I currently have a K10D, K-5 and K-3. I don't shoot as much as I did when I lived in Maine but I keep thinking I sure would like a full frame camera.

I really don't want to invest in more lenses since I have most of the Limited primes. Will they work with a K-1?
Will there be any shortcomings for not using a lens designed for the K-1?

What are the benefits of a K-1 over a K-3?
I have to believe this has been discussed in previous threads but I got away from this forum because of other things in my life and I just haven't kept up.

Are there any new cameras on the horizon from Pentax or does it look like the K-1 is the last DSLR in the works?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

Pricewise I should say no. You own three Pentaxes of which I only read good experiences. Not only on this forum. I too have hesitated long. Am I really in need of a K-1 and the answer is no. Wait for the new APS-C soon to come, that is what I do.

[c.a.m]

Is there any information on the new APS-C camera? And idea of a release date?

Ricoh revealed an upcoming APS-C camera in September 2019, but there has been no indication of specifications or a release date. Also, a number of threads on Pentax Forums have discussed the new camera, but much of it seems to be speculation owing to lack of details from Ricoh.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/392765-new-k-serie...exhibited.html

Close-up Photos: New Pentax APS-C Flagship - Pentax Announcements | PentaxForums.com

Purchase dilemma - KP or new APS-C flagship? - PentaxForums.com

Price of new apsc flagship - PentaxForums.com

Upgrade Question - Upcoming ASP-C Flagship or K1 Mk ii ? - PentaxForums.com



- Craig

[house]

Not true at all!
The DA 40 is great on the K-1, as is the DA*55 (with a little vignette up to F/4, and the DA*50-135 is very nice in square crop mode. Also all those great older manual lenses as well as the new IRix lenses are reasonably priced for additional options with a K-1 either MkI or MKII.

Caveats like square crop mode, limited zoom ranges, poor edge performance or limited f-stops imho means you are better off shooting those lenses with a crop body. You end up with a significantly larger and heavier body and lenses you can only shoot within various complicated limitations. And for this pleasure you pay quite a lot of money.

The OP it turns out has quite a few FF compatible lenses so should be good to go from that perspective!

[gabriel_bc]

I finally made the jump - started with a K10D, then a K5, and now just pulled the trigger on the K1 mk ii. Looking forward to finally releasing my FA20-35/4 onto its native format.

[aslyfox]

I finally made the jump - started with a K10D, then a K5, and now just pulled the trigger on the K1 mk ii. Looking forward to finally releasing my FA20-35/4 onto its native format.

just confused and curious

why do folks think that digital full frame camera bodies are what film era lenses were developed for

if you want that experience shouldn't you be using such lenses on film cameras ?

[btnapa]

What are the benefits of a K-1 over a K-3?

I did own both at some point but let my two K3 bodies go. I still have a K5IIs and my K1. For me the major difference was high ISO performance of the K1. Then there is the shallow depth of field, higher resolution, using my FA Limited trio for the format they were intended for (FF)... and the list goes on. I used my K3 and K5IIs for plenty of paid gigs but for ultimate image quality, and I call it my medium formate replacement, I use the K1. If I had to use APSc again, I would not hesitate using the KP. I think image quality wise it is the best APSc Pentax makes. Then again we have the new body that is supposed to show up sometimes soon. When? Who knows. This is Pentax after all. Part of the charm of Pentax is that you are investing in a system that comes with the never ending element of suspense as far as new camera and lens releases!!!

You are in a good position to pick up a used K1 for a good discount. I paid full price for mine. If you are able to pick up a K1 for about a $1,000 or so, I would say go for it. There is no camera that I know of that can touch the K1 quality for that price. I have shot plenty of Nikon, Canon and Sony FF cameras. I said for the price (used). Are there better cameras out there? Sure. But not for the low prices K1 goes for these days.

As far as lenses go for a K1, you have a solid FF lens base. You can always add more capabilities, wide or long later.

