[lsimpkins]

I agree with you, reworking the body to accommodate a flippy screen is a bunch more involved and costly than adding a hinge and a few screws. My personal opinion is that the body will not be changed with this model, but who knows.

The flippy screen could be saved for the next iteration, K-NewII or K-Newer.

[reh321]

I'm torn between:
- Getting that full frame I waited for years (but money is well...) but I have no modern FF lens
- Getting that K-New. It would at least 'slightly' upgrade my K-5 AF-C. I'll need AF-C to track my newborn daughter once she starts moving by herself.
- Just shoot her analog B&W with MX and SuperA. That would be fun too.

1. If you are not a professional, when it will pay for itself, I see only one reason to get a "FF" camera - old film lenses.

2. I used my {film} {manual focus} "Super Program" to photograph our daughters when they were young - but I have always used "comfortable" DoF, making 'focus' much easier. Nearly thirty years later, my having photographed them at all has turned out to be much more valuable to my wife and me than photographed them at moments of velocity.

[monochrome]

1. If you are not a professional, when it will pay for itself, I see only one reason to get a "FF" camera - old film lenses.

2. I used my {film} {manual focus} "Super Program" to photograph our daughters when they were young - but I have always used "comfortable" DoF, making 'focus' much easier. Nearly thirty years later, my having photographed them at all has turned out to be much more valuable to my wife and me than photographed them at moments of velocity.

There are fundamental differences between current FF and APSc sensors (pixel pitch, pixel density) that make cameras with a current FF sensor better suited to certain styles of photography (landscape, some say portrait) than cameras using a current APSc sensor.

[reh321]

There are fundamental differences between current FF and APSc sensors (pixel pitch, pixel density) that make cameras with a current FF sensor better suited to certain styles of photography (landscape, some say portrait) than cameras using a current APSc sensor.

Yes, there are differences in pixel density. I don't believe most users care, especially anyone who doesn't use prime lenses or someone who doesn't view photographs with a magnifying glass.

[Mistral75]

The flippy screen could be saved for the next iteration, K-NewII or K-Newer.

As long as it's not for the K-Never...

[monochrome]

Yes, there are differences in pixel density. I don't believe most users care, especially anyone who doesn't use prime lenses or someone who doesn't view photographs with a magnifying glass.

It matters if you print.

[reh321]

It matters if you print.

I wonder how many people actually do. I have been taking photos since the mid 1950's - over sixty years by now. During most of the Age of Film, I shot slide film and sat my audience beside or behind the projector. I have made roughly one print larger than 4'x6' for each decade I have taken photos ..... and I believe I am fairly typical of those who do photograph today. People look at photographs, not at collections of pixels.

[gatorguy]

It matters if you print.

I print at home, tho not that often in all honesty, using a Canon Pixma Pro100 like many of us do. Even at the max print size it allows the quality is very very good.

Now from work I have my choice of a couple different large format printers, one 55" and one 65", each used several hours each day for output. When you get to oversize images they are rarely viewed close-up. A 5x3 foot print at 100ppi is absolutely acceptable for almost all clients. With the commercial software we use that's easily accomplished from a K-70 photo.

In my personal experience most digital camera shooters don't print a large number of photos to begin with and the ones they do are seldom very large. Whether printing from FF or crop image will be of little importance to them and I would wager no one could tell the difference between the two at 11x14".

IMO it's pretty much a non-issue except for certain professional and commercial projects.

[monochrome]

I print at home, tho not that often in all honesty, using a Canon Pixma Pro100 like many of us do. Even at the max print size it allows the quality is very very good.

Now from work I have my choice of a couple different large format printers, one 55" and one 65", each used several hours each day for output. When you get to oversize images they are rarely viewed close-up. A 5x3 foot print at 100ppi is absolutely acceptable for almost all clients. With the commercial software we use that's easily accomplished from a K-70 photo.

In my personal experience most digital camera shooters don't print a large number of photos to begin with and the ones they do are seldom very large. Whether printing from FF or crop image will be of little importance to them and I would wager no one could tell the difference between the two at 11x14".

IMO it's pretty much a non-issue except for certain professional and commercial projects.

I wonder how many people actually do. I have been taking photos since the mid 1950's - over sixty years by now. During most of the Age of Film, I shot slide film and sat my audience beside or behind the projector. I have made roughly one print larger than 4'x6' for each decade I have taken photos ..... and I believe I am fairly typical of those who do photograph today. People look at photographs, not at collections of pixels.

I print (what I think of as) large. I have a Pixma 11x17 format printer. That’s why I don’t post images. I shoot for me and print my best images. I don’t have room to hang many. They’re matted and shrink wrapped. I’m not sure I need APSc cameras at all for what I want to do - K-1 could easily be my only digital SLR camera.

Factual arguments are irrelevant. Some people just want a FF camera, and that’s just fine. Who are we to tell them they dpn’t need a FF camera?

