Pentax K-1 FF

[hjoseph7]

<p>That is a lot of camera for the money (about $1800) ! Any takers on this site yet ? <br>

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-1/feature/</p>

 

[AJG]

<p>It's tempting, but I'm pretty happy with my K3's for the moment and I like to wait a few months for the inevitable bugs to shake out of any new model before I buy it. Then there's also the question of lenses, although I'm in fairly good shape there with 50, 70 and 100 macros that are all designed for FF, as well as a couple of good zooms. I am glad that Pentax is doing this, though, and I'm sure I will probably be getting a K-1 sooner rather than later.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I watched a few Youtube videos on the new FF body which blew me away with the technical ability of the body, especially the pixel shifting. My initial thought was that this would be a great camera for my old film lenses, especially for wide angle landscapes. Reality became clear to me when it was pointed out that the quality of the old film lenses don't match the quality of the new digital lenses therefore if you use the old lenses you simply can't expect the maximum performance from the full frame body. My widest lenses in film are a 20mm f2.8 A, a 20-35mm FA F4, and a Russian 15mm fisheye. I don't see much point to pickup a FF body if I really can't expect to get the most out of the body with the lenses that I already have. And while the APS lenses work fine on the FF you actually get lower resolution on them than you would on a better APS body. Obviously I could get a bit more out of my 150-450, but as I use this mostly for its ability to get birds, I don't see much advantage to the FF body with it.<br>

That's okay. I love the K3 and feel great about the K2iis as a backup.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I'm willing to see how well my wides work on the K-1. Sharpness is overrated. So I pre-ordered it the day it was announced.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I'll probably end up with one at some point. I'd be interested to see what old glass I have holds up.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>John, many of us will be interested in knowing of your experience. </p>

<p>I do not think the better old premium glass was deficient in sharpness, after all film may still be best in that respect. I have forgotten the details, but I do recall reading that the technology of digital sensors is problematic at the edges and needs some compensation in lens formulations. Special coatings are part of that. Nevertheless, some lenses that were designed for film bodies have faired quite well when tested on DSLR bodies. </p>

[stemked]

<p>It seems most of those 'better' lenses have been the limiteds. I have one limited (77mm f1.8) but, in my case, my justification for getting it would be in landscapes, I would think. But I'll keep an open mind.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>I'm waiting for production unit tests. I'll get a K-1 or a Sony A7II. Right now the Sony A7II is in the lead as it will take notonly my Pentax lenses it will use my Leica and Olympus glass as well.</p>

<p>Best to wait until the initial demand passes and see how the bugs are being handled.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>A lot of us (myself included) have been anticipating using some of our legacy Pentax glass on the new full frame. Now it's disconcerting to hear that the old lenses may not cut it with the full frame sensor. Kind of interesting because the original 35 mm negative they were designed for was the same 24-36mm dimension. I wonder how much of this is real and how much is somebody's desire to make us buy new expensive lenses? I for one am tired of being trapped on the lens buying treadmill by both Canon and Nikon and the prospect of Pentax now playing this game reeks of planned obsolescence. To their credit they have made the camera capable of APS-C and Full Frame. The inherent advantages of the large sensor may be in vain if the older lenses give inferior results. So I guess that dumps me in the wait and see camp. I sure hope some reviews come out in advance of the April release.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Have faith! I've been using Minolta film era lenses on my full-frame Sony Alpha 900 for some years, and I've been very happy with the results.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>While I'm quite happy with my Canon-based equipment, on-paper and in promo pictures, the K-1 looks very appealing. The ability to adapt the body to both APS-C-based lenses as well as traditionally sized ones is something I wish Canon would adopt on the next 5D iteration.</p>

<p>I hope that third-party lensmakers will expand their K-mount offerings--the disparity between what's available for Canon and Nikon vs. Pentax is a near show stopper. Though I understand the expediency of having Tamron OEM the 24-70mm and 15-30mm zooms, I have a fear this precludes Tamron offering their nice new primes and high-value zooms like the 150-600mm for K-mount.<br /> ME</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I realize some optimizing is a good idea for digital due to the nature of sensor technology. A fault in that technology, the way I see it. But the notion that new lenses have to be optimized specifically for the latest camera's added MPs, I think is ridiculous. Never have I seen a comment of that sort by high-level testing labs- such as Photozone, dpreview, etc. Once a lens has performed well on a FF DSLR, it has carried over quite well when retested on one of greater MPs. That is not to say a newer lens cannot do better. But the idea that having higher MPs "puts demands" on a lens has nothing to do with reality. The camera merely records what the lens makes available, or should. As to Pentax, take the case of the classic FA 31mm Limited. It was retested by Photozone at 16 MP to see if it showed greater resolution at higher MPs so it could be compared to a later lens. It did so, even though it was never optimized for digital. But this was still not digital FF. I think it safe to say, the performance we see in the extreme corners in the APS test will be the case for the edges at FF. The extreme corners remain to be seen at FF, though these were very good on film.</p>

