K1 V Sony A7ii


Billdad

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 17:04
Around 12 months ago I sold my Pentax K3 and purchased a Sony A7ii body and kit lens. the camera takes Stunning images even with the kit lens, however I am considering purchasing a K1, as I wish to stick with F/F.
I would like to think that this will be my last serious investment in equipment and it is eithe change or invest heavily in Zeiss lenses for the A7ii.
Has anyone compared image quality/handling and can give any comparison

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 19:06
" the camera takes Stunning images even with the kit lens" then why go to the expense of making a change, unless you have a stash of K mount lenses?
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

K10D

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 19:48
Why the route of Zeiss lenses? Most of them on an A7 look like 85mm f/1.4 lenses on a Q. That aside, the extra "skill needed" to ween out the benefit of a top class lens does not just happen by attaching it to the body.

A good tog will get great images from standard glass or kit zooms just because they "know" their kit inside out. A K-1 will not produce high quality images on it's own. In the hands of a "craftsman" it will match and probably beat all other cameras out there just as the D800/810 proved. Yet so many owners of the Nikon were disappointed with their results. That was down to them, not the kit.

You are considering moving from a system totally different to what you are using and bringing third party glass into the equation.

Take a knee and clarify to yourself what and why you need to change.

Maybe just buy a K-1and use it alongside the Sony?

Best regards
cameradextrous _ Motorcycles etc. link

Billdad

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 20:01
Both the cameras are very expensive and need consideration, the Sony is so light and compact, a photographers dream. However the lenses are very prohibitively expensive and almost exclusively Zeiss, hence the price.

I prefer F/F because of the shallow DOF. Looking at the specification of the K1,it would appear to fill my needs and has now been in service for any issues to be identified, consequently i was looking to identify users opinion and not to question my reason

RobL

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 20:59
I'm a bit confused because isn't the Sony full frame as well? I am not in a position to compare but I have been really pleased with the K-1. Worth comparing expected shutter count as if it is to last then durability is important, the K-1 is 300,000. Also the WR could be a factor. Tough call.

Billdad

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 21:04
RobL wrote:
I'm a bit confused because isn't the Sony full frame as well? I am not in a position to compare but I have been really pleased with the K-1. Worth comparing expected shutter count as if it is to last then durability is important, the K-1 is 300,000. Also the WR could be a factor. Tough call.

RobL wrote:
I'm a bit confused because isn't the Sony full frame as well? I am not in a position to compare but I have been really pleased with the K-1. Worth comparing expected shutter count as if it is to last then durability is important, the K-1 is 300,000. Also the WR could be a factor. Tough call.

RobL wrote:
I'm a bit confused because isn't the Sony full frame as well? I am not in a position to compare but I have been really pleased with the K-1. Worth comparing expected shutter count as if it is to last then durability is important, the K-1 is 300,000. Also the WR could be a factor. Tough call.

Yes the Sony is full frame and it is my intention to stick to that, my questions were not on the likes/dislikes of the Sony, more on the members opinion on the K1.
Quality, Reliability, Likes/dislikes, handling etc. you appear to like the your K1, can you be more specific ?

K10D

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 21:07
Not looking to cause any issue Bill. I read your post and my response was based on what I understand you are possibly looking to move from a light mirror-less FF back to a heavy DSLR.

You ask if any one has compared image quality and handling between the A7II and the K-1, T hey are effectively worlds apart. How about going into a dealer that has K-1's in stock and see what you think. We see plenty of questions on the forum asking similar questions from time to time. People are different and so are hand sizes and opinions.

I would not personally base any serious investment (an odd term as a K-1 or A7II are not investments as neither hold value after a year, but I do understand your inference) on others opinions. You are still the best person to make the call should it be needed.

Best regards
cameradextrous _ Motorcycles etc. link

JAK

Billdad

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 22:29
K10D wrote:
Not looking to cause any issue Bill. I read your post and my response was based on what I understand you are possibly looking to move from a light mirror-less FF back to a heavy DSLR.

You ask if any one has compared image quality and handling between the A7II and the K-1, T hey are effectively worlds apart. How about going into a dealer that has K-1's in stock and see what you think. We see plenty of questions on the forum asking similar questions from time to time. People are different and so are hand sizes and opinions.