[reh321]

I print - large. I have a Pixma 11x17 format printer. That’s why I don’t post images. I shoot for me and print my best images. I’m not sure I need APSc cameras at all for what I want to do - K-1 could easily be my only digital SLR camera.

Some people just want a FF camera, and that’s just fine. Who are we to tell them they dpn’t need a FF camera?

I never tell someone "you don't need a full frame camera"; actually they may not need any camera, but I will sometimes ask someone who wants to replace a camera, "what will you gain?" - it is their money.

When Adam was giving away a K-1 in summer of 2018, I didn't enter the June 'raffle' because I expected it would cost me more than I would gain. By July, I had figured out how I could make good use of the camera, and {more importantly to me} my wife had assured me she wouldn't complain if I spent our funds on a KP even if I received a K-1. For me, I would still make better use of a "APS-C" camera than of a comparably-priced "FF" camera, because I take more long-distance shots which I could put more pixels on with the "APS-C' camera, but it is still their money.

[monochrome]

Really?.

1. If you are not a professional, when it will pay for itself, I see only one reason to get a "FF" camera - old film lenses.

2. I used my {film} {manual focus} "Super Program" to photograph our daughters when they were young - but I have always used "comfortable" DoF, making 'focus' much easier. Nearly thirty years later, my having photographed them at all has turned out to be much more valuable to my wife and me than photographed them at moments of velocity.

I never tell someone "you don't need a full frame camera"; actually they may not need any camera, but I will sometimes ask someone who wants to replace a camera, "what will you gain?" - it is their money.

When Adam was giving away a K-1 in summer of 2018, I didn't enter the June 'raffle' because I expected it would cost me more than I would gain. By July, I had figured out how I could make good use of the camera, and {more importantly to me} my wife had assured me she wouldn't complain if I spent our funds on a KP even if I received a K-1. For me, I would still make better use of a "APS-C" camera than of a comparably-priced "FF" camera, because I take more long-distance shots which I could put more pixels on with the "APS-C' camera, but it is still their money.

[Kobie]

I print at home, tho not that often in all honesty, using a Canon Pixma Pro100 like many of us do. Even at the max print size it allows the quality is very very good.

Now from work I have my choice of a couple different large format printers, one 55" and one 65", each used several hours each day for output. When you get to oversize images they are rarely viewed close-up. A 5x3 foot print at 100ppi is absolutely acceptable for almost all clients. With the commercial software we use that's easily accomplished from a K-70 photo.

In my personal experience most digital camera shooters don't print a large number of photos to begin with and the ones they do are seldom very large. Whether printing from FF or crop image will be of little importance to them and I would wager no one could tell the difference between the two at 11x14".

IMO it's pretty much a non-issue except for certain professional and commercial projects.

I've sold multiple prints (24 x 36, 20 x 30, the smallest being 11 x 14) that were all shot on the K-30. No issues whatsoever. If it was Full Frame it would have allowed larger printing but for the average person, a 24 x 36 is just too large as it is. So for myself, I wouldn't gain THAT benefit from going Full Frame.

[biz-engineer]

People look at photographs, not at collections of pixels.

Hobbyists, family and friends look at photographs, not at collections of pixels, that's for sure. Now if you sell prints at prices such as $500 and more, that's another story, you may view FF and MF as minimum. I came to the conclusion that discussions about MF in consumer forums is a waste of time. The average consumer camera talk isn't in line with the kind of quality expected by professionals who live of exhibiting and selling framed photographs. Some professionals sell prints for several thousand dollar each, certificate of authenticity, best quality paper and inks that cost a several hundred dollar per unit framed (one print costs more or less the price of a Pentax apsc cameras new). I draw a line between consumer and art products.

[reh321]

Really?.

Yes, I did not say "you don't need full frame" - I did say "I see any reason for full frame other than" - I was stating my opinion, just as I would state an opinion that I would never throw hundred dollar bills off a the "Eads Bridge", but the recipient {and you} can do whatever is desired. It is still your money at the moment you throw it away.

added: read the right correct way, in the case you are quoting I was actually saying that the OP maybe should purchase a K-1. If I would not be able to purchase any new lenses to go with the K-1, I would be using old film lenses, and I stated that is the one reason I can see for using a full frame camera.

[reh321]

Hobbyists, family and friends look at photographs, not at collections of pixels, that's for sure. Now if you sell prints at prices such as $500 and more, that's another story, you may view FF and MF as minimum. I came to the conclusion that discussions about MF in consumer forums is a waste of time. The average consumer camera talk isn't in line with the kind of quality expected by professionals who live of exhibiting and selling framed photographs. Some professionals sell prints for several thousand dollar each, certificate of authenticity, best quality paper and inks that cost a several hundred dollar per unit framed (one print costs more or less the price of a Pentax apsc cameras new). I draw a line between consumer and art products.

Yes, as someone commented here lately, in the age of film most professionals used medium format cameras because they would put more grains of emulsion on the particular subject, and therefore give a better looking print.