[Emirena]

So....for the sake clarity, if this thread is really about you upgrading to the K-3 Mark III (not the K-1 MarkII), all your lenses will work exactly as they did on the K-70.

If we are not talking about the K-1 Mark II, perhaps the title of the thread should be changed. If you are not sure how to do it, I can walk you through, or even do it for you if that is easier

Please do change the thread title - I tried to figure out how! Thank you!

No worries, some day I'll have multiple camera makes, but not right now.

Is the 11-18 f2.8 kit lens worth it? Since the k3 is aps-c I won't be losing any of the 18-135 range with my other lenses except the 19-35 area which I don't think I have any need for. This would let me sell my Rokinon 10mm (and I'd have all Pentax lenses again!)

As far as weather sealing, the 18-135 that was on the camera is WR. That's part of why I used it sailing. Unfortunately everything had water in it. Lens, body, memory card and battery (leaked acid too). Sigh! It was in the sink of the boat and must have been sitting in water that had drained by the time I picked it out. Nevertheless. I'm buying insurance for the next one. Seems "drops and spills" would cover this.

[Emirena]

Ok, I think the real question is should I get the k1 mkii full frame instead of upgrading to the shiny new aps-c.

Camera decision.com rates k1 mkii as overall clear winner. Articulating screen and better image quality on high iso are important to me.

Bother are heavier than my already hefty k70, by a 1/4 or 1/2 lb... Of course I'm an adventure photographer and this just... Yeah. I chose not to go mirrorless, I'll eat the extra weight.

I have the *HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 PLM ED WR

To be specific and hope this great lens works on ff at the telephoto end.

If this sounds like the right decision I'm just going to grab the Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Lens to replace my aps-c 18-135

And perhaps the Pentax Normal SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens for convenience as noted. I see there's "adjustments" necessary for digital focus, can anyone speak to how that works? Worth saving $700 over the digital version.

I can get the sigma up to 500mm zoom or a tele converter later.

Seems the brand new tech on the k3 mkiii still can't match the k1 results in astrophotography and detail....

Thoughts?

[Des]

Is the 11-18 f2.8 kit lens worth it?

Kit lens? It's a star lens, one of Pentax's premium line. And priced accordingly.

I think the real question is should I get the k1 mkii full frame instead of upgrading to the shiny new aps-c.

Perhaps have a look at some of the myriad threads on the question of FF v APS-C. You will see that it's not a meaningful question in the abstract. The answer is always: it depends.

If you want a sensible answer for your circumstances you need to describe in detail what you photograph or want to photograph. "Adventure" photography doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps point us to examples. You mention photographing a running dog with a wide aperture. You don't need a K-1ii for that - a K-3iii would probably be better, because of its better AF. (And why use a wide aperture - with narrow depth of field - for a subject like that? It only makes it more difficult to achieve reasonable focus. If it's too dark, why not use a flash?) You mention wanting to photograph birds or other wildlife. The K-3iii is probably the better choice, because you can fill more of the frame at a given focal length (and the K-3iii has better AF and can shoot a longer and faster burst). You mention low light photography. What sort of low light photography? Tripod-mounted? People, stars, landscape? What ISO do you use? Are you shooting RAW and processing? What noise reduction software are you using?

What do you intend to do with your images? View them on a phone? Post on Flickr? Publish them in NatGeo? Wall size prints?

I understand wanting an articulating screen - I have the same reservation about the K-3iii. But for me that is about tripod use and low (or high) angle shots (e.g. macro close to the ground). Do you shoot on a tripod or in other circumstances (such as street photography) where you need the articulating screen often enough that a fixed screen is a deal-breaker? Have you considered workarounds, like connecting your phone with wifi? Have you considered a KP, which has a tilt screen, is compact, sturdy and well-featured, and has very good high-ISO performance?

And if I can put this delicately, if you haven't been able to get the photos you would like with your previous kit, it might not be entirely due to the limitations of the hardware. Don't make the mistake of thinking that dropping a bundle on new gear will instantly give you better images.

[Sandy Hancock]

Title changed, but I'm still confused.

@Emirena , if you found you K-70 hefty you're in for a shock, especially if you go for the K-1 and a suite of full frame lenses.

[richard0170]

Ok, I think the real question is should I get the k1 mkii full frame instead of upgrading to the shiny new aps-c.

