[LightBug]

Hi,

On FF vs APS-C one can find tons of articles and discussions on the internet, and possibly even in this forum. I'd like however to risk a little bit and open the topic here (again): If you have experience shooting APS-C, and at some point switched to FF, how did that work out for you? What made you decide, and are you happy with your decision?

I am obviously asking to help myself make this decision.

roti

For landscapes or printing big, I think 36MP+ FF would have the advantage over APSC. For portraits or family vacation snapshot, where super fine detail may not be of concern, 20+MP (APSC or FF) should be plenty good.

[Vejas]

Overall, I'm extremely happy in moving from a K-5 to a K-1.

Advantages:
* All my wide angle lenses are wide again
* Bigger viewfinder
* Cleaner images

Disadvantages:
* One of my lenses (a Tamron superzoom) was a crop sensor lens
* Less reach with telephotos and macro

But these disadvantages disappear by shooting in APS-C mode on the K-1. In essence, the K-1 has a K-5 built into it so give up almost nothing.

autofocus improved a lot ? a lot better than k5?

[clackers]

autofocus improved a lot ? a lot better than k5?

Oh, sure. It's got tracking, for starters.

[VSTAR]

Went from 35mm file, to tlr 2 1/4, to large digital bridge cameras, to digital dslr, to ff digital. To me the k1 is all I need for most photography that I take. If weight/pocketable is needed, Sony rx100v ( still waiting for new GR to come on the market).
Full frame- ability to make poster size prints with no loss in picture quality, dynamic range to recover parts of photo with software, lenses available, build quality, and that viewfinder! Downside is weight- but that is really only a problem when I try to get on the plane with my camera backpack!

[Printmaster]

Yes very. I have a ton of legacy lenses that now have gained their original field of view. It lends more air to my images. Lens flaws and noise are shrunk by using a bigger sensor. Disadvantages are more vignetting and worse corners. It doesn't bother me much because usually the subject isn't in the corners. Just like i don't care about dust in de corners of my room. It's not where I tend to be .

That is an interesting observation; lends more ‘air’ to my images[COLOR="Silver"]

[stub]

In general the issue with the K1 is the lenses, There just isnt enough of them and additions are far to slow in development.. Most people dont get the very best from the K1 as they use legacy glass not designed for digital cameras. They are put off by the price and weight of the new glass. In full frame at present Pentax have made the decision only to make fast quality glass. Which is good. But leaves you with an expensive and heavy set up. Roughly K1 lenses are twice the price. They arnt twice the quality,,!
One advantage the K1 has. Is that you can crop into images to achieve the same result as would be on an apsc camera. The buffer and transfer rate on the K1 is poor. Leaving you to choose when you need to fire the shutter carefully. When shooting faster moving items..

It kind of depends what type of photography you like to carry out.. If your into landscapes or portraits.. The K1 is a must upgrade.. Anyting else and save your pennies and stick with your apsc set up...

[DW58]

Most people dont get the very best from the K1 as they use legacy glass not designed for digital cameras.

I'll leave it to others to debate what constitutes "the very best" when it comes to legacy glass but there are a lot of people getting some damn good results with their K-1 and legacy glass.

Post your K-1 pics with vintage glasses - PentaxForums.com

And for the record I purchased a K-1 II two months ago and have been VERY happy stepping up to FF.

[dbs]

Hi All
I've just had a look at the K1 with vintage lenses.

So what is the problem ?
New lenses, older lenses all look ok to me, the difference if any is the photographer behind the camera .
Its been the same since the first release of a Pentax digital camera

Dave

[pschlute]

In general the issue with the K1 is the lenses There just isnt enough of them and additions are far to slow in development.. Most people dont get the very best from the K1 as they use legacy glass not designed for digital cameras

Disagree.

We have the following FF lenses produced around or since the K1 came out: 15-30; 24-70; 28-105; 70-200; 150-450; 50mm.

Plus FF compatible DA lenses: 200; 300. Plus FA Ltd: 31;43;77. Plus many many lenses from the pre-digital era.

For years Pentaxians moaned about not having a FF camera. Now we have one, folks moan about the lenses. If you want to get FF pentax camera and modern lenses you better have the wallet that can afford it. I have no problem with pentax aiming for a different market than the competition, it might just keep them in business.

