[Sandy Hancock]

This is why I still own a DA55-300, and don't own a DFA150-450.

[starbase218]

Size and weight of fullframe telephoto lenses providing the same fov as APS-C lenses are some of the reasons I haven't gone to FF. Having said that, I'm not sure this comparison is fair. If you are comparing while taking into account equivalency, you should consider that the FF lens is about an equivalent stop faster. If you are comparing without taking into account equivalency, look at fullframe 70-300 options as well. They're already much lighter than your big Sigma. Hell, my 60-250 is heavier.

Sigma also has a comparitively small and light fullframe 100-400/5-6.3 lens. It's not made for Pentax, but if I understand correctly, that's not what this topic is about.

[D1N0]

Those are exactly my points. Thank you!

Full frame isn't the end all be all it is often hyped to be online. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. And all aspects should be considered when buying into a new camera system. Which was the other main point of my thread here.. to give people considering FF things to think on before spending all the money and committing.

Are you (not you D1n0 specifically) really willing to deal with the size and weight of long teles ? That's a question to ask ourselves. Hand holding a crop tele such as the 55-300 is super easy. Hand holding a 150-450 or 120-400 is not as easy. You'll probably need a sturdy tripod and perhaps a nice gimbal. Think think think before you buy.

I get the feeling you, personally, online "Discussion" has to be a debate on ff vs aps-c.. right vs wrong. 2 enter, 1 leaves. The thunderdome..

But that isn't the discussion here specifically. Because FF is excellent and APS-C is excellent. We can enjoy each for what they offer. I'm simply throwing out an aspect to consider when considering buying FF with a visual aid. Relax!

Who ever said full frame is the end and all of it. I don't want to deal with the cost of those lenses, because tele is not my thing and it would be largely wasted money, but I would like to shoot with all of my legacy glass on the format which it is meant for. I could do that with a Sony, but I think the K-1 is more value than the A7 II. I am sure eventually I will go mirrorless but not before I have used the K-1 for seven or eight years (so Ricoh you better have a mirrorless Full frame by then .

[surfar]

TrickyTreaty,theres some film glass that does pretty good on both APsC and K1....but its not weather sealed so can't be used everywhere....

Many of the "past"lenses can capture very good images,as well as being very reasonably priced.

[D1N0]

but its not weather sealed so can't be used everywhere.

Nor are most DA primes (only the 55,200,300 and 560 are and the 100mm Macro but that is D FA) Most of this glass can take a drizzle and you always can carry a sealed lens with you for when the situation arises. The 18-55 WR can be used on full frame form 24mm on .

[Rondec]

One of these days, there will be full frame cameras that have crop modes that are 24 megapixels. At the point, you can stick your DA 55-300 on your K-1 MK II and get the same as your K3. It isn't as though APS-C does something magical. It just crops out the outside of the sensor. And many full frame lenses (the FA limiteds, the DA *55, DA 35 f2.4, most of the 50s) aren't that big at all.

[surfar]

Yes,the crop on a 54mp will be 24mp....get a canon sensor and add a bit.

[Trickortreat]

36MP/1,5(crop factor)=24MP
the crop is here already.
New 42MP sensor - 42MP/1,5=28MP, so equal to late Samsung NX1
Canons crop is 50MP/1,5=33MP

Yep, i know film era lenses can be used, but they are all just a bit on the heavy side. I like the DA 35 that became my fav lens because of its weight (beside its other positive attributes).
Would absolutely adore if DA 70 ltd had macro capabilities, that would pretty much complete my kit (35mm is too short for my macro needs).

[D1N0]

36MP/1,5(crop factor)=24MP
the crop is here already.
New 42MP sensor - 42MP/1,5=28MP, so equal to late Samsung NX1
Canons crop is 50MP/1,5=33MP

Yep, i know film era lenses can be used, but they are all just a bit on the heavy side. I like the DA 35 that became my fav lens because of its weight (beside its other positive attributes).
Would absolutely adore if DA 70 ltd had macro capabilities, that would pretty much complete my kit (35mm is too short for my macro needs).

you have to divide by 2.25 for Full frame to aps-c crop. It's surface area, not diagonal.

[monochrome]

If I read the OP correctly, his point is the (generally) smaller size and lighter weight of APSc bodies and (especially) long lenses and zooms vs. FF is a significant positive APSc attribute. I don't think he's proposing another rehash of the equivalence argument.

In my own experience, once I bought the K-1 (primarily for use with my film-era lenses) I sold my K-3 and put my APSc lenses back in their boxes to be sold. For a full year I've carried a ready-bag with the K-1, D FA28~105, the 3 FA Limiteds and an AF540 flash. I've never weighed that bag and I've never wished it was smaller or lighter. I frequently take two or three specific manual focus lenses to specific locations for specific uses. When I take SMC (K) manual long lenses (300, 400 and 500) with K-1 and a tripod it is a real chore to carry and set them up. I'm pretty well limited to vehicle-accessible locations.

Just recently I was able to use a KP with the DA Limiteds and my old SMC DA55~300. Points of note: The KP viewfinder is uncomfortably small now that I'm fully accustomed to the K-1; the size / weight differential is not meaningful to me comparing the KP and DA Limiteds vs, the K-1 and FA Limiteds; for telephoto use, other considerations aside, on a size and weight basis alone APSc is much more manageable for an equivalent FoV.

If my primary goal was wildlife or birds with long reach APSc would probably be a better format on a size / weight basis. Since that isn't my primary goal size and weight aren't critical for me.

[dadipentak]

I've never weighed that bag and I've never wished it was smaller or lighter.

I think I might have said the same 5 years ago when I was traipsing over the countryside with an A*400/2.8. If I was joking about getting old waiting for FF, it was that I was never one of the "OMG we need FF!" crowd: I'm dead serious about the getting old part, though.

[Trickortreat]

you have to divide by 2.25 for Full frame to aps-c crop. It's surface area, not diagonal.

Oh... damn im stupid. The whole time i thought that FF was 1,5x larger than APS-C

[D1N0]

The whole time i thought that FF was 1,5x larger than APS-C

That's for equivalent focal length

[Trickortreat]

ye, i know.. thought it applies to sensor size too :S

[Conqueror]

This is why the 55-300 PLM is awesome.

The new 28-105 seems very capable too and not big for FF glass.