lenses will still give you much better than APs-c performance.

If you are buying a K1 you are likely taking FF photos and not cropping down to the cropped size of APS. Comparing 36 to 16 mp is not a comparison in FF printing. If one is purchasing a FF camera to use it in cropped mode with APS lenses....defeats the purpose and just stay with APS type cameras.
To me it is like buying a Doge Hellcat with 707 hp. You could use the 2nd key when you get in to always turn it to 500 hp. But that is not what you bought it for. If you wanted only 500hp then you would buy a different car. For this camera user, going to a K5 would be more than sufficient IMHO.

---------- Post added 03-07-2020 at 07:59 PM ----------

The K-1 design is starting to get a bit long in the tooth. There have since been significant advancements in sensor technology. Not that a K-1 II is not a very fine camera, but for me making a move like that when it is more a luxury, and being I don't like coming in toward the end of a design run before knowing what the replacement will be like, seems unnecessary and maybe unwise.

If one always wanted to wait until what comes next in cameras, cars, computers, phones...one would never buy anything.

The K1 is a marvelous piece of engineering for what it was designed to do. Not perfect...as video shooting would show...but then it is not designed for videographers.

And long in the tooth???Compared to what at the same price???

For those wanting to get into FF photography...and the available lenses are what they want...I do not believe there is a better or cheaper system on the market.

[normhead]

If you are buying a K1 you are likely taking FF photos and not cropping down to the cropped size of APS. Comparing 36 to 16 mp is not a comparison in FF printing. If one is purchasing a FF camera to use it in cropped mode with APS lenses....defeats the purpose and just stay with APS type cameras.

You can get quite a bit more out of your APS-c lenses using a K-1. Most adequately a cover larger than the crop area. In the example I posted a 26 MP crop, the maximum you can get with a 16:9 crop would be 30 MP on a K-1. With a 12% loss in resolution, you probably won't see the difference in even a large print. And in the image I posted, I would have cropped the same way if using an FF lens. Your analogy is nonsense. Much of the time it makes no difference. If in every image you maximize resolution shooting edge to edge with perfect framing, then your logic makes sense. Personally I almost always crop my images. I prefer to shoot slightly larger than I want and decide on the cropping at home in front of the computer. Your logic does make sense for someone who takes the time to perfectly frame every image to make full use of the frame. You could be that guy... but odds are, you aren't.

My preferred method of display is 48x26, a 4k TV. Even a K-5 is overkill.

You don't have to go hog wild buying FF lenses to get more out of a K-1 than you do out of your K-5. Incremental improvements are still worthwhile, until you get your DFA 28-105.Or as some of my posts have indicated, not worthwhile at all. Really, how often do you have to print big enough to justify a Full Frame? I tend to print big one every 5 years or so. I'm not buying a camera and lenses for that. Especially since the 42 by 30 image on my wall printed from a K-3 file looks quite good. Dynamic range and high ISO performance are the big ticket items for most. Absolute image size is rarely a consideration, and based on most technical specs, shouldn't be.

My summer trip, I took the K-1, I didn't take a full frame telephoto. The weight would have been excessive. There are many reasons fo using APS_c lenses on FF, the most prominenet being so many we're originally designed as FF lenses. Even APS_c lenses like the 60-250 say they were designed for FF on thier patents. The 40s, the DA 35, with my DA*55 the problem is the lens hood which I replaced with a third party lens hood.

You can get creative here. It's not as black and white as you would make out.

[robgski]

I wouldn't encourage anyone to switch to the K-1 only for higher resolution/enlargements. Honestly, I was very pleased with the result I got from the K-5, even when I enlarged up to 24" x 36". The K-5 rewards good technique, and good lenses.

The K-5 is a great camera, mine became damaged after I purchased a used K-1. The K-1 is great, but noticeably heavier and larger than the K-5. I still miss the rugged but more compact K-5 on a few occasions. I have several DA lenses that I rarely use now on the K-1

My main reason for switching to the K-1 was the improved images when using vintage lenses.

[mtl_pentaxian]

The K-5 is a great camera, mine became damaged after I purchased a used K-1. The K-1 is great, but noticeably heavier and larger than the K-5. I still miss the rugged but more compact K-5 on a few occasions. I have several DA lenses that I rarely use now on the K-1

My main reason for switching to the K-1 was the improved images when using vintage lenses.

Improved images when using my vintage lenses is one of the considerations.

How does the size and weight of a K-1 alone compare to a K-5 plus second battery grip (which is my setup)?

[robgski]

How does the size and weight of a K-1 alone compare to a K-5 plus second battery grip (which is my setup)?

I can't say for certain, but I estimate they would be close to the same.

[mikesbike]

I can tell you my KP with the optional battery grip are together about the same weight as the K-3 II without a battery grip, yet can provide longer battery life than the K-3.

[devouges]

I love both my K5 and my K-01,

I have nevertheless been pondering upgrading the K5 for some time now (though would not consider parting with the K-01).

