[GeneV]

My birding pictures is an adjunct to my wife's bird watching hobby, so I value mobility more than anything else; we go for a nice walk in the woods, and if she sees a bird, that is great, and even better if I'm able to get a reasonable picture of it, which is why my birding outfit currently consists of a Q-7, a long K-mount lens borrowed from my K-30 kit, and a walking stick / monopod.

Same here on the bird watching hobby, but I find the K3 with the DA*300 and converter mobile enough for me. I do carry the monopod. With 24mp, and great IQ, there is lots of room to crop. OTOH, I can't see going to FF unless I can back my car up to the spot. A 500mm FF lens is quite a challenge to schlepp.

[VoiceOfReason]

I am amazed at how many people argue about what it will and will not do. What it will do is exceed the capability of 99.9% of all photographers here. If you can afford it and it makes you happy then get it. That is all. Who cares about equivalence, and crop as long as good pictures are made and enjoyment is had.

[jsherman999]

Did you know 'Total light' and 'Sensor size' are not considered at all in the Print values,

They most certainly are.

Look, if you're just interested in a back-forth insult fest with me, I'm game I can literally keep going until the thread is closed. (Bad habit of mine, I'll admit - i can't leave that fish in the barrel alone, even after it's been shot.)

But if you're not - if you really have specific objections to Equivalence, just state them sans-smugness and maybe we can help you out. Or check any of the dozens of citations out there. I gave you one earlier where dosdan bothered to provide links and quotes from Emeril Martinic, and if you really try you can glean from that alone how the 'screen tab' is not meant to be your camera-buying metric.

Actually reading the link = brain++;

"...First off, look at the SNR (18%) ("Print" tab). This is a proxy for Quantum Efficiency & Fill Factor. As you can see, both FF cameras are about 4db (1.3 stops) better than the APS-C when the overall sensor output is considered. This is due the the 2.34x larger FF sensor compared to APS-C. If we switch to the "Screen" tab, where the effect of sensel size is considered, rather than the total output performance, we see that both 4.75µm sensels perform much the same, while the bigger 5.9µm performs better.
"



.

[mohb]

If you can afford it and it makes you happy then get it. That is all. Who cares about equivalence, and crop as long as good pictures are made and enjoyment is had.

I can't afford it (living off a pension) but old enough not to be bothered and anyway I have a K5ll, K50, Kx and K7 to wear out first

[jsherman999]

The problem with all these arguments is that everybody has forgotten that none of the manufacturers are spending R&D dollars on APSC, its all going to full frame tech. So based on that alone, FF will just keep getting better and better as the generations go on, leaving APSC behind,.

You'll get FF DSLR shooters on some sites complaining that the 'newest tech' is all going to mirrorless, m43, aps-c etc

Personally I think the tech is all pretty great across the board now, wherever you land. Canon had some sensor performance issues for a few years, but they're making some pretty good stuff these days.

The biggest thing now, IMO, is to know what you're buying and why you want to buy it. Don't buy something based on bad information, like "use the screen tab on DXO to judge camera output" (#deadhorsehopefully). And if your 'need' is actually a 'want', that's perfectly fine too.

[cali92rs]

If you have lots of FF lenses then go FF. Otherwise the output quality of the K1 will be no different from a K5.

Your saying that if you were to make a 24x36 (or 20x30 or 13x19) by both the K-5 and the K-1, there would be no difference??
Ummmm...no.

Perhaps in good light on a 8X10 print your statement would be true

[bobbotron]

I am amazed at how many people argue about what it will and will not do. What it will do is exceed the capability of 99.9% of all photographers here. If you can afford it and it makes you happy then get it. That is all. Who cares about equivalence, and crop as long as good pictures are made and enjoyment is had.

I was about to write the same thing. Equivalence arguments are silly, each format is not equivalent, in some regard or another. I have a friend that shoots a lot of micro four thirds in digital, and keeps going on about how it's all about equivalent too APS-C... I came from m43 to the K3, I don't try to convince him as it's more effort than I can to invest, but when you switch between systems there are differences. You guys complaining about burst speed of the k1.... you should try an old film camera with the blistering 1.5 frames per second.

I'm really looking forward to getting a K1 one day, I think it'll be a really nice camera for a lot of different situations!

[jsherman999]

Your saying that the you were to make a 24x36 print, then the K1 will be the same as the K5?
Ummmmm...no

No, but I think he's implying that if you only have aps-c lenses and you shoot the K-1 in aps-c 'crop mode' the whole time, might as well stick with an aps-c camera... and he's right in that respect as you give up your FF advantage then. K1 may still have a newer/better sensor so it will probably be better in crop mode than the K-5 natively, but prob not enough to justify the additional $$.

That said, I don't know too many people who just have aps-c lenses A 50 f/1.8 bought for under $200 would probably wow a lot of folks (top some degree) on 36MP FF. After seeing that, the inevitable LBA kicks in and pretty soon you have all the FA Limiteds.

[stevebrot]

Understanding what that data represents is another story

...and with DXO Mark, therein lies the rub...


Steve

[jsherman999]

Equivalence arguments are silly, each format is not equivalent, in some regard or another.

This isn't what 'equivalence' means. It's simply a method of converting some parameters between any two formats so you know what to expect when/if you plan to buy into another format - it allows you to 'buy smarter' (or not buy at all.) For example, it would allow you to know a sales clerk is feeding you a line of BS if he says "this 25mm f/1.4 performs on this micro-four-thirds camera just like a 50mm f/1.4 on this full frame camera - same field of view, and same exposure (f/1.4) means same everything else!"

