[pblogic]

I'm a K-3 III user, so I'm used to the latest model. My first Pentax was a K20D. A few months ago, I had the chance to borrow a K-1 II from Pentax and use it for an afternoon.

I had been a bit skeptical of the difference between APS-C and full frame, but I could see that the K-1 II images were clearly better than the K-3 III. The AF was not as K-3 III's focusing is better, but there is already a big improvement you will notice from the K20D. I didn't try sports with the K-1 II, but I had no particular frustration with the AF while I was using it walking around the city.

So given your stated preferences and needs, especially as someone who will need to deliver professional image quality, I think the K-1 II is a great choice. Also, it is really cheap for what you get. Cameras are getting more expensive by the month but the K-1 II (a mid-range full frame camera) is priced like an entry level full frame camera or a high-end APS-C by modern standards.

Regarding optimizing the AF for sports, you need to choose a lens with good focusing. The DFA 70-210/4 might be good for that but I'm not an expert on it. There are many nice primes past and present for the portraiture work you could consider. When I was testing the K-1 II, it had the HD FA Limited 43mm on it but I think my SMC FA 35mm produced even sharper results.

Thank you very much, this response was very helpful to me. It's great to hear from someone who came from a k20D and also has a K3 III. The more responses I get the more excited I get about the K1 II. Your experience with this cameras is EXACTLY what I was looking for.

[pepperberry farm]

A fine idea, thank you.

you're welcome - I did this very thing earlier in the year and it saved me a ton of money and kept me from buying a huge mistake....

[mikesbike]

Welcome to the forum! I don't see what part of the world you live in. Some advice given for buying might vary accordingly. I still have my old K20D, though I seldom use it. It is only good in daylight conditions, or for flash. I fact, Soon afterward I got a new K-r, small and basic entry-level but much better for higher ISO needs.

Then came the K-5 series. I still do sometimes shoot with my now aging K-5 IIs, still a good camera, for its fine handling and very good controls, handles the power-zoom function of some of my old lenses, and even somewhat better for higher ISO. I bought my cameras new after the prices dropped. I have not regretted a single purchase. I gave away my K-r to friends after some years of use, and got a new K-S2 as my compact lightweight model- even better at higher ISO, in a spectacular closeout deal when the K-70 was forthcoming. I still have and use it.

When the KP came out I was very interested. Sensational for low light, action, higher ISO performance. Very compact yet of pro-level build, but of modular design so by changing the supplied grips the camera handling changes, according to the lenses used, and can be greatly expanded from this by employing the optional battery grip. I waited about a year when the good price deals appeared before buying it and the battery grip. Wonderful imaging. It fast became my main camera body. I love it.

After some years, finally came the K-3 II replacement, the K-3 III, which is especially designed for fast action burst-shooting, higher fps and more advanced AF especially when employing one of the new PLM lenses. And its High ISO capabilities even yet more advanced. The latest DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM has a good report, but is very expensive, as is the K-3 III camera. But my KP's capabilities for these uses is plenty good enough for me, 26mp vs my KP's 24mp will not make a visible difference, so I concluded it would be a waste of money, with nothing gained and some useful features lost. But by evaluating the new K-3 III, this cast my eyes towards the fact of a substantial price drop of the then one-year-old K-1 II, which was then actually LESS than the new APS-C model!! I had thought about getting one, since I have some very fine FF lenses from my film shooting years, with FL not a s useful with APS-C, and looked forward to putting them back in service. So I decided to go for this instead. I could not have imagined just how much I would come to appreciate making that choice!! I've had it for just over 2 years now.

I too thought about a forthcoming K-1 III. Although it would no doubt have a BSI sensor with some further advancement for higher ISO use, the performance of the K-1 II with the added accelerator is already phenomenal!! Even well above that of my extraordinary KP! And if 42mp or even 50mp, those higher figures would not likely produce visible improvement over the already very high 36mp unless enlarging to a really huge size. Most likely, only the higher storage file size would be visible! And it would probably cost upwards of $3,000 while bringing moderate advancement, and maybe also stripping away some features, as did the K-3 III. I could afford that, but with the K-1 II at such an already high level, and the possibility some of its desirable virtues (like the tilt-out rear screen) possibly being omitted, I could clearly see the outstanding bargain and marvelous performer the K- 1 II truly is.