I have prevaricated over getting a K1 (or K1 ii), since release. I already (and still do) owned a K3. I was initially put off by the K1 due to its bulk even though it does feel superb in the hand and in every way apart from size would be an ideal camera for me. I have flirted with FF from Nikon (do not like their cameras though), and yes you do see a difference in IQ over APSC even without pixel peeping, but I can never get over the K1's size and weight and I do not consider the IQ improvement to be significant enough for me to warrant a move to FF, but I still keep considering it on and off. Luckily I have been able to actually handle a K1 prior to purchase unlike the K3 iii. I feel it very important to actually hold a camera before deciding to buy new when they cost such a significant amount of money. If you can actually get to handle either camera before making a decision, that decision should be so much easier to make. If you are OK with the K1 ii size and weight, it certainly represents very good value for money, and is a beautiful machine.

[luftfluss]

i feel it very important to actually hold a camera before deciding to buy new when they cost such a significant amount of money. If you can actually get to handle either camera before making a decision, that decision should be so much easier to make.

+1000

[Emirena]

Kit lens? It's a star lens, one of Pentax's premium line. And priced accordingly.

Perhaps have a look at some of the myriad threads on the question of FF v APS-C. You will see that it's not a meaningful question in the abstract. The answer is always: it depends.

If you want a sensible answer for your circumstances you need to describe in detail what you photograph or want to photograph. "Adventure" photography doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps point us to examples. You mention photographing a running dog with a wide aperture. You don't need a K-1ii for that - a K-3iii would probably be better, because of its better AF. (And why use a wide aperture - with narrow depth of field - for a subject like that? It only makes it more difficult to achieve reasonable focus. If it's too dark, why not use a flash?) You mention wanting to photograph birds or other wildlife. The K-3iii is probably the better choice, because you can fill more of the frame at a given focal length (and the K-3iii has better AF and can shoot a longer and faster burst). You mention low light photography. What sort of low light photography? Tripod-mounted? People, stars, landscape? What ISO do you use? Are you shooting RAW and processing? What noise reduction software are you using?

What do you intend to do with your images? View them on a phone? Post on Flickr? Publish them in NatGeo? Wall size prints?

I understand wanting an articulating screen - I have the same reservation about the K-3iii. But for me that is about tripod use and low (or high) angle shots (e.g. macro close to the ground). Do you shoot on a tripod or in other circumstances (such as street photography) where you need the articulating screen often enough that a fixed screen is a deal0breaker? Have you considered workarounds, like connecting your phone with wifi? Have you considered a KP, which has a tilt screen, is compact, sturdy and well-featured, and has very good high-ISO performance?

And if I can put this delicately, if you haven't been able to get the photos you would like with your previous kit, it might not be entirely due to the limitations of the hardware. Don't make the mistake of thinking that dropping a bundle on new gear will instantly give you better images.

Pardon, b&h was selling the 11-18 F2.8 bundled. That's why I said "kit".

I wasn't unhappy at all with my k70, and I'm a newbie at astrophotography which feels like a different animal, so user error/ignorance is a factor there.

If the kp has marked improvements over the k70 on AF performance and less noise at iso 1600-6400 it would be a great compromise.

I used a tripod and 2" delay (not mirror up mode) to take the single exposures of the milky way at the end of this small gallery: Amazon Photos

Note I used the now lost f3.5 min. 18-135mm on this picture.

I hike, boat, and enjoy taking animal photos. You can see a good selection of random things I shoot on my Instagram feed: Login ? Instagram

It seems the k3 mkiii would be less unwieldy for travel, and not having to immediately purchase new lenses is a bonus. I'd miss the articulating screen but you're right, only a little. Astro tracer mode would be nice too... (K1 mkii has).

Seems the k3 mkiii really shines in AF which can be really make or break for wildlife photos. Here's some of the dog photos, the wide shot of the black and white dog running towards camera is blurred but I didn't include those I missed focus on.Amazon Photos
Pardon, b&h was selling the

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to make a choice, I'm leaving on a camping trip Monday and will die if I don't have any camera to use, so I won't be getting to handle before buying, but I can say the k70 always felt secure and comfortable in my hands.

I use Adobe Photoshop cc 2018 with camera raw 12 and sometimes Lightroom classic to edit. I mainly do photo prints and web sharing for general purpose so print resolution doesn't matter to me.


I'm looking at the irix 15mm f.2.4 for wide and astrophotography now I don't have my 18-135 at wide end. Would work with ff or aps-c.

