[Mooncatt]

Greetings. I just joined up because I'm looking to move into the Pentax world. My problem is the typical "which one should I get?" I have the body narrowed down to either the KP or K1 mk2, and my first lens possibly the FA 24-70mm f/2.8ED SDM WR lens. I know the K1 mk2 is going to be the better camera, but is it $1,000+ better? The packages I'm looking at would be the K1 mk2 and lens for $3,081, or the KP, lens, and battery grip for $1,994.

I'm just a hobbyist with no real aspirations of going pro. My primary interest is light painting and the occasional trip to a local drag strip when they run jet cars. So that means I need something that can handle long exposures well with little to no artifacting from sensor heat, and to be able to work with a highly contrasted scene. Right now I'm using a 10+ year old Olympus E-500 with a couple kit lenses, so I know either Pentax would be world's better (heck, my smartphone is better in many ways). I've attached some examples of what I'm focused on. I do some other general shots, but not really into a lot of portraits.

Right now I'm leaning towards the KP body, but I just want to know if I'd be making a huge mistake using it for low light work. Everything I'm reading sounds like there isn't a lot of difference between the two. Notable are the better pixel shift and built in GPS (for Astrotracer out of the box) in the K1, which are an interest to be but I honestly don't know if I'd use them much.

On the lens side of things, I'm not hard pressed on that specific one. I mainly picked it for having a decent focal length range and the wide aperture throughout, and good reviews. I'm certainly open to other suggestions for a short range lens, and also a telephoto for later on. Weather resistance is high on the list of must haves.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

   

[MaineNative]

Welcome! To start out, I would go for the KP and the Pentax 16-85 lens. The KP sensor is similar to the K-1
as far as sensitivity but has less resolution since the K-1 is full frame. Unless you really need the f/2.8, the 16-85 is a good focal length for general shooting with the crop sensor (especially landscapes) and the combination doesn’t weight too much. You can buy the O-GPS separately for Astrotracer, but you might want a different lens for Astro.

I have the K-5 and the K-1. I still take the K-5 if I’m flying somewhere because it is a little smaller and lighter. I use the K-1 around the house or if I am driving somewhere. The K-1 sensor is much better than the K-5 in low light, but the KP should be similar to try the K-1 in low light.

It is nice having an on camera flash at times. For my K-1, I have a compact flash in my bag. If plan to do flash photography with either my K-1 or K-5, I use an off-camera flash to prevent red eye.

[MossyRocks]

I went and looked up what you currently have and having a 4/3rds format camera means that you may be surprised by how focal lengths look on a full frame camera like a K-1 since at a given focal length a K-1 will have a field of view twice that of your E-500. An APC-C format camera like the KP will basically sit right between your existing E-500 and K-1 for field of view with a given focal length. My best advice is to go and look at the types of pictures you like taking and ones you liked from your E-500 and see what lengths they fall around. To cover that range with a full frame camera you would need to multiply by 2 and cover the same range on APS-C you would need to multiply by about 1.3. So to help clairfy things lets make up an example with some actual number and say that the majority of shots you take with your E-500 fall between 12mm and 50mm then you would need a lens that covers from about 15mm to 65mm on an APS-C camera or 24mm to 100mm for a full frame camera.

You mention long exposures and low light shots so here again I would be looking at if you shoot wide or long. If you shoot wide you would benefit from a full frame camera as really wide lenses tend to be slower and on APS-C you need to go wider and likely slower to get the same field of view. However if you shoot on the long end a lot going APS-C would be a bigger benefit as longer lenses get slower too. For example I am really pleased with my setup for astro shooting with a 400mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera and since I do a lot of astro shooting I would be looking to eventually replace my existing body with another APS-C camera since to get the same field of view I would have to jump up to using a 600mm lens and the fastest one I've seen is a f/4 and those are even rarer and more expensive than my 400/2.8. Add in that I lose a stop of light going up to a 600/4 lens on full frame but there is a lot less than a stops difference in noise between the KP and the K-1ii. In that case I would be better off using a KP over a K-1ii.

If you find yourself mostly shooting in the middle or normal range (25mm or so on your E-500) then it actually makes very little difference which format you pick as there are good fast lenses that cover the normal focal length in both formats. So on full frame that would be a 50mm lens and on an APS-C that would be about a 35mm lens. There are some really fast lenses all the way up to about 135mm so if your shooting style falls in the normal to short telephoto range you can find fast lenses there without issue.