After carefully reading about your current kit, your photographic interests, and your potential plans for the future, I have arrived at specific recommendations. Be aware, the lenses you are used to, though they are FF lenses will not have the same look with a FF body as they have when used with APS-C. They will deliver images that are less telephoto in nature, and of wider angle. A 35mm lens on APS-C is a "normal" lens, neither WA nor short tele, while on a FF body, a 35mm lens is indeed a moderate WA lens! You'd need a 24mm lens on APS-C to get the same image size as a 35mm lens on a FF body. Telephoto lenses will not present as large an image on a FF body as with APS-C. But there are ways to compensate for this, while there are none to compensate APS-C for the wider angle of a lens when used on FF. Also, most lenses that are formulated for APS-C use have elements that are cut smaller and thus reducing the overall lens size, but could not be used on a FF body, as this situation would create vignetting or darkening of the outer parameter of the image. A lens made for FF use can be used with APS-C with no problem- its larger outer area would simply not be included in the frame, sometimes being advantageous by using the best part of the glass. This difference factor between lenses used with these two formats will be meaningful in your usages.

Here are my thoughts for you, also based on my own experience-

I think the K-1 II will not just be satisfying for you, it will knock you out of your shoes, coming from the K20D!! After reading your preferences for ergonomics, etc, in fact, after getting yours and holding it in your hands for the first time, I would love to see a video of your expressions as you do so! Maybe you could have your son make one on his phone so you could post it so we could all watch it. The K20D is certainly a well-made, well-designed camera with fine ergonomics, but the K-1 II, I mean this thing is really built! Very pro-grade all the way. And looking through the VF, what a difference.

I have done business with B&H of New York for many years. I've found them to offer exceptionally good deals and to be very accommodating, good business people. When my K-1 II arrived, the outer carton was very badly beat up, even with very harsh scrape marks, and a flap that had come partially open. I took out the camera box to find it undamaged. But after due consideration I decided not to take a chance, as it obviously had been dealt a bad mishap. So I called B&H, explained the situation, and was asked what I would like to do. I said, return this item and exchange it for another new one. They said they understood my reasoning completely, and arranged this to be done. I have always been happy with them and I am more than happy, absolutely delighted, with the K-1 II!

The deal I took was $200 off the original price of the camera body, but this was also in a further deal including the very fine Pentax DFA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR lens also with about another $100 off the lens. Then I would have a complete FF WR system at my disposal. A WR camera is not actively WR unless having a WR lens on it. WR can be very important when going out and about. And this is an exceptionally fine-performing lens, both operationally and optically with fast, quiet, accurate AF and is very well- built. A zoom lens starting at 28mm offers no wide angle at all on APS-C, but is definitely wide angle on a FF body. It would make a useful matchup with your Sigma 70-300mm lens, which is a FF lens. This lens with the K-1 II will make your DA 18-55mm seem pretty lame. This deal comes with the lens and camera as pre-packaged by Pentax. B&H offered this package with some important free items- a generous size camera/lens bag and a very good SD card. I just checked B&H, and have found they are now again offering this deal, only now also include a free battery grip as well!! An amazing savings. The price of the K-3 III has dropped also but is still just barely below the cost of the FF K-1 II.

Your fine FA 50mm f/1.4 will work just fine with the K-1 II. But again, it will not have the short tele look as on APS-C. On the K-1 II it will look like a 35mm lens looks on APS-C. However, the DA 35mm f/2.4 lens you have is formulated for APS-C. I also recommend you acquire the superior Pentax HD FA 35mm f/2 lens, which is on FF a very versatile moderate WA lens, and an outstanding one! You would immediately see quite a difference with a fine 35mm lens on the K-1 II compared to APS-C. The price for such an outstanding lens is modest. To give you one example of your gain, you'd get the same image with a 24mm lens on APS-C cameras of say 24mp models, as this 35mm lens would give you on the K-1 II- but now you'd have a 36mp image. Both might be fine images, but in this case, the K-1 II provides a 50% jump! Also, in reality, there is no 24mm lens available that can equal the edge-to-edge sharp performance of this Pentax HD FA 35mm f/2 lens.

