[UncleVanya]

If I were really big into landscape photography a K-1ii would be a better option as there is faster glass at the wide end…

Other than a few specific gaps I’m not sure I’m following you.

First in the current line up the DFA 15-30 ( Full frame: 111-72 ° / 100-62 °) is the widest autofocus full frame zoom available right now for the k1. The apsc DA 11-18 offers nearly as wide a view (APS-C: 104-76 ° / 94-66 °) but is more like a 16-17mm full frame. The DA 10-17 has no parallel on the full frame side. (APS-C: 180 to 100 ° / 145 to 82)

There are no available Pentax autofocus full frame primes wider than the FA 20 which is slightly less wide than the DA 14 - both are f2.8. Really only the FA* 24 f2 offers much improvement in aperture. The DA 15 is f4 after all.

[ramseybuckeye]

If it were my choice (ans the cost meant nothing) I would choose the K3III because it has newer technology that the K-1 and it is a Pentax. I have Pentax lenses, and would not want to buy all new lenses. If the K-1 were the newer model, that's what I would choose, even though I have several APS-C lenses, and either way I still have the KP.

BUT, I think you want the K-1 so you can get three new friends. Do it.

[normhead]

Today I went out with both. K-1 ad K-3.
Whitney and the East end of AP- Fall colours - PentaxForums.com

I often go out with the K-3 and 60-260 with the 1.4TC on it for wildlife, and the I have bags to carry both kits comfortably. K-1 with the Sigma 24 macro and D FA 28-105 for landscape.

If I was to own one camera it would be APS-c.

[Billking]

Paulo, Paulo, Paulo

Buy the K1.

The chances of buyer regret are zero.

[jersey]

There is a guy in Poland who is earning money with landscape photography. He switched from FF (Canon 6D) to APS-C (Pentax K-70) and discarded Canon EOS R in favour of said Pentax. You just need to choose tool that works for you, IQ wise everything will produce image that will be satisfying and if you need to earn you some money.

If there is nothing you need from technical features provided from K-1 or K-3 Mk III keep KP and be happy. and if you feel urge to spend money get some good lens

[GUB]

Better body with worse lens or better lens with little bit worse body?

Larger format with a lesser lens will win out. And in this situation going by Ephotozine I would rate the DFA as better. It also depends on whether drop off in the edges matter to you.

[noelpolar]

I own a KP, K3III and a K1 (or maybe 2 off them).

I find the K3III brings little to the table over the KP for the most part (unless the obvious is important... is only a bit better for longer lens type birding for me). So..... the K3III is soso over a KP........ a K1 I find an enjoyable hobby alternative to a crop (assuming you have one of each).... a K1 and some nice primes is a nice way to spend some hours.

[Papa_Joe]

If you just asked for a very good combo for hiking and landscape photography. I would have suggested to buy a 16-85 for your KP as a first go.

And yes, working with a K-1 is just fun.

[repaap]

Larger format with a lesser lens will win out. And in this situation going by Ephotozine I would rate the DFA as better. It also depends on whether drop off in the edges matter to you.

DA*16-50 SDM is in whole different league to PLM version just to take a notice at here.

---------- Post added 10-07-21 at 13:22 ----------

I have K-1 and K-3III, really in every other aspect than bigger resolution and more Dof control(which can also be boring) there is not really any gap anymore. DR is amazing with K-3III. So upgrade is there with aps-c line. I'm now thinking hard if I want to keep K-1 and lenses for that at all(they are big and difference in quality is not that dramatic. That said, if they will come up with higher MP body and all whistles and bells K-3III has, then I have to make the decision. Time to time(not allways) I do miss that extra resolution.


I have used that 12 fps shooting just handful times, but it is nice to have it when needed.
Video is okay now with 4K option althou it is not on par with 'hybrid cameras' (here FF could be also disadvantage due shallower Fov)and I do now have also hybrid camera for video and photo sessions. but I do that for money and have to be able to really make nice video, too. That said, I also use my K-3III since it is very reliable now in event photography too. This is bigger thing that many would think.
APS-C images are enough for paid gigs too.

