[reh321]

The K-1 right now is about the same price as my K-3 cost me. The K-P is $1200 if you can't find a deal, How cheap is "low cost". Are you actually thinking developing a new sensor etc. would produce a cheaper camera than the currently discounted K-1?

The next question will be, if the new 24MP camera comes in $200 under the current K-1 price, will anyone buy it? Sounds like a gamble to me.

In response to a question I raised on this very subject, Adam expressed the opinion that current K-1 pricing is designed to clear out all current K-1 inventory. Under this scenario, a new 24mp wouldn't be competing with the K-1 .... it would be competing with the K-1ii, the KP, and the K-3ii replacement.

To me the big gamble for 24 MP is guys like me getting ahold of the Imaging Resources and pointing out the FF isn't really better than APS_c if they are the same number of MP. IN that situation, you give up as much as you gain with the larger format.

Nikon guys are convinced that the D750 makes sense. I'm just depending on their opinions - actual measurements would be interesting.

[Alex645]

Nikon guys are convinced that the D750 makes sense. I'm just depending on their opinions - actual measurements would be interesting.

FWIW: I also shoot and prefer my Nikon D750 over the D500.....but that is because I prefer and shoot more wide angle and shallow depth-of-field that are destined for poster-sized prints. IF I shot more action or used longer focal lengths, the D500 makes more sense.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Nikon guys are convinced that the D750 makes sense. I'm just depending on their opinions - actual measurements would be interesting.

FF really has come into it own with regard to digital and more so now that Nikon and 3rd party vendors haave started to release cheaper lenses for wildlife work. You can get to 400mm for $1200 and the lenses only come in at 2.5 pounds a lot of users only need 24mp and are happy with that.

Getting to 600mm is now even cheaper than we have seen in years $1300- 2400 at 4 lb to 6 lb gives you a verity of lens options, this gives the FF shooter that uses only 24mp a lot of reach and selection and often times only supplement their system with the D500 for speed and AF and use the FF for its benefits.

[bdery]

The K-1 right now is about the same price as my K-3 cost me. The K-P is $1200 if you can't find a deal, How cheap is "low cost". Are you actually thinking developing a new sensor etc. would produce a cheaper camera than the currently discounted K-1?

The K-1's last stock is being liquidated, and it skews the analysis, I agree. At the moment it's in the same category as what some call "new old stock". The current model is the K-1 II and it's much more expensive.

The next question will be, if the new 24MP camera comes in $200 under the current K-1 price, will anyone buy it? Sounds like a gamble to me.

It depends on the R&D cost involved in developing it. Leaving aside the short-term situation of having a K-1 for peanuts, a two-models FF lineup does make some sense. The company could be seen as a fantastic entry point in the FF world.

To me the big gamble for 24 MP is guys like me getting ahold of the Imaging Resources and pointing out the FF isn't really better than APS-C if they are the same number of MP. IN that situation, you give up as much as you gain with the larger format.

I understand what you mean. However, to me the biggest advantage of FF is dynamic range and high ISO performances. Give me larger pixels (thus fewer of them) and those elements will be even better. You'd also gain a faster burst mode, smaller files to handle, etc.

In a few days I'll have replaced my last APS-C-only lens (the 16-85) with the DFA 28-105. At that time, I'll be running serious tests to see if the K-1 handles noise better at 22 MP than at 36, and my camera might be used in that mode quite often. Crazy, I know.

[reh321]

The K-1 right now is about the same price as my K-3 cost me. The K-P is $1200 if you can't find a deal, How cheap is "low cost". Are you actually thinking developing a new sensor etc. would produce a cheaper camera than the currently discounted K-1?

The K-1's last stock is being liquidated, and it skews the analysis, I agree. At the moment it's in the same category as what some call "new old stock". The current model is the K-1 II and it's much more expensive.

It depends on the R&D cost involved in developing it. Leaving aside the short-term situation of having a K-1 for peanuts, a two-models FF lineup does make some sense. The company could be seen as a fantastic entry point in the FF world.

