Are the extra dollars worth the upgrade to the full frame sensor?

tvdtvdtvd · 03-22-2016, 01:39 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by osv

i do see that with the certain aspects of the a6300 being better than the same functionalities in the a7rii.

but no one in their right mind is going to categorize an a6300 as an "upgrade" over an a7rii, just like the k3ii will never be an "upgrade" over the k-1.

I say you're looking at the matter from your own personal preferences. If the feature you need is burst speed and
the advantages of FF are irrelevant for your photograph needs, then yes K-3ii would be an 'upgrade' over a K-1.

A Ferrari is not an upgrade over a pickup if your need is to haul 3/4 ton of hay.

---------- Post added 03-22-2016 at 03:42 PM ----------

Originally posted by BrianR

That's not an upgrade to everyone either. The k3ii is bigger, heavier, and lacks mechanical SR in video mode.

Ha! True enough. I remembered that point just as I was leaving for the vet's office. Good call. All the more irrelevance to
speak of 'upgrading' gear without qualification of function or need.

Jean Basile · 03-22-2016, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Winder

Are the Extra Dollars Worth the Upgrade to the Full Frame Sensor? | ilovehatephotography

Hi,
A few months ago I was wondering if I should wait for the K1 full frame or update my K10D for the K3 or K3ii. After reflection I decided to buy the K3ii for the following reasons:.

The only lens that I have that would be fully compatble with the K1 FF body is my 31mm FA limited lens. All the other are DA and DAlimited and would be croped mode at 16/17Mega Pixel and my 50 / 3135 mm Zoom is not compatible with the K1.

Also the price for photo equipment due to exchange rate in Canada will increase significanlty on Aparil 1st (I am told by 30 to 40%) so I decided to commit now to the K3ii since even with a APC sized sensor I get lower and similar capabilities to the K1. K3ii is a significant upgrade from K10D bodywhile keeping all of my lens aand accessories valid for that APSC format. Going to a full frame will cost significantlyt more for not so much more.

osv · 03-22-2016, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

I say you're looking at the matter from your own personal preferences. If the feature you need is burst speed and
the advantages of FF are irrelevant for your photograph needs, then yes K-3ii would be an 'upgrade' over a K-1.

A Ferrari is not an upgrade over a pickup if your need is to haul 3/4 ton of hay.[COLOR="Silver"]

you are confusing features with upgrading, they are not the same thing at all.

when you rent a car, the only upgrade available is for a bigger car, they don't call a smaller vehicle that gives better gas mileage an "upgrade".

when you check into the airport terminal, and find out that all of the coach seats are full, the move to first class seating is considered an upgrade.

per those examples, the commonality with upgrades is that they usually cost more, just like a k-1 upgrade costs more than a k3ii, regardless of the frame rate.

tvdtvdtvd · 03-22-2016, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by osv

you are confusing features with upgrading, they are not the same thing at all.

when you rent a car, the only upgrade available is for a bigger car, they don't call a smaller vehicle that gives better gas mileage an "upgrade".

when you check into the airport terminal, and find out that all of the coach seats are full, the move to first class seating is considered an upgrade.

No confusion here. Just trying to distinguish form factor vs feature set. Change of form factor is not an upgrade, at least not
in and of itself. It may >include< upgraded features, but may also include downgraded features. To use your examples:

If I've rented a base model minivan because I need the passenger space, then being offered a luxury SUV is not an upgrade.
Minivan vs SUV, two different form factors and the 'upgraded' features of the SUV are irrelevant to me. (FWIW, I've run into
this exact scenario a few times....).

However, if I've rented a compact, 4 passenger car, and I'm offered a free 'upgrade' to a mid-size 4 passenger car, then yes,
I do consider that an upgrade. Same form factor, still meets my needs. (Curiously along your example, I did refuse such an
upgrade on my last trip expressly because of gas mileage. The upgraded car was superfluous and I had no need for that
extra luxury at the expense of an extra tank of gas over an 800 mile journey.)

Being switched to a new, cushier seat on the same plane to the same destination is indeed an upgrade. All base parameters
have remained the same, (the form factor, if you will), while a specific feature has been upgraded. If you get bumped to
a plane that takes off four hours later, I'd hesitate to call it an upgrade even with the upgraded seat, especially if you need to
be there four hours sooner.

