APSc or 35mm full frame??


doingthebobs

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 14:17
As the K1 is now nearly a reality, what advantages will the K1 have over the K3ii and what disadvantages will the K1 have?
I'm particularly interested in the taking of the image and the end results, rather than the mechanics and technicalities.
Bob

DrOrloff

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 15:07
Aside from the obvious differences, which are price and the fact that all lenses cover APS-C.

Well the full frame has a lower pixel density so I am sure that it will be top notch image quality. K3 noise always put me off, which is why I chose the K5iis instead. The K1 has the same pixel density as the K5.

The converse is that the K3 has greater reach for macro and telephoto.

The K1 looks like it has improved SR and the pixel shift is an advancement as it can cope with a little movement.

How much better will AF be? Don't know,

K1 for me, hands down.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

Dave-L

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 16:30
Both. Well all three!

K-3 (I) for long telephoto crops; K-1 for most other things, especially at night and for landscapes. Sports and maybe birding would depend on the merits of the K-1 AF. K-5 for handheld video and quick shots including flash with the popup.

Oh no, nothing to part exchange any more!
K3/K5/10-17fisheye/15mmDA Ltd/18-55WR/55-300DA/100DFAMacroWR/50F1.4M/200F4M/300DA*F4/Mitsuki 400F5.6/others.

wvbarnes

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 17:54
I'm very happy with my K3 which I managed to buy very cheaply due to SRS's excellent trade in offers at the time. I have all the lenses I need.

The K-1 is too big and heavy for my needs so I look forward to a smaller lighter next APS-C flagship as electronics shrink. I guess this will be October time so mid next year before it is on offer?

Hopefully they have the resource to develop more APSC bodies now FA lenses seem farmed out to Tamron and the (2001 planned and aborted I read) 35mm sized sensor camera has finally been sorted.

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 20:07
The images from the new camera are bound to be superior but will anyone (beyond pixel-peepers) be able to tell the difference at normal magnifications and after some judicious processing? I still can't get over the results the MX-1 can produce and that has a tiny sensor.

I guess people have different standards and some will justifiably only settle for the very best; for them the K-1 will be perfect. They will gladly pay for the camera and the top quality lenses it needs (don't forget to budget for those: inferior glass will quickly be found wanting with all those pixels and a sensor which uses the whole lens area.)

Like Bill, I'd love Pentax to make a small, light mirror-less camera with an APSC sensor and an EVF, but their laudable commitment to the K-mount will probably make that very difficult. Nikon and Canon developed new mounts for their mirror-less cameras; Pentax unwisely made the tiny Q.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

BruceStrachan

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 20:18
bwlchmawr wrote:
The images from the new camera are bound to be superior but will anyone (beyond pixel-peepers) be able to tell the difference at normal magnifications and after some judicious processing? I still can't get over the results the MX-1 can produce and that has a tiny sensor.

I guess people have different standards and some will justifiably only settle for the very best; for them the K-1 will be perfect. They will gladly pay for the camera and the top quality lenses it needs (don't forget to budget for those: inferior glass will quickly be found wanting with all those pixels and a sensor which uses the whole lens area.)

Like Bill, I'd love Pentax to make a small, light mirror-less camera with an APSC sensor and an EVF, but their laudable commitment to the K-mount will probably make that very difficult. Nikon and Canon developed new mounts for their mirror-less cameras; Pentax unwisely made the tiny Q.

I like your pics but for me the Q is way above the mx1.
Using it is so much easier lens options give so much more coverage.
Lighter smaller and more fun.

I agree that Pentax seem to have missed so many opportunities but to my mind an improved K-01/2 and something to compete in the travel market...something partly sealed metal body best of options with more features and a smaller (in the emd10 mode) mirrorless and the line up will be complete....
Cheers,

Bruce

DrOrloff

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 20:56
The Q sold well in Japan. So it was a smart move.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

fatspider

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 22:59
I'll second the Pixel Peeping argument, unless your intending to do this or make very large prints I can't see the need for full frame, unless of course you already have a stable full of high quality wide angle FF primes.