Currently I am shooting with a K-3 and K-3ii and I've done multi minute exposures at ISO 100 and not had noticeable artifacts from sensor heat and modern sensors have supposedly gotten better so is something I wouldn't be concerned about. However if you are doing high ISO long exposures you may run into other issues. There I would look instead at doing many shorter exposures at a that high ISO or shooting even more shots at base ISO and then combing them in post processing using the additive method. This will help with sensor heat as it will have a chance to cool some and also has the benefit that if something happens during one shot you can just bin and retake that single short shot instead of binning a big long single exposure and retaking that. I do understand that this isn't always possible but for most night photography slow is expected.

So I guess my advice is that you should sit down and ask yourself what you really want to do. If you still can't figure that out then my best advice is get the KP and only buy full frame lenses until you really know what you want. This way you won't be out a ton for the camera but if you do decide to go full frame you won't be out any on lenses and if you stick with the KP well then you have some great full frame lenses that work just fine on your APS-C camera and can switch to buying crop format lenses to save money going forward. Also it is really hard to go wrong with good glass.

[btnapa]

Right now I'm leaning towards the KP body, but I just want to know if I'd be making a huge mistake using it for low light work.

I have the K1 but have tried the KP. On paper and in my experience the KP is just as good in low light as the K1. If you want brand new, go KP and the 16-85 and save a bunch of money. Remember the 24-70 is a full frame lens and on KP it becomes a 36-105! You can go the used route and save in either combination. There is a new 16-50 f2.8 coming from Pentax for the APSc cameras (KP). There is a 16-50 f2.8 Pentax currently available but I think it is not weather proof. If you can wait, I would get the new 16-50 f2.8 lens and the KP. If you have to do it now, get the KP and a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 (neither are WR) and upgrade to the upcoming Pentax 16-50 f2.8 later. Pentax is vey strong in its crop lens line up. If you don't have to have a zoom, there are a few excellent primes that are reasonably priced. You have lots of choices. Do some more research. Hope this helps and does not confuse the matter more. Good luck and welcome to Pentax.

Go for the KP. There are more lenses for the APS-C camera's than for full frame Ricoh/Pentaxes. Don't let the "resolution" fool you. The KP is the better camera, it is better priced, the APS-C lenses are consumer friendly priced, so relatively better. You get a lot more photographic joy for less money with the KP so to speak. I think that the K-1's are not better than the flagships Ricoh/Pentax and the KP is a class of its own. The K-1's are different, not better. The KP is not a flagship and it is not a budget camera. Go for the combination with a 16-85 or the 18-135.

[aslyfox]

the KP and K 1 II are apples and oranges

one is a ASP-C sensor and the other is a full frame sensor

this article might be of interest:

The Crop Factor Explained: An Animation
Understanding a very confusing concept
By PF Staff in Tutorial Videos on Jan 19, 2015
The ubiquity of DSLR cameras with "cropped sensors" (the APS-C format) has been associated with a great deal of confusion among seasoned photographers and new users alike, especially when shopping for lenses.

Read more at: The Crop Factor Explained: An Animation - Tutorial Videos | PentaxForums.com

here is a side by side comparison

Pentax K-1 II vs. Pentax KP - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

it might depend on what you want

You Tube

You Tube

[jatrax]

I know the K1 mk2 is going to be the better camera, but is it $1,000+ better?

I'm going to agree with @aslyfox on this. Neither is 'better', they are apples and oranges. One is a small, light APS-C and the other is a big, heavy, full frame, field camera. I shoot both the K-3II and the K-1II. Which camera I take depends on the situation. If I'm covering an event or anything that I'll be carrying the camera all day I usually take the K-3II. If I'm shooting from a tripod for any reason or shooting landscapes or in dim light or Astro then the K-1II goes. I understand the KP will be better in low light than the K-3II but I think in that situation the K-1II still gives you more headroom with your files.

Pick the one that suits what you are going to do the most.

Note that on the KP the DFA 24-70 will not be particularly wide. On APS-C 16 to 18 is wide angle. On FF 24 to 28mm is wide angle.