Finally, I recommend that you acquire the Pentax HD FA 77mm f/1.8, a legendary lens of superb imaging capability. Especially well-suited for portraitures both on FF and APS-C. I know, as I have done numerous portraits with this lens on both formats. It can deliver marvelous results, right from the get-go wide open aperture, and it is amazingly small for its focal length with the fast, f/1.8 aperture capability, thus easy-handling and not being distracting like a big lens might be, so subjects' expressions are apt to be more natural.

I see B&H is running a black Friday sale at quite a substantial savings, so if your credit card can withstand it, there is a ton of money to be saved. But you'd need to jump right on it. B&H is not open after Friday morning, as I recall, until Sunday afternoon.

[JPT]

Thank you very much, this response was very helpful to me. It's great to hear from someone who came from a k20D and also has a K3 III. The more responses I get the more excited I get about the K1 II. Your experience with this cameras is EXACTLY what I was looking for.

Glad to be of some assistance. After I wrote this, I hit another site and saw that B&H seems to have a deal on K-1 II kits ($1,999 with the 28-105) and also $300 off the 70-210 I mentioned. That would be a very good starting setup at not much cost. But obviously you know what lenses you will need better than any of us.

Regarding the 42mp sensor in the Sony vs. the 36mp one in the K-1 and K-1 II, it mighty be tempting to think the 42mp one is better because it is newer. In fact, both these sensors are made by Sony and they were both available when Pentax made the original K-1. Apparently, Sony was trying to sell the 42mp sensor to Pentax, but Pentax wanted the 36mp one because it had better image quality. So in fact Pentax chose the 36mp sensor over the 42mp one because it has better color and dynamic range for stills, while the advancements in the 42mp one were more about video and on-sensor focus detection, which are largely irrelevant to DSLRs (but very useful for mirrorless).

[Apet-Sure]

As I read your original post carefully, I kept thinking 'this member needs a K-1 II'. The 36MP should be plenty unless you plan to print really humongous wall coverings/banners.

Regarding optimizing the AF for sports, you need to choose a lens with good focusing.

That's half the AF battle. There's 'good' accurate, 'good' fast, and 'good' accurate and fast. The Pentax lens reviews here on PF give a general user AF rating. My DA* 60-250mm SDM lens seemed to focus accurately (until the SDM died), but it was slow. The DA 55-300mm PLM has lightning fast AF, but it is APS-C. As others have said, I don't think the K-1 II AF will be a limiting factor for you, but the lens attached could be. I doubt that any SDM lens would be good for sports, but I could be wrong.

[Zooland]

If you're like me and don't like to frequently upgrade cameras, then stick with the Pentax system.

Pentax cameras are much more reliable, especially if you intend on using the same equipment for the
decade.
See this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/423848-most-reliable-option.html

[mikesbike]

After I wrote this, I hit another site and saw that B&H seems to have a deal on K-1 II kits ($1,999 with the 28-105)

Yep, I just scrolled down and saw this too. And with the same accessories I got. Outstanding! So if not needing the battery grip, this is the way to go- a yet better deal than mine, for black Friday! But again, I think they will be open only very short hours on Friday. The battery grip could wait until another time if needed. With the size of the K-1 II, I have yet to consider having one.

[UncleVanya]

I own a KP and about 30 Pentax lenses. I also own a Sony A7RIII and about 5 lenses. Additionally I have the Monster LA-KE1 K mount to E Mount autofocus adapter. This allows some use of some Pentax lenses on my a7RIII. I also owned the A7RII prior to the a7rIII. But I’ve never owned a K-1 though I did use one for a month along with the D FA 24-70. At that time I wasn’t ready for the size of FF and also didn’t try the 28-105.

First, I think the KF, k3iii, k-1 II, a7Riii or really any camera from the last 6 years could handle any of the types of photography you have said you are planning to spend time doing. Looking at your lenses I don’t see a large investment that you would lose going to FF or to Sony E mount. So what would I suggest?