---

Last edited by Emirena; 09-15-2021 at 02:22 AM.

[jersey]

I think it more depends on priorities. If you prioritize astrophotography I think K-1 makes more sense. Better resolution of sensor and better details which is rather important if your subject are tiny lights. And for everything else live with limitations of older AF system and bigger, heavier system which are main difference. If you prioritize wildlife and action get K-3 Mk III as currently nothing beats it in terms of AF in Pentax world. It is also lighter and smaller system so another plus when you are crawling through bushes It has also better reach for buck (1,5 crop factor is cool for long reaches and APSC lenses are cheaper then FF).


And if you really need (need = you earn money with it) fast and accurate AF then I think try looking at some mirrorless offering. Sony would be probably best as even my Sony phone(!) beats K-3 Mk III when it comes to accurately tracking fast and erratic moving objects. Alpha software is really something else. But that would mean a lots of cost as changing systems is never cheap.

I was in same point some time ago, when I was choosing between K-1 Mk II, preordering K-3 Mk III or switching to another system. As I prioritize airplane spotting and train photography I decided for K-3 Mk III, bigger sensor was not important to me, better AF was. And I already had some nice lenses so switching would have been too costly.


But it is for you to decide.

[Kozlok]

It is difficult to handle an actual K1, so when I was faced with the idea of jumping to FF, I handled one of the Nikon FF cameras that was more or less the same size as the K1. I decided it was much too large for me, and I've happily stayed with APS-C ever since. I've still toyed with the idea of adding one, just to use the FA31 in its natural FOV, but alas, I chose the K3III instead due to the autofocus. It really is pretty spectacular. The online reviewers all say mirrorless is even better, but this gets my keeper rate high enough for my needs.

[normhead]

My 3 yo k70 just got put to death by saltwater (unfortunately the weatherproofing really isn't good enough for conditions below deck in a sailboat, but gloriously my SD card hasn't quite given up the ghost yet).

For gods sake get a Pelican case.....or a WG.

I have half a dozen lenses (including the kit 55mm from my mother's k1000) from my time with it, and would love to purchase another pentax. I'm just a hobbyist but would like the capability to shoot more pet, birding, and night shots - the areas where my k70's limitations were the most severe. I had evident noise well below 6400 iso, and difficulty with missed focus on moving subjects. Nothing else about the camera was any less than perfect in my opinion.

I've been drooling over the k1 mkII and would love to give it a shot at becoming my new favorite.

I don't own a camera I can use reliably over 1600 ISO, 3200 max. And those are for ID images, not for prints. For prints I prefer 800 ISO or less on APS-c or 1600 ISO on FF. As far as I know (and I'm sure I'll be corrected when I'm wrong.) but I shooting at 6400 for night shots requires considerable post processing clean up on any camera.

Is there anything about the upgrade to full frame beyond minor issues like wider FOV and potential vignetting/etc I should be concerned with when I use my aps-c lenses with it? Is the sensor and focus system upgrade going to blow my mind in a good way (is it worth it)?

A much slower FPS for birding on the FF. Slow buffer write and clearance. Clunkier overall feel and function. No mind blowing improvement that is discernible on every image with the FF, so sometimes a difference, sometimes no difference at all, especially at reduced sizes. The only thing I find attractive at the moment with the new K-3.3 is the much more advanced AF for birding and FPS.

Specifically, I have

pentax DA 55-300mm f4.5-6.3
aforementioned asahi pentax 55mm f2
rokinon 10mm aspherical
(18-135 from k70 is trashed)
DA 35mm f 2.8
DA 100mm macro f2.8

I want to buy a 400+ telephoto for birding but it's not a priority due to cost

Many thanks

If you buy an FF, you'll have to buy a 450mm lens to match the field of view on your APS-c camera. That will be advantageous, but being used to 300 on APS-c, I like 500 or 600 on FF.

I use my DA 55-300 on FF, because it's cheap and lightweight. But you need to watch in the viewfinder for vignetting which is not always present, but at most focal lengths it is. You have to b willing to settle for maybe 30 MP instead of 36. But it's still more than 24.

MY move to FF cost me $2000 for a 300 2.8 lens suitable for use with TCs to extend the range. The ideal birding setup for APS-c is the DA*300 ƒ4 with 1.4 TC for 420mm. And that will give you larger more detailed images when used on APS-c as opposed to FF. I think the relatively modern "ultimate" birding lens for Pentax is the DA 560. It's a lot of money. The preferred choices in legacy would be the 600 ƒ/4 or Sigma 500 4.5. They are even more money. Well, maybe not the SIgma if you can find one. There are lenses like the Sigma 12-400, 50-500, or 150-500 that can be had second hand for more reasonable prices.