Ultimately, the difference that we're arguing over is one of marketing vs actual need. Of course manufactures and retailers want
us to see bigger and newer as an 'upgrade'. That message is constantly blasted our way. Doesn't mean we have to
buy into it if it doesn't fit our needs.

Last edited by tvdtvdtvd; 03-22-2016 at 08:40 PM.

osv · 03-22-2016, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

No confusion here. Just trying to distinguish form factor vs feature set. Change of form factor is not an upgrade, at least not
in and of itself. It may >include< upgraded features, but may also include downgraded features. To use your examples:

If I've rented a base model minivan because I need the passenger space, then being offered a luxury SUV is not an upgrade.
Minivan vs SUV, two different form factors and the 'upgraded' features of the SUV are irrelevant to me. (FWIW, I've run into
this exact scenario a few times....).

the upgrade from a minivan would be a 12 passenger van, and once again, the price reflects that.

you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand... they often have similar pricing, depending on the sizes, so there isn't much of an upgrade path there.

tvdtvdtvd · 03-22-2016, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by osv

you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand... they often have similar pricing, depending on the sizes, so there isn't much of an upgrade path there.

Nope. Always presented as an upgrade. "Sorry, we don't have the minivan you reserved, but we're going to upgrade you to
an SUV." That is always the wordage. And I've always let them know I don't consider a vehicle I don't need, (different form
factor...), to be an upgrade.

Has happened to me several times. Was once even 'upgraded' to a mustang instead of the
passenger car I reserved. Refused for the same reasons above.

noelpolar · 03-22-2016, 09:14 PM

Given the apparent ambiguity on this forum with a word like "Upgrade" ...... "Equivalence" was doomed from the start......

SteveM · 03-22-2016, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by noelpolar

Given the apparent ambiguity on this forum with a word like "Upgrade" ...... "Equivalence" was doomed from the start......

True....no equivalence from my perspective. I upgraded to k3 that I use for telephoto and outdoor work, and upgraded to FF for indoor / low light work quite a while ago. I'm happy with the upgrade(s)....

I am hoping to upgrade my FF to a Pentax FF so I can carry one set of lenses, but doubt the sensor will exceed what I have now for ISO. We'll see.

osv · 03-22-2016, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

Nope. Always presented as an upgrade. "Sorry, we don't have the minivan you reserved, but we're going to upgrade you to
an SUV." That is always the wordage. And I've always let them know I don't consider a vehicle I don't need, (different form
factor...), to be an upgrade.

you just proved what i said...here, i'll repeat my previous post: "you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand."

the fact remains that you were only "offered" something else because they didn't have what you ordered... that's typical with minivan rentals.

their failure to deliver your order is not an "upgrade", it's lousy customer service.

**RobA_Oz** · 03-22-2016, 10:59 PM

There's a lot of mosquito-sexing going on here. We could also bang on about the meaning of "Full Frame", too, to little purpose. One man's meat is another man's poison: one photographer's upgrade is another photographer's overkill etc, etc...

To be less controversial, perhaps, the author could have titled the article "Is the move to a larger sensor worth the extra dollars?" (or Euros, or whatever - we could go on about the US-centricity of that word, as well). Of course, we'd then be pointing out that they didn't consider the potential move to crop (645) MF, MF (obviously not the 6x7 variety), and so on.

All that aside, it's a poorly written article by someone who doesn't have extensive experience in the field, and not worth all the angst being generated over it.

osv · 03-22-2016, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by SteveM

I am hoping to upgrade my FF to a Pentax FF so I can carry one set of lenses, but doubt the sensor will exceed what I have now for ISO. We'll see.

the iso performance will be at least as good as any of the 36-42mp cameras on the market right now... you'd have to currently own an a7s/a7sii, or the nikon equivalent, to beat it, but then you'd be losing out on resolution.

pathdoc · 03-23-2016, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

we could go on about the US-centricity of that word, as well)

Seeing as he's actually living there, and given the general utility of the greenback, I've got no issue with that. Would you be making an issue of it if it were a Swede using the word "kroner"?

tvdtvdtvd · 03-23-2016, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by osv

you just proved what i said...here, i'll repeat my previous post: "you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand."

the fact remains that you were only "offered" something else because they didn't have what you ordered... that's typical with minivan rentals.

their failure to deliver your order is not an "upgrade", it's lousy customer service.

