Pentax K1 FF vs Pentax K3 III

[hjoseph7]

Everybody says, you can't beat image quality when it comes to Full Frame, but now that Pentax put all of this effort in their Flagship APS-C, is it really worth foregoing all those feature for so-called better image quality ? I'm late into the game, and still love my K5-II which is one of the best cameras I ever owned. I would love to move up to a Pentax FF, but I'm also a Canon user and have owned the original 5D and currently own the 6D which are both FF. I must admit that the image quality is a little better on those cameras than in cropped cameras, but not always and in only in certain situations can you tell the difference. Actually, with the advances in sensor technology, you might not be able to tell the difference at all these days, so I'm not sure which way to go ?

[AJG]

I don't own either one of these, but I have been a satisfied user of Pentax K-3 bodies for the last 6 years. Bigger is usually better in these matters, but it depends on what you need. If you have clients who will pay for 3 or 4 foot wide prints on a regular basis then go full frame. If you almost never go big like that then the smaller sensor with good lenses will probably suffice. One other point: what Pentax mount lenses to you currently own? While APS-C lenses will physically mount on the K-1 they may not cover the whole frame adequately and might require replacements.

[Jochen_S]

Sorry, no clue about K3 III; what RELEVANT(!) features are Pentax promising for it?

To me Pentax seem mostly dead, I stopped shopping with K20D, which I am still calling my workhorse beater SLR system, since I can afford to drop stuff and carry on with backups.

IQ: A K1 should provide all that my current bodies get out of my lenses, plus something gained from it's more recent sensor inside the APS frame, plus(!) all the FF only pixels surounding it.

An improved APS sensor shouldn't gain much resolution from a mounted kit- or cheapo zoom. But better low light performance.

 

Megapixels and dynamic range don't matter, when

• AF fails to nail focus in time
  
• Camera stays at home, due to weight and bulk
  

If I wanted to take pictures in a K1's strong field, with the lenses I already own, I'd buy one. But I am quite happy with 5D IV's AF and comparably bang for the buck zooms. I also love the portability of Leica M.

I like walking around with my 135/2.8 on the long end. But could a K3 III speed up that screw driver AF and compete with EOS? What if that lens breaks? Its discontinued.

K1 for the wide end? Do you own suitable glass, fast &/ sharp, ready to benefit from SR? What will you gain, comparing this to your other kit? Are you really hyped up about any Pentax lenses you 'd still have to buy? Or are overpriced average "me too"s worth getting, for some reason inside the camera?

[g_richards]

Everybody says, you can't beat image quality when it comes to Full Frame, but now that Pentax put all of this effort in their Flagship APS-C, is it really worth foregoing all those feature for so-called better image quality ? I'm late into the game, and still love my K5-II which is one of the best cameras I ever owned. I would love to move up to a Pentax FF, but I'm also a Canon user and have owned the original 5D and currently own the 6D which are both FF. I must admit that the image quality is a little better on those cameras than in cropped cameras, but not always and in only in certain situations can you tell the difference. Actually, with the advances in sensor technology, you might not be able to tell the difference at all these days, so I'm not sure which way to go ?

 

I still have and use my Pentax K50 but most of my shooting now is done with micro-four-thirds bodies and lens. I don't like large bodies and lens and newer Pentax ones are just too big for me. I get almost as good images from my Olympus/Panasonic cameras as I did from Pentax. If Pentax in the future releases a smaller body I certainly will look at it. I won't hold my breath though.

[hjoseph7]

I still have and use my Pentax K50 but most of my shooting now is done with micro-four-thirds bodies and lens. I don't like large bodies and lens and newer Pentax ones are just too big for me. I get almost as good images from my Olympus/Panasonic cameras as I did from Pentax. If Pentax in the future releases a smaller body I certainly will look at it. I won't hold my breath though.

 

You got a point there. The #1 thing that attracted me to Pentax was the small size of the lenses and cameras. With the K1, Pentax ditched that philosophy and started designing these Mega Size lenses that they say give better image quality. Not sure how these new lenses compete against the 'L' series lenses that are small in size and still give you darn good image quality. On the other hand, I sure would like to use my 3 Amigos on a full frame sensor because my 77mm, which was rated as the best Pentax lens ever made, usually sits on the shelf, or in my camera bag due to 1.5X crop factor that turns it into a 105mm lens ! My favorite lens out of the 3 is the 43mm because it suits my style of shooting.