I would not personally base any serious investment (an odd term as a K-1 or A7II are not investments as neither hold value after a year, but I do understand your inference) on others opinions. You are still the best person to make the call should it be needed.

Best regards

K10D wrote:
Not looking to cause any issue Bill. I read your post and my response was based on what I understand you are possibly looking to move from a light mirror-less FF back to a heavy DSLR.

You ask if any one has compared image quality and handling between the A7II and the K-1, T hey are effectively worlds apart. How about going into a dealer that has K-1's in stock and see what you think. We see plenty of questions on the forum asking similar questions from time to time. People are different and so are hand sizes and opinions.

I would not personally base any serious investment (an odd term as a K-1 or A7II are not investments as neither hold value after a year, but I do understand your inference) on others opinions. You are still the best person to make the call should it be needed.

Best regards

I appreciate all comments, however it was my intent to seek advise from K1 owners on how the first Pentax venture into F/F had transpired. As advised my preference is now F/F and the Sony fulfiled all my expectations, however the lens options are so prohibited. ie. 24-70 F4 Zeiss 850 50mZeiss 1.8 500 70-200 850,

If the K1 feedback is positive from actual owners it will be my intent to re invest into Pentax

RobL

Link Posted 04/11/2016 - 23:02
Having some Pentax lenses shouldn't necessarily be a big factor in picking the K-1 as you will probably buy new FF lenses anyway, so it's down to your preferred system rather than cost. I use the K-1 with a 28-105mm lens primarily, but with other heavier lenses for specific tasks. The camera is heavier than my K50 although it handles well and I quickly got used to it. For the first time I am using manual settings almost as default, with the top dial set to ISO I have instant access to the three variables without having to go into the menu. The green button gives a reading which I can tweak to suit, and keep an eye on the exposure indicator without faffing about with the +- button. Sometimes images from the standard zoom are not very sharp but I have put this down to a polariser which I left on but turned 'off' when not needed ; it is an expensive filter (Marumi) and I don't understand why it does this so only put it on now when actually needed. I mention this because I was disappointed with my first trials of pixel shift but since removing the filter I have better results. Biggest difference I have noticed is the dynamic range, quite awesome; in Lightroom I can pull out details in shadow and noise gets smoothed away like magic. Great for interiors especially churches as well as contrasty sunsets. For a family day out though I still use the K50 with kit lens because it is so much lighter, and it's really the lenses that make the difference, It will be interesting to see the new FF prime lenses coming next year. The lack of a flash meant I bought the little lightweight AF201 just to keep handy in the bag and that's fine although won't trigger an off-camera flash like a built-in one.

PS I should also mention the wifi which linked to a mini iPad gives great remote control, and a really large live view with the facility to focus wherever you touch the screen.
Last Edited by RobL on 04/11/2016 - 23:09

Mag07

Link Posted 05/11/2016 - 01:33
Sony may be nice and light, but some of the lenses are substantial and from my own experience; a tiny camera with a massive lens is an awkward combo. In my humble opinion you have two routes - if you can afford it, rent a K1 for a day with a lens that you fancy (focal length you use the most; or simply a preferred one should you have one; option two is to go to a store and have a play. No one can tell you if you will like how the K1 handles. It's a fantastic camera. So is the Sony. There is a lot of money at stake; make your own mind up. Try the alternative.
'Photography...it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten....' (Aaron Siskind)

Helpful

doubled

Link Posted 05/11/2016 - 09:16
I was a long time Pentax user (35mm MF/AF then started with the ist DS/K10D/K200D/Q/K30/K5/K-01) but left Pentax a couple of years ago and have recently returned via the K-1. I have used and owned the A7 markII (and the original A7) with the 28-70, CZ 35mm/2.8, CZ 55mm/1.8, Tamron 24-70/2.8 USD and 70-300 USD via an LA-EA3 adapter, an assorted Minolta A-mount lenses via an LA-EA4 adapter and a bunch of Pentax legacy lenses via Novoflex adapters.