I have a friend that shoots a lot of micro four thirds in digital, and keeps going on about how it's all about equivalent too APS-C...

... So you do know enough about equivalence to know that's ^ a suspect statement

In truth though, if he shoots faster lenses than you do, he may be right in one respect.

.

[reh321]

The problem with all these arguments is that everybody has forgotten that none of the manufacturers are spending R&D dollars on APS-C, its all going to full frame tech. So based on that alone, FF will just keep getting better and better as the generations go on, leaving APS-C behind, regardless of "equivalence" etc. The only real exception to this is Nikon, with their D500, who are specifically investing and targeting a particular APS-C market, the rest are just playing "me too".

And come on, you can't honestly tell me that at 1 stop difference that a K-3 would keep up with a K-1, the sensor tech alone is more advanced. Nikon already showed us that with the D800/810. I am happy to be proven otherwise, but from what I've seen there would be no comparison worth making.

If APS-C if all you need then that's fine, there is no shame in it. Heck, I am seriously considering a D500 over a K-1 for my second kit that I wish to build, because of lens selection, lens size, reach and AF system. I certainly don't feel that I would be making a mistake buying an APS-C at all. You buy and use what you need and what works best for you.

You're allowed to believe this. Do you have actual evidence that no one is working on new APS-C designs? {Canon's email list has not realized yet that I am now buying Pentax; I trashed without reading the most recent one from them, but the headlines seemed to focus on APS-C}. My expectations are different. In every comparable situation I'm aware of, ideas, findings, and sometimes people, bounce back-and-forth between projects. When the K-3ii first came out last year, I was concerned by the level of complaint about the lack of an OBF, because I was quite certain the primary role of the K-3ii was to get experience with various new "stuff" that would ultimately make its way into the K-1, and I was hoping that the lack of an OBF would not lead to widespread rejection of the K-1 {and, fortunately, that hasn't happened}. I would not be at all surprised if the next high-end APS-C {perhaps all APS-C cameras released in the near future} has the funky LCD which debuted with the K-1, and any other not-FF-related technology new to the K-1 could easily also show up on the next generation of APS-C cameras. Yes, the K-1 will always be half-a-step ahead of the best APS-C camera, but Pentax would be foolish {and Ricoh most certainly is not foolish} to allow the APS-C products to languish, because unless they are willing to cut K-1 prices in half, APS-C will always be more attractive to a large part of the market, and I doubt if K-1 sales could ever support the entire Pentax super-structure. Pentax has openly said now that most of their corporate energy went towards the K-1 in 2015, but the clear implication is that we can expect more new ILC products to come out of the pipeline over the next year, so you need to wait for the remainder of this year before you claim that Pentax has become a FF-only company.

[dtmateojr]

Your saying that if you were to make a 24x36 (or 20x30 or 13x19) by both the K-5 and the K-1, there would be no difference??
Ummmm...no.

Perhaps in good light on a 8X10 print your statement would be true

Nope. All you need to do is step back and the photo will magically improve in quality. Billboards are less than 2Mp. Fact.

Let me ask you, when did you last print at 24x36? Have you ever printed that big?

---------- Post added 03-15-16 at 05:53 ----------

This isn't what 'equivalence' means. It's simply a method of converting some parameters between any two formats so you know what to expect when/if you plan to buy into another format - it allows you to 'buy smarter' (or not buy at all.) For example, it would allow you to know a sales clerk is feeding you a line of BS if he says "this 25mm f/1.4 performs on this micro-four-thirds camera just like a 50mm f/1.4 on this full frame camera - same field of view, and same exposure (f/1.4) means same everything else!"



... So you do know enough about equivalence to know that's ^ a suspect statement

In truth though, if he shoots faster lenses than you do, he may be right in one respect.

.

Here we go again. I can show you that the performance of my ancient Olympus E-M5 is the same as Canon's latest and greatest 5DS. This equivalence thingy has been debunked a million times. Please stop spreading nonsense.

[bobbotron]

This isn't what 'equivalence' means. It's simply a method of converting some parameters between any two formats so you know what to expect when/if you plan to buy into another format - it allows you to 'buy smarter' (or not buy at all.) For example, it would allow you to know a sales clerk is feeding you a line of BS if he says "this 25mm f/1.4 performs on this micro-four-thirds camera just like a 50mm f/1.4 on this full frame camera - same field of view, and same exposure (f/1.4) means same everything else!"



... So you do know enough about equivalence to know that's ^ a suspect statement

In truth though, if he shoots faster lenses than you do, he may be right in one respect.

.

Sure. Unsubscribing. :P

[GeneV]

Nope. All you need to do is step back and the photo will magically improve in quality. Billboards are less than 2Mp. Fact.

Let me ask you, when did you last print at 24x36? Have you ever printed that big?

I haven't compared the K5, but I have taken a shot of Sandhill Cranes with my 24mp K3 and with the 36mp FF A7R, and printed both at 13x19. The prints are terrific in both cases. I would not go from 24mp APS-C to 36mp FF just to make the bigger print.

[normhead]

I'm with you there. For me it's all about low light and Dynamic range, and i'm looking for at least ISO as clean as my K-3 at 800 at 3200 on the K-1, and two stops better Dynamic range than the K-3 ( which is only 1.3 stops better than a K-5.) I won't buy a new camera for one stop of anything. It has to bring something I don't have to the table.