K-70 upgrade - K-1 Mark II or K-3 mark III?

ZombieArmy · 09-15-2021, 05:51 PM

I can vouch for the KP. It's an amazing camera and I'll be content for quite a while with it. Not even considering the K3 III, even if I could afford it.

It's small, attractive, supremely well built with noise performance that basically rivals full frame.

**clickclick** · 09-15-2021, 06:12 PM - **1 Like**

I have a K-1 II and a K-3 II, so the K-3 III should compare even better. You initially mention wanting to shoot more bird, pet and night shots. The first two squarely put you into the K-3 III category. I like my K-1 II very much, but it's FPS and buffer is poor compared to the K-3 II, and it's focusing speed is no better. By all accounts, the AF in the K-3 III is far beyond anything Pentax has offered, and it's faster in general. Regarding the night angle, the K-1 platform is great for astro, but the purists will prefer the original K-1 over the mk II due to the accelerator chip. Much has been posted I will not try to summarize here. However, by all I've read, the new K-3 III does a pretty darn good job with higher ISO performance, and probably rivals the K-1 II. By some accounts, it may even be "better." I think the biggest pain here is having to buy the external GPS to have the astro tracer work. That is probably the price of that new viewfinder, which is pretty fantastic by all accounts. I've honestly found that the K-1 doesn't lend itself to traveling as much as the smaller format either. It's not just the body, it's all the bigger and heavier full frame lenses. As already mentioned, you'll need to pick up the 150-450 to have the same FOV as the 55-300 PLM you have. I have both those lenses by the way, and they're both great, but guess what? When I go walk the dog, the K-3 II and 55-300PLM, 20-40 ltd and 15 ltd (or the 16-50) fits into a small holster bag. There's no way I'm hauling around the K-1 II and my 150-450 and 24-70. And if I want super long telephoto and am not concerned about lugging it, the 150-450 is the ticket on the K-3 II. I honestly don't use it much on my K-1 II. I think coming from the K-70, I'd say stick with the APS-C format, and if you want to do full frame, add that later as it's own thing versus as an upgrade path from your K-70.

**richard0170** · 09-16-2021, 05:46 AM

It appears from the various posts by the OP, there is not a problem with budget, with this in mind, perhaps the best course would be to bite the bullet and go for a K3 iii. This would give him the best IQ/AF and best viewfinder available for Pentax APSC cameras, without the bulk of a K1 ii system. Accessories for astro work can be added later. Personally I would like to handle one myself first, but sadly such options are diminishing for most of us.

**mikesbike** · 09-16-2021, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Emirena

Re: all. I don't think I am being held back by aps-c. I'm a huge fan of the k70's user interface, features, and lens quality for prices. I'm very glad I chose to go with Pentax for my first interchangeable lens camera instead of Sony (though their budget point and shoots are great) or an Olympus fixed lens waterproof/underwater tough model that shoots RAW. I will probably get one of the latter for fun sometime, however. Cheaper than a $1000 custom housing!!

My Sony alpha friend said the larger sensor gives a low light advantage but I feel like that's hokum. 24MP is good enough for an 8x10+ print, I don't even have a very large resolution computer monitor (1920x1200 where I do my edits)

I have both the 24mp excellent KP and now also the excellent K-1 II. The KP is great, even better than the K-70, yet even though I don't shoot with Sony, your friend is right in that my K-1 II is still better at higher ISO than is my exceptional KP.

That said, I think you'd be best off with the new K-3 III. The very useful DA 55-300mm PLM lens you have would not yield its full benefits on the K-1 II where you'd have to use it either not over its full zoom range, or in crop mode, where it would provide resolution comparable to an APS-C camera of about 16mp. Your former DA 18-135mm lens is likewise very useful and versatile, but as you said for your uses its aperture limitations were at times an issue, then the obvious choice would be the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM lens. I have both a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM lens for these needs, as well as the DA 18-135mm for general purpose. Unfortunately, that Sigma lens is no longer available for Pentax so you'd need to find a good one used. Maybe more of those will come up after the new Pentax DA* 16-50mm PLM has been available for a while. (for my K-1 II I have my very old but excellent Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II for similar framing to my APS-C Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, but delivering 36mp resolution, and the excellent DFA 28-105mm for general purpose, again able to deliver the superior 36mp resolution but doesn't have as much zoom range as my APS-C DA 18-135mm)

