[FantasticMrFox]

I know it is early in the game, but so far I can't say I've been particularly impressed with the K-1 produced images I've seen.

I'd wait until we get lots of samples floating around. I will agree I haven't see a lot that made me think "Wow".

The question is why people are expecting to be impressed or 'wowed' in the first place. It's just a larger sensor with a bit more dynamic range and better noise performance. Looking at full-sized samples the K-1 delivers roughly what you would expect from it - about two stops better low light performance and higher resolution.

The reasons people are not impressed is because FF has long been talked up as this magical thing that produces noise free images at sky high ISOs and allows you to pull the shadows up like nothing. It's not - it's just a somewhat bigger sensor.

There is nothing inherent in a FF image that will blow you out of the water. No uninitiated will look at your FF images and faint.

[Catscradle]

In real terms there's no "coming or going" brand wise... just get whatever it is you need to get the job done and that's something only you can answer.

Many folk here, run multiple camera systems for that very reason.

Regardless of which I get, I intend to keep my K-3, though I may sell some of the lenses I rarely use with it.

[Kerrowdown]

though I may sell some of the lenses I rarely use with it

That makes sense and with that cash you can buy stuff you do need.

[biz-engineer]

The reasons people are not impressed is because FF has long been talked up as this magical thing that produces noise free images at sky high ISOs and allows you to pull the shadows up like nothing. It's not - it's just a somewhat bigger sensor. There is nothing inherent in a FF image that will blow you out of the water. No uninitiated will look at your FF images and faint.

Yes, clearly expressed. Pentaxians expect a lot because of all the teasing and wait around the full frame. FF IQ is better then APSC, whatever the brand, but the improvement is not enough to trigger a clear Wow effect, like MF is able to do. I believe it's hard to see an big difference between apsc and ff at 100 ISO (except with regard to out of focus / bokeh).

[richmondthefish]

K1 vs. D750, you get two cameras that are similarly priced but in capability the K1 is in a totally different league.
.

Is the autofocus as good or better than the D750?

[FantasticMrFox]

Is the autofocus as good or better than the D750?

No, it's probably worse. They are different, but there is no base for classifying the K-1 as being in a totally different league.

[richmondthefish]

No, it's probably worse. They are different, but there is no base for classifying the K-1 as being in a totally different league.

Ok, thats what I thought. I couldn't understand how someone could say they are in different classes when the autofocus wasn't probably even as good.

---------- Post added 05-01-16 at 10:34 AM ----------

The question is why people are expecting to be impressed or 'wowed' in the first place. It's just a larger sensor with a bit more dynamic range and better noise performance.

Its just typical for marketing purposes for a camera manufacture to provide 'impressive' sample photos if you know what I mean. Thats why we were expecting some. Logically speaking you are correct.

[biz-engineer]

Is the autofocus as good or better than the D750?

Selecting a camera does not boil down to AF performance only. And the real question is if the AF of the K-1 does the job or not, not if it is better then D750.
Otherwise, if only one feature of cameras would be all, then, sensor wise, Canon would have lost all their customers to Nikon, but that wasn't the case, because for the majority of common use cases Canon cameras are very capable, as Nikon are, and as Pentax are. Now, if the only thing that value a camera is AF performance, then D750 = $0 and the only eligible camera to date would be the D500, so everybody should drop their current cameras and get a D500 or nothing. There is also the lens mounted on the camera that contribute a lot on AF performance, but people keep focusing on camera only.

[RonHendriks1966]

If you don't need the 36mp then thè D750 is a great camera.

[Rico]

Catscradle If 24mp is all you need trade up to the K3II. If low iso and image quality are what you are after I don't think moving to some other brand full frame camera is going to make a difference. The K3II with pixel shift turned on produces excellent IQ results not even full frame can match. Fabrics and other sources of moire are resolved with true detail of the object. Using DPReviews Studio Image Comparison Tool if you match the K3II with pixel shift turned on against any full frame DSLR then look at the small colored card with circle patterns near the bottom to the right of the bottles you can see how the K3II out resolves all of them by removing any trace of moire. All the full frame cameras show moire. Turn off pixel shift and the K3II image then looks the same as the full frame images so you still are not losing anything.

I know pixel shift has it's limitations but it is always there to be used in creative ways. Pixel shift and the Astrotracer feature of the K3II make it a camera with abilities no full frame camera offers.

As for high ISO it depends on how you are using it. High ISO with low light produce noise. High ISO in good light produce less noise. This is regardless to sensor size. High ISO images can always be used as B&W conversions where the color noise is eliminated.

IMHO

[Kerrowdown]

Pixel shift and the Astrotracer feature of the K3II make it a camera with abilities no full frame camera offers.

Are you suggesting this is also the case for the K1, which also has both these features?

[Rico]

Are you suggesting this is also the case for the K1, which also has both these features?

Yes that is what I am suggesting. If that is the way you want to take it.

[Kerrowdown]

If that is the way you want to take it.

Perhaps you could be good enough to enlighten me further and no doubt others following this thread.

[richmondthefish]

Selecting a camera does not boil down to AF performance only. And the real question is if the AF of the K-1 does the job or not, not if it is better then D750.
Otherwise, if only one feature of cameras would be all, then, sensor wise, Canon would have lost all their customers to Nikon, but that wasn't the case, because for the majority of common use cases Canon cameras are very capable, as Nikon are, and as Pentax are. Now, if the only thing that value a camera is AF performance, then D750 = $0 and the only eligible camera to date would be the D500, so everybody should drop their current cameras and get a D500 or nothing. There is also the lens mounted on the camera that contribute a lot on AF performance, but people keep focusing on camera only.

I'm not sure why you are playing devils advocate with me. I was responding to an earlier comment "capability the K1 is in a totally different league". I asked if the AF is even as good as the D750. If the answer is "no" then that begs the question on how the K1 is in a different league given that they are both FF DSLRs in what looks to be in a similar league.

[biz-engineer]

I'm not sure why you are playing devils advocate with me. I was responding to an earlier comment "capability the K1 is in a totally different league". I asked if the AF is even as good as the D750. If the answer is "no" then that begs the question on how the K1 is in a different league given that they are both FF DSLRs in what looks to be in a similar league.

ah ok sorry, my fault , i did not read fully the whole thread