[gabriel_bc]

just confused and curious

why do folks think that digital full frame camera bodies are what film era lenses were developed for

if you want that experience shouldn't you be using such lenses on film cameras ?

I've been using it on film all along - but digital has its place and the FA20-35 is a decent performer on the K-1. It's not either or, it's both-and.

[aslyfox]

I've been using it on film all along - but digital has its place and the FA20-35 is a decent performer on the K-1. It's not either or, it's both-and.

thanks for the response

I just started to fool around with film

primarily to use my film era lenses on full frame

I'm too cheap to buy a K 1

[MossyRocks]

As far as going to full frame or staying APS-C I would ask my self what benefit would I get out of FF that I'm not getting with APC-C? When I first went digital about 3.5 years ago my plan was to save up enough to get a K-1 but just use a K2000 with an adapter for my old film lenses. I was pleased with the K2000 as it was a cheap way to get better at photography, I took a lot of photos just to better master things, but then 3 months after getting the K2000 I saw a very lightly used K-3 up for sale at a stole it price. Since then I've added a K-500 and K-3ii to the mix and for what I shoot the only benefit of FF would be the wider field of view for landscapes, but a stitched piano gets that job done most of the time in a better manner. For astro I would need long thus slower lenses because most of what I shoot frames up pretty nicely with my A* 400/2.8 so going to a 600/4 for a similar framing basically wipes out any benefit from lower noise and probably more as I would lose a stop of light from the longer lens. I tried to find some comparison between the KP and K-1ii on this subject and the best I managed find was a dynamic range compairson and at ISO 3200 the KP gave 7.82 for stops of dynamic range while the K-1ii gave 8.02 stops at ISO 3200. So while the K-1ii has more dynamic range at a fairly common ISO for astro photography I would lose a stop of light so I would need to shoot at ISO 6400 to make up for it (you are always shooting at the maximum time you can per frame so you can't change that) with the K-1ii so I would really have a dynamic range of 6.86 stops.

So for me I'm not looking to go full frame any longer and if I were to go bigger, because I won the lottery, a 645Z and full set of lenses would be magically showing up at my door. Now after looking at all of that I kind of want to get a KP but would probably be better off waiting for the K-new with the rumored BSI sensor because that should really provide some good benefit for what I do.

[Apet-Sure]

When I transitioned from 35mm (FF) film cameras to APS-c cameras, I had to re-learn the definitions of wide-angle, normal, and telephoto focal lengths. The difference in sensor size between formats means that for a certain focal length lens the visible angle-of-view in the viewfinder will be different. For instance, an FA 31mm lens on APS-c gives you a 'normal' FOV. On a K-1 it would be considered slightly wide-angle, since a 'normal' focal length would be 50mm. The 'crop factor' multiplier is 1.5, or .667, depending on how you look at it. Your 100mm lens on your current cameras gives you the same FOV as a [EDIT: 66.7mm-wrong] 150mm lens would give you on a K-1. So, going to FF from APS-c will make all your lenses seem 'shorter'. In my case, going to APS-c from FF, my lenses seemed 'longer'. It's just something you have to get used to. I may not be explaining this very well, but the bottom line is a K-1 will seem to push the scene farther away than what you are used to. Not necessarily a problem, just something to consider.

[Lowell Goudge]

I went full frame on the K1 about 16 months ago, except for 2 of my ~60 lenses all are full frame, however I still use my K5 for long release shots, because I am going to crop them any way. The K1 has really made my Tammy 28-75 a lot more useful, and it now actually overlaps with my sigma 10-20 when the latter is on my K5. I look at this as a system not a one body concept

[mikesbike]

You have very good set of full frame lenses already. I have 31, 43, 77 and FA 100 macro myself and I have enjoyed all of
them more with K-1 than I did with K-3.