But to claim that most K1 users dont get the best out of their cameras because they are using old lenses that dont cut the mustard is nonsense.

[northcoastgreg]

In general the issue with the K1 is the lenses, There just isnt enough of them and additions are far to slow in development.. Most people dont get the very best from the K1 as they use legacy glass not designed for digital cameras.

While I'm sure everyone would welcome faster lens development, it's not something any of us (or even Pentax, which is not an independent company and is entirely reliant on Ricoh) can control. Complaining about it won't change anything.

Is it really true that most people aren't getting the very best from the K-1? Perhaps. But it could be argued that "getting the very best" is a false ideal. What lenses, other than the DFA* 50/1.4, allow one to get the very best from the K-1? I would propose a different standard. Instead of seeking to get "the very best" from the K-1, a more realistic standard would be: am I getting better than what the very best glass on APS-C would yield? By that standard, the answer is, at least sometimes, that legacy glass does give you more on FF than the best modern glass on APS-C. The bigger FF sensor is not as demanding on lenses, so the fact that legacy glass isn't, generally speaking (there are exceptions), as sharp as modern glass often proves a moot point, as what you lose in the lens you more than gain back with the larger sensor.

I'll give some examples. My main kit with the K-1 is the DFA 28-105, the FA 20-35, the F 17-28, and the FA-J 75-300. I'm not sure I'm getting "the very best" out of the K-1 with any of the lenses on that list, although the DFA 28-105 comes very close to that standard. However, I don't really care about that. I'm only concerned with whether I'm improving over my APS-C options. Is the DFA 28-105 on the K-1 better than the DA 16-85 on the KP? The answer is clearly yes. Same contrast and color, but better resolution with the FF combo. What about the FA 20-35 on FF versus the DA 12-24 on APS-C? Again the FF combination is better. Comparable contrast and color, but better resolution with with the 20-35. Same can be said when comparing the F 17-28 on FF with the DA 10-17 on APS-C. Only when we get to the FA-J 75-300 do things get more complicated. That lens has some serious deficiencies. Only in its rather narrow sweet spot (85mm to 150mm at f16) does it began to approach standards of excellence. I can often get better results with the DA 55-300 PLM on the KP. And for that reason, when I'm doing serious telephoto work, I'll usually bring the KP along with that 55-300 lens.

So in conclusion: vintage glass must be judged, not on the basis of getting the very best out of the K-1, but on whether it's better than the best APS-C alternatives.

[normhead]

While I'm sure everyone would welcome faster lens development, it's not something any of us (or even Pentax, which is not an independent company and is entirely reliant on Ricoh) can control. Complaining about it won't change anything.

Is it really true that most people aren't getting the very best from the K-1? Perhaps. But it could be argued that "getting the very best" is a false ideal. What lenses, other than the DFA* 50/1.4, allow one to get the very best from the K-1? I would propose a different standard. Instead of seeking to get "the very best" from the K-1, a more realistic standard would be: am I getting better than what the very best glass on APS-C would yield? By that standard, the answer is, at least sometimes, that legacy glass does give you more on FF than the best modern glass on APS-C. The bigger FF sensor is not as demanding on lenses, so the fact that legacy glass isn't, generally speaking (there are exceptions), as sharp as modern glass often proves a moot point, as what you lose in the lens you more than gain back with the larger sensor.

I'll give some examples. My main kit with the K-1 is the DFA 28-105, the FA 20-35, the F 17-28, and the FA-J 75-300. I'm not sure I'm getting "the very best" out of the K-1 with any of the lenses on that list, although the DFA 28-105 comes very close to that standard. However, I don't really care about that. I'm only concerned with whether I'm improving over my APS-C options. Is the DFA 28-105 on the K-1 better than the DA 16-85 on the KP? The answer is clearly yes. Same contrast and color, but better resolution with the FF combo. What about the FA 20-35 on FF versus the DA 12-24 on APS-C? Again the FF combination is better. Comparable contrast and color, but better resolution with with the 20-35. Same can be said when comparing the F 17-28 on FF with the DA 10-17 on APS-C. Only when we get to the FA-J 75-300 do things get more complicated. That lens has some serious deficiencies. Only in its rather narrow sweet spot (85mm to 150mm at f16) does it began to approach standards of excellence. I can often get better results with the DA 55-300 PLM on the KP. And for that reason, when I'm doing serious telephoto work, I'll usually bring the KP along with that 55-300 lens.

