[MJSfoto1956]

It's pretty simple: a crop-sensor with a top lens (e.g. Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8) may out-perform (or at worst, just equal) the IQ of a full-frame-sensor with a kit lens (e.g. D800 + 24-85mm). Cost about the same in total too. Might even weigh about the same. The real decision is what glass you are willing to purchase in the future and whether you want two bodies or just one. Many people opt for two bodies: a crop sensor as a backup and a full-frame sensor.

Michael

[Damian.T]

I had the same original question, if I wait for the FF, what benefits will it give me over a K3?

I shoot fast moving, and stationary cars both outside and indoors for magazines, and my current K20D + 55-300mm & 18-55mm kit lens are doing ok, but lacking, especially in gloomy weather.

Like a few others have mentioned, I'm only thinking about the FF because Pentax have announced it and I want the best. However, what I've taken from this thread is that I should probably 'settle' for a K3 (which is way better than my K20), and invest the rest in some better lenses.

[Winder]

I had the same original question, if I wait for the FF, what benefits will it give me over a K3?

I shoot fast moving, and stationary cars both outside and indoors for magazines, and my current K20D + 55-300mm & 18-55mm kit lens are doing ok, but lacking, especially in gloomy weather.

Like a few others have mentioned, I'm only thinking about the FF because Pentax have announced it and I want the best. However, what I've taken from this thread is that I should probably 'settle' for a K3 (which is way better than my K20), and invest the rest in some better lenses.

It really depends on what you shoot and your final output. Money is probably better spent in premium glass for most people. Theoretically a lens with a smaller image circle requires a smaller and lighter focusing group and is easier to design a faster focusing lens for action. One reason Olympus AF is so fast is that they are moving a lot less weight with 1/4 the image circle. For fast sports in good light The Olympus EM-1 and Panasonic GH-4 are both very fast with a lot of really good glass. For magazine work they are more than enough. Actually the 4/3 ratio works better for most magazine work than 3:2 of APS-C.

If magazine work is your goal, the K-3 is more camera than you need. The print quality of magazines is not that demanding and the K-3 is more than capable of printing a 2 page spread. If I was you I would be more interested in the D-FA* glass that was coming out. A D-FA* 24-70 F/2.8 becomes an excellent 36-105mm on the K-3. I'm not a zoom shooter, but this is probably the first D-FA* lens I will buy.

Unless the new FF has "ground breaking" AF I would spend the money on glass first and pick up a K-3 cheap.

[Damian.T]

It really depends on what you shoot and your final output. Money is probably better spent in premium glass for most people. Theoretically a lens with a smaller image circle requires a smaller and lighter focusing group and is easier to design a faster focusing lens for action. One reason Olympus AF is so fast is that they are moving a lot less weight with 1/4 the image circle. For fast sports in good light The Olympus EM-1 and Panasonic GH-4 are both very fast with a lot of really good glass. For magazine work they are more than enough. Actually the 4/3 ratio works better for most magazine work than 3:2 of APS-C.

If magazine work is your goal, the K-3 is more camera than you need. The print quality of magazines is not that demanding and the K-3 is more than capable of printing a 2 page spread. If I was you I would be more interested in the D-FA* glass that was coming out. A D-FA* 24-70 F/2.8 becomes an excellent 36-105mm on the K-3. I'm not a zoom shooter, but this is probably the first D-FA* lens I will buy.

Unless the new FF has "ground breaking" AF I would spend the money on glass first and pick up a K-3 cheap.

Yup, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there Winder, cheers...

[markku55]

It's pretty simple: a crop-sensor with a top lens (e.g. Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8) may out-perform (or at worst, just equal) the IQ of a full-frame-sensor with a kit lens (e.g. D800 + 24-85mm). Cost about the same in total too. Might even weigh about the same. The real decision is what glass you are willing to purchase in the future and whether you want two bodies or just one. Many people opt for two bodies: a crop sensor as a backup and a full-frame sensor.

Michael

You are comparing quite different lenses, 18-35 is comparable with 27-52,5mm in FF, so an 24-85 in FF is far more usefull in my opinnion.

[normhead]

I had the same original question, if I wait for the FF, what benefits will it give me over a K3?

I shoot fast moving, and stationary cars both outside and indoors for magazines, and my current K20D + 55-300mm & 18-55mm kit lens are doing ok, but lacking, especially in gloomy weather.

Like a few others have mentioned, I'm only thinking about the FF because Pentax have announced it and I want the best. However, what I've taken from this thread is that I should probably 'settle' for a K3 (which is way better than my K20), and invest the rest in some better lenses.

If you can shoot fast moving cars with a K-20D and 55-300, using a K-3 is going to be major upgrade. That being said, you also might want to wait and see if the Pentax FF has managed to bump up the speed of AF on it's FF. Last time I went out with my K20D, the speed of AF, and slow burst rate really surprised me. A K-3 will just get you a lot more images.

[MJSfoto1956]

You are comparing quite different lenses, 18-35 is comparable with 27-52,5mm in FF, so an 24-85 in FF is far more usefull in my opinnion.