For me, this is the main draw for a FF body, although I would get it with the DFA 28-105 as well, in order to have a fine all-around zoom lens that features WR, and is relatively compact and lightweight. I have a very nice Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 Pro II as a fast zoom lens. The FA 31mm would be especially fine on FF, as you'd gain a fast WA lens with excellent imaging quality. If going FF, I might be more interested in that lens, though I already have the FA 35mm f/2, and would look forward to using it again in FF FOV. I already have the FA 43mm, which is also much more versatile on FF with its natural perspective and semi-wide normal FOV. However, the K-1 design is becoming rather long in the tooth, so a significantly updated replacement might be on the horizon. Because of this, I am playing the waiting game.

---------- Post added 04-24-20 at 07:59 PM ----------

The K1 has really made my Tammy 28-75 a lot more useful, and it now actually overlaps with my sigma 10-20 when the latter is on my K5. I look at this as a system not a one body concept

Exactly. Each has its own good advantages, and very fine lenses to work those advantages, so having both as an overall system is being realistic.

---------- Post added 04-24-20 at 08:04 PM ----------

I tried to find some comparison between the KP and K-1ii on this subject and the best I managed find was a dynamic range compairson and at ISO 3200 the KP gave 7.82 for stops of dynamic range while the K-1ii gave 8.02 stops at ISO 3200. So while the K-1ii has more dynamic range at a fairly common ISO for astro photography I would lose a stop of light so I would need to shoot at ISO 6400 to make up for it (you are always shooting at the maximum time you can per frame so you can't change that) with the K-1ii so I would really have a dynamic range of 6.86 stops.

Wow! Very interesting. I love my KP- 7.82 vs 8,02 DR is extremely small! Low noise at higher ISO with preservation of detail is quite close also.

The prototype photos for the new APS-C flagship in the link supplied by c.a.m. are intriguing and reveal a design pretty much as I have suspected it would turn out to be- with the latest topside controls system similar to the K-1 and the KP. If it has a new BSI sensor, it might be a sensation. There is every chance, however, that this horrible pandemic has caused a delay in its release. The eventual K-1 II replacement will no doubt follow suit in similar upgrading of the FF department.

[monochrome]

I bought the K-1 in a camera store the day it was released. I also have a used KP I bought in the Marketplace. Each camera has its purpose and uses and I wouldn’t give up either.

In six months the K-1ll will still be available and there will (likely) be a brand new APSc Flagship also available. I would wait until you have a choice between the two.

[MossyRocks]

Wow! Very interesting. I love my KP- 7.82 vs 8,02 DR is extremely small! Low noise at higher ISO with preservation of detail is quite close also.

That is why I used it as an example of something to consider. For me a big part of my shooting is astro so that is why I chose that as an example of a consideration, that and going from a 400/2.8 to a 600/4 lens is another huge expense that I don't want to think about doing. So for me a high end APS-C and 400/2.8 would provide better cheaper results than a FF and 600/4. Yes I know there is the 1.4x-L converter but I still lose that 1 stop of light. Your preferred subjects and shooting style may show a different result if you do a similar analysis. Then there is the "I want it because" factor and there is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't require any other justification either.

[noelpolar]

Yes.... to the thread heading.

I had a K3 and two K1's.... after a couple of years of no longer using the K3 I sold it.... frame rate and buffer etc are important to me.... but the K1 experience far outweighed the K3 experience. I also bought a KP last December.... but still reach for the K1 99.9 times in a 100*.... the KP is a bit smaller.... but thats about all I get from it.

The 31, 43 and 77 are a far better experience on a K1 than crop........... (for me.... haha).

If I'd never owned a K3 after the K5II..... I don't think I would have sweated it..... but a K1.... would have left me totally dehydrated.

*how can one reach for a KP 0.1 times in a 100 you could ask? Easy, I just make a small hand motion towards it.... so it feels like part of the family..... before I grab a K1.

Also..... I would be very weary of opinions of anyone who has not owned a K1 or K1II.

---------- Post added 25-04-20 at 07:04 PM ----------

thanks for the response

I just started to fool around with film

primarily to use my film era lenses on full frame

I'm too cheap to buy a K 1

Have you hired a K1 and given it a go for a few weeks?