What I liked about the A7 II:
- Ligher weight and smaller footprint
- Highly adaptable to almost any legacy/current lenses
- CZ Lenses are sharp with great clarity and nice transition into/out of focal plane
- EVF great for MF and exposure preview, stabilized view through EVF
- Mechanical stabilization for video (It's OK but nowhere near as good as Olympus/Panasonic 5-axis IBIS - Yes, I'm also full time user of M43)

What I didn't like:
- Terrible battery life
- Handling suffers with bigger lenses
- Shutter is noisy and very unpleasant sounding (sounds like how I'd imagine a parrot is being murdered)
- Worst chroma noise and high ISO out of all current 24MP/36MP bodies I have used (Yes, also guilty of using/owning Nikon D600, D750). The least "film look".
- Menu is terrible
- Control illogical (E.g. A pain to change focus point)
- Not weathersealed at all
- AF performance is OK but terrible at C-AF and tracking
- No external charger supplied
- CZ lenses are super sharp (especially when pixel peep) but felt too "clinical"

What I like about the K-1:
- Familiar and superb handling. Fits like a glove, like Pentax had made it to fit me
- Build quality is probably best at any price point on the market
- Excellent IQ and has an organic look about it. A certain Pentax colour/look
- No complaints regarding high ISO
- Adequate stabilization
- Lovely FA and DA Limited lenses (still have to re-acquire some). Can finally use some of my favourite legacy lenses as they are intended
- Brilliant LCD screen
- Cool LEDs
- WR
- Good battery life
- It's a Pentax full frame!

What I don't like:
- It's pretty heavy/bulky and it gets to me at times
- MF through VF a bit hit and miss. MF using live view a little clumsy
- AF is pre-historic for a 1800 DSLR launched in 2016
- AF in live view is still pretty pants
- Mechanical SR is disabled for movies (Utterly ludicrous in my book)
- 36MP is overkill for me and is noticeably larger/takes longer to load in LR. Would have preferred a 20 or 24MP sensor

In regards to cost between K-1 vs A7II as a system - I suspect it's pretty much a draw if you compare the lens prices between their equivalence: E.g. Zeiss 35/55/85 and the FA 31/43/77, or even the Pentax 150-450 vs Sony 70-400, etc.

To be honest, it was an irrational decision for me to get the K-1. My D750 has much better AF and almost always gets the shot. It tracks well, CAF is good and it meters better than the K-1. The video quality is much better and higher specced (1080p60 with better bitrate/processing). It seems to be snappier in use and there are tonnes of current/legacy lenses out there and with excellent 3rd party lens manufacturer support. HOWEVER, the K-1 just makes me "feel like home" and I just love it. It makes me want to carry it with me and to use it all the time. So the D750 is up for sale now

I guess what I have learnt in the past few years is that no review or user comment can replace actually usage/owning the equipment and outright spec/performance are also not the be all/end all. So my final recommendation is don't listen to me and try it out for yourself!

Helpful

richandfleur

Link Posted 05/11/2016 - 19:27
Great post above. Enjoyed reading through those pros and cons.

Just out of interest, the new Pentax FF glass is similarly expensive isn't it? Pentax has a range of existing glass, but new is pricey just like Sony.

JAK

Link Posted 06/11/2016 - 12:29
I was thinking the same thing. The new equivalent D-FA's are more expensive than the ones quoted for the Sony but there are bargains to be had with older film FA's. An FA 28-90 in good condition sold on eBay last week for just 2.99 and I recently obtained a film version 28-105 to compare with the current digital one at one tenth the price I paid the the new DFA one (and that based on a good price I had for that). I'm pretty sure its performance isn't ten times worse,
Personally I prefer an optical viewfinder and find electronic viewfinders a bit hit or miss. I'm sure there's a place for both types and down to personal preference and that would seem to be the main decider as to which camera to invest in. Bear in mind, the K-1 has electronic live view, the Sony doesn't miraculously gain an optical pentaprism.
John K

richandfleur

Link Posted 06/11/2016 - 19:44
The Sony can use all of those lenses also via simple adapters.

Digital focus via EVF or rear screen live view (using digital zoom and focus peaking) is far more accurate for manual focus lenses.

And the Sony is quite a refined product now, whereas the K-1 is generation 1.

I would have thought the new system lenses would be about the same price between each brand? So I'm quite lost as to the comparison required.

Both are capable, but they really do have different focusses. The Sony being far more capable at video for example, and the Pentax being simply stunning for landscapes or static product shots.

I've heard simply ridiculous stories of the menu interface in the Sony, so I'd be suggesting clearly identifying your requirements and then handling both yourself.

I'll try and find a video I saw recently to illustrate this...
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.