[C_Jones]

Interesting, so would you say your K5 is better in some aspects then your K1? It's better at landscapes and people!?! That's surprising, I thought the bokeh would be better on the K1

The K-5 IIs is on my Sigma 150-500 super telephoto lens for wildlife shooting. It is an aps-c type camera. That is why I use it on my super telephoto lens. The aps-c type camera is oriented in a way that it seeks its original images in a closer manner than a full frame camera would.

I use my K-1 II on my Pentax 70-200 telephoto lens to photograph mostly people, flowers, and plants. The K-1 II is a full frame camera and the Pentax 70-200 is a full frame lens which also can be used with aps-c cameras if needed. It excels when used with the K-1 II. The images are amazing and the bokeh is excellent. The reason I have my cameras on the different lenses the way I do is to utilize them in an effective way and keep dust out by not changing lenses frequently. If you are intending to use the 85 as you had expressed, the K-1 II would deliver its highest quality. Also, not to distract you from your original intentions, the Pentax 70-200 and 24-70 are also excellent companions for the K-1 II.

---

Last edited by C_Jones; 04-05-2021 at 07:21 PM.

[pres589]

I'm wondering if the OP has used the FA 77 yet on his existing body... might be worth a rental. The D-FA*85 seems like an amazing lens but it's big, heavy, and costly. The 77 as well as the 90 and 100mm k-mount AF macro lenses all present good options besides the might * 85.

[C_Jones]

That is a different way of looking at things. Lens centric rather than body centric. Interesting, I had never thought of it that way.

I wrote out a more lengthy explanation of why I set up my lenses and cameras that way, but when I went to save the reply it was somehow lost. In less words, the reason I keep my cameras and lenses that way is to have them ready for the different uses I mentioned. Another reason is to not be frequently lens changing and avoid dust.

Having the cameras and lenses set up for specific uses sort of simplifies the process of being ready for the different types of shooting I do.

Thank you for your interest in my previous post.

[mikesbike]

Back when I brought the K5, it was because I had a point and shoot on my trip to Australia and was embarrassed, so it was for travel back then.

1.NOW, married life, to answer your question is portraits, kids having their adventures.

2. A DA 18-55mm and a DA* 60-250mm

3. Sharing on the internet, but for good shots, I'll probably Canvas them and hang on the wall.

Welcome to the forum. Since this is what you've got with your K-5 II, and with your stated photographic interests, here are some thoughts and observations-

First of all, as to FF Vs. APS-C, each has advantages over the other. For FF, it is easier to achieve less noise and higher image quality at higher ISO settings, one could acquire a wide angle lens having a fast aperture (f/2 or larger- meaning smaller number), which is virtually impossible with APS-C, and image quality can be superior- depending on the lens used and the framing compared with top quality in APS-C.

I have long had my K-5 IIs. The "s" means it omits having an AA filter, which potentially can allow finer detail in images. I noticed this improvement over the original K-5. Pentax DSLR models developed since have also eliminated the AA filter but have a switchable anti-moire filter system if needed. Now I also have acquired the KP (for over 2 years) and more recently, the K-1 II. I can tell you, the 36mp K-1 II is quite a remarkable camera and a real bargain for such an advanced FF body with an incredible array of features. I can also tell you, the KP is amazing in that its image quality, even for low noise at higher ISO, is quite close to that of the K-1 II for well over 90% of various kinds of uses!! The KP remains my most used camera. Quality is superb.

The 36mp is meaningful mainly when using a much longer and heavier lens to get the same framing from the same shooting distance compared to the best APS-C with a shorter lens of like quality. Otherwise, you might even be ahead with the APS-C camera. If you are using the same size FL lens on both cameras from the same shooting position, you will get a larger picture of your main subject in your frame with APS-C. Then, to get the FF picture to match the size of the APS-C shot, you'd need to crop, which throws out a lot of MPs, and you could wind up with less than the APS-C shot. The K-1 II's design incorporates a crop mode so you can use DA lenses which are cut to APS-C size sensor use without vignetting, and illustrates this point in that when using this mode, the K-1 II is reduced to about the same MP resolution as your 16MP K-5 II provides (but without the AA filter and with even better low noise performance at higher ISO). Conversely, with the same size FL lens, you will get more width in your shot- wider angle with the FF body, compared to APS-C bodies.

A top quality APS-C system is generally more practical for high quality shooting in the telephoto range. You can carry less weight in both lenses and camera body and get more reach for your shots. I generally use my K-1 II with shorter lenses, like wide angle to short tele, and nearly always my APS-C system for general purpose and for longer tele needs.

Taking all this into consideration with your stated needs and present equipment, I see first of all a glaring mismatch between your lenses with the DA 18-55mm at the short end and DA* 60-250mm at the long end. There is a new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 in the planning stage to keep in mind as a possible future upgrade. Another possibility is the DA 20-40mm Limited. A 3rd and more affordable upgrade would be the DA 18-135mm, which is amazingly versatile and will even perform well at the frame edges out to 70mm. All three will sport very fine build quality and AF performance, including WR construction. It would seem the APS-C system would be better for sitting back at some distance to snipe shots of your kids in action. And someone recommended the FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited, and I can testify- it is a superb portrait lens, is great for much else and with its fast aperture for low light use as well. Though having a stop less aperture, the even smaller DA 70mm f/2.4 is less expensive and very good also. Getting a KP would seem logical in your case (there are still some new ones on shelves at a great price for this high level of camera), and then put that savings towards some really good glass.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 04-05-2021 at 11:25 PM.