So in conclusion: vintage glass must be judged, not on the basis of getting the very best out of the K-1, but on whether it's better than the best APS-C alternatives.

Or as someone once posted, your best glass on APS-c doesn't have as much potential as your worst glass on FF. Although my old M 135 2.8 Vivitar is horrible on both.

[stub]

"But to claim that most K1 users dont get the best out of their cameras because they are using old lenses that dont cut the mustard is nonsense."!

Not me claiming that but Pentax.. So in effect you are now claiming that all the lens coating development over the past decade or two has been a complete waste of time and we should just use legacy glass... The very coatings which Pentax says sets there DFA 24-70 among others above the Tamron lens they are put in..

[normhead]

Not me claiming that but Pentax.. So in effect you are now claiming that all the lens coating development over the past decade or two has been a complete waste of time and we should just use legacy glass... The very coatings which Pentax says sets there DFA 24-70 among others above the Tamron lens they are put in..

Every company claims their new stuff is the latest and greatest. And comes up with reasons to buy their stuff, not the competitors. The big advantage to promoting new stuff is, you sell to your user base, people who already proved they will spend money on what you are selling. Let's not confuse the machinations of the marketing department with real world knowledge.

Personally, I looked at the DFA* 50 1.4, looked at the comparisons with the DA 55 1.4, and decided that the DA*55 1.4 was the lens i wanted. It was less than half the price, lighter, smaller footprint in my camera bag, and the images were close to identical, though the 50 1.4 had a slight edge. And I guarantee you Pentax was happy I bought that lens. It's ok to want the best, but when there is very little difference between the best and second best, second best is still awesome.

My opinion of the DFA 50 1.4 was "awesome lens but it costs too much." Having the latest greatest glass is not for everyone. IN fact, it's hardly for anyone. For most of us, making the best use of what we have is more important, and the release of something new just makes us realize what was already out there is a pretty good deal. I wanted to see the DFA 50 1.4 before I bought the 55, just to see if I thought I'd be missing something. I saw, and decided I wouldn't be missing anything worth paying twice the price for.

Sometimes "new and better" doesn't translate to "worth paying the big bucks for."

We've reach a plateau in lens design where "latest greatest" doesn't translate to " a lot better." It 's more like "a bit better for a lot more money." I'm sure you understand how problematic that is.

My first K-1 images were taken with an FA 35-80, I use the DFA 28-105 now because it has more range and flexibility (and much better build construction and is WR) , not because there's something wrong with the FA 35-80 images.

And the colour reproduction of the 35-80 is such that I still select it from time to time because the light is such that it will be better rendered by the 35-80 (and it's not raining and I'm not going someplace I might fall down.) . It's not like the 28-105 rendered the 35-80 obsolete.

This may not appeal to many as I'm talking real comparisons of real lenses and not allowing myself to be influenced by the current marketing spiel or hype. Others seem to like to discuss this kind of thing on a theoretical basis, not referring to real lenses that they actually use.

Overall, I find that often what appears to be a big deal on paper is worth very little in actual usage.

Of course that means little to those who want the best of everything to win friends and influence their rich relatives.

[y0chang]

As much as I love my K-1, Pentax has some significant focal gaps on the wide and long end on full frame. I just recently got a FA 31mm limited and I'm hoping it fills the gap of a lightweight landscape prime that my DA 15mm holds dear in my heart in crop. But it doesn't stop me from yearning for small FA 20mm and 24mm limited, and some 16-35 and 70-200 or 300mm F4 zooms.

[normhead]

As much as I love my K-1, Pentax has some significant focal gaps on the wide and long end on full frame. I just recently got a FA 31mm limited and I'm hoping it fills the gap of a lightweight landscape prime that my DA 15mm holds dear in my heart in crop. But it doesn't stop me from yearning for small FA 20mm and 24mm limited, and some 16-35 and 70-200 or 300mm F4 zooms.

Ya I'm holding out with my fingers crossed for a modern 20 or 24, but a Samyang could be in the cards. How long I wait probably depends on when my tax return arrives, rather than anything Pentax does. Of they haven't announced a 20 or 24 but March, I'll probably be picking up something second hand, or not Pentax. I expect the next two modern lenses to be the 85 1.4 and a 35. So, I'm not really invested in Pentax coming through for me.