[Jochen_S]

I don't own any Limited lens. Recalling reviews they are screw driver AF and for that reason probably not really playing along with K3 III's D500 allures? Some K1 shooters seemed to like them. NOS K1 Mk. 1 seem still available, so you maybe have 3 cameras to choose from. Do you own any motorized AF lenses for the K3? Will you use it for video B-roll? What are 11 FPS good for, besides maybe less risky pixel shift captures?

[BeBu Lamar]

I like the FF if only because it has the crop factor of 1.

[AJG]

You got a point there. The #1 thing that attracted me to Pentax was the small size of the lenses and cameras. With the K1, Pentax ditched that philosophy and started designing these Mega Size lenses that they say give better image quality. Not sure how these new lenses compete against the 'L' series lenses that are small in size and still give you darn good image quality. On the other hand, I sure would like to use my 3 Amigos on a full frame sensor because my 77mm, which was rated as the best Pentax lens ever made, usually sits on the shelf, or in my camera bag due to 1.5X crop factor that turns it into a 105mm lens ! My favorite lens out of the 3 is the 43mm because it suits my style of shooting.

I think that Pentax has joined the party already going on with Nikon, Canon and Sony. One of my students last fall showed me his smallish new Nikon mirrorless with the enormous lens that he bought with it and was a little miffed that he hadn't really saved any size or weight by replacing his Nikon D7200 and kit lenses with the switch. I didn't see a night and day improvement in his pictures either. But I guess the point of chips with more megapixels is greater sharpness and detail in the image, and lots of older lenses just don't cut it with the newer cameras. As for me, if somebody gave me the new Pentax 50 mm f/1.4 that weighs in at about 2 lbs. I would give it a try but I'm not rushing out to buy one and a K 1 to go with it.

[mountainvisions]

I love my K-5IIs and still shoot it side by side my K-1. In fact it is a great camera to have with the K-1 because for me the K-1 is too big for travel and anytime I'm more than a short hike from the car. Generally, more than 5 miles and 3000ft... I start to make gear choices. Is this a hike with the camera, or strictly about photography... Then I need to also determine if the bigger system is going to slow me down even if it is strictly a photo hike. The APS-C system let's me explore a bit more while the FF system I generally go with 1 or 2 specific lenses and a specific goal. This isn't a bad thing at all but it is more limiting. Especially so if my intended subject is not in play and I see something else but don't have the lens or a strobe or whatever. The K-5IIs gives me more flexibility.

 

I actually sometimes regret the K-1 (because more often than not a smaller system like APS-C is the ideal system size for me) but at the same time I love everything about it. So my advice. If you love the Canon FFs and the the K-3 size bump is ok (remember it is bigger than the k-5, though much smaller than the K-1). Go k-3III if you want more Pentax, and size isn't an issue, the K-1 is amazing.

 

As far as people saying the K-1 and full frame isn't that much bigger. They never lugged their gear miles from a car and thousands of feet up a mountain or on a bike or on planes that weighted your gear. Etc. It is a big difference and it matters. So if you can't tell the difference in image quality, the K-3III is likely the better choice.

Edited February 15, 2022 by mountainvisions

[mountainvisions]

I think that Pentax has joined the party already going on with Nikon, Canon and Sony. One of my students last fall showed me his smallish new Nikon mirrorless with the enormous lens that he bought with it and was a little miffed that he hadn't really saved any size or weight by replacing his Nikon D7200 and kit lenses with the switch. I didn't see a night and day improvement in his pictures either. But I guess the point of chips with more megapixels is greater sharpness and detail in the image, and lots of older lenses just don't cut it with the newer cameras. As for me, if somebody gave me the new Pentax 50 mm f/1.4 that weighs in at about 2 lbs. I would give it a try but I'm not rushing out to buy one and a K 1 to go with it.

 

One of the big pros of mirrorless was the size. Now that's gone because lenses are so big. I still use a panasonic GF2 for cycling and climbing photography because it's so small (though I hate the screen centric interface). I can take a whole kit with me and it's as small as some of the enthusiasts digital compacts (sans lenses). This is huge on a long bike ride or overnight bikepack. But even with lenses, which I kept small using old M42 takumar and CCTV lenses as well as a few native M4/3 my kit is high quality, small, cheap, and covers 15mm to 400mm. It's a bit like shooting film though. ISO 400 tops, which is sad considering even Pentax APS-C from the same era could produce images at 800 or more (I believe that was K-7 era)...if it wad K-5 (OG) era 1600 was realistic. Shows just how limited M4/3 is but also how cool it is in the right situation.

 

Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway - Vischer Ferry Preserve by Justin, on Flickr

[mountainvisions]

. I get almost as good images from my Olympus/Panasonic cameras as I did from Pentax.