Honestly that’s a tough question. Mainly because any camera from the past 6 years or so will easily handle the types of photography you have indicated interest in. So, as a user of both and someone who tried the k-1, and regularly shots a KP and a Sony a7riii I will compare and contrast the options. To me there are three major options…

1) stay with Pentax
A) FF w/K-1
B) APSC w/K-3iii
2) switch to a7riii (or another e Mount)

The a7riii and the k-1 II are from a similar time. The k-1 mk 1 is from 2016, and the mk II is from 2018 with limited changes. The a7riii is from 2017. The Sony has a more advanced sensor, mainly because Sony introduces their best sensor tech typically in their own gear first, but the delta in technology is not a huge difference in performance. The features added to the 42mp sensor only adds a minor amount of additional detail and minimal differences in dynamic range. The Pentax accelerator more than makes up for this. Both cameras offer pixel shift with slightly different aims. The k-1 II offers motion correction that the Sony does not. Pentax offers on camera raw conversion, Sony does not. Both offer remote via IR and WiFi. Both can transfer files over WiFi. Pentax offers the astrotracer, Sony does not. Pentax has a third control wheel, Sony only offers a dedicated exposure compensation dial as a third Control wheel. Both cameras offer user modes and button customization. The k-1 moon lander screen is unique, the a7riii has a tilt screen like the KP. The Astro oriented red mode for the rear screen on Pentax isn’t available on the Sony. The Sony despite being their landscape camera is better than the k-1 II at fast focusing and tracking as far as I can tell. It is likely far worse than the k3iii. Sony has far more available to buy new lens choices. Sony can also use far more old manual lenses due to flange distance. Even some autofocusing adaption is possible (techart for manual lenses , monster for Nikon F and Pentax K, Sigma for canon EF… ) The EVF magnified view makes manual focusing easier for my tired old eyes, but dynamic range and brightness are not as crisp as an ovf provides. Lag and blackout can occur in some situations although that never seems to impact me.

Now for the dirty little secret. My KP and my Sony a7Riii both make excellent photos. They both exceed my limitations. I can make prints from both that wow people. Without a doubt, both are great cameras. So why switch to full frame? I own a DA* 11-18/2.8 - so wide angle is well handled. I rarely want razor thin depth of field, so that aspect of full frame isn’t important. My KP already delivered great high iso performance, so that’s not really it. The truth is: I shoot ff because my dad wanted to do something nice for me and bought me the A7rII and later wanted one of his own so he got me an a7riii and he got the A7rII.

I like both systems. The Pentax menu is more logical. The ergonomics are better as well. The lens selection is far more limited (pun intended) but despite that there’sa pretty good selection of the things I’m likely to actually use and buy. (A 600mm prime isn’t the kind of thing I’m in the market for as an example.)

Last curveball. The A7rII is dirt cheap right now. The image quality is nearly the same as the a7riii. The EVF is worse, the battery life is worse and it lacks pixel shift. But it’s less than half the price right now…

My advice, look at lenses and body features collectively. Decide on a budget. Then look long and hard at what full frame will give you vs what you really need to accomplish your goals. Then pick one and if possible rent or get one that you can return if you don’t like it.

I don’t think you can go horribly wrong unless you are dishonest with yourself about what you can and can’t live with.

[rr1736]

If you get a K1 you will find a use for that Sigma 55-300 as it is a full frame lens and no longer available . The K1 is a great box as is the K3 III I have not had a problem with the autofocus I think Pentax has gotten better since your K20D is a little dated. If you find a used KP it is also a great camera. I wish they had discontinued the the K70 line rather than the KP as the KP is a much better camera

[pblogic]

Welcome to the forum! I don't see what part of the world you live in. Some advice given for buying might vary accordingly. I still have my old K20D, though I seldom use it. It is only good in daylight conditions, or for flash. I fact, Soon afterward I got a new K-r, small and basic entry-level but much better for higher ISO needs.

