Originally posted by normhead The K-3iii appears to be an action camera. It doesn't sound like you shoot action.... so maybe not for you. To support that I'd ask how often you shoot burst? This is camera made for burst shooters.
The next question of course for landscape shooters, since we so often shoot 100 ISO is how much better will the 100 and 200 ISO images be?
There will be a few things to consider. But, when you think all these features will likely be coming out in the K-1 sometime soon, it's areal toss up even for an action shooter. If the 12 FPS translates to 8 FPS on a 20 shot buffer on the K-1 series, that might be worth waiting for, even for action shooters.
It's a good question. I do not shot action, and I do burst shooting like 1-2 times every year. The most "action" shots I do is my daughter running in the forest, or a moving deer. Frankly, I have to admit, I don't really need to move on from the KP, it's good for me most of the time, and the fact that I went for it instead of the K3ii, was because of its form factor, and the non-requirement in fast action. The K3iii is not super attractive to me, if it were a KPii instead I would jump in immediately. If I upgrade, and it's not a KP type, meaning I will have to sacrifice compactness and portability, then I want the best IQ possible, that's why the K1/K1ii is looking nice, and especially with expected price of K3iii at 2000 euros (I can get a K1ii used at much less than that).
---------- Post added 10-28-20 at 02:36 AM ----------
Originally posted by northcoastgreg Well I suppose the operative question is: do you really need the improvements FF will bring to your images? For landscape photography, those improvements largely come down to increased ability to print larger (because the FF sensor captures more detail) and one stop more dynamic range to work with in PP. If you could utilize either of those improvements, then FF makes sense. If not, then no, APS-C remains preferable. Even if you could use the extra that FF brings to the table, you will pay a significant price not just in money, but in weight. This is particularly true if you opt for the FF f2,.8 zooms. (Many moving to FF have opted for the lighter and less expensive DFA 28-105 for FF landscape photography precisely to keep cost and weight down.)
Also bear in mind: the days when manufacturers offer compelling upgrades is largely over. The only reason the K-3iii is a better camera than the KP is because the former camera is a flagship with additional features. In terms of the most important feature (i.e., image quality), you'll see no easily noticeable difference between the two cameras.
Thank you for jumping in. The 24-70 is just a reference, because comparing (more or less) equivalent scenarios is easier, hence K1ii+24-70, since I use KP+16-50 quite a lot. If I ever get a K1, I know I will eventually get FA limiteds to try them on their home, for example. But it will be expensive, and for the time being, the KP with my APSC lenses are fine. On the other hand, most of the people who switched to FF say they don't use their K3/KP (a lot) anymore. So I'm quite curious.