>sigh<

I think I've proved my point with the several examples I've provided. You keep moving the peg, (changing
the word to "offered", then when I've brought you back to center by clarifying "no, they used the word 'upgrade'",
you try to change the context of the usage and discredit the word 'upgrade' in this scenario). We could keep
playing this game indefinitely, but I think it's clear you're not going to see the point I was trying to make. No matter.

I'll concede by acknowledging that for your needs, you consider the inherent features of FF to be an upgrade
over APS-C, and presumably, don't consider the inherent strengths of APS-C to be a factor.

For my own needs, when I decide to acquire an FF camera, it will be >in addition to< rather than as a replacement
for APS-C. That is the crux of the APS-C > FF upgrade myth I was trying to deflate.

I'll leave you with a hypothetical:

If a 10oz orange is an upgrade over an 8oz orange, then, is a 12oz apple an upgrade over an 8oz orange?

Winder · 03-23-2016, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Jean Basile

Hi,
A few months ago I was wondering if I should wait for the K1 full frame or update my K10D for the K3 or K3ii. After reflection I decided to buy the K3ii for the following reasons:.

The only lens that I have that would be fully compatble with the K1 FF body is my 31mm FA limited lens. All the other are DA and DAlimited and would be croped mode at 16/17Mega Pixel and my 50 / 3135 mm Zoom is not compatible with the K1.

Also the price for photo equipment due to exchange rate in Canada will increase significanlty on Aparil 1st (I am told by 30 to 40%) so I decided to commit now to the K3ii since even with a APC sized sensor I get lower and similar capabilities to the K1. K3ii is a significant upgrade from K10D bodywhile keeping all of my lens aand accessories valid for that APSC format. Going to a full frame will cost significantlyt more for not so much more.

The K-3II is an awesome camera. With Ricoh is does indeed cost a little more to go full frame. One advantage to Nikon or Canon is that they have some excellent primes for FF at very reasonable prices. The 35mm F/1.8, 50mm F/1.8 and 85mm F/1.8 lenses from Nikon are really good and relatively cheap given their performance. Ricoh doesn't have these options currently. There are used FF options on the market for both Canon and Nikon which again offer cheaper alternatives than what Ricoh can currently offer.

The cost is significantly more for not so much more if you are not a professional and even if you are a professional there are only certain fields of photography where the larger format really can make a difference. If the smaller formats were as good for my type of work I would definitely be shooting Olympus m4/3.

pathdoc · 03-23-2016, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Winder

Ricoh doesn't have these options currently.

Ricoh (still, AFAIK) currently offers the FA 35mm f/2.0 and FA 50mm f/1.4, the latter of which goes for somewhere around US$200 used. The lack of an 85 is admitted, but neither of the other lenses is THAT hideously expensive, is it? And very soon many of us will be able to see for ourselves where the DA 35mm/2.4 and DA 50mm/1.8 really stand with regard to FF coverage.

The problem with Nikon or Canon is that to go full-frame with them can cost so much more for the body alone that it makes up for a lot of the lens price, especially used. The difference between the K-1 and the D810 (the nearest comparable Nikon) is sufficient to have paid for my FA28/2.8, FA50/1.4 and FA135/2.8, all of which I bought used and which work quite well, thank you very much. With that kit, I can do almost everything I would want a K-1 to do - except macro, and I have a D-FA 100 WR macro for that (which I originally bought to go on my *ist-DL).

Originally posted by Winder

If the smaller formats were as good for my type of work I would definitely be shooting Olympus m4/3.

