[JensE]

On paper, it reads as "not smaller" but only because there are a couple small areas that are extended, like the point on top or the flash housing being a bit longer in front.Over all, the camera is smaller in volume. It's a different feel and one that I do like.

It's smaller until you try to fit it into a rigid B&W box Happened to me in practice, but I found a tightly fitting one. Also something like the Zing Neopren cover doesn't fit well just because of the protruding flash. It does however handle well in the small ProTactic SH 120 bag, leaving a bit more room for lenses than the K-5 with its deep grip

[Kerrowdown]

good glass will outlast bodies

I often find my "Ladies" looking in the mirror to see how they're doing.

[iheiramo]

Personally, if not willing to go FF, I'd wait, save more money and go for K3III when budget allows. No point to waste money to inbetween models. That said I hang onto K1II until next version is released and I can afford it. Unfortunally I don't have the money to spend to an apsc body while waiting for K1III, thought I'd really would like to have its modern tech.

[mikesbike]

I was going to wait for the K-1 III also. But then, after the coming of the K-3 III I got to thinking- Is the K-1 II good enough for my needs? I am not likely to see any advancement when viewing actual images if the replacement comes with a higher mp sensor, which it probably will, unless making a wall-size poster! In my case, the only difference I probably would see are the even larger file sizes. 36mp is plenty!! Then there is the matter of design and features. Will it have features cut to be more like the K-3 III? And how high will the price go? As to lower noise/higher ISO, might the difference be similar to the difference between the KP and the K-3 III, and regarding features as well? The K-3 III does bring improvement here, but the KP is still no slouch. Main advantage for the K-3 III is definitely in AF with burst shooting. For some, the improved AF and fps are important, but not in my case. Do you see me selling my KP bodies to get a K-3 III? NO.

Waiting might allow both the new model and the old to both be new on the shelf for a short time, with a closeout price on old new stock for the K-1 II. But that is chancy speculation. The K-3 II was long out of stock before the K-3 III arrived. Then waiting could mean out of luck if the old model would have been the better choice in some cases. So I grabbed the excellent deal for the K-1 II with the excellent kit lens while it is here, and I'm glad I did. Performance has been great.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 03-31-2022 at 03:35 PM.

[mikesbike]

unlike you, I have almost no post processing skills. So of course, there's lots I should be doing other than spending money.

I can tell you, the KP is outstanding in its processor and setting of that processor for out-of-camera highest quality JPEGs. Great imaging. Just be sure to go into the Custom Image menus to implement Fine sharpening. This is accessed via the info button, unlike the K-5. Not sure regarding the K-3 II in this regard. Some models are set up with sharpening on the low side, but this should be correctable in the custom Image menus.

As to the K-1 II, same processor, with setting a bit different, being more conservative as to sharpening, so I have raised the sharpening level on mine up by 1 more notch over default in the "Bright" category (which is already up by 1 notch by default for a total of +2), in addition to implementing Fine Sharpening. Then like the KP, imaging right out of the camera is very fine. As to using your older FF lenses, depends on which lenses. You lose a lot of function with lenses not having the "A" setting on the aperture ring. I have numerous AF lenses from my film shooting days, some of which are great and I once again more fully enjoy them on my K-1 II, especially those not of long FL. The K-1 II and KP are good companions, tele being more practical on the KP. The pair can travel well together, and functionally can deliver one-two punches over and over, shorter FL then longer tele. When I need compact carrying, its the KP all the way, with high-quality compact lenses.

[MSL]

As to the K-1 II, same processor, with setting a bit different, being more conservative as to sharpening, so I have raised the sharpening level on mine up by 1 more notches over default in the "Bright" category (which is already up by 1 notch by default for a total of +2), in addition to implementing Fine Sharpening. Then like the KP, imaging right out of the camera is very fine. As to using your older FF lenses, depends on which lenses. You lose a lot of function with lenses not having the "A" setting on the aperture ring. I have numerous AF lenses from my film shooting days, some of which are great and I once again more fully enjoy them on my K-1 II, especially those not of long FL. The K-1 II and KP are good companions, tele being more practical on the KP. The pair can travel well together, and functionally can deliver one-two punches over and over, shorter FL then longer tele. When I need compact carrying, its the KP all the way, with high-quality compact lenses.