The new K-3 III is close to equal of the K-1 II for higher ISO performance. APS-C offers practical advantages in lighter carrying with better reach for telephoto needs, while the FF K-1 II will deliver superior resolution when comparing imaging using 2 different lenses of similar quality that provide the same framing on both it and the K-3 III when shooting from the same distance. That becomes more and more expensive and heavier, and less and less doable as you go more into telephoto (and is even true of a fast f/2.8 ultra-wide zoom lens). Of course this means having BOTH the K-1 II with the right lenses AND the K-3 III with a fine APS-C lens set, would be the most ideal situation. Then, once you should arrive at this enviable circumstance, you have to ask yourself- how often would you leave the heavier K-1 II behind and take the K-3 III instead, or the other way around?

Last edited by mikesbike; 09-16-2021 at 06:45 PM.

fifescapes · 10-26-2021, 05:00 AM

I would go with the K3iii. It is smaller, lighter (820g for the body & battery vs 1010g, lenses will be lighter as well), and you get more reach with your lenses which might be crucial for wildlife. Reviews reckon the image quality & high ISO performance is almost on a par with the K1ii, and the lesser weight & bulk of both camera & lenses makes it easier to carry which if your wildlife isn't in your garden is worth thinking about.

uhfiwdsf · 11-28-2021, 09:40 PM

As a k-1ii owner, I would say K-1 is a great camera overall however not a very good camera for birding. K-3iii + DA 55-300mm PLM will be beast.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K3 mark III (not mark II !)& Sigma 50-500 (later version) - any experience or issues?	jeallen01	Pentax K-3 III	7	08-14-2021 01:51 AM
K-3 Mark III and GR III topping one Japanese sales chart	JPT	Photographic Industry and Professionals	27	07-31-2021 07:22 AM
Advantages of K-3 Mark III over the K-3 II	c.a.m	Pentax K-3 III	75	04-21-2021 11:49 PM
Upgrade to K-70 or Get a Oly E-M10 Mark II?	SouthernExposure	Pentax K-70 & KF	48	07-14-2020 06:08 PM
K-3 upgrade to "Mark I" or Mark II	neal_grillot	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	20	06-01-2018 02:25 AM

09-15-2021, 05:51 PM	#31
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	I can vouch for the KP. It's an amazing camera and I'll be content for quite a while with it. Not even considering the K3 III, even if I could afford it. It's small, attractive, supremely well built with noise performance that basically rivals full frame.

09-15-2021, 06:12 PM - 1 Like	#32
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	I have a K-1 II and a K-3 II, so the K-3 III should compare even better. You initially mention wanting to shoot more bird, pet and night shots. The first two squarely put you into the K-3 III category. I like my K-1 II very much, but it's FPS and buffer is poor compared to the K-3 II, and it's focusing speed is no better. By all accounts, the AF in the K-3 III is far beyond anything Pentax has offered, and it's faster in general. Regarding the night angle, the K-1 platform is great for astro, but the purists will prefer the original K-1 over the mk II due to the accelerator chip. Much has been posted I will not try to summarize here. However, by all I've read, the new K-3 III does a pretty darn good job with higher ISO performance, and probably rivals the K-1 II. By some accounts, it may even be "better." I think the biggest pain here is having to buy the external GPS to have the astro tracer work. That is probably the price of that new viewfinder, which is pretty fantastic by all accounts. I've honestly found that the K-1 doesn't lend itself to traveling as much as the smaller format either. It's not just the body, it's all the bigger and heavier full frame lenses. As already mentioned, you'll need to pick up the 150-450 to have the same FOV as the 55-300 PLM you have. I have both those lenses by the way, and they're both great, but guess what? When I go walk the dog, the K-3 II and 55-300PLM, 20-40 ltd and 15 ltd (or the 16-50) fits into a small holster bag. There's no way I'm hauling around the K-1 II and my 150-450 and 24-70. And if I want super long telephoto and am not concerned about lugging it, the 150-450 is the ticket on the K-3 II. I honestly don't use it much on my K-1 II. I think coming from the K-70, I'd say stick with the APS-C format, and if you want to do full frame, add that later as it's own thing versus as an upgrade path from your K-70.

