[kyukyu]

Hi everyone,

I currently own a K1 and these lenses:
DFA 15-30
43 Limited
77 Limited
DA* 50-135 which I had from the K20

A* 300

I shoot mostly landscapes or cities or my kids, very occasionally I do some astrofotography. I am often in the nature, either trekking or by bike.

Quality-wise I am very happy (of course! ) but I have noticed that I tend to leave the camera home more often than before because of its weight and size, especially with the 15-30. The 43mm is very light, I love its rendition and is a good general-purpose focal length, but I need to go wider at times, and also it is not weather sealed.

So my idea would be to sell K1 and 15-30 and get a K3-III with the HD 16-50, or maybe the 11-18 and the 20-40 if I manage to rob a bank, so I would retain the ultrawide FOV for when I need it and have an even lighter everyday lens. I know that all 3 of them are great quality-wise.

The pros for me:
-a lighter system to carry

-the same viewfinder "size" as the K1 (this is very important! I am spoiled now since I have the K1 )
-a weather sealed system at all the focal lengths I commonly use
-"full use" of the 50-135 instead of the crop mode

-better autofocus for my kids (I am already happy with the K1, but nevertheless...)

The limiteds would get a narrower FOV but I already liked it on the K20, I will just make a different use of them.

My only concern is the sensor. I have gotten used to the insane quality of the K1, the subtle rendering of the colours and the almost magical ability to recover shadows. I have just returned from holiday and the pictures were as great as ever.
So my question, for those of you who have experience with both cameras: are they comparable or is there a remarkable difference in favour of the K1?

Thanks!

[texandrews]

You have some good reasons to switch---and don't seem to be necessarily concentrating on those things the K1 is the better camera for.

I'll throw in one other good reason for you to make the switch: video, which is much better on the K3III

[gatorguy]

Unless the only way to fund the K3III is by selling the K1 I wouldn't do so. I use both and regularly. For me they serve different purposes.

Now having said that, if I were forced to keep only one, and considering what my interests are (wildlife/nature, portraits, music and charity events), it would be the K3III. It's a camera with better features and more capable hardware, still very strong in dynamic range while mitigating noise, still excellent low-light performance, and more likely to get fixes and features going forward.

Seriously tho, figuring a way to keep both has nice benefits.

[cport]

Hi everyone,

I currently own a K1 and these lenses:
DFA 15-30
43 Limited
77 Limited
DA* 50-135 which I had from the K20

A* 300

I shoot mostly landscapes or cities or my kids, very occasionally I do some astrofotography. I am often in the nature, either trekking or by bike.

Quality-wise I am very happy (of course! ) but I have noticed that I tend to leave the camera home more often than before because of its weight and size, especially with the 15-30. The 43mm is very light, I love its rendition and is a good general-purpose focal length, but I need to go wider at times, and also it is not weather sealed.

So my idea would be to sell K1 and 15-30 and get a K3-III with the HD 16-50, or maybe the 11-18 and the 20-40 if I manage to rob a bank, so I would retain the ultrawide FOV for when I need it and have an even lighter everyday lens. I know that all 3 of them are great quality-wise.

The pros for me:
-a lighter system to carry

-the same viewfinder "size" as the K1 (this is very important! I am spoiled now since I have the K1 )
-a weather sealed system at all the focal lengths I commonly use
-"full use" of the 50-135 instead of the crop mode

-better autofocus for my kids (I am already happy with the K1, but nevertheless...)

The limiteds would get a narrower FOV but I already liked it on the K20, I will just make a different use of them.

My only concern is the sensor. I have gotten used to the insane quality of the K1, the subtle rendering of the colours and the almost magical ability to recover shadows. I have just returned from holiday and the pictures were as great as ever.
So my question, for those of you who have experience with both cameras: are they comparable or is there a remarkable difference in favour of the K1?

Thanks!