The lenses run the gamut from m42, of which I'd love to try the 35/3.5, with its remarkable color rendering, and the 200/3.5, with its 18 blades to some K lenses (50/1.4, 135/2.5), through to a couple of A/F/FA lenses and my Tamron 28-75. I'm not sure how much more functionality I'll lose with a K1 vs my K5 when using the older lenses as I'm already used to manual focusing (about as well as my PP skills) and green button metering.

[mikesbike]

The lenses run the gamut from m42, of which I'd love to try the 35/3.5, with its remarkable color rendering, and the 200/3.5, with its 18 blades to some K lenses (50/1.4, 135/2.5), through to a couple of A/F/FA lenses and my Tamron 28-75. I'm not sure how much more functionality I'll lose with a K1 vs my K5 when using the older lenses as I'm already used to manual focusing (about as well as my PP skills) and green button metering.

With your experience, you certainly know what to expect and would be fine using both old MF and new lenses. Your Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a well-regarded fast all-around zoom lens, and would be even better on a K-1 II, since as with 35mm film, it would again offer wide angle shooting. Should bring excellent results. That said, in order to still have a complete WR system and for lighter carrying when you don't need the f/2.8 aperture availability, the deal where the very fine DFA 28-105mm is pre-packaged with the K-1 II is really a good deal. I have both this lens and a fast one myself, in my case, my old Tokina ATX 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 Pro II, which I bought new at a good price as a last-batch left-over closeout back before DSLRs. I love this excellent lens, and when I need that f/2.8, I need it. Nothing else will do. But more often I take the DFA kit lens for the above reasons. Lighter, more zoom range, WR, very fine IQ. I have a number of other FF prime lenses, many of them of premium quality and reputation, and other very good zoom lenses. Most are AF. It is absolutely great to again use them in their original FF FOV on the K-1 II. Imaging has been terrific.

In your case, you might consider going this FF route. You'd have outstanding image quality, and exceptional low noise at higher ISO, even better than the KP, with the K-1 II's likewise accelerator technology combined with its FF advantage, at least as good as the new K-3 III but with yet better IQ resolution with many lenses. Having high quality FF lenses that will provide the same framing from the same distance as a shorter lens would on the best APS-C bodies, you get images at 36mp resolution vs. 24mp or 26mp images from the APS-C setup. A real and practical advantage particularly in the shorter or less-long FL range. Your K-5 is still a good camera for lighter carrying and for using APS-C lenses. As to AF, I find with my K-5 the AF with the DA 18-135mm WR lens is especially fast, quiet and accurate! In fact, that is where this lens is mounted right now. Somehow, this lens, known for its exceptional AF, makes up for the AF deficiency of the K-5.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 04-01-2022 at 05:06 PM.

[mlag]

But my personal debate is whether I really want to go FF just because of the collection of old lenses I've managed to pick up, which I'd like to use as they were originally designed. However, before I buy a K-1 I will want to try it in hand, to see if the fit and weight, especially with a heavier lens attached.

Actually, I came to the conclusion I feel more comfortable with APS-C (hence not tempted by K-1 when released), and appreciate a lot my old lenses on aps-c, bit heavier but you avoid some corner unsharpness...

The biggest difference is on the wide lens side - I did add a new 10-17mm for ultra wide in aps-c - but in some occasions I prefer on aps-c the 28-80mm rather than my 17-50 standard zoom, to have just that bit extra reach...

[mikesbike]

I prefer on aps-c the 28-80mm

Which lens is that one?

It is true, by using a FF lens on APS-C the outer area of the lens is eliminated, which with most lenses will be where it yields its least quality performance. So you get that lens at its best potential by eliminating this area. But by doing this, a whole dimension of the wider FOV is also eliminated. I too have a 17-50mm f/2.8- by Sigma. For more reach I pair it with my DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 which is an excellent pairing. I use these extra high-quality lenses mainly when I need the greater aperture range, and/or their top-flight IQ. Otherwise I'll take a smaller but fine-performing all-around APS-C lens.

A lens having both a WA FOV and a TELE range as well is more difficult to design, therefore generally comes with more compromises in one way or another, yet some still provide fine performance. The idea behind such a lens is for versatility with a single lens. By eliminating the WA part of it, that half of its usefulness and versatility vanishes. Better results and far more versatility could be had from the DA HD 16-85mm WR or the DA 18-135mm WR lenses on APS-C.