(18-135 from k70 is trashed)

Bummer... DA 16-85 and DA 55-300 PLM is the way to go. The DA 55-300 PLM (only) ,may or many not work with the 1.4 TC depending on how good the copy you get is. I'm on my second. The first was too soft to benefit from a TC, the second is a bit better. I any case, when long for more reach for birding, the 1.4TC is the way to go for getting a light weight portable illusion.

Adding an FF K-1 to my K-1 in my camera cases cost me the K-1. D-FA 28-105, Tamron 300 2.8, ROkinon 14 2.8 and Sigma 24 macro, and happy use depends on a DA 55-300 PLM and a number of lenses like the DA*55 1.4. Total cost, at least $5k above my K-3 system to get roughly the same functionality. If budget is tight, adding a K-1 to an existing K-3 system is going to be extremely frustrating.

In your situation, I'd actually recommend trying for a K-P or K-70 and a DA 16-85, and a Pelican case. But if you don't mind the reduced IQ and just want memory images, get a WG.

Good luck, sorry about your K-70.

[Emirena]

Thank you everyone!

I have the budget to go for full frame, and I have a 55-300plm. the astro advantage is tempting.

Does anyone know how the AF on the k1 compares to the k70? Is it actually no better, perceivably?

If it's still a step up I'll be comfortable with the move and can afford a tc and a new ff lens or two (the irix 15mm, 28-105 or 18-65 and a 50mm f1.4 seem worth it) and sell my Rokinon 10mm for aps-c.

If it's not, the k3 III should be a no brainer.

I left my k70 In a dumb spot, I could have avoided this - and bought insurance, which I'll be doing this time.

[termy]

Thank you everyone!

I have the budget to go for full frame, and I have a 55-300plm. the astro advantage is tempting.

Does anyone know how the AF on the k1 compares to the k70? Is it actually no better, perceivably?

If it's still a step up I'll be comfortable with the move and can afford a tc and a new ff lens or two (the irix 15mm, 28-105 or 18-65 and a 50mm f1.4 seem worth it) and sell my Rokinon 10mm for aps-c.

If it's not, the k3 III should be a no brainer.

I left my k70 In a dumb spot, I could have avoided this - and bought insurance, which I'll be doing this time.

check PM

[vector]

I'll throw out there that I agree with Norm on your high iso requirement. I know a lot of people want good high iso performance, sometimes it's the only way to get a shot, but after 800 apsc or 1600 ff the image quality is compromised. This is regardless of format or brand, new or old tech. The images work for scaled down web viewing or small prints but that's about it. If that's all you want then great. Otherwise you have to learn how to get the shot with lower iso, which means tripods, lighting, astro tracer, etc... There are ways to do all of it. In my original comment here it sounded like you had done your research and a K1 was the camera you wanted, and you had the budget, but following this thread it seems you aren't very sure what you want, just that you have to replace what you lost. So in that case I would recommend sticking with APSC and improving your skills. Like many people who bought a K1 I also spent a small fortune updating my lens collection after that purchase. I am glad I did, and I enjoy the camera. My photography doesn't necessarily warrant that level of gear but I am fortunate I could afford to blow that money. APSC has a lower barrier to entry and more options for used (at least in Pentax). If you have the budget for a K1, you can probably swing the small increase to get the best on offer, the K3iii. But anything from a K3, K3ii, K70, KP, K3iii will do to replace your K70 and get you going again. Add an o-gps unit so you can use the astrotracer and get those star shots at lower iso, or get an older used model and spend the difference on a tracking mount to really do awesome astro shots. If you really want to up your game, get a used K3ii with the the gps built in, then spend the difference on a DA*300f4+TC for those wildlife shots. You have tons of options. Oh, and get a tripod so you can shoot at lower iso.