This new form factor of K-3III is nicer that K-1. Size does not bother me in general, but if you want to pack other things too with you, then it will form a factor. When I take my K-1 in my hands after shooting now with K-3III it does really feel old tech and unreliable for faster action and quite a bit bigger, compared to it's new little brother, which has even brighter and as big OVF as K-1!(this is actually one huge thing for me).

I'd figure that next K-1 will still have things that original version has. But improved AF and snappier functions will get it on higher level and fun factor up too. Also more demanding for your computer etc. If this does not feel like a problem, aswell as bigger size in every aspect(actually 16-50 PLM is a tad bigger than 24-70, but I think 50-135 will be much smaller than DFA*70-200).


One thing does not come with out another. In good and in bad.

You should be able to buy DA*16-50PLM to go with your K-P to see how does that feel and then update K-P if needed. Bigger investments are just around the corner with FF and that camera is in need of update, soon. honestly.

[GUB]

DA*16-50 SDM is in whole different league to PLM version just to take a notice at here.

Yes point taken

[VictorDA]

have you never heard the voice of that little devil whispering softly to your ear "buy K-1"

Oh yes, I do, and:

Paulo, Paulo, Paulo

Buy the K1.

The chances of buyer regret are zero.

Well I did. And regarding the cost (for me it was a sensitive issue): K-1 acquired second hand, pristine with 20k clicks, €650. Lenses - I had already a nice collection of A-series glass so that's that. I had to replace the 18-135 all purpose zoom by a 28-105 (bought here for €270 shipping incl). That leaves me a bit of wiggle room to buy some other used lenses
I also use it mostly outdoor and enjoy sportive mountain hikes. I have not found the K-1 to be really more difficult/cumbersome to carry around than my K-3II. Sure it is larger and heavier but I mean, anyway, you'll be carrying a large piece of gear that few other hikers take with them (especially if you get that 16-50), and you'll get lots of raised eyebrows in the shelters
So, to the point: if some piece of equipment is making you drool (here it seems to be K-1 + FA limiteds), and you can afford it, then get it. As long as you don't put yourself in financial/conjugal trouble... No time like the present.

[UncleVanya]

Paulo, Paulo, Paulo

Buy the K1.

The chances of buyer regret are zero.

Not zero. I had one for about a month with the 24-70. I found it too large and bulky for my taste and returned to my k-3 (original).

[BryantCP]

Of course, if large print comes in then K1 has a slight advantage, but honestly I think if that's the requirement you are a professional and could just spend on a medium format. I honestly think full format doesn't have much of a place. Question to you - have you seen any side by side comparison of how K1 is better in low light?

Not having a K-1, I can't make any direct comparisons with my K-3 or KP, but I can say that my Nikon D700 does do considerably better compared to the K-3 & KP in low light situations such as in my living room in the evening. I would expect a K-1 to be significantly better than the much older D700 in low light situations.

[normhead]

Not having a K-1, I can't make any direct comparisons with my K-3 or KP, but I can say that my Nikon D700 does do considerably better compared to the K-3 & KP in low light situations such as in my living room in the evening. I would expect a K-1 to be significantly better than the much older D700 in low light situations.

Imaging Resources isn't listing the D700 at the moment, but looking at the D500, the D500 is notably better than the K-3iii for IQ, especially in the reds at 12,800 ISO. I can't argue with you there. But, that being said, both images suck. I'm never sure about arguing about what's the best of bad images. If I wouldn't use either, does it matter?

I find the difference to be about a stop. if you can't fake a stop, you aren't a photographer.

---------- Post added 10-07-21 at 10:12 AM ----------

Larger format with a lesser lens will win out. And in this situation going by Ephotozine I would rate the DFA as better. It also depends on whether drop off in the edges matter to you.

Not where you have a 20MP FF camera with a poor lens and an 24 MP APS-c camera with a * lens. Lets not get carried way here.

[BigMackCam]

if you can't fake a stop, you aren't a photographer.

Best sound-bite of the week. I'm using that in future