Then came the K-5 series. I still do sometimes shoot with my now aging K-5 IIs, still a good camera, for its fine handling and very good controls, handles the power-zoom function of some of my old lenses, and even somewhat better for higher ISO. I bought my cameras new after the prices dropped. I have not regretted a single purchase. I gave away my K-r to friends after some years of use, and got a new K-S2 as my compact lightweight model- even better at higher ISO, in a spectacular closeout deal when the K-70 was forthcoming. I still have and use it.

When the KP came out I was very interested. Sensational for low light, action, higher ISO performance. Very compact yet of pro-level build, but of modular design so by changing the supplied grips the camera handling changes, according to the lenses used, and can be greatly expanded from this by employing the optional battery grip. I waited about a year when the good price deals appeared before buying it and the battery grip. Wonderful imaging. It fast became my main camera body. I love it.

After some years, finally came the K-3 II replacement, the K-3 III, which is especially designed for fast action burst-shooting, higher fps and more advanced AF especially when employing one of the new PLM lenses. And its High ISO capabilities even yet more advanced. The latest DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM has a good report, but is very expensive, as is the K-3 III camera. But my KP's capabilities for these uses is plenty good enough for me, 26mp vs my KP's 24mp will not make a visible difference, so I concluded it would be a waste of money, with nothing gained and some useful features lost. But by evaluating the new K-3 III, this cast my eyes towards the fact of a substantial price drop of the then one-year-old K-1 II, which was then actually LESS than the new APS-C model!! I had thought about getting one, since I have some very fine FF lenses from my film shooting years, with FL not a s useful with APS-C, and looked forward to putting them back in service. So I decided to go for this instead. I could not have imagined just how much I would come to appreciate making that choice!! I've had it for just over 2 years now.

I too thought about a forthcoming K-1 III. Although it would no doubt have a BSI sensor with some further advancement for higher ISO use, the performance of the K-1 II with the added accelerator is already phenomenal!! Even well above that of my extraordinary KP! And if 42mp or even 50mp, those higher figures would not likely produce visible improvement over the already very high 36mp unless enlarging to a really huge size. Most likely, only the higher storage file size would be visible! And it would probably cost upwards of $3,000 while bringing moderate advancement, and maybe also stripping away some features, as did the K-3 III. I could afford that, but with the K-1 II at such an already high level, and the possibility some of its desirable virtues (like the tilt-out rear screen) possibly being omitted, I could clearly see the outstanding bargain and marvelous performer the K- 1 II truly is.

After carefully reading about your current kit, your photographic interests, and your potential plans for the future, I have arrived at specific recommendations. Be aware, the lenses you are used to, though they are FF lenses will not have the same look with a FF body as they have when used with APS-C. They will deliver images that are less telephoto in nature, and of wider angle. A 35mm lens on APS-C is a "normal" lens, neither WA nor short tele, while on a FF body, a 35mm lens is indeed a moderate WA lens! You'd need a 24mm lens on APS-C to get the same image size as a 35mm lens on a FF body. Telephoto lenses will not present as large an image on a FF body as with APS-C. But there are ways to compensate for this, while there are none to compensate APS-C for the wider angle of a lens when used on FF. Also, most lenses that are formulated for APS-C use have elements that are cut smaller and thus reducing the overall lens size, but could not be used on a FF body, as this situation would create vignetting or darkening of the outer parameter of the image. A lens made for FF use can be used with APS-C with no problem- its larger outer area would simply not be included in the frame, sometimes being advantageous by using the best part of the glass. This difference factor between lenses used with these two formats will be meaningful in your usages.

Here are my thoughts for you, also based on my own experience-

I think the K-1 II will not just be satisfying for you, it will knock you out of your shoes, coming from the K20D!! After reading your preferences for ergonomics, etc, in fact, after getting yours and holding it in your hands for the first time, I would love to see a video of your expressions as you do so! Maybe you could have your son make one on his phone so you could post it so we could all watch it. The K20D is certainly a well-made, well-designed camera with fine ergonomics, but the K-1 II, I mean this thing is really built! Very pro-grade all the way. And looking through the VF, what a difference.