<p>The FA 43mm Limited did not perform well in the corners on the 16MP K-5, as it had on the 10MP K10D. But Photozone blamed the different AA filter design of the K-5, not the increase of MPs. That was not brought up.</p>

<p>A lot of it is relative. Due to more MPs, if the highest resolution for the center is raised to 3,400 lines, and an older lens gets an excellent rating there, but the edges can only advance a little over what they did on a previous camera, that makes the corners look comparatively bad. While in reality, we may have been thrilled with those corners on the previous model. The corners simply topped out on the new camera. But will we see that in photos? That is the question. I think probably not, because unless we make huge blowups, though we may notice some improvement, we are unlikely to see the new camera's or lens' full resolution. Would we see a difference with a new lens designed with improved corners, and being optimized for digital? Maybe, but if the old lens has good corners, even here it might appear too close to tell at typical viewing sizes.</p>

<p>What bothers me about the K-1 is its weight, being 7 oz heavier than the Nikon, yet unlike the Nikon, having no built-in flash. They say the flash was "replaced" with wifi and GPS. Well, my little K-S2 has wifi, I believe, and how often would I use GPS vs a built-in flash? I use flash even for daylight people shots. Pentax makes a nice, small WR flash at $150, but even it adds some 5 oz more to the camera, and something more to carry around.</p>

<p>As to a good, compact WR kit lens, I see Pentax now has a new D-FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR at $500 (!) which is quite large for what it is. Nearly 1lb. and nearly 3.5 inches long. It had better be pretty darn good! What is needed is a really good shorter WR kit lens starting at 24mm, which still offers some wide angle if used on an APS body. Because of this development, I would still go with my quite compact FF Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 EX DG, which was designed for digital, and see how that goes. No DC motor or WR, however.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJG]

<p>Michael--everyone has their needs and preferences. In the 12 years that I have been using Pentax DSLRs, I may have used the built in flash 5 times, if that. It just isn't useful for me since I hate the look of direct, right over the lens flash, and any of the zoom lenses that I regularly use cast a shadow. If the trade off is decent wifi that I would regularly use in my studio for a flash that I would never use, I'll take the wifi. For the mostly hand held theater shooting that I do, I will probably stick with my K3's for the time being, since the size and weight of the K3 with the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 work really well for me. I can work with that for the couple of hours at a time that I need to, while my 80-200 f/2.8 Tokina definitely needs to live on a tripod, and that would be the logical replacement for me on a K1. <br>

I'm still looking forward to seeing real tests from reliable sources on the K1, and I do have some vintage M and A series lenses that I would love to use again with their full angle of view.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'm torn. It isn't the kind of FF body I expected or hoped to happen, fishing in Nikon D800/810 waters when I might need something like a Df or the A7 SII's stills side, preferably with uncrippled k-mount.<br>

Also where are the typical SLR lenses for the K1? My 135mm f2.8 might not last forever. Changing formats I'd want at least a 150mm.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm torn. It isn't the kind of FF body I expected or hoped to happen, fishing in Nikon D800/810 waters when I might need something like a Df </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pentax is not in the position right now to introduce a niche market camera like Nikon did with the Df. Nikon could do it because they had the D800 for those who hate the Df and believe me there are way too many of them. Pentax is not in a position to introduce a camera like that it has to attract the majority of people not the few. </p>

[AJG]