As far as my use of FF lenses for APS-C, in my case I much prefer those in the tele range, as here there is the APS-C advantage of that lens's best quality, and the enhancement of effective tele in image size. The 50mm "normal" lens is a good case in point, as for me it is more useful on APS-C as a moderate tele portrait style lens than it is on A FF body. During my first 6 years of shooting back in the day, I only had a 50mm lens. I rather got tired of this FL, and was relieved and excited when I finally got a 28mm WA and a 135mm tele. Having all of these broadened my usage considerably. Then I got hold of a 40mm f/2.8 lens, and found I preferred its FOV over the 50mm lens for a "normal" perspective lens, as it let more into the frame, yet without an actual WA effect.. Years later, I also bought the FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. and loved it. Then the FA 35mm f/2 and loved it as well. These became my most-used versatile fast primes for one-lens compact carrying, without having to carry a larger zoom lens for general use.

Then came the DSLR cameras. APS-C, of course. I did not find my highly-valued general-use wonderful prime lenses to have the kind of versatility and appeal, as they'd had for years with my film cameras. My great Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 zoom lens likewise had lost its versatility with excellence. So these lenses wound up sitting, as I found myself acquiring new DA lenses for my DSLR cameras, as these were far more useful for once again operating in the same FOV range. However, though these DA lenses have been of very good quality, and produce fine imaging, they are often not quite the equal, as in not as much aperture or of equal quality in the same FOV. My fine FA 28mm f/2.8 has the same FOV on APS-C as the FA 43mm Ltd has on a film body, so it can be dual-purpose in that sense, and I can even use my FA 43mm hood on it, but it does not have f/1.9 aperture. There is no 24mm f/2 that can function on APS-C with such excellent quality as the FA 35mm f/2 on a FF body. Not to mention an equivalent for the FA 31mm f/1.8 Ltd.

I have an old Sigma EX 24-60mm f/2.8 DG lens I bought as new closeout for a great price for film use, since the price was too good to pass up, and it offered more WA in a fast zoom lens than my Tokina 28-70mm, and it had received very good lab test reviews. If needing more tele, it would be the Tokina, if more WA, it would be the Sigma. This is one I've found to be still versatile and useful for APS-C as well, because the 24mm end will still yield some WA FOV. It is therefore a good dual-purpose, versatile lens for both APS-C and FF use.

I am very glad to be able to take full advantage of these fine lenses in their original FOV once again. Then there is the matter of upgrading image quality even more. Even if one could obtain an APS-C lens with the same FOV, it will not be able to deliver the same resolution at 24 or 26mp as the K-1 II does at 36mp. That is enough of a jump where the difference can be visible.

In the case of MSL, this difference would be even greater, when comparing the K-5, which still has the AA filter- and is at 16mp, then getting the K-1 II, which no longer uses the AA filter- and will be producing images at 36mp!

When it comes to going more into the tele range, the advantage shifts to APS-C, because in going more and more tele, with a FF equivalent setup, the lenses become more and more monstrous, and more and more expensive!.

[Smolk]

with its 18 blades to some K lenses (50/1.4, 135/2.5)

I assume that is a typo for 8 blades...

[JensE]

I assume that is a typo for 8 blades...

It isn't, see Takumar 200mm F3.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database, not unusual for classic pre-set apertures.

[MSL]

I assume that is a typo for 8 blades...

As @JensE has pointed out it isn't a typo. It is why I bought the lens even though I'd been moving away from m42 lenses, and I had previously bought a K200/4 which is only slightly slower but a lot smaller. I haven't had a chance to use it often, but it does produce a very smooth transition to the out of focus areas. Old glass that is new to me - PentaxForums.com

[Smolk]

As @JensE has pointed out it isn't a typo. It is why I bought the lens even though I'd been moving away from m42 lenses, and I had previously bought a K200/4 which is only slightly slower but a lot smaller. I haven't had a chance to use it often, but it does produce a very smooth transition to the out of focus areas. Old glass that is new to me - PentaxForums.com

But that's not the K-lens “with its 18 blades to some K lenses (50/1.4, 135/2.5)” but if you meant the 18 blades to apply only to the 200mm lens, it makes sense indeed, but I read your sentence differently. Nice to know this, thanks. I just checked how many my Tele-Takumar 5.6/200mm has, and it's 10 blades. Not 18 like yours, but still not bad.
On a side-note, my Rolleiflex TLR 2.8C also has 10 aperture blades, something apparently not widely known. Later models, starting with the 2.8D only had 5, certainly the Zeiss lenses (mine is a Xenotar; I'm not entirely sure about the Xenotar later models though).
But that's medium format. For large format, the Schneider Xenar 3.5/240 had 30 blades I hear.

