Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Being able to shoot APS-C and full frame extends the capability of the system.
That is actually a very good point. I would love my 77 to be a hair wider. Though, conversely, if the FF allows me to use the 40ltd in FF mode, I'd hate it to be any wider, ditto with my 24mm. I'm fine with my 100mm Macro being 150mm. I know I can always crop in PP. My other concern is that the RAWs will kill my computer, and I'm going to need to actually invest in a semi-pro storage backup/solution. This makes me feel odd, but is it just too much for my needs?
Though I suppose, as my girlfriend pointed out, I never cared about FF until Pentax announced FF. If I didn't luck into the ability to have just enough spending money, I would have been happy with the change to upgrade my K-5 to the K3, and ecstatic for the K3ii. FF wasn't even something I was interested in three months ago outside of looking randomly at a Sony Mirrorless FF. I did want a K5iis, or K3 because losing the AA filter made me excited. I did want to upgrade my aging M43 camera since its high ISO performance makes me cry. I could do both of my previous long term goals, for the same cost as the FF, and have a decent amount of spare change.
The problem is that it is so hard to tell what FF would actually mean. Would it be like upgrading from a crappy point and shoot to my first DSLR (the K-x) (life changing), or upgrading from the K-x to the K-5 (a pretty big deal)? Or like how I'd imagine upgrading from my current DSLR to the K3ii (a nice workaday upgrade but nothing life changing). I just can't tell.
Dang it Pentax, stop making things I want.