<p>Actually, Bebu, I think that Pentax is already a niche market product. If you need (or think you need) the fastest AF, the largest selection of lenses, wide availability of rental lenses, etc., then Canon or Nikon are the most logical current choices. I can't imagine a situation where Pentax could turn that around, although stranger things have happened in the past, such as the hollowing out of most of the German camera industry by Japanese companies in the 1950's and 60's. The K 1 appeals to me in a lot of ways since it should provide me with good image quality and enough high tech features to make it very useful for the studio work that I do. And I think that a lot of current Pentax users will find it an attractive upgrade from their current APS-C bodies. Is it perfect? I would love it if it could be lighter without sacrificing durability, but apparently Pentax didn't think that was possible. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one since my other Pentax DSLRs have been extremely reliable, so I think they know what they're doing.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> the notion that new lenses have to be optimized specifically for the latest camera's added MPs, I think is ridiculous. <em>Never have I seen a comment of that sort by high-level testing labs- such as Photozone, dpreview</em>, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>first of all, the overwhelming majority of Photozone's <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax">Pentax tests</a> have been on a 10mp camera. most of the reviews at 16mp are from 2011. It's just not plausible that results from lower-MP APS-C bodies would be transferable to a 36mp FF sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> the idea that having higher MPs "puts demands" on a lens has <em>nothing to do with reality</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, if we look at the DPR <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/5">First Impressions</a> article on the K-1, they specifically state:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a 36MP sensor is <strong>likely to be fairly demanding</strong> on older glass, and our initial impressions of shooting with one older 50mm Pentax prime aren't wholly encouraging.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, there you have it. It is possible some legacy Pentax lenses will fare better than others, but also safe to say that by entering the full frame market now, rather than in say, 2007 when Nikon released the D3, Pentax have in effect entirely skipped the 12 and 24 mp iterations of the FF sensor which perhaps would have been kinder to legacy glass owners. Without conducting any actual tests, my speculation is you will mainly see this in edge performance, which may or may not matter, depending on shooting style. But older lenses could also be more susceptible to fringing, flare or vignetting.<br>

<br>

Not trying to be a doomsayer here -- a 36 mp FF camera with in-body stabilization at that price is pretty eye-watering. but to get maximum performance from the sensor, it may also require buying new lenses. <br>

</p>

[ukhov]

<p>- make my k-7 look old , only when I choose glass - I like... seem like it not Pentax mount. </p>

[pwithem]

<p>I still don't see any logic supporting the premise that legacy full frame lenses will perform poorly on the K-1's 36MP sensor, as compared to 35mm film. I hear insinuation about coatings, which makes me think the sensor surface vs a film surface might register light a little bit differently, but I've never seen such a thing presented for judgment. Maybe there's something to this and it's been done somewhere? </p>

<p>It makes sense that higher and higher pixel density would allow you to explore the limits of your glass in a way that film may not allow. That is, you could blow up a digital image more (effectively/easily) than you could film, and thereby expose evidence of glass imperfection. But if this is the case, it's only showing how digital would give you more capability over film, not that the glass performance is somehow worse. It's always up to the user how far you want to crop and zoom in a photo before printing, but if you operate on digital within similar boundaries you might use with film, I wouldn't expect any glass performance issues. </p>

<p>Consider that the 16 MP K-5 has about half the sensor surface area and half the MP as the K-1 sensor, so the pixel density would be nearly the same as a K-5. I've been very happy with my full frame glass on the K-5, so why should I expect performance to get worse with the larger, uncropped sensor? (Of course, if it's vignetting, that would happen on 35mm film too.) Also consider that the K-5 has higher pixel density than the K20, K10, and *ist D. Those increases in density (even with noise) have been overall improvements, granting more crop/zoom capability. Was legacy full-frame glass getting worse for somebody during those body improvements? If you just want to make the same size prints as before at similar dpi, the K-1 36MP sensor is not going to limit you, it's just going to give you greater FOV.</p>

<p>DPR's statement</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a 36MP sensor is <strong>likely to be fairly demanding</strong> on older glass, and our initial impressions of shooting with one older 50mm Pentax prime aren't wholly encouraging.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>doesn't prove anything; it doesn't tell us why a 36MP sensor is "likely to be demanding" on older glass. Maybe DPR knows something, but they're not telling us here. Until I see a direct comparison, the notion that higher MP "puts demands" on a lens is a boogey-man argument that many fear but few understand. </p>

<p> </p>

[AJG]

<p>Patrick--I too have been fairly satisfied with many older M and A series lenses on digital Pentaxes, with the exception of two 35-105 f/3.5 A series zooms that were quite good on film but had significant flare problems with my istD bodies, so I got rid of them. I think there are issues with some older lenses and digital chips, but I agree with the general thrust of your argument that these lenses haven't suddenly gone bad with digital cameras. What has happened is that it is much easier to see images at high magnification on screens, whereas in the past most people didn't make the large prints that would have shown the soft corners and edges that people comment on. This situation reminds me of the universal "necessity" of high fps ability, even for people like me who shoot a lot in a studio where the limiting factor in shooting speed is how fast the flash units recycle, not the camera's ability to cycle on to the next shot. I don't mind that most cameras now shoot faster, but it has never been a deal breaker for me when I buy a new body.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Well, the situation is, though many older FF lenses not designed for digital use have proven themselves when used on APS-C bodies, the edges of such lenses are not used when cropped on the APS-C format. We don't know how those edges will perform on a FF DSLR. Edges on digital sensors seem to have an issue film does not have. Certain such Pentax lenses, however, such as the 31mm Limited, have done very well when tested on the K-5, including the far corners. That should indicate at least the edges should still be fine on a FF DSLR.</p>