[Wasp]

The DA 18-55mm and DA* 60-250mm are both APS-C lenses. Upgrading to a K1 II would mean that new lenses are needed. That can be a pleasant trip down a very deep rabbit hole. Or not.

If you want to keep your lenses, that means a K3 III or a KP. There is a significant price difference - nearly three times - so the decision is yours to make.

[aslyfox]

The DA 18-55mm and DA* 60-250mm are both APS-C lenses. Upgrading to a K1 II would mean that new lenses are needed. That can be a pleasant trip down a very deep rabbit hole. Or not.

If you want to keep your lenses, that means a K3 III or a KP. There is a significant price difference - nearly three times - so the decision is yours to make.

there is an article that can be read about that:

Full Frame Coverage of DA Lenses: Comprehensive Test
Which DA lenses cover the full 24x36 mm frame?
By PF Staff in Gear Guides on Jan 7, 2019

Read more at: Full Frame Coverage of DA Lenses: Comprehensive Test - Gear Guides | PentaxForums.com

[iheiramo]

Hi

Welcome to the forums. I'd like to put in few thoughts as I currently have DFA*85, K1ii and with news from K3iii I'm eagerly waiting to news about K1iii. I want to stay in FF, but feel like the eye AF thru OVF is something I want to have with DFA*85. Kind of a need I haven't come up with any other lens.

DFA*85 is heavy lens. On K1ii it balances nicely. On lighter K3ii it was nose heavy and handling was a lot less comfortable. Didn't like at all and won't try again.

DFA*85 and K1ii has a lot more resolution than fits on 4K monitor. In a way a lot of IQ is wasted unless you print your shots big. I don't and I know my combo is overkill for my needs. I love it nevertheless despite the cost

In conclusion I see two roads to go. First one is the expensive. Get the DFA*85 and wait for K1iii. I believe that will be the camera you really want with that lens. Fill in with short time upgrede if you like. K1iii is likely to cost 500-1000 more than K3iii.
Cheaper road is to get K3iii and cheaper lenses. I'm not really sure if it makes sence to pay for corner to corner FF sharpness of DFA*85 if you use crop body only. It's not only money you pay, but also size and weight. My K3 and F50/1.7 combo already take very nice portraits. I don't believe there's much difference in results on screen size for an untrained eye.

---

Last edited by iheiramo; 04-06-2021 at 05:07 AM.

[mikesbike]

My K3ii and F50/1.7 combo already take very nice portraits. I don't believe there's much difference in results on screen size for an untrained eye.

Absolutely. On APS-C, the 50mm lens angle of view is similar to the FA 77mm Ltd on a FF body, so that 50mm lens then becomes a far more ideal FL for portraits than it would on a FF body. That means a bargain lens with high quality results.

[Papa_Joe]

Obviously the most useful improvement on the gear of the OP would be a replacement of the 18-55.

There is no use in replacing a 16 MP camera with a 36MP camera, when using a mediocre*) lens, that was not good enough for my old istD* (6 MP).

My replacement for the 18-55 ist still working on my K-70 (24 MP) with very good results.

[robgski]

The reason why I use it sparingly now, is due to a high job demand and creating a family and having young kids..

BTDT, but I almost always keep my camera in my car and take little detours and stops along the way to and from the office to capture an image when I can.
Children make for great subjects, and trying to capture them in the midst of frenetic activity is good practice for wildlife photography My friend has 5 children, and she was able to make some creative images far beyond "family snapshots" having several equally creative children willing to take part in her compositions.
Technique is a large part of gaining satisfaction with any level of gear. The more familiar one is with how one's technique affects the result with one's own gear the better the results, and the easier it is to diagnose poor results when one transitions to newer, more advanced gear.
Practice does make perfect, and a small amount of practice more often provides better results than intermittent hour long sessions of focused practiced.

didn't even know it was possible to rent, I will look into this.

Yes. I noticed that pntrs.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJHRkpISUVCRkpOSkVN?url=lensrentals.com has both a K-1 and a KP available for rent. I've wanted to try the KP myself, and will probably rent one when I know I have a long weekend to really use it to the fullest.

---------- Post added 04-06-21 at 06:47 ----------

wondering if the OP has used the FA 77 yet on his existing body.

+1. The FA 77mm is an amazing lens on any camera, and I used it on my own K-5 and a rented K-1, it is fantastic, and I've seen several copies here on PF at very reasonable prices.

[brewmaster15]

I have a question for the OP. What do you take pictures of and how do you use those images? You made mention that "
Just wanted better quality pictures, minimum 25mp".. I guess my question is why? Whats so special about 25 mp as a bench mark goal to you. Not to say its not bad to have more mps.. just that its not always necessary. What you do with the images is important.

