[roberrl]

I think both cameras would give very similar results overall. There will be differences but they would probably only appear in your use case when the camera gets used.
To me the question is do you want to buy an older second hand camera with no knowledge of how it has been used or abused compared with a new camera with 2 year warranty - maybe extendable to 3 years?

[Papa_Joe]

To give the whole discussion an new direction. Get a new K-70. With the money saved, buy some better lenses.

The image quality of the K-70 is not far away from the KP and the feel and touch of the K-70 is closer to your K-110D then that of the KP.

You can take the money saved and buy some new (or used) lenses, that will get the best out of the new camera.
Frankly, you do not have to think about the IQ of the camera, as long as you use something liket the FA 100-300. Which is a decent lens, but nothing more.

I would like to know witch "cheap" standard lens you using. Without knowing that, I would suggest the following lenses to consider.

• DA 16-85/3.5-5.6 - as you did - very good lens a bit dark - good deal
• Sigma 17-50/2.8 more affordable, bigger, not so veratile, but 2.8 - very nice while looking through the viewfinder
• DA 18-135/3.5-5.6 - this lens has it's flaws, but up 50 mm it is very good and it is small, really a walkaround lens. I have one and despite my Tamron 17-50 has better IQ (in my view) the DA sits on the K-70 a lot of time.
• DA 55-300 PLM - what else?
• DA 50/1.8 for sake of 1.8 - excellent lens, that can be aquired very cheap, used in excellent condition. I hestitated to set this onto the list, as you own the excellent 50 mm macro - but, yes - not really necessary.

Concerning KP versus D800 - That in my opinion is not a matter of IQ, but of APS-C versus fullframe. And that does not mean more or less megapixel. The 24 MP of the K-70/KP is more, then a humble photographer mainly reporting his life (like me) needs. 36 MP and fullframe is for (semi-)professionals shooting portraits, weddings, landscapes with the possibility to really enlarge or those needing the 1 stop more ISO (3.200) of the FF (astrophotographer). And remember ISO 800 on the K110D is much worse then 3.200 on the K-70. If you buy a fullframe it is more about handling, bigger viewfinder and most of all (for me) the shallower DOF of fullframe.

Last topic - IQ wise all the cameras I mentioned above are on a comparable level (if you do not need heavy enlargments) - the full frames might be a tad better. But who needs that?

Background: I wanted to buy a K-1 and bought a K-70 instead. The K-1 with better IQ and a DOF to die for, but much to heavy (mind the lenses). I still think about buying a D-700 (12 MP) or a D-610 (24 MP), as I still want this DOF, but when I look at my K-70 and my lenses I do not find a real reason to do so. I own a Sigma 35 mm/1.4 which is comparable to a 2.0/50 mm FF - just much more difficult to set the focus. But to be honest. For portrait you better use 2.0 or 2.8 on APS-C anyway.

EDIT:

With the K-70 you risk an apertures block failure. Although it is a small risk, it still exists.
You can also think about a K-S2 (very nice camera as well, with aperture issue) or a used K-3. Both cameras with IQ not so far from the KP/K-70.

Second EDIT:

If you think about the Nikkor AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR for the D-800. You can stop thinking about image quality as well. A K-70 with a 16-85 (even a 18-135) will perform much better. https://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/768-nikkorafs2485vrff

[Rondec]

I don't know that I would buy a D800 with that many actuations. It isn't that the shutter is going to go bad, but my experience is that electronics start to get flaky around the 7 to 8 year mark. Occasional freeze ups, little glitches start happening and you would be buying a camera that is just entering that stage of the life cycle. The sensor in the D800 is very similar to the one in the K-1 and I wouldn't hesitate from that standpoint.

The KP is really nice, but as others have said, you need to decide on a long term plan with regard to glass that you want to shoot with. Not that you have to buy all of that tomorrow, but that you have thought about your lens line up and will move to filling it out in a particular direction.

[pres589]

Here's my thoughts on the subject which might be not popular;
As previously noted the KP and D800 have very similar noise & IQ performance at different ISO's. The D800 is probably the better landscape body as the crop factor of APS-C vs FF is not helping things. The KP is probably the better general shooting body due to size/weight and 2012 vs 2017 differences. The Nikon Df is probably the most like an MZ-6 but we're not talking about the Df. A Fuji like the X-T20 is probably also much more like an MZ-6 but nobody asked about Fuji so I'll not mention it again.

A KP, the previously mentioned Sigma 17-50 f2.8, and then something like the DA 15 or a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes would be great along with that FA 50 Macro. The DA 15 is something like $400 new and nice and small. These three lenses and the KP could fit in a fairly small bag.


I wouldn't bother with a K-70 as they have some issues which make them less reliable than any of the other cameras mentioned. I would buy the used D800 before a brand new K-70 for the same money or even more.

[Pentaxxoid]

Get a new K-70. With the money saved, buy some better lenses.

That's what I am leaning towards.