My thought is that perhaps, for a 24mp FF camera, most of the electronics could come from a recent 24mp APS-C camera {such as the KP}. Reusing hardware/software, but making one significant change, is a common way of "leveraging" development these days.

[northcoastgreg]

I'm someone who has augmented my APS-C kit with a K-1 rather than switched. I put off this "augmentation" for several years, not so much because of the size, weight, and price of FF DSLR, but due to the size and weight of quality FF zoom lenses. I don't like camera bags or camera backpacks, so I prefer to carry extra lenses either in pockets or small lens cases. What eventually persuaded me to get a K-1 was the DFA 28-105. It's often regarded as just a "kit" lens, but I see it rather as a high quality compact zoom. I also own the old FA 20-35 and the original fisheye zoom, the F 17-28. These two wide-angle zooms aren't much bigger than a normal prime and weigh only about half a pound each. I'm actually surprised at how lite the K-1 feels with one of those two lenses attached.

I still plan on using my KP for my limiteds and the 55-300 PLM. It makes for a really nice back-up camera and for when I want to go small.

[normhead]

The simple fact is APS-c still excels at reach. 600mm lenses are now cheap. On APS-c they are 900mm equivalent. It doesn't matter how you frame it, you get more reach for your long lenses using APS-c.

I hear a lot of folks saying, "I don't need the reach" Well, in my experience you don't until you do. and a lot of guys don't even see what they can't shoot. A lot of the time you don't know what's there until you are looking for it.

K-3 for wildlife especially birds, K-1 for landscape or wildlife that's close to me. Because I shoot birds in burst mode, the majority of my images are taken are K-3 images. For keepers, it's pretty close to half and half. IN a given amount of time shooting in bursts, you can shoot 4 times the number of images with a K-3 you can with a K-1.

[Rondec]

The simple fact is APS-c still excels at reach. 600mm lenses are now cheap. On APS-c they are 900mm equivalent. It doesn't matter how you frame it, you get more reach for your long lenses using APS-c.

I hear a lot of folks saying, "I don't need the reach" Well, in my experience you don't until you do. and a lot of guys don't even see what they can't shoot. A lot of the time you don't know what's there until you are looking for it.

K-3 for wildlife especially birds, K-1 for landscape or wildlife that's close to me. Because I shoot birds in burst mode, the majority of my images are taken are K-3 images. For keepers, it's pretty close to half and half. IN a given amount of time shooting in bursts, you can shoot 4 times the number of images with a K-3 you can with a K-1.

There is a group of photographers that doesn't shoot wildlife or birds. I happen to be one of them. I'll take photos at zoos or national parks, when I go there, but 200mm is long enough for most of those situations. I still like APS-C, as you say, the frame rate is enough faster that you can capture in between action that you would miss shooting with a K-1.

Overall, I am quite pleased with my K-1s and would be disappointed to switch back to only APS-C.

[photoptimist]

APS-C may excel at reach but every FF camera made contains an APS-C camera built right into it.

The K-1, for example, comes with what is effectively an easily accessible K-5 inside it and the K-5 is a damn-fine APS-C machine -- plenty of megapixels and decent burst.

That's a big reason why I can't regret moving from the K-5 to the K-1 because the K-5 is still always with me inside the K-1.

[Merv-O]

Agreed...I haven't used the 15mp crop sensor on the K-1ii yet because the resolution of that 36mp FF is so sweet!! It rivals my Leica M in every way. Sweet color palette, sharp corners, rich detail...Giddy Up !!! I love my K-1ii

[pschlute]

To answer the original posters question.... with the K1 I have not "switched" to full-frame, I have just returned after a long absence.

---------- Post added 11-01-18 at 07:21 PM ----------

The simple fact is APS-c still excels at reach. 600mm lenses are now cheap. On APS-c they are 900mm equivalent. It doesn't matter how you frame it, you get more reach for your long lenses using APS-c

aps-c will only excel at "reach" if the aps-c camera has a higher pixel density than the FF equivalent one. The K5 has the same density as the K1 so does not offer any increased "reach" at all over a cropped K1 picture.