I do not have experience with both cameras, but I was in a similar situation, when I was considering buying the K-1 II. I have kept my KP instead - the reasons are the same. The K-1II (although fantastic) is quite heavy and big for everyday use, I have a fully weather-sealed system (11-18, 20-40, 55, 55-300 and 50-135 and some nonWR lenses (10-17FE)). And I am quite satisfied with IQ and my choice. The K-3III will be even better.


But still I have kept my FA 53/2. Just for the case that I will change my opinion. This focal length on FF cannot be replaced by anything on APS-C Pentax cameras. I would welcome something like Pentax 24/1,4 to be fully satisfied.

[btnapa]

So my question, for those of you who have experience with both cameras: are they comparable or is there a remarkable difference in favour of the K1

I have experience with the K1 and K3 in the past. On a trip to a few national parks last year including Arches in Utah, I used my K1 mostly with my 28-105 and a Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 lens. I had my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and my Samyang 14mm f2.8 with me but did not use the last two lenses. I always wanted a 15-30 but never got one. BTW, I also had my FA 31,43 and 77 with me which I did not use on the trip either. When you are on the go there is hardly anytime to change lenses. That is what happened after I got my 28-105 with my K1. The combo was my go to set up for the majority of my outdoor photography.

If I switched to a K3III and wanted a similar convenient package, I would look at the 16-85 as an all around lens and perhaps bring something wider like the 12-24 unless you have the budget to get the 11-18. As @texandrews mentioned video is another good thing on the K3III vs. K1

[UncleVanya]

Landscapes are great on the k-1 series but I got fantastic landscapes even on my k-50 and certainly still do on my k-3 (original) and KP. I think the Sony a7Riii is slightly better in dynamic range than the KP and it has more overall pixels in a way that’s similar to the K-1 (36 vs 42 mp is not a big difference honestly).

So my first thought is that you may lose a little dynamic range and a touch of shadow detail - but the differences aren’t major even vs my KP.

My second thought is that f2.8 isn’t really required for what your are describing. The DA 12-24 may not be as capable as the 11-18 but it’s mainly just slower. On the plus side coverage on the long end reaches 24mm which is quite useful. I own both lenses and the 12-24 isn’t sealed but it’s lighter and smaller. The hood makes the size difference not as useful in most packing scenarios but with creative packing it can fit where the 11-18 might not. The DA 14 or DA 15 and 10-17 all can play a role as well if WR can be ignored. At 17mm the 10-17 is quite wide and not very fishy.

I’d urge you to consider something like the 16-85 over the 16-50 if the goal is reduced size and weight. The 16-85 is a very good landscape lens stopped down. I don’t own that lens. I’d keep the 50-135 - that’s one of my favorite lenses ever.

For biking an 18-135 or 16-85 add the 12-24 for really wide (or 10-17) and pick up a 55-300 to add telephoto and you are golden. The 50-135 is still a dream to use as well.

[vector]

I have the K1 and K3III and the K3III is definitely a faster operating camera. There are a few changes in the controls and layout that I really like. Weight isn't that big of difference, not enough that I would leave the K1 at home in favour of the K3III. The weight primarily comes from choice of lenses and I have enough compact primes I can go reasonably light with either camera, or make them uncomfortably heavy like with the DFA*50. I primarily use my K3III for wildlife. For people and landscapes I still prefer my K1. There is just something about the fine detail in those 36mp raw files. I know that for finished images it is really hard to tell them apart at normal viewing sizes, but a big part of the process for me is post processing, and I just love working with those K1 raw files. I also love wide open aperture shots of people and you just can't match the look of the K1 with FA77 or DFA*50 shot wide open using an APSC sensor. As far as AF goes the K3III has some tricks the K1 doesn't but overall I don't actually find them that different to work with. The K1 has very accurate and quick AFS and mediocre AFC. The K3III is about the same for AFS and only slightly better for AFC.

[jersey]

I have noticed that I tend to leave the camera home more often than before because of its weight and size, especially with the 15-30.

