|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-20-2018, 07:20 AM
|
| |
The top screen shows a counter during long exposures. Move that to the rear screen and I don't need the top screen.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-20-2018, 05:30 AM
|
| |
I rarely use the top screen. It's an adequate size when I do need to use it.
The dial interface does not feel crowded. My 3rd wheel is most frequently set for ISO or bracketing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-18-2018, 08:25 PM
|
| |
I think that's because the K-5 had the best low light noise performance in its price range. It excelled at night photos and landscapes. The K-3 emphasized better AF and frame rate for wildlife; it was a sideways step rather than upgrade for landscape (it was a big upgrade for wildlife and sports). The K-1, though, improved on what the K-5 did best.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-19-2018, 02:29 PM
|
| |
Body weight is distributed. Camera weight is more concentrated and can make a difference to your hand, neck, shoulder, etc. depending on how you carry the camera.
In my experience, general walkaround is similar weight whether I used the K-1 or K-5. The K-5 body is smaller but the lenses I've selected (partly due to weight) lead to a kit around the same weight. K-5 plus 16-50 is similar bulk to K-1 plus 28-105. Weight is why I didn't pair the 24-70 with my K-1.
Wide angle shows how much heavier FF can be, especially if limiting choices to Pentax lenses. The most compact (hah!) full frame ultrawide is the hefty 15-30. Stick that on the K-1, and compare it to an APS-C body with the DA 15 Limited. Granted, that is an extreme case, and when weight is a primary concern it is possible to assemble a lighter K-1 kit. The DA 15 can be used in crop mode. There are 3rd party ultrawide FF primes that weight less than the 15-30.
And, that, folks, is how I wound up with 3 systems. 1) The K-1 is my main system. 2) Ricoh GR when size is the main concern, without sacrificing too much image quality. 3) Inexpensive micro 43 kit (Panasonic GX85 with 2 kit zooms < $600 total) for trips when I need the versatility of zoom in a much lighter package than the K-1.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-19-2018, 09:16 AM
|
| |
Yes, I am happy with my APS-C to FF move. I bought my K-1 18 months ago, saving my K-5 as a backup body that I've only used twice since.
I upgraded primarily for very low light usage. Landscapes with the Milky Way as a background, and night architecture and cityscapes. I avoid ultra high ISOs. I use a tripod and go no higher than ISO 6400. At lower ISOs in the 100-400 range, the K-1 is noise-free and offers great dynamic range. K-1 files are very adjustable during post processing.
Other upgrades the K-1 gave me were improved autofocus, extra control dial (which I use for ISO or bracketing control), astrotracer, articulating screen.
The only downside for me is the K-1's size and weight boost compared to the relatively svelte K-5. For general daylight usage, though, it's not as much as it seems when specs are compared. My main walkaround K-5 lens was the 16-50. I use the lighter 28-105 with the K-1 so my kit ends up weighing around the same. I've evolved to take the K-1 when my goal is getting the best photos, and micro43 when I'm doing something else that might present a photo opportunity.
If you are coming from the K-3 rather than the K-5, your experience will be different. The K-1 has a slower framerate than the K-3. The K-1 can do action photography but the K-3 is better suited for it.
|