Frankly, you do not have to think about the IQ of the camera, as long as you use something liket the FA 100-300.

I agree, and this is why I am going for new lenses, like 16-85 and 55-300. The question is: Do I get Pentax lenses or Nikon

Here is my real reason for FF. For viewing photos on screen, even my 6Mpix K110D is perfectly adequate. However, once a year I want to make a 16"x24" print. I think FF would really outperform APS-C in this size. "Once a year" may not sound like a good reason, but this is the difference between having memories of your kids on the wall vs. somewhere deep in the hard drive.

---------- Post added 10-07-20 at 07:13 AM ----------

A Fuji like the X-T20 is probably also much more like an MZ-6 but nobody asked about Fuji so I'll not mention it again.

I did consider X-T20 and Olympus for a moment. 12 years ago I had some Olympus mirrorless camera (I do not even remember which one), and it had the best image quality I ever experienced! Color and micro contrast were better than anything I ever used before or after. However, if I begin to consider all possibilities here (hey, Sony and Cannon have their merits as well), I will have to spend more time agonizing over my choices than I am willing to. I consider D800 just because this is what I can buy today, since it is sitting in a store next door.

[surfar]

if I begin to consider all possibilities here (hey, Sony and Cannon have their merits as well),

What about a RP with 24-105.Plenty wide for landscapes.Long enough for other stuff.Its the best value FF on the market.5year warranty in OZ,not sure in Canada.Much larger buffer than the 2 you are considering,much better video capabilities.Lighter,touch interface,fully variable screen.

Its been onsale for 999u$d and towards Xmas could be lower.The plastic fantastic RF 50mm f1.8 is close to release,early 2021 I believe.

[Fenwoodian]

I don't know that I would buy a D800 with that many actuations. It isn't that the shutter is going to go bad, but my experience is that electronics start to get flaky around the 7 to 8 year mark. Occasional freeze ups, little glitches start happening and you would be buying a camera that is just entering that stage of the life cycle.

.

Well said! I've never heard that before, but after thinking about it realize that you're absolutely right!

For example, I currently own a 14 year old Pentax K10D. I like it a lot, but the LCD screen on the back regularly goes black and I have to reboot the camera to playback a photo. That's just one of many examples of "flaky glitches" that I've had with older digital cameras over the years.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 10-07-2020 at 08:41 AM.

[Papa_Joe]

Here is my real reason for FF. For viewing photos on screen, even my 6Mpix K110D is perfectly adequate. However, once a year I want to make a 16"x24" print. I think FF would really outperform APS-C in this size. "Once a year" may not sound like a good reason, but this is the difference between having memories of your kids on the wall vs. somewhere deep in the hard drive.

Good reason! I just would like to know what our portrait photographers have to contribute to this. I could imagine 24 MP APS-C will be sufficient as well, but then you need an excellent lens. I guess you are right, easier to achiev with full format.

EDIT

On the other side - you own the A 50/2.8 macro - excellent lens. DA 50/1.8 is inexpensive and really delivers. DA 35/2.4 is excellent wide open and inexpensive as well. And there is the FA 35/2.0 HD very affordable, very good. Sigma EX DG 70 mm 2.8 is razorsharp and a macro.
Can you get a KP/K70 for trial for one day? Use the 2.8/50 mm and do one day kids-shooting? Enlarge the best to 8"x12" and use a magnifiying glass.
Ah, and yes - nothing wrong with buying a D-800, but we allways like to keep our valuable members in the forum :-).

[tibbitts]

So, for me the only real loss would be 50/2.8 macro.

In fairness most 50/2.8 macros provide extremely good optical performance and aren't expensive. You can probably find minor differences, bokeh etc., but among all lenses this would be the least one I'd be concerned about replacing in any mount.

---------- Post added 10-07-2020 at 08:55 AM ----------

I agree, and this is why I am going for new lenses, like 16-85 and 55-300. The question is: Do I get Pentax lenses or Nikon

I have the 16-85mm and it's a good lens, although the image shifting when you touch the focus ring is annoying (and widely reported here.) Occasionally the AF seems to go out to lunch (on my various bodies, so not a body issue), but less often than when it was newer. It took me a lot of tries to get a copy as good as the one I have (centering is still not quite perfect), but the same can be said for other brands of lenses too. I have the older 55-300 and again if you can find a good one it's a good lens, but probably not unique. The PLM is reportedly better in most respects so would probably be your choice - and mine if it worked on my bodies. Ironically when I first decided on Pentax for digital, the 16-45 was a big factor, being somewhat unique at the time to Pentax, so I do understand the reasoning of choosing based on some specific lens selectons.

An overwhelming issue here is size and weight of equipment - it's not like you're comparing like systems, unless maybe you opt for higher-end lenses.

The other issue is that today with Nikon you have a vast selection of modern third party lenses, including some excellent ones, that you don't with Pentax. Third party lens support for Pentax has deteriorated since I decided on Pentax, and would be a factor for me today.