I also have a suggestion that goes against the grain.
Don't ask for advice on which camera to get. We are all biased here based on our own needs and experiences even though we try to be objective and try to give an answer thats best for you. But we are not you.Case in point..Personally I think you should get the k3 iii if you are considering a camera upgrade..why? Because it will have the best and newest tech from pentax and the future is unclear as to when you will next be able to buy a new camera model from pentax..it could be years. I also think you should not get the KP or the K3 iii if you want full frame... that would make no sense to do... if mps are that important and FF is high on the list...the k1 mk 2 is excellent.. Alternatively you can pick up a really nice k1 mk 1 used for really fair prices..

Thats the problem with asking for advice on which camera to get. You really need to research each option yourself and think about what you want and what you need...then just do it. For sure ask about the cameras themselves..their tech and shortcomings but ultimately make the decision yourself.

To me...from reading your posts this thread Im seeing someone thats maybe best off shooting his current k5 ii more and continue to research options..Maybe wait until k3 iii has been out a while and see if you drool over the images and reviews... that might be when to pull the trigger. It doesn't sound like you are there yet..which is fine..

Sorry if this wasn't the kind of guidance you wanted but I just dont think its a good idea to spend a chunk of money like this. You have waited awhile now..be patient and decide for yourself which camera to get based on your wants, needs and usages.

Al

[gaweidert]

At one time my herd included a K5, K5-IIs, K3, K1, K1-II and an MX-1. The two K5's have found new owners. The K3 got relegated to backup when I got my K1. When I added a K1-II the K3 got relegated to the shelf. I take it out once in awhile to snap a few shots and make sure it is still working. My K1 and K1-II do all the heavy lifting. They are great cameras. APSc is pretty much a memory for me. The K1 images have a quality to them that is lacking in my K3. Can;t even put my finger on it. I call the quality delicious. I much like the idea of having 36MP record a scene over 24MP and I never bought into that whole equivalent focal length thing.


The MX-1 I really like too. It has some neat little built in features that I really like, Things like in camera image stitching. It was heavily panned here by the naysayers when it came out which is too bad. It is a sweet little camera that never really took off. Too bad because an upgraded version of it would be awesome.


Because the K3-III is APSc format I have to admit that as as excited as I am about the upgrades and the new features the format is a turnoff to me. I will wait and see how the images look before I make a decision on getting it. If there is to be a new FF camera I do not see it coming for awhile. Pentax has already demonstrated that they have no problem letting one line run out without any immediate replacement available for years. Hopefully I am wrong about this regarding their full frame line.


When I got my K1 I also got the D FA 28-105 lens with it. I have never regretted the decision to go full frame or to get that lens.

[jatrax]

I'm talking about a 16mp camera vs a 26 and 36. That alone means a better quality picture and again 100% understand it's all about the shot.

Actually, No. It means it a bigger picture. Not necessarily any better. When the K-3 came out a lot of people felt the K-5 produced better images. In fact a lot of people still like the CCD images produced by the K10D. Bigger can be better if you print large, but its not inherently better. The K-5 can print at 300 dpi to about 11 x 16. The K-3 to 13 x 20 and the K-1 to 16 x 24. How many times do you print to 16 x 24? And most print shops are comfortable printing down to 150 dpi which allows much larger.

Just wanted to upgrade my 16 MP camera and start practicing my skills again on a better tool, but you're right, practice makes perfect.

If that's the case waiting another 12 to 18 months for a "new" K-1 makes no sense. Your skills will improve by shooting, developing and evaluating. Not by buying new gear. If you really want to develop your skills start taking that K-5 with you everywhere and shooting every single day. If you put the K-5 on the shelf and wait 18 months for a 'better' camera what have you gained?

Years back I was doing an art show and walking around I came across a booth with simply amazing photographs. The kind that just stop you in your tracks. I started talking with the photographer who told me she is mostly a water color artist but likes to photograph as well. I asked what kind of camera she used and she did not know. She had no idea what model or brand it was and had to open her bag to tell me. The gear to her was no different than a brush or palette, simply a device to record her vision.


I know the engineer in you wants to study and evaluate and get the best gear possible. But photography is as much art as it is craft. And without developing your art the gear simply doesn't matter.

[Adam007]

I have the K-1. I had the DFA 85, but I returned it for the specific reasons that 1) I wasn't sure of continued investment in the system; and/because 2) I don't think the K-1 AF is equal to the demanding uses the DFA invites.

I plan to try the new K-3, and if the AF is as good as they say, I will re-buy the DFA, enjoy it as a 127mm lens on the K-3, and wait for the K-1 successor.

As for the OP, knowing everything I do now, I would probably get the new K-3, because I have been more disappointed in misfocused shots, rather than a lack of resolution of DR. Much as I love my K-1, buying one now (unless used) isn't particularly cheap, and is showing its age. That said, depending on your style of photography, it is an awesome image-making machine.

Consider buying a used 77 Limited, which will be just over 1/3 of the DFA price, and 85% as good. That might free up some money to make your camera body choice a little more painless. Good luck!