<p>As far as a scientific test showing too great of a "demand" being placed on a lens, which met demands put on it by film use, due to greater MPs in a recent DSLR camera, I agree with Patrick regardng the pixel density. That may not even be any greater with the K-1 than the K-3, and not much over the K-5! Since a FF DSLR is new to Pentax users, one may follow the lab tests of Nikon lenses for Nikon users on Photozone, or POP Photo to find evidence of such a concept. I can understand a lens having a potential for lines of resolution being less than a camera's ability to deliver lines of resolution, whether center or edges. So the lens "tops out" at a certain point. But it may still come in at a very good or excellent rating. Newer lenses may or may not test much better or any better. Actually, when I have seen an older, high-quality lens retested on a newer DSLR having substantially greater MPs, more often than not I have seen the lens achieve more lines of resolution on the new camera vs the previous test on the old one! </p>

<p>As to the built-in flash issue, for those who never use one, do mostly studio work, etc. that is a non-issue. But here we have Pentax's first FF DSLR, which I would think should be designed to attract a broader market of users. I especially like to use mine for daylight fill flash, where the only shadows of concern are the ones I am trying to open up with the fill, as well as put some catchlight in the eyes. But even for indoor use in a pinch where there's no time to fiddle with other flash setups. The small accessory WR flash is nice, even has tilt for bounce, but it does add another 5 oz or so to an already weighty body. Other recent camera models have both wifi and a built-in flash. </p>

<p> </p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>About 4 years ago Ctein wrote an <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html">insightful article</a> "Myths About Megapixels" shortly after the 36-megapixel Nikon D800 came out. Myth # 4 was "<em>It's pointless to add more pixels because lenses aren't good enough.</em>"<br>

I recommend folks read this and the other linked articles. The key line in his reasoning is "A 36-megapixel sensor will resolve around 75 lp/mm. Even mediocre 35mm lenses will hit 75 lp/mm at some aperture over some portion of their field of view. This is true of both fixed focal length and zoom lenses. They'll show peak resolutions more like twice that."<br>

I just don't think the K-1 will pose resolution and lens quality issues for users, provided they follow good camera handling and stability practices. <br>

ME</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>To Michael Elenko,</p>

<p>Phew! Good to hear! This was needed to slow the downward spiral of doubtful comments.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>What might lead me one direction is whether some decent legacy FA glass (that I already own) produces good output on the new body -- for example, if my FA20-35/4 and FA24-90/3.5-4.5 produce output that significantly betters what I get with DA12-24/4 and DA17-70/4 on my K-5ii. These are cases where the FA glass is actually more compact than the DA alternatives. I'm not really that interested in buying large and pricey new glass.</p>

<p>I think many of the comments about 'sensors being demanding on lenses' come from the notion that it's a waste of an expensive extra-hi-res sensor to have lenses that aren't just about perfect. From a more practical standpoint though -- does it produce higher-quality images than my current APS-C alternatives while using more average glass?</p>

[michael_elenko]

Well there are at least two ways to evaluate whether a lens is up to snuff: objective vs. subjective testing. The former one

can conduct using those line-pairs charts and then get numeric confirmation one way or another. That seems to cover

pure sharpness and leaves other desired lens attributes aside.

Subjectively, one can put the lens through a number of rigmaroles and then pass judgement in line with experience and

other perceptions. I have always favored Mike Johnston's lens stressing practices.

Exactly how is one going to evaluate results is another interesting factor. If your printing setup is calibrated and profiled,

then a fine printed output would seem to work.

Since recently getting a 5K iMac, onscreen evaluation has been revelatory. The degree of full screen 1:1 detail (definitely

not pixel peaking on 5K) has opened my eyes to both differences between lenses as well as impacts of good and lousy

post processing. I think my standards have risen accordingly. So, I look forward to seeing K-1 images taken with classic

glass.

 

ME