[ChristianRock]

The D800 is probably the better landscape body as the crop factor of APS-C vs FF is not helping things.

Actually, the crop factor makes more things to be in focus (more depth of field), so if you look only at that alone, the KP is the better landscape lens. The D800 on the other hand, with the right lenses, can give you that "only half the eye is in focus"-kind of look. If you're into that.

The D800 does have 36MP against 24MP from the KP. But 24MP is enough for large prints. 36MP is good if you crop a lot.

What about a RP with 24-105.Plenty wide for landscapes.Long enough for other stuff.Its the best value FF on the market.5year warranty in OZ,not sure in Canada.Much larger buffer than the 2 you are considering,much better video capabilities.Lighter,touch interface,fully variable screen.

Its been onsale for 999u$d and towards Xmas could be lower.The plastic fantastic RF 50mm f1.8 is close to release,early 2021 I believe.

The OP stated multiple times that if he had $1,000 available he would look for a K-1, so sure, go ahead and suggest a camera he can't afford...

Here is my real reason for FF. For viewing photos on screen, even my 6Mpix K110D is perfectly adequate. However, once a year I want to make a 16"x24" print. I think FF would really outperform APS-C in this size.

Usually, no, but only because the 300dpi number that gets thrown about a lot, is more than what the human eye can discern. Most people see anywhere between 180 and 240dpi (if your eyes are really good).

[pres589]

I would rather have a good 24mm optic on a 36mpix full frame for landscape shooting than a 15mm optic on a 24mpix crop camera. I think the crop factor to focusing distance difference is more of an issue at wide angles but it seems hardly worth mentioning vs. the benefits of the larger sensor at comparable pixel densities.


I know that a camera is a compromise device for most shooters and they're not going to own a camera just for landscapes and nothing else and I mentioned that. This is just one of the things that comes into the math on making a decision like this. I suggested the KP as the better camera for the given set of requirements.

[donpjt]

I think if you are primarily a landscape shooter, the D800 would make sense because of its high MP count and you can crop more. Also dynamic range on D800 would be much better than the Pentax KP. The only reason you would want to go for the KP is for the usage of existing lenses. I had switched from Pentax K-3 to Nikon D750 and for landscape shots never miss the image stabilization, mostly because the Lens I use has VR and also I use tripod for a lot of my landscape shots. If you use a lot of manual telephoto zooms then the manual focusing on the Nikon won't be as easy as the Pentaxes, Also someone commented that ISO noise is higher for D800 but that will be the case because of the D800s larger MP, if you cropped the image to 24MP the noise would be the same/ lower.

I also shoot a lot of sunset/sunrise. So if you want to get more detail from the shadows then the dynamic range plays a big part and that one place the FF would definitely do better than the KP. I also use the 24-85 VR lens which you are planning to buy and that is a pretty good zoom lens, good sharpness overall. If you also shoot kids have you thought about the D750, it has better low light focusing and overall good for portraits as well. You'd be giving up the 36MP resolution, but everything else is good and the camera is very rugged. You can find used ones for about 700-750 on the lower end. I also had the 50 2.8 macro and definitely miss that once I moved to Nikon. Nothing equivalent in Nikon in that price range. But as you mentioned lenses in Nikon are available in plenty. I bought a 80-200 F4 Nikon Manual lens for about 50 bucks and it was one of the sharpest zoom lens you can come across good for landscape and portraits as well. Its as good as prime. As you mentioned, you have a lot of choices, but you have to decide if you want to go the Nikon or Pentax Route. It was a hard choice when I left pentax because I loved their cameras, but now that I'm using Nikon, I love their image output as well and don't really miss pentax anymore.

[pres589]

I would like to see solid evidence of greater dynamic range on a D800 vs the KP. I don't think it really matters anyway; for the purposes given I don't think dynamic range deltas are going to be that noticeable.

I really think that sensor science advanced a lot in the years between these two cameras shrinking the differences in final output. So then other considerations make the difference, like value for money, easy of carry, ease of use, etc.

[donpjt]

I would like to see solid evidence of greater dynamic range on a D800 vs the KP. I don't think it really matters anyway; for the purposes given I don't think dynamic range deltas are going to be that noticeable.

I really think that sensor science advanced a lot in the years between these two cameras shrinking the differences in final output. So then other considerations make the difference, like value for money, easy of carry, ease of use, etc.

It is the same as the K-1 vs KP. K-1 has a much better dynamic range because it is a full frame sensor. K-1 and D800 have almost the same Dynamic Range 14.8 vs 14.6 on D800. The K-3 (same sensor as KP) only has 13.6 which is quite a big difference. (Source DXOMark sensor database) Also from my practical usage I have used K-3 and D750 and I underexpose a lot and on the Nikon get so much detail from shots which look completely black. One thing I've loved on the FF. I was never able to do that when I was using the K-3

[surfar]

The OP stated multiple times that if he had $1,000 available he would look for a K-1, so sure, go ahead and suggest a camera he can't afford...

Go and read post 19.