I have done business with B&H of New York for many years. I've found them to offer exceptionally good deals and to be very accommodating, good business people. When my K-1 II arrived, the outer carton was very badly beat up, even with very harsh scrape marks, and a flap that had come partially open. I took out the camera box to find it undamaged. But after due consideration I decided not to take a chance, as it obviously had been dealt a bad mishap. So I called B&H, explained the situation, and was asked what I would like to do. I said, return this item and exchange it for another new one. They said they understood my reasoning completely, and arranged this to be done. I have always been happy with them and I am more than happy, absolutely delighted, with the K-1 II!

The deal I took was $200 off the original price of the camera body, but this was also in a further deal including the very fine Pentax DFA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR lens also with about another $100 off the lens. Then I would have a complete FF WR system at my disposal. A WR camera is not actively WR unless having a WR lens on it. WR can be very important when going out and about. And this is an exceptionally fine-performing lens, both operationally and optically with fast, quiet, accurate AF and is very well- built. A zoom lens starting at 28mm offers no wide angle at all on APS-C, but is definitely wide angle on a FF body. It would make a useful matchup with your Sigma 70-300mm lens, which is a FF lens. This lens with the K-1 II will make your DA 18-55mm seem pretty lame. This deal comes with the lens and camera as pre-packaged by Pentax. B&H offered this package with some important free items- a generous size camera/lens bag and a very good SD card. I just checked B&H, and have found they are now again offering this deal, only now also include a free battery grip as well!! An amazing savings. The price of the K-3 III has dropped also but is still just barely below the cost of the FF K-1 II.

Your fine FA 50mm f/1.4 will work just fine with the K-1 II. But again, it will not have the short tele look as on APS-C. On the K-1 II it will look like a 35mm lens looks on APS-C. However, the DA 35mm f/2.4 lens you have is formulated for APS-C. I also recommend you acquire the superior Pentax HD FA 35mm f/2 lens, which is on FF a very versatile moderate WA lens, and an outstanding one! You would immediately see quite a difference with a fine 35mm lens on the K-1 II compared to APS-C. The price for such an outstanding lens is modest. To give you one example of your gain, you'd get the same image with a 24mm lens on APS-C cameras of say 24mp models, as this 35mm lens would give you on the K-1 II- but now you'd have a 36mp image. Both might be fine images, but in this case, the K-1 II provides a 50% jump! Also, in reality, there is no 24mm lens available that can equal the edge-to-edge sharp performance of this Pentax HD FA 35mm f/2 lens.

Finally, I recommend that you acquire the Pentax HD FA 77mm f/1.8, a legendary lens of superb imaging capability. Especially well-suited for portraitures both on FF and APS-C. I know, as I have done numerous portraits with this lens on both formats. It can deliver marvelous results, right from the get-go wide open aperture, and it is amazingly small for its focal length with the fast, f/1.8 aperture capability, thus easy-handling and not being distracting like a big lens might be, so subjects' expressions are apt to be more natural.

I see B&H is running a black Friday sale at quite a substantial savings, so if your credit card can withstand it, there is a ton of money to be saved. But you'd need to jump right on it. B&H is not open after Friday morning, as I recall, until Sunday afternoon.

Thank you for the very thorough response, I appreciate you taking your time to help me. I had not thought about the difference in wideness on the FF sensor in the way that you put it. It had not occurred to me that 28mm would be wide, as I've been so used to APS-C for so long. That is very helpful. I have looked at the 77mm 1.8 and am very interested in it. Do you have any opinions on how it compares to the much more expensive 85mm 1.4? I have been drooling over that lens since it released.

Thank you again!

[robgski]

A fine idea, thank you.

You can rent from lensrentals.com, great gear, good rates. I encourage renting gear before buying.
You could also rent both an FA 77mm and a DFA 85mm.

I have used both with my K-1. For me, the difference in images is not so great that I would give up my lighter and more compact FA 77mm in favor of the larger and heavier DFA 85mm.