For a while I heard a faint siren song in that direction, but then I took an ME around the world in my vest pocket. FULL FRAME BY PENTAX

, and it's really no bigger than most of the Oly mirrorless bodies. That was enough to cure me of micro 4/3 forever. (Yes, it's film, but you can digitise that and IMHO home development of C41 isn't beyond the realm of the possible.)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question How to Unpin the 'Pentax K-1 Full Frame' announcement at the top of page	mee	Site Suggestions and Help	8	02-26-2016 09:00 AM
Using the K-500 and looking at the K-3II - Is it worth the upgrade price?	Rayn	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	05-23-2015 08:39 PM
The Full Frame: What are the alternatives?	mikeodial	Pentax Full Frame	131	04-17-2015 02:28 PM
First image of the Full Frame Curved sensor!…made for the RX2?	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	12	09-15-2014 10:04 PM
Is the extra $ on the FA77mm worth it over the DA70mm?	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	71	05-13-2010 08:40 AM

03-22-2016, 01:39 PM - 2 Likes	#16
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by osv i do see that with the certain aspects of the a6300 being better than the same functionalities in the a7rii. but no one in their right mind is going to categorize an a6300 as an "upgrade" over an a7rii, just like the k3ii will never be an "upgrade" over the k-1. I say you're looking at the matter from your own personal preferences. If the feature you need is burst speed and the advantages of FF are irrelevant for your photograph needs, then yes K-3ii would be an 'upgrade' over a K-1. A Ferrari is not an upgrade over a pickup if your need is to haul 3/4 ton of hay. ---------- Post added 03-22-2016 at 03:42 PM ---------- Originally posted by BrianR That's not an upgrade to everyone either. The k3ii is bigger, heavier, and lacks mechanical SR in video mode. Ha! True enough. I remembered that point just as I was leaving for the vet's office. Good call. All the more irrelevance to speak of 'upgrading' gear without qualification of function or need.

03-22-2016, 05:44 PM	#17
Jean Basile New Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Québec Posts: 9	Originally posted by Winder Are the Extra Dollars Worth the Upgrade to the Full Frame Sensor? \| ilovehatephotography Hi, A few months ago I was wondering if I should wait for the K1 full frame or update my K10D for the K3 or K3ii. After reflection I decided to buy the K3ii for the following reasons:. The only lens that I have that would be fully compatble with the K1 FF body is my 31mm FA limited lens. All the other are DA and DAlimited and would be croped mode at 16/17Mega Pixel and my 50 / 3135 mm Zoom is not compatible with the K1. Also the price for photo equipment due to exchange rate in Canada will increase significanlty on Aparil 1st (I am told by 30 to 40%) so I decided to commit now to the K3ii since even with a APC sized sensor I get lower and similar capabilities to the K1. K3ii is a significant upgrade from K10D bodywhile keeping all of my lens aand accessories valid for that APSC format. Going to a full frame will cost significantlyt more for not so much more.

03-22-2016, 07:44 PM	#18
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd I say you're looking at the matter from your own personal preferences. If the feature you need is burst speed and the advantages of FF are irrelevant for your photograph needs, then yes K-3ii would be an 'upgrade' over a K-1. A Ferrari is not an upgrade over a pickup if your need is to haul 3/4 ton of hay.[COLOR="Silver"] you are confusing features with upgrading, they are not the same thing at all. when you rent a car, the only upgrade available is for a bigger car, they don't call a smaller vehicle that gives better gas mileage an "upgrade". when you check into the airport terminal, and find out that all of the coach seats are full, the move to first class seating is considered an upgrade. per those examples, the commonality with upgrades is that they usually cost more, just like a k-1 upgrade costs more than a k3ii, regardless of the frame rate.

03-22-2016, 08:35 PM	#19
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by osv you are confusing features with upgrading, they are not the same thing at all. when you rent a car, the only upgrade available is for a bigger car, they don't call a smaller vehicle that gives better gas mileage an "upgrade". when you check into the airport terminal, and find out that all of the coach seats are full, the move to first class seating is considered an upgrade. No confusion here. Just trying to distinguish form factor vs feature set. Change of form factor is not an upgrade, at least not in and of itself. It may >include< upgraded features, but may also include downgraded features. To use your examples: If I've rented a base model minivan because I need the passenger space, then being offered a luxury SUV is not an upgrade. Minivan vs SUV, two different form factors and the 'upgraded' features of the SUV are irrelevant to me. (FWIW, I've run into this exact scenario a few times....). However, if I've rented a compact, 4 passenger car, and I'm offered a free 'upgrade' to a mid-size 4 passenger car, then yes, I do consider that an upgrade. Same form factor, still meets my needs. (Curiously along your example, I did refuse such an upgrade on my last trip expressly because of gas mileage. The upgraded car was superfluous and I had no need for that extra luxury at the expense of an extra tank of gas over an 800 mile journey.) Being switched to a new, cushier seat on the same plane to the same destination is indeed an upgrade. All base parameters have remained the same, (the form factor, if you will), while a specific feature has been upgraded. If you get bumped to a plane that takes off four hours later, I'd hesitate to call it an upgrade even with the upgraded seat, especially if you need to be there four hours sooner. Ultimately, the difference that we're arguing over is one of marketing vs actual need. Of course manufactures and retailers want us to see bigger and newer as an 'upgrade'. That message is constantly blasted our way. Doesn't mean we have to buy into it if it doesn't fit our needs. Last edited by tvdtvdtvd; 03-22-2016 at 08:40 PM.