09-16-2021, 05:46 AM	#33
richard0170 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,032	It appears from the various posts by the OP, there is not a problem with budget, with this in mind, perhaps the best course would be to bite the bullet and go for a K3 iii. This would give him the best IQ/AF and best viewfinder available for Pentax APSC cameras, without the bulk of a K1 ii system. Accessories for astro work can be added later. Personally I would like to handle one myself first, but sadly such options are diminishing for most of us.

09-16-2021, 06:13 PM	#34
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	Originally posted by Emirena Re: all. I don't think I am being held back by aps-c. I'm a huge fan of the k70's user interface, features, and lens quality for prices. I'm very glad I chose to go with Pentax for my first interchangeable lens camera instead of Sony (though their budget point and shoots are great) or an Olympus fixed lens waterproof/underwater tough model that shoots RAW. I will probably get one of the latter for fun sometime, however. Cheaper than a $1000 custom housing!! My Sony alpha friend said the larger sensor gives a low light advantage but I feel like that's hokum. 24MP is good enough for an 8x10+ print, I don't even have a very large resolution computer monitor (1920x1200 where I do my edits) I have both the 24mp excellent KP and now also the excellent K-1 II. The KP is great, even better than the K-70, yet even though I don't shoot with Sony, your friend is right in that my K-1 II is still better at higher ISO than is my exceptional KP. That said, I think you'd be best off with the new K-3 III. The very useful DA 55-300mm PLM lens you have would not yield its full benefits on the K-1 II where you'd have to use it either not over its full zoom range, or in crop mode, where it would provide resolution comparable to an APS-C camera of about 16mp. Your former DA 18-135mm lens is likewise very useful and versatile, but as you said for your uses its aperture limitations were at times an issue, then the obvious choice would be the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM lens. I have both a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM lens for these needs, as well as the DA 18-135mm for general purpose. Unfortunately, that Sigma lens is no longer available for Pentax so you'd need to find a good one used. Maybe more of those will come up after the new Pentax DA* 16-50mm PLM has been available for a while. (for my K-1 II I have my very old but excellent Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II for similar framing to my APS-C Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, but delivering 36mp resolution, and the excellent DFA 28-105mm for general purpose, again able to deliver the superior 36mp resolution but doesn't have as much zoom range as my APS-C DA 18-135mm) The new K-3 III is close to equal of the K-1 II for higher ISO performance. APS-C offers practical advantages in lighter carrying with better reach for telephoto needs, while the FF K-1 II will deliver superior resolution when comparing imaging using 2 different lenses of similar quality that provide the same framing on both it and the K-3 III when shooting from the same distance. That becomes more and more expensive and heavier, and less and less doable as you go more into telephoto (and is even true of a fast f/2.8 ultra-wide zoom lens). Of course this means having BOTH the K-1 II with the right lenses AND the K-3 III with a fine APS-C lens set, would be the most ideal situation. Then, once you should arrive at this enviable circumstance, you have to ask yourself- how often would you leave the heavier K-1 II behind and take the K-3 III instead, or the other way around? Last edited by mikesbike; 09-16-2021 at 06:45 PM.

10-26-2021, 05:00 AM	#35
fifescapes Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 27	I would go with the K3iii. It is smaller, lighter (820g for the body & battery vs 1010g, lenses will be lighter as well), and you get more reach with your lenses which might be crucial for wildlife. Reviews reckon the image quality & high ISO performance is almost on a par with the K1ii, and the lesser weight & bulk of both camera & lenses makes it easier to carry which if your wildlife isn't in your garden is worth thinking about.

11-28-2021, 09:40 PM	#36
uhfiwdsf Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 124	As a k-1ii owner, I would say K-1 is a great camera overall however not a very good camera for birding. K-3iii + DA 55-300mm PLM will be beast.