 

KP? K-S2? They can't get thinner, they'd have to produce a new lens line. And that won't happen because it invalidates everything. And honestly, do we want it to happen?

 

However, it's hard for me to believe this. The GF2 compared to the K-7 is nowhere close. And remember I'm using 2022 high end DXO software (with AI noise reduction) to process current GF2 images, I don't own a K-7 anymore (though still have gigs of images I could reprocess). When I processed those k-7 images in 2010 or whatever it was with that generation software. The K-7 at the time was maligned as a poor low-light shooter even if it was mostly a certain kind of noise vs unusable images, I believe the M4/3 made strides, but APS-C and FF had to make equal strides (if not greater strides).

 

I'd love to be wrong. And I'm rooting for the M4/3 format because while I kind of dismissed it before, I really appreciate it now. m4/3 as a whole just doesn't appeal to me, I mean I would never use it as my primary format, I do find it's the right format where I'd normally bring a digital compact. my GF2 with the 14mm 2.5 is exactly the same size as the enthusiast Samsung EX1 of the same era with a tiny little sensor. I had a photo published in a fairly prestigious regional calendar (shot in raw) on the EX1. The GF2 is clearly better than the EX1 and gives far more artistic options with lens choices. So the GF2 with its ISO 400 ceiling is still a good camera.

Edited February 15, 2022 by mountainvisions

[g_richards]

KP? K-S2? They can't get thinner, they'd have to produce a new lens line. And that won't happen because it invalidates everything. And honestly, do we want it to happen?

 

However, it's hard for me to believe this. The GF2 compared to the K-7 is nowhere close. And remember I'm using 2022 high end DXO software (with AI noise reduction) to process current GF2 images, I don't own a K-7 anymore (though still have gigs of images I could reprocess). When I processed those k-7 images in 2010 or whatever it was with that generation software. The K-7 at the time was maligned as a poor low-light shooter even if it was mostly a certain kind of noise vs unusable images, I believe the M4/3 made strides, but APS-C and FF had to make equal strides (if not greater strides).

 

I'd love to be wrong. And I'm rooting for the M4/3 format because while I kind of dismissed it before, I really appreciate it now. m4/3 as a whole just doesn't appeal to me, I mean I would never use it as my primary format, I do find it's the right format where I'd normally bring a digital compact. my GF2 with the 14mm 2.5 is exactly the same size as the enthusiast Samsung EX1 of the same era with a tiny little sensor. I had a photo published in a fairly prestigious regional calendar (shot in raw) on the EX1. The GF2 is clearly better than the EX1 and gives far more artistic options with lens choices. So the GF2 with its ISO 400 ceiling is still a good camera.

 

The newer m4/3ds cameras are much superior to the older models. I shoot with a Panasonic G9 and an Olympus OM-d-m-5iii both with 20mp sensors. I can say the images can compete with APS-C sensors in most situations. Macro and wildlife photography shine with this system, especially for shooting wildlife as the body/camera are so much smaller and lighter than APS-C and especially FF. I am pleased with the images I can get from it. Sometimes shooting in low light noise is a little more noticeable but with today's software it can easily be removed.

[mountainvisions]

If they still make a body as small as the GF2, I might be interested in a newer body. Unfortunately, they moved away from full featured cameras and got more into larger bodies for the enthusiasts and pro crowd. The GF2 has 99% of the features I need but lacks time lapse and remote shutter and is useless above 400iso even in raw. I treat it like a film camera with a roll of Provia 100F/400F/X and it works wonderfully for me. I also have the eye level finder on it. Not as good as a mirror camera but I wouldn't take my DSLR cycling. Nor would I take a bigger M4/3. I actually use my cameras with the idea all my photos will be printed. So IQ is really inportant to me. Any camera looks OK at 4k resolution.

 

The newer m4/3ds cameras are much superior to the older models. I shoot with a Panasonic G9 and an Olympus OM-d-m-5iii both with 20mp sensors. I can say the images can compete with APS-C sensors in most situations. Macro and wildlife photography shine with this system, especially for shooting wildlife as the body/camera are so much smaller and lighter than APS-C and especially FF. I am pleased with the images I can get from it. Sometimes shooting in low light noise is a little more noticeable but with today's software it can easily be removed.

[hjoseph7]

"I love my K-5IIs and still shoot it side by side my K-1. "

 

Me too ! I had mine since 2014 and not really sure about the shutter count, but I'm certain I haven't even reached the middle count of the 'maximum shutter actuations', since I don't use the camera every day, or do I abuse it. Actually I said to my self, "if I ever reach the maximum shutter count, I would just replace it with another one hopefully found on eBay".