[normhead]

I'll throw out there that I agree with Norm on your high iso requirement. I know a lot of people want good high iso performance, sometimes it's the only way to get a shot, but after 800 apsc or 1600 ff the image quality is compromised. This is regardless of format or brand, new or old tech. The images work for scaled down web viewing or small prints but that's about it. If that's all you want then great. Otherwise you have to learn how to get the shot with lower iso, which means tripods, lighting, astro tracer, etc... There are ways to do all of it. In my original comment here it sounded like you had done your research and a K1 was the camera you wanted, and you had the budget, but following this thread it seems you aren't very sure what you want, just that you have to replace what you lost. So in that case I would recommend sticking with APSC and improving your skills. Like many people who bought a K1 I also spent a small fortune updating my lens collection after that purchase. I am glad I did, and I enjoy the camera. My photography doesn't necessarily warrant that level of gear but I am fortunate I could afford to blow that money. APSC has a lower barrier to entry and more options for used (at least in Pentax). If you have the budget for a K1, you can probably swing the small increase to get the best on offer, the K3iii. But anything from a K3, K3ii, K70, KP, K3iii will do to replace your K70 and get you going again. Add an o-gps unit so you can use the astrotracer and get those star shots at lower iso, or get an older used model and spend the difference on a tracking mount to really do awesome astro shots. If you really want to up your game, get a used K3ii with the the gps built in, then spend the difference on a DA*300f4+TC for those wildlife shots. You have tons of options. Oh, and get a tripod so you can shot at lower iso.

I'd add, to that, I wouldn't be happy with my K-1, if I didn't have my K-3 for many situations, birding , wildlife, hiking etc. But as my tag line says, if I was buying a new camera right now, and I had nothing else it would be APS-c and a K-3.3 Don't get me wrong, there are attributes to a K-1 that make it a satisfying camera to work with, but the same can be said for my K-3. For me, and this is a strictly personal opinion, it would be easier to live with a K-3.3 and it's limitations than a K-1 and it's limitations. In my blue case kit above, I have 16mm to 300 mm covered in two lenses. The equivalent in FF would be 24 to 450. SO, say DFA 24-70 and DA 150-450 you're still not covering 70-150. You have no idea how frustrating it can be until you put together a light weight pack for an out door adventure. I actually carry my K-3 kit as above and the K-1 plus 28-105 for landscape at times. You wouldn't believe the size of the kits I've seen for people trying to do it all with FF. Easily 8 times the size of my kit. Pelican cases with wheels so you can drag them, because they are too heavy to carry.

And my rule is, in boats, K-3 or K-5 in the case until needed. We've had too many instances where a camera / lens combo had to be dried out to believe we are going to never have a "stupid moment" that dumps everything over a period of time. They just happen. Sometimes it's lens rolling down a rock, sometimes it taking water and the camera being on the bottom of the boat. Sometimes it's a lens rolling off a seat during a lens change. There are about a hundred ways to mess up. You have to improve your chances with good habits. We've had no negative events occurs while storing in Pelican cases when out doors. It shouldn't be true, but Murphy's law is real.

The other advantage is if as above you add the 1.4 TC to your case, and it works with your 55-300, you actually have the equivalent of 600mm FF in a compact case, that's fraction of the size of a 600mm lens on FF.

[Des]

You are getting rolled gold advice here from photographers with years of relevant experience. Look at the kit Norm uses for his canoeing/kayaking: APS-C body (K-3), DA 16-85, DA 55-300 PLM and DA 1.4x teleconverter. Weather resistant all the way, versatile, very good image quality. And you have the DFA 100 f2.8 macro (I assume the WR version?), which is a wonderful lens. For a nature photographer hiking, boating etc, that's a great combination.

I'll just add some specific comments.

I wasn't unhappy at all with my k70, ...If the kp has marked improvements over the k70 on AF performance and less noise at iso 1600-6400 it would be a great compromise.

Regarding AF, the K-70 uses SAFOX X AF and has 11 AF points. The KP uses SAFOX XI and has 27 AF points. I have a K-S2 which has the same AF as the K-70 and I can say that the KP is markedly better. (It also has better AE metering, better SR and better dust removal, amongst other things.) But the K3iii is said to offer a big improvement over all previous models.

As for noise and DR, I agree with others that it is always best to keep the ISO as low as practicable, and not go over 3200 unless you really need to. As you see from this chart (from Photons to Photos) the DR of the KP is better than the K-70 and comparable to the K-3iii (and even the K-1ii) between about 800 and 3200 ISO, but the K-3iii is significantly better between about 160 and 800 and above 3200. If you are shooting at 100-200, there's virtually no difference between the APS-C models and the K-1ii is about 1EV ahead. The extra DR in low ISO shooting is one of the main attractions of the FF camera.