03-22-2016, 08:59 PM	#20
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd No confusion here. Just trying to distinguish form factor vs feature set. Change of form factor is not an upgrade, at least not in and of itself. It may >include< upgraded features, but may also include downgraded features. To use your examples: If I've rented a base model minivan because I need the passenger space, then being offered a luxury SUV is not an upgrade. Minivan vs SUV, two different form factors and the 'upgraded' features of the SUV are irrelevant to me. (FWIW, I've run into this exact scenario a few times....). the upgrade from a minivan would be a 12 passenger van, and once again, the price reflects that. you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand... they often have similar pricing, depending on the sizes, so there isn't much of an upgrade path there.

03-22-2016, 09:08 PM	#21
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by osv you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand... they often have similar pricing, depending on the sizes, so there isn't much of an upgrade path there. Nope. Always presented as an upgrade. "Sorry, we don't have the minivan you reserved, but we're going to upgrade you to an SUV." That is always the wordage. And I've always let them know I don't consider a vehicle I don't need, (different form factor...), to be an upgrade. Has happened to me several times. Was once even 'upgraded' to a mustang instead of the passenger car I reserved. Refused for the same reasons above.

03-22-2016, 09:14 PM	#22
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	Given the apparent ambiguity on this forum with a word like "Upgrade" ...... "Equivalence" was doomed from the start......

03-22-2016, 10:36 PM	#23
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by noelpolar Given the apparent ambiguity on this forum with a word like "Upgrade" ...... "Equivalence" was doomed from the start...... True....no equivalence from my perspective. I upgraded to k3 that I use for telephoto and outdoor work, and upgraded to FF for indoor / low light work quite a while ago. I'm happy with the upgrade(s).... I am hoping to upgrade my FF to a Pentax FF so I can carry one set of lenses, but doubt the sensor will exceed what I have now for ISO. We'll see.

03-22-2016, 10:49 PM	#24
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd Nope. Always presented as an upgrade. "Sorry, we don't have the minivan you reserved, but we're going to upgrade you to an SUV." That is always the wordage. And I've always let them know I don't consider a vehicle I don't need, (different form factor...), to be an upgrade. you just proved what i said...here, i'll repeat my previous post: "you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand." the fact remains that you were only "offered" something else because they didn't have what you ordered... that's typical with minivan rentals. their failure to deliver your order is not an "upgrade", it's lousy customer service.

03-22-2016, 10:59 PM	#25
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	There's a lot of mosquito-sexing going on here. We could also bang on about the meaning of "Full Frame", too, to little purpose. One man's meat is another man's poison: one photographer's upgrade is another photographer's overkill etc, etc... To be less controversial, perhaps, the author could have titled the article "Is the move to a larger sensor worth the extra dollars?" (or Euros, or whatever - we could go on about the US-centricity of that word, as well). Of course, we'd then be pointing out that they didn't consider the potential move to crop (645) MF, MF (obviously not the 6x7 variety), and so on. All that aside, it's a poorly written article by someone who doesn't have extensive experience in the field, and not worth all the angst being generated over it.

03-22-2016, 11:02 PM	#26
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by SteveM I am hoping to upgrade my FF to a Pentax FF so I can carry one set of lenses, but doubt the sensor will exceed what I have now for ISO. We'll see. the iso performance will be at least as good as any of the 36-42mp cameras on the market right now... you'd have to currently own an a7s/a7sii, or the nikon equivalent, to beat it, but then you'd be losing out on resolution.

03-23-2016, 05:06 AM	#27
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by RobA_Oz we could go on about the US-centricity of that word, as well) Seeing as he's actually living there, and given the general utility of the greenback, I've got no issue with that. Would you be making an issue of it if it were a Swede using the word "kroner"?