[Jonathan Mac]

If you're considering Sony then you should also consider the Panasonic FF S5 and S1 cameras. I have used Pentax DSLRs (K200D & K-3) for eleven years before recently switching to an S5 as my main camera. It's not quite as well built but in most ways it's leaps and bounds better, as are the lenses I have for it, and I found adapting to it very natural coming from the K-3. The biggest differences are in AF, image quality (both low and high ISO) and ability to use old film-era lenses. You won't find AF as good as a modern mirrorless camera in any Pentax DSLR ever due to the limitations of being an SLR.

It still pains me that my main camera is no longer a Pentax but the jump in image quality and capabilities from the switch are very clear.

If you really like the Pentax ergonomics or an optical viewfinder and you'e happy with so-so AF (which will depend on what you shoot) and don't much use manual focus then by all means stick to Pentax. Renting to try one out is a good idea.

[Lowell Goudge]

Given the shooting interests of the OP, and yes I know these can change, I would go for the K1 MKII, it has the highest MP count of any Pentax camera, and with pixel shift, can produce 72 MP images, certainly good enough to make really big prints

The stated poor AF performance if it exists at all, and I have not experienced it yet shooting birds in flight, is marginal difference at best, and not worthy at all of the decision. The issues with High ISO performance , also is moot because the stated uses don’t need it

Similarly, I don’t see any real difference in terms of view finder, unless part of the stated use is candid portraits.

All other stated uses, if intended to be done at a professional level suggest a tripod mounted camera, where live view and focusing using the primary sensor is the best option, you don’t really need a viewfinder at all.

As to the “potential future” of any system, Sony has already abandoned its legacy users by going to mirrorless, canon has done this now I believe 3 times, and Nikon, by going to mirrorless is also now doing it. Therefore, I would deal with that issue for Pentax if and when it happens, it should not be the major decider.

Also remember, the current camera (K20) is 15 years old, at the time of its release was better than anything else although it is no where near todays performance I agree.


The other thing I don’t understand is why the OP is irritated as hell that there is not a K1 MKIII yet. Given he has not updated his kit since the K20, and let the K7, K5, K5MKIi, K3 (plus the MKII and MKIII ), K1 and K1MKII, all pass by, I am not sure what he really wants, unless the real desire for a new version of the K1 is to drive the used market down.

I am totally confused here

[TER-OR]

For that budget, pick up a K3III - you'll find the autofocus is no slouch. Also pick up one of the newer motorized-focus lenses and you'll be hooked again.

Sony is schizophrenic. Their tech is good but they never seem to leave the wading pool when supporting it. You want to stay in the deep end.

I know my Flickr albums are in dire need of updating.
Here's a series along the Fox River, while walking the dogs we saw an eagle on an obvious hunting dive. I dropped the leash, raised the camera, turned it on and started shooting. Despite being badly backlit, the focus nailed the images in that series and it was an "achievement unlocked" moment for me.

hanging out at the local camera shop, got in a conversation with the clerk & another customer. that guy had a Canon R6 (mirrorless) with him, and I started on about how I have to have OVF & complaining about the lag time, poor resolution, etc. of the "electrical optical viewfinder" on those cameras. He let me try it outside the shop. My immediate response was too vulgar for these hallowed fora, the AF was instantaneous, and the viewfinder was fantastic. Seems things have changed in that market. That said, I'm sticking with a K-1 and a KP. I think they're terrific, but then I don't do sports, and don't need instantaneous AF. My viewfinder objection has been effectively overruled, however.

I agree that Pentax engineers design some great lenses, though assembly isn't always first rate and warranty service is nearly nonexistent. But if you've got some lenses that you really like, that, in my opinion, is why you should stick with Pentax bodies. There are lots of terrific cameras around, sort of a fungible commodity. You can find a good camera that suits your favorite lenses, so do that. If you're not so wild about the lenses you've got, then look around for who makes the lenses you're really partial to, and get a camera body that will suit those lenses.

Oh, and as to resale value and such - I'll tell you me ol' grand-dad's advice about buying new cars: "The only way you'll get your money's worth out of it is to drive it." He'd probably be buying cameras at KEH and Ebay if he were alive today. 'Course he wasn't actually a photographer, and the main reason he was adamant about buying used cars was that he could fix anything that was wrong with them. That was back when you had to make sure your points, ignition timing, and tappets were properly adjusted.