[Mooncatt]

Thanks for all the info. Looking at my old photos, I tend to shoot 14-45 mm with the E-500 (So 28-90mm FF equivalent). I don't really have a set preference, and rarely have to worry about space limitations. I do understand the crop factor between sensor sizes, but wasn't a huge concern due to the lack of spatial constraints. I also try to shoot at the lowest ISO I can, but do crank it sometimes. At 400, my current camera is about useless, and I'm not always able to edit composites. I do try to one-shot most things, and is pretty required for light painting.

Looks like the KP is the ideal choice then. If money was no concern, I'd go with the K1ii for the greater sensitivity, but glad to hear the KP works well for low light to. Now to go re-think the lenses.

[robgski]

For the lightpainting as well as the low-light drag racing, I think you'd be happy with both, and though I am a very happy K-1 owner who also does lightpaiting and drag-racing images, I recommend saving some money and buying the KP, you will get about the same level of performance for what you like to do, at a lower cost. As others have said, the DA range of auto-capable lenses for APS-C is much greater than for full frame, also at a lower cost.
As for lenses, the 18-135mm WR lens is a great all-around lens at a low cost. There is an entire thread devoted to this lens, with many great examples.

[bschriver11]

I look at it this way, sooner or later you will probably end up with the K-1ii so save some money and just go ahead and get it if it fits your budget.

[gatorguy]

For the lightpainting as well as the low-light drag racing, I think you'd be happy with both, and though I am a very happy K-1 owner who also does lightpaiting and drag-racing images, I recommend saving some money and buying the KP, you will get about the same level of performance for what you like to do, at a lower cost.

And as a sidenote, not meant to confuse things, you'll get KP performance is an even more economical package with the K-70. In my opinion it's much more pleasant to use than the KP and you loose nothing of importance to you, at least what you mentioned.

For the minimum $2K you're willing to spend you can get some darn good glass, excellent in fact and more then one lens, AND a very good camera and still keep money in your pocket. FWIW the battery grip on the KP is awkward in my opinion, and the KP was already awkward. It took me only one weekend to determine it wasn't for me even tho I really wanted to like the KP itself with its great features and images.

With the K-new right around the corner I'd pick the K1. I resisted it for a long time, but now that I' have one it's been a revelation. Very good low shutter count K-1's can be had for a $1000 give or take and every lens you buy for it would be compatible with the K-new too.

[Mooncatt]

I look at it this way, sooner or later you will probably end up with the K-1ii so save some money and just go ahead and get it if it fits your budget.

When I first got into photography, I used this thinking, and it is a valid point. Considering how little I actually get out to shoot after having it for a hobby for a while, I'm not very concerned about this now.

[Racer X 69]

There are more lenses for the APS-C camera's than for full frame Ricoh/Pentaxes.

I respectfully disagree.

The K mount is backwards compatible with every K mount lens ever produced, and M42 lenses adapted with a K to M42 adapter. Sure, you don't get autofocus, and in some cases aperture is only manual, but the cornucopia of lenses to select from is huge.

Both for APSC and full frame.

My lens lineup has far more film era lenses than digital era lenses. Many M42 (I'm especially fond of the Russian glass), early Pentax M series lenses, a growing batch of A series lenses (having on camera control of the aperture has me spoiled), and a number of others, Tamron, Sigma, Hanimex (thrift store gems that perform better than any of my newer glass), Vivitar, Zuiko.

All cover full frame.

[surfar]

I have the body narrowed down to either the KP or K1 mk2,

There is a new Pentax coming soonish,Ricoh imaging have said they are trying to get it released by end of this calender year.It should be superior to those 2 old cameras you have eyed off.It could be a good idea to wait and see if it suits your needs?

[Mooncatt]

There is a new Pentax coming soonish,Ricoh imaging have said they are trying to get it released by end of this calender year.It should be superior to those 2 old cameras you have eyed off.It could be a good idea to wait and see if it suits your needs?

This isn't necessarily going to be a purchase made in the near future, but that is also something I'm working out in my head. I have heard about the new camera, but it seems they are being tight lipped about it. For that reason, it's not really part of the equation for me right now. If enough details are available whenever I do get closer to purchasing, I'll consider it at that point.