Having said that I'll give the same advice to anyone who asks me the "Which Camera" question: get into a shop and try a few and seriously consider the handling and weight and what you'll be using it for. And of course I have to say if you don't already own a Pentax DSLR and lenses to fit then also try the competition, photography isn't about brand loyalty, it's about buying and using whatever kit suits your needs and feels right in your hands.

(Please don't ban me John )
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link

davidstorm

Link Posted 20/02/2016 - 23:29
I think there will be some landscape shooters salivating over the K-1. Also I think it will be great for low light shooting, e.g. concert/gig photography, but agree that a lower pixel count with the same size sensor would have been even better for this type of work. I guess this will follow in due course.

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

doingthebobs

Link Posted 21/02/2016 - 00:30
This is all very interesting.
I realize the decrease in depth of field would be an advantage. Improved SR and auto focus will help, probably without me realizing it most of the time. The flip screen would be good. All round update on my K5 would probably be worth thinking about.

Lack of on board flash might be missed sometimes, although I never missed it with my Super A. Larger file size would a mixed blessing, computer power, storage space and time to fiddle with the images will all cost more. GPS, I can't really see the point. Size and weight are a problem for quite a bit of what I do, I have been looking at the KS-2 as a possible light weight option. There is always the nagging feeling though, that I'd be missing out on something!

I guess I won't really need to think about it for a while as I'm never in a hurry for the latest, preferring to see how others find it first and maybe get a few price reductions in.
Bob

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 21/02/2016 - 08:18
The size/weight thing is very personal. There's lots of highly committed landscape photographers who will happily lug full-frame DSLRs with a choice of lenses and tripod up mountains for the ultimate quality. But if you feel you might weaken, even once, and can't face the burden, then you'll be happier with something smaller and lighter. The best camera/lens combination in the world is no use whilst in the box at home or in the boot of the car. The best camera is the one you have with you.

If you are undecided about image quality, those pixel-peeping websites which allow you to compare the same studio shot taken with up to four cameras are very interesting. It's astonishing how well modern small sensor cameras compete with larger sensors at low ISOs.

And there's the rub: take lots of indoor or low light shots and the K1 should be your best bet. Wedding photographers will also love the high dynamic range and the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus. As David suggests strongly built landscape photographers will also be drawn to the fine detail: 36mp is a lot. But they'll have to use much smaller apertures than they're used to in order to maintain a deep depth of field.

I'd love a K1 because I like nice stuff but there's no way it would become my most used camera. For the kind of mundane stuff I do, it's like owning a really nice sports car tucked away in the garage for special occasions... with a Skoda Octavia on the drive for daily use.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

paulb531

Link Posted 21/02/2016 - 09:36
The best photographers will still produce the best photographs irrespective of tackle. Investment in equipment will not improve Mr average very much. Like Andrew says a high quality mirror-less unit (Skoda) would be more useful than a big expensive full-frame.

Regards

Paul

johnriley

Link Posted 21/02/2016 - 10:11
Quote:
Andrew says a high quality mirror-less unit (Skoda) would be more useful than a big expensive full-frame.

It depends what for. Mirrorless cameras are hard work for sports and birding, much easier to use a DSLR. The success rate with a DSLR is much higher as well.
Best regards, John

jemx99

Link Posted 21/02/2016 - 10:46
Despite the present range of Pentax cameras having excellent view finders, the K1 will have a larger 35mm film camera like viewfinder which should be a joy to use for manual focusing etc!

Algernon

Link Posted 21/02/2016 - 11:14
jemx99 wrote:
Despite the present range of Pentax cameras having excellent view finders, the K1 will have a larger 35mm film camera like viewfinder which should be a joy to use for manual focusing etc!

Well the K-1 has a magnification of 0.70x the old MX had a magnification of 0.97x.
Hardly film like?

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.