|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
05-29-2016, 06:48 AM
|
| |
Macro and ornithology has K-3II written all over it.
IN the APS-c crop area, the K-1 is 15 MP, the K-3II is 24 MP.
With the same lens, you will get more subject magnification with the same lens.
To make up for the less magnification on a K-1 you'll have to use the whole frame and more magnification. By the time you've used the better ISO to compensate for the loss of DoF, you'll also have lost your shutter speed an noise advantage. For those two things, a K-3 is probably just as good as the K-1 for a lot less money. Although, if you do everything needed, like use a longer local length lens, set up your image so you don't crop etc. etc, you will get a better image on the K-1.
Images like this image taken with the K-3 DA*200 and F1.7x AF adapter, for 340mm, you are going to need a Sigma 500 4.5 on a K-1 to do the same field of view.
Original image
Final crop
My 200 with 1.7x is quite portable. The Sigma 500 4.5, not so much.
To get the higher resolution with a K-1 there's a price far beyond the price of the camera. Since the K-3 already resolves the feather detail, I'm not even too sure you'd get anything from that extra 25% of detail.
The total cost of my DA*200 and 1.7 TC, which gives me 340mm ƒ4.5 is around $1200 CAD. The Sigma 500 is $7,500 CAD plus $2500 CAD = $10,000 for a K-1 setup. For me, i can afford the K-3 set up, not the K-1 set up. Resolution is a wonderfull thing, but it costs you 4 times the price, hoping that everything will line up, and the gods will smile, and you "nail one" and get a superior image.
Personally, if someone starts buying my images I'll go for it. Until then it's unlikely. I'm only willing to put that kind of money into something that can make me money.
But if you have the 10k lying around and strong back... go for a K-1 :D
|