Ricoh has announced a new APS-C flagship but I think I’d want my K5 DSLR replacement to have a 24x36mm “full frame” sensor in order to take advantage of the full image circles of the legacy glass in my lens connection.

Here are the main reasons why the K1 has not enticed me:

- I have a lot of DA lenses and the sensor resolution of the K1 in crop mode is 16MP, so no upgrade from the K5 in that respect;
- the heft of the K1.

What would make me buy a Pentax “full frame” DSLR:
- marginal increase in sensor resolution from 36MP so I can at least tell myself that I’m also upgrading the APS-C resolution for my DA lenses in crop mode (more than 16MP);
- size factor: a more svelte camera that doesn’t compromise on battery power
- attention to aesthetics would be nice: there has been a resurgence in interest in film and film cameras and a certain other manufacturer has caught on and brought back that aesthetic. Ricoh should develop a “FF” DSLR using the design and materials of the ME Super or SuperA.

Just some thoughts. Maybe others were thinking the same thing.

Hi,
I have a K5ii and K3ii. K3ii is mostly used exclusively for birding and wildlife.

I have a battery grip for each one mostly because I like the "grip" feeling: my pinky was always looking for a place to lean on.

I got a K1ii last fall and it came with a free battery grip but I do not use it: it is just too big with the K1.
The extra few millimeters in height that the K1ii has gives me that comfortable grip: feels super good.

I live in the Montreal area. If you want to try it out for a few hours, send me a private message and we can get together.

Be warned that you WILL get the K1 fever and you will feel feverish until you get your own

Gary

[VSTAR]

I can't say for certain, but I estimate they would be close to the same.

K1 body with one battery and SD card = 1010 g
K5=740 battery grip approx. 408 g +battery

So...K5+battery grip approximately same or slightly heavier than K1 body alone

[VSTAR]

You can get quite a bit more out of your APS-c lenses using a K-1. Most adequately a cover larger than the crop area. In the example I posted a 26 MP crop, the maximum you can get with a 16:9 crop would be 30 MP on a K-1. With a 12% loss in resolution, you probably won't see the difference in even a large print. And in the image I posted, I would have cropped the same way if using an FF lens. Your analogy is nonsense. Much of the time it makes no difference. If in every image you maximize resolution shooting edge to edge with perfect framing, then your logic makes sense. Personally I almost always crop my images. I prefer to shoot slightly larger than I want and decide on the cropping at home in front of the computer. Your logic does make sense for someone who takes the time to perfectly frame every image to make full use of the frame. You could be that guy... but odds are, you aren't.

My preferred method of display is 48x26, a 4k TV. Even a K-5 is overkill.

You don't have to go hog wild buying FF lenses to get more out of a K-1 than you do out of your K-5. Incremental improvements are still worthwhile, until you get your DFA 28-105.Or as some of my posts have indicated, not worthwhile at all. Really, how often do you have to print big enough to justify a Full Frame? I tend to print big one every 5 years or so. I'm not buying a camera and lenses for that. Especially since the 42 by 30 image on my wall printed from a K-3 file looks quite good. Dynamic range and high ISO performance are the big ticket items for most. Absolute image size is rarely a consideration, and based on most technical specs, shouldn't be.

My summer trip, I took the K-1, I didn't take a full frame telephoto. The weight would have been excessive. There are many reasons fo using APS_c lenses on FF, the most prominenet being so many we're originally designed as FF lenses. Even APS_c lenses like the 60-250 say they were designed for FF on thier patents. The 40s, the DA 35, with my DA*55 the problem is the lens hood which I replaced with a third party lens hood.

You can get creative here. It's not as black and white as you would make out.

Yes I am one of those photographers that for landscapes and street photography I do not want to crop down much at all.All other manipulation is open season. So using non-FF lenses for me makes no sense. But that's just me.

As far as weight goes...Unless one is purchasing the newest FF Ricoh/Pentax lenses, then weight is really not a problem. For instance I just cannot see me buying the 15-30 with the weight and reviews the way they are, as opposed to the older 20-35 FF lens, or the 17-28.. For general travelling the newer 28-105 is not too large, weight not too heavy, and excellent results with the lens.

Unfortunately, IMHO, displaying a well focused and exposed 12, 16, 20 mp, etc. from a newer digital camera on a TV will probably not look radically different one from the other. But when printing a large size giclee print on archival paper, one can notice the differences, and even notice the differences say between the same size walmart print.

Do I print that large ATT, no. I may take lots of shots, and over a period of time find a couple I am happy with, then work on them over and over again.
Then if enlarging print, work on it again, and then print the final.
So last summer we went to the sunflower farm close to where we live. Took photos one day with K1 and second day with 645D. The 645D provided the best print. But for the beach scene the K1 with a 28-105 was perfect.

Each has there own distinct advantage/disadvantage.

Perhaps the controlling cost in making large prints is the professional printing cost and framing costs.

But I would agree that purchasing FF for the purpose of displaying on a monitor is overkill compared to using a good quality APS camera. But it seems the other manufacturers have done a nice job convincing amateurs/hobbyists that one must have a FF.