[reh321]

Thanks, I didn't realize that. KP is smaller than the others I mentioned tho, and K70 is smaller than all of them. KP seems to look smaller than the others, likely because of the grip.

Also notable: Pixel Shift, more megapixels, focus peaking, more flexible multi-exposure modes, better metering, and slightly better viewfinder. All of those ,and everything you mentioned (except foldout lcd for k3ii), are true of any of the cameras being mentioned in this thread.

Only when I put my KP near my Super Program was I aware of how large it is.
I purchased the KP specifically because of how gracefully it handles high ISO values.
When taking pictures of wildlife in particular, it is the first camera which made TAv mode useful to me.
Now I can set shutter speed to something like 1/500 and aperture to something like F/8, and not even think of what ISO value that implies.

[mikesbike]

The Super Program certainly is a super-compact SLR! And more full-featured than most MF camera bodies, along with its durable metal body. I still have one, though I rarely use it. I have too many other options if wanting to shoot film. But it is neat for carrying with its compact design.

But when considering a DSLR, the KP is definitely the one for compactness, and along with its fine build, plus its advanced and full feature set. As to use with larger lenses, up to and including my DA* 50-135mm are fine for me with the largest supplied grip for all-around handling. With larger lenses, like my DA* 200mm f/2.8 or FA* 300mm f/4.5, I prefer to employ the battery grip. With my K-5 IIs, I can do pretty well without a battery grip for all-around handling with these lenses, yet still better using the battery grip.

To give some perspective here- with the battery grip on, the weight of the KP is about the same as the K-1 II without one, in fact actually a tad heavier. However, I still much prefer to use these telephoto lenses on APS-C, because in order to get the same image size with the K-1 II as provided with the KP, and with all those lenses' advantages, and to get the K-1 II's imaging advantages, I'd need to go to a 300mm f/2.8 (huge), and a 450mm f/4.5 (I think Sigma made a 500mm), which is even more monstrous, and at great expense.

Just to get a practical-use feel, I recently had my K-1 II and My K20D in belt-loop holster bags of the same size. Both have handles on their lids. On the K20D was my Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 ultra wide zoom. On the K-1 II was my old FF Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (tested as 19mm, and with 77mm filter size) ultra wide zoom, which provides about the same FOV as the K20D setup. I hefted one in my left hand, the other in my right hand. Then I switched. I was surprised to find it hard to tell the difference as to which was which! The K20D weighs nearly the same as the new K-3 III, which is about 5 oz. more than the KP without battery grip, and about 6 oz. less than the K-1 II. This Tokina lens is slightly more compact than the Pentax lens, and with a somewhat better build quality, as good as the Pentax lens still is. Handling with the K-1 II is great.

As to imaging- images are definitely more impressive from the K-1 II setup, even if using the DA 12-24mm with the KP. I have not done any actual testing as to flair, ghosting, vignetting, etc. Some possible extraneous artifact can be expected when dealing with old film-based lenses, but overall in good lighting, this Tokina on my K-1 II delivers exceptionally sharp, detailed results. I think the main reason this is so is due to the K-1 II's 36mp imaging vs. the KP's 24mp imaging, viewed on a sizable high-res computer screen, as wonderful as the KP's imaging is. I am mindful that If I had not acquired the K-1 II, I would not be aware of this difference. And the difference is small, but it is there. It is in the shorter FL or lesser tele ranges where the K-1 II is both practical and can yield superior imaging. Its low noise/high quality at higher ISO settings is phenomenal.

Yet the quality is so close, I have absolutely no hesitation, when I need compact carrying, to take my KP and any of my better wide angle zooms or primes, or other FL ranges. The KP is that good.

I also have some excellent FF WA primes (FA 28mm, 31mm Ltd, 35mm) and also the just ok Sigma 24mm EX DG f/1.8, but I am now salivating over the new DFA 21mm f/2.4 Ltd for my premium FF fast ultra wide prime. I thought I was done before that one showed up!