One thing to note that while DA* lenses are lighter then DFA they are not that light and the camera itself weights almost the same as K-1 (there is ~100g difference). K-3 Mk III is anything but light.


If you want to configure it as lightweight package, then avoid DA* and take look at DA WRs as guys mentioned earlier. Or if really short zoom is enough for you then 20-40 Ltd which is little gem of a lens though you need to be aware of short zoom range.

[Pentax Syntax]

I use both the K-1ii and the K-3iii. I mainly use the K-3iii for action/telephoto where it is excellent. Try to keep both as others have stated. The size difference is not a huge deal and lenses mounted are the main distinction. In terms of IQ they are both great. Personally I don’t see switching given the investment you have in good full frame lenses. The raw files from both cameras show incredible dynamic range and the feature set is comparable. While the video on the K-3iii is marginally better it employs an annoying crop factor to reach 4K. It does allow SR to work. With pancake DA limited amounted, the K-3iii can be more compact than the K-1 with the FA limited lenses but not by a huge margin.

[jumbleview]

Do you use articulated screen of K-1 often? If answer is yes be aware that K3-III lack it.

[biz-engineer]

If weight is the main concern, I'm suggest taking a look a mirrorless systems, which tend to be smaller and lighter weight (lenses as well) than DSLR kits.

[Oldbayrunner]

HD 16-50, or maybe the 11-18 and the 20-40 if I manage to rob a bank, so I would retain the ultrawide FOV for when I need it and have an even lighter everyday lens.

Not really, the 16-50 is going to have a fov of around 24- 75mm, the 11-18 of 17-27mm & the 20-40mm 30- 60mm. To get apsc field of view close to the 15-30mm would be a Sigma 10-20mm but optically it isn't near the lens in comparison...After awhile using my K1 mkll I sold all of my apsc equipment.

I wouldn't part with my 15-30mm.

[pschlute]

Sometimes a new camera or lens is the catalyst to invigorating one's interest in photography.

A cheaper way might be to ask if you want to use DSLRs at all ?

I am not being flippant, but the weight saving (K1 - K3III) is negligible. I do not carry a DSLR unless I am on a photo expedition. If I am out with friends visiting somewhere I dont bother....phone cameras are so good these days there is no need to lug the weight for general snaps.

If I go out to take what I consider serious photos I leave the family at home and have the camera bag and tripod as my travel companions.

[jersey]

Not really, the 16-50 is going to have a fov of around 24- 75mm, the 11-18 of 17-27mm & the 20-40mm 30- 60mm. To get apsc field of view close to the 15-30mm would be a Sigma 10-20mm but optically it isn't near the lens in comparison...After awhile using my K1 mkll I sold all of my apsc equipment.

I wouldn't part with my 15-30mm.

Yes, but OP said that he is NOT using K-1 and 15-30 that often cause weight is an issue. He is, obviously, not searching for something better but something as good and lighter. No matter how you turn around, your behind is always in same place :P and FF gear, especially on wider end will be heavier.


Now @pschlute question is actually good one, but as OP mentioned that he wants to keep some of FF lenses and that he does do astro then I assume yes, he wants to use DSLR.

Frankly for anyone wanting to move toward lightweight gear I would recommend m43 gear and switching system but I I dunno how OP looks at it. It seems he likes Limited lenses so going APS-C is only way in Pentax land to get light.


BTW @kyukyu : ever considered KP? If you do not need video that much you could get KP + 11-18 and 20-40 and still have some money left. While IQ wise, unless you shot in low light there will be not much compromise. Only AF will be worse, but still should be better then K-1. And there still should be some new KPs available here and there.

[C_Jones]

I have the K-1 II and the K-3 II. I like having both of them for the reason that they serve different purposes, as some of the previous posts in this thread imply. Full frame use is for one purpose and technical style, and APS-C use is for one purpose and technical style. I like having both types of cameras and lenses available.