03-23-2016, 05:40 AM	#28
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by osv you just proved what i said...here, i'll repeat my previous post: "you were probably "offered" an suv because minivans are in extremely high demand." the fact remains that you were only "offered" something else because they didn't have what you ordered... that's typical with minivan rentals. their failure to deliver your order is not an "upgrade", it's lousy customer service. >sigh< I think I've proved my point with the several examples I've provided. You keep moving the peg, (changing the word to "offered", then when I've brought you back to center by clarifying "no, they used the word 'upgrade'", you try to change the context of the usage and discredit the word 'upgrade' in this scenario). We could keep playing this game indefinitely, but I think it's clear you're not going to see the point I was trying to make. No matter. I'll concede by acknowledging that for your needs, you consider the inherent features of FF to be an upgrade over APS-C, and presumably, don't consider the inherent strengths of APS-C to be a factor. For my own needs, when I decide to acquire an FF camera, it will be >in addition to< rather than as a replacement for APS-C. That is the crux of the APS-C > FF upgrade myth I was trying to deflate. I'll leave you with a hypothetical: If a 10oz orange is an upgrade over an 8oz orange, then, is a 12oz apple an upgrade over an 8oz orange?

03-23-2016, 05:41 AM	#29
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jean Basile Hi, A few months ago I was wondering if I should wait for the K1 full frame or update my K10D for the K3 or K3ii. After reflection I decided to buy the K3ii for the following reasons:. The only lens that I have that would be fully compatble with the K1 FF body is my 31mm FA limited lens. All the other are DA and DAlimited and would be croped mode at 16/17Mega Pixel and my 50 / 3135 mm Zoom is not compatible with the K1. Also the price for photo equipment due to exchange rate in Canada will increase significanlty on Aparil 1st (I am told by 30 to 40%) so I decided to commit now to the K3ii since even with a APC sized sensor I get lower and similar capabilities to the K1. K3ii is a significant upgrade from K10D bodywhile keeping all of my lens aand accessories valid for that APSC format. Going to a full frame will cost significantlyt more for not so much more. The K-3II is an awesome camera. With Ricoh is does indeed cost a little more to go full frame. One advantage to Nikon or Canon is that they have some excellent primes for FF at very reasonable prices. The 35mm F/1.8, 50mm F/1.8 and 85mm F/1.8 lenses from Nikon are really good and relatively cheap given their performance. Ricoh doesn't have these options currently. There are used FF options on the market for both Canon and Nikon which again offer cheaper alternatives than what Ricoh can currently offer. The cost is significantly more for not so much more if you are not a professional and even if you are a professional there are only certain fields of photography where the larger format really can make a difference. If the smaller formats were as good for my type of work I would definitely be shooting Olympus m4/3.

03-23-2016, 06:04 AM	#30
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by Winder Ricoh doesn't have these options currently. Ricoh (still, AFAIK) currently offers the FA 35mm f/2.0 and FA 50mm f/1.4, the latter of which goes for somewhere around US$200 used. The lack of an 85 is admitted, but neither of the other lenses is THAT hideously expensive, is it? And very soon many of us will be able to see for ourselves where the DA 35mm/2.4 and DA 50mm/1.8 really stand with regard to FF coverage. The problem with Nikon or Canon is that to go full-frame with them can cost so much more for the body alone that it makes up for a lot of the lens price, especially used. The difference between the K-1 and the D810 (the nearest comparable Nikon) is sufficient to have paid for my FA28/2.8, FA50/1.4 and FA135/2.8, all of which I bought used and which work quite well, thank you very much. With that kit, I can do almost everything I would want a K-1 to do - except macro, and I have a D-FA 100 WR macro for that (which I originally bought to go on my *ist-DL). Originally posted by Winder If the smaller formats were as good for my type of work I would definitely be shooting Olympus m4/3. For a while I heard a faint siren song in that direction, but then I took an ME around the world in my vest pocket. FULL FRAME BY PENTAX , and it's really no bigger than most of the Oly mirrorless bodies. That was enough to cure me of micro 4/3 forever. (Yes, it's film, but you can digitise that and IMHO home development of C41 isn't beyond the realm of the possible.)