The K3 is a different matter but that is due to higher pixel density, not because it is a aps-c camera

[bilybianca]

I read somewhere once: never sell a good lens. I have kept to this philosophy for a long time having a firm stable of lenses for a long time now. Obviously out of GAS I have had some lenses that I bought and sold, but the core remained the same with some rare additions.
That is to say most of my lenses have been FF with some rare exceptions of APS-C.

Exactly my philosophy and strategy too, and after 10+ years it paid off well with the K1. For the future I will only buy new (or used) lenses if they are FF and weathersealed. For the time being older HQ lenses from 15mm to 600mm are still better than my skills.

Kjell

[normhead]

To answer the original posters question.... with the K1 I have not "switched" to full-frame, I have just returned after a long absence.

---------- Post added 11-01-18 at 07:21 PM ----------



aps-c will only excel at "reach" if the aps-c camera has a higher pixel density than the FF equivalent one. The K5 has the same density as the K1 so does not offer any increased "reach" at all over a cropped K1 picture.

The K3 is a different matter but that is due to higher pixel density, not because it is a aps-c camera

Exactly. Yet an endless source of confusion. APS-c doesn't provide more magnification than FF. 24 MP provides more magnification than 36 MP FF based on smaller pixel density. But a crop of the Canon 51 MP sensor will have the same pixel density as a 24 MP APS_c camera. Same magnification only twice the size. Unfortunately also more moire, colour bleeding across pixels, cross talk etc. The K-3 was delayed for 6 months while Pentax engineers sorted through these issues and came up with technical solutions. From what I've seen of Canons 51MP sensor images, Canon didn't get it done.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

APS-C may excel at reach but every FF camera made contains an APS-C camera built right into it.
The K-1, for example, comes with what is effectively an easily accessible K-5 inside it and the K-5 is a damn-fine APS-C machine -- plenty of megapixels and decent burst.
That's a big reason why I can't regret moving from the K-5 to the K-1 because the K-5 is still always with me inside the K-1.

Several years ago I came to a similar and realistic assessment of going full frame also. I mainly went that path for wildlife. I looked in the areas where I wanted to see the greatest benefit for what I wanted to shoot.
This realisation I soon decided that I was going to stop this idea I had that it was the camera with the greatest reach that would give me the images I was looking for. This search for a camera with the best pixel density strayed me from the path I was looking in my final images.

I soon came to the realisation that that a 6mp crop taken from 24mp did too much damage to what I was looking for from the standpoint in IQ, this idea of narrowing the FOV with pixel density is where I stopped looking and more true with the pixel density we now see. Back when we have only 6, 10 15 mp I did see some of the benefits of using pixel density as a way of narrowing my FOV.

One of the biggest hurdles I was facing when using pixel density to increase my reach was the light loss as the result of this reach through cropping. The resulting side effect of cropping was that I needed more light and I was left using the lens at its widest and/or shutter speeds not the best for the condition I was shooting in if I was concerned about noise.

A 6mp image crop from 24mp cropped camera at base iso will only give me only 1/8 the capacity to gather light as a FF camera could And to tell you the truth over the last 6 years I have found that I was better off in the decision of using a modest FL to decrease my FOV and technique for the images I am looking for.

[pschlute]

I soon came to the realisation that that a 6mp crop taken from 24mp did too much damage to what I was looking for from the standpoint in IQ,

This will largely depend on what you want to do with your image. If you want to print large then you have a point. But if you are mainly using your image for online viewing then a 6mp crop should provide excellent detail. I use a 2560x1440 resolution monitor, only need 3.7 mp crop/resampled images to display them in fantastic detail.

One of the biggest hurdles I was facing when using pixel density to increase my reach was the light loss as the result of this reach through cropping

I don't get this. How can cropping an image change the amount of light that the subject was recorded with ?