 

I skipped the K3 and K3 II because there wasn't enough for me to want to upgrade, but then the K3 III came out. Now that is what I call an upgrade ! If Pentax had included a K3 III with pop-up flash ad flippy screen and/or a K3 IIIs with astro-tracer and flippy screen, I think they would have hit it out of the ball park. I'm still waiting for the 'new' 50-135 mm to come out i(f it ever does), so I can shoot weddings with the Pentax instead of the Canon once in a while.

 

I heard the new 16-50 mm is a really good lens, but rather expensive. Unfortunately, the same might go for the 'new' 50-135 mm if it ever comes out...

[AJG]

I still have the two K 5 bodies that I bought 10 years ago. I mostly keep them to loan to students and friends and as backup in the event of a total catastrophe. When the K 3 came out I waited a bit and when the K 3 II came out and the price of the K 3 dropped I bought one and then another a couple of months later. Several things were improved over the K 5--live view, autofocus and resolution, so the upgrade definitely paid off. I wouldn't buy a K3 III at this point unless the price comes down since it doesn't have anything that I desperately need. I've never needed or wanted the pop up flash on a DSLR, and only occasionally missed the moveable viewing screen, but I realize that different people have different needs. As for the 50-135, autofocus with the earlier ones was a problem due to the poor motors in the lens, but I understand that later versions have solved that issue. I had mine converted to screw drive autofocus, which is noisier but not terrible. Optically it is excellent so I'm not sure that a new version would improve on that. I never owned the 16-50 since I was happy enough with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 at a much lower price.

[mountainvisions]

Ultimately, the way I shoot, IQ and size is the most important thing and the K-3/II wasn't vastly superior. AF was better but I think it removed live view Fn button compistion adjust, which is a deal breaker. Finally, it's not a lot bigger but ideally the K-5IIs is the perfect size because it keeps the top screen, is usable with gloves and is as small as you can make it while maintaining those two things in a k-mount. If I wanted smaller the KP or K-S2 would be my choice... But bigger, I have a superior K-1 (yeah, the K-3/II/III does have faster AF but again, the way I shoot the K-1/K-5IIs is adequate if it wasn't I'd probably move on from pentax).

 

Keeping in mind with all of this, none of this invalidates anything you've said. It just highlights everyone has different needs from a camera system. It's why I never take pleasure seeing a brand or format fail. They all are someone's favorite even if we (one of us here or there) make some snide remarks on the value of such a system.

 

I still have the two K 5 bodies that I bought 10 years ago. I mostly keep them to loan to students and friends and as backup in the event of a total catastrophe. When the K 3 came out I waited a bit and when the K 3 II came out and the price of the K 3 dropped I bought one and then another a couple of months later.

[mountainvisions]

You can add the OGPS to the K-5. I have one and it works well. I don't really use it for astro trace much, more for geotagging but it's works for both. I tried astro tracing a bit but never had great results with either it or the K-1, but I do appreciate geotagged photos. I think however, some of it is user error.

 

I feel the same way about the K-5IIs as you. But I'm probably willing to give up the top screen now and go with a KP for a little smaller package. I definitely love having a top screen but playing with my old film cameras I really miss the size of them. And the K-5 is still bigger than the old program series. A KP would be a touch smaller. Alternatively, lower build quality but even smaller/less weight, the K-S2 would work. So when the K-5IIs dies it will probably be sunset. However, I highly doubt it will die anytime soon. I expect probably 5 more years out of it since it is dual use with my k-1 and I use 3 systems now. (FF/APS-C/M43... 40/40/20%). Key thing to always remember is new cameras are better but the old ones didn't get worse. K-5 was putting out good files on release and still does now.

 

"I love my K-5IIs and still shoot it side by side my K-1. "

 

Me too ! I had mine since 2014 and not really sure about the shutter count, but I'm certain I haven't even reached the middle count of the 'maximum shutter actuations', since I don't use the camera every day, or do I abuse it. Actually I said to my self, "if I ever reach the maximum shutter count, I would just replace it with another one hopefully found on eBay".

 

I skipped the K3 and K3 II because there wasn't enough for me to want to upgrade, but then the K3 III came out. Now that is what I call an upgrade ! If Pentax had included a K3 III with pop-up flash ad flippy screen and/or a K3 IIIs with astro-tracer and flippy screen, I think they would have hit it out of the ball park. I'm still waiting for the 'new' 50-135 mm to come out i(f it ever does), so I can shoot weddings with the Pentax instead of the Canon once in a while.

 

I heard the new 16-50 mm is a really good lens, but rather expensive. Unfortunately, the same might go for the 'new' 50-135 mm if it ever comes out...