Great, you see my point then! I use a two body system: Nikon D800 + 24-85mm VR and a Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm. Both use 67mm filters. Both provide about the same IQ. And with the Nikon I also occasionally mount the stellar 14-24mm which has no equal in the Pentax world. I also share a common flash system between the two bodies.

YMMV

Michael

[normhead]

Great, you see my point then! I use a two body system: Nikon D800 + 24-85mm VR and a Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm. Both use 67mm filters. Both provide about the same IQ. And with the Nikon I also occasionally mount the stellar 14-24mm which has no equal in the Pentax world. I also share a common flash system between the two bodies.

YMMV

Michael

That's defintiely an issue for me with the new Pentax body. I still want my K-3 for wildlife, but Pentax doesn't have a 14-24 equivalent for landscape...

[ElJamoquio]

You are comparing quite different lenses, 18-35 is comparable with 27-52,5mm in FF, so an 24-85 in FF is far more usefull in my opinnion.

Even ignoring the capability of the lenses, I refute the major premise. Under most circumstances I prefer the 24-85+FF to the FA31mm + APS-C.

Never used the Sigma 18-35 but from pictures I've seen I prefer the FA31mm to the Sigma.

[markku55]

Even ignoring the capability of the lenses, I refute the major premise. Under most circumstances I prefer the 24-85+FF to the FA31mm + APS-C.

Never used the Sigma 18-35 but from pictures I've seen I prefer the FA31mm to the Sigma.

I might gave a wrong idea, so to be straight, I fully agree what you said. In my case I can't agree only 27-28mm length in FF scale.
I normally use 16 - 45mm Pentax with my K30, 24-105 Minolta with my Sony A900, 16-50mm Sony on my NEX 5n and Panasonic 12-32mm in my Olympus E-PL5.
The touch screen on Sony 5n and Olympus E-PL5 is really great to use, also the tilting displays are something I want to have for my next DSLR body, that's why the K3 or K3II are not for me, but neither the K-S2 and only because of the non touch screen, but today the closest solution for me from Pentax lineup.

[aleonx3]

I might gave a wrong idea, so to be straight, I fully agree what you said. In my case I can't agree only 27-28mm length in FF scale.
I normally use 16 - 45mm Pentax with my K30, 24-105 Minolta with my Sony A900, 16-50mm Sony on my NEX 5n and Panasonic 12-32mm in my Olympus E-PL5.
The touch screen on Sony 5n and Olympus E-PL5 is really great to use, also the tilting displays are something I want to have for my next DSLR body, that's why the K3 or K3II are not for me, but neither the K-S2 and only because of the non touch screen, but today the closest solution for me from Pentax lineup.

It may be for you.. but if I want to have touch screen feature, I want something light (eg. cell phone camera) so I can use both thumbs. Sure, no camera is made to suit everyone...

[Omestes]

The touch screen on Sony 5n and Olympus E-PL5 is really great to use, also the tilting displays are something I want to have for my next DSLR body, that's why the K3 or K3II are not for me, but neither the K-S2 and only because of the non touch screen, but today the closest solution for me from Pentax lineup.

I've got an EP-3 and EM5-II with touch screens, and a variety of "normal" Pentax DSLRs without... And they both have their place, but I don't think that touch would benefit DSLRs in the slightest. The camera gets unsteady the second you need to use touch. Oddly, when I switched to the EM5-II, with build in EVF, I pretty much stopped using the touch screen, and instead use it like a traditional SLR. I'm much steadier, and framing is much easier with your eye to the finder, and finger on the shutter. With the greater heft of a DSLR, a touch screen would be harder to use than just shooting the "normal" way. In my opinion at least.

[hjoseph7]

After the announcement of FF, I got lucky and managed to save up enough to cover upgrading to FF from my aging K5 in anticipation of its release. But with the announcement of the K3ii, I'm wondering if FF is actually the way to go. For the price of FF I could upgrade both my main camera (the K5), and my backup kit (thinking of switching from M43 to Fuji). I'm not 100% FF would be that much of an upgrade over the K3ii. I might also be naive.

Going from the K5, how big of a difference would there actually be from the K3ii to full frame? What would FF get me that the K3ii couldn't? Is it really that big of a deal?

I'm going straight into the 645z and straight into retirement forget the FF...

[Omestes]

I'm going straight into the 645z and straight into retirement forget the FF...

I'm going straight into the 645z and straight into retirement forget the FF...

If you want to pay the difference, I'm right there with you.

[johnha]

It's not about the IQ, there's much more to it than that. I haven't bothered to read this thread and this might have already been mentioned, but if you've shot FF you'll be able to answer the question easily. If you haven't, buy a film camera and maybe a lens, shoot & print a roll of film and for $40-50 you'll know whether you want to spend a huge amount on an FF body & lenses or not.

I'm looking forward to the FF being released, the only question I'm thinking about is whether my budget is better spent on film for my LX & P67 or the FF?