are you happy with switching to FF?

johnha · 06-26-2018, 03:57 PM

My problems with APS-C (compared to film) are: the smaller viewfinder, the crop factor and that there are few fast/compact primes for the format (i.e. nothing like 28/2.8, 35/2 & 50/1.4 equivalents). The DA Ltd 15 & 21 are ballpark focal lengths but they're f/4 and f/3.2 respectively - although I can live with my FA35/2 as a 'fast fifty' option. APS-C is a smaller format, similar or wider aperture lenses should be easier to make (and are really needed for shallower DoF).

There is a general trend for huge, heavy & expensive zooms (some seem as big & heavy as my P6x7 55-110 f/4.5 zoom - and that's a big lens). I'd much rather cart my P6x7 and prism with a shortish prime than a K-1, grip and f/2.8 zoom - for similar size & weight. Apparently a K-1 is 85mm deep front to back - my P6x7 measures 88mm (lens flange to back door).

My most convenient lens on my K-5 is the DA17-70/4 - but it's too big to carry around - I much prefer the FA20-35/4, it's much smaller & lighter and balances better with the camera, even though it doesn't have the same reach.

gatorguy · 06-26-2018, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by normhead

That's just sad. You really can't enjoy photography like that. My wife is like you, a perfection hunter. Before I print anything I pass it on to her to clean it up. And when we sit and watch digital slide shows she makes me take out images I like, because she can't bear to look at them. (Usually not more than 2 or 3 per 500, but hey, it's still pain.)

I feel the same way about proof readers, you have to have them, but they often don't enjoy the writing the way the rest of us do. Your talent is a curse.

Most of us don't consider art directors in our process. That's whole different level, and you get paid. I get annoyed with people commenting on my PP> I often do 30 images in an hour and a half sitting, and if there's going to be a pay check when I'm done, that's one thing, but people who want to apply art director standards to the forum, and some do, I have no use for that. It's a volunteer activity done for my own enjoyment. I can do the other thing, but why would I? It's work, and it's my time. If I don't needt art director standards to enjoy the work, anyone who doesn't like it can buzz off. I'm not being paid. I have to live with my expectations, others should live with theirs.

But if anyone wants to point out where I can make more money meeting art directors expectations, who will pay me more than the guys who just buy my stuff the way I print it, I'll be happy to comply. Those of us who have received offers from galleries , Art Wholesalers etc. know we can make money without going that route, should we choose to do so. So the big question satisfying art director standards would be what's in it for me? More work for me, for the same level of enjoyment boils down to wasted time.

Here here Norm!

**clackers** · 06-26-2018, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Tranzistors

That is true, but the extra sensor area buys you reduced overall image noise (not per-pixel noise) and thinner DoF.

Well, all images are made of pixels, and the thinner DoF was because you are now having to stand closer to the subject to get the same framing, but …

Originally posted by Tranzistors

For a well controlled studio work, shooting at F8, there really is no reason to move to full-frame. Even μ4/3 will do just fine.

I agree with you there, Tranzistors.

And for an evenly lit landscape or whatever, too.

Tranzistors · 06-27-2018, 07:53 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by clackers

[..]the thinner DoF was because you are now having to stand closer to the subject to get the same framing[...]

Well, full-frame camera allows me to stand closer to the subject, which makes conversations with them less awkward. You heard it here first, folks: FF cameras improve your social life.

**Mikesul** · 06-27-2018, 08:16 AM - **2 Likes**

Yes and when they are that close to the K-1 they will want to stroke it's loveliness!

**clackers** · 06-27-2018, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Tranzistors

Well, full-frame camera allows me to stand closer to the subject, which makes conversations with them less awkward. You heard it here first, folks: FF cameras improve your social life.

(Laughs)

Yes, with a 70-200 on APS-C, at the long end you need to communicate with your model by text message, or perhaps semaphore flags.

Jyrkira · 06-29-2018, 03:40 AM

Very new FF owner here.

K-1 is not much bigger than K-3. Viewfinder is excellent. My prime set starting from 24 mm makes much more sense now. FA* 24 is fantastic on K-1. K-1 images are clear step up from K-3.

So the first thought is very happy.

k1man · 07-09-2018, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Bui

How about the difference in feeling and handling then? I'm currently using a KP, and whenever the idea of moving to FF comes, the most obstacle for me (after price), is size and weight.

big fairly heavy fits in my hand like a well tailored glove

**shardulm** · 07-09-2018, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Bui

How about the difference in feeling and handling then? I'm currently using a KP, and whenever the idea of moving to FF comes, the most obstacle for me (after price), is size and weight.

A toy barbie sure is smaller and lighter (KP). But think real barbie for a second (K-1)...
On additional thoughts look what you are turning down for easier handling

.

greenbaron · 07-10-2018, 11:24 PM

Hi, fresh k-1 and ff first-timer checking in. After 7 years of k-5 shooting I made the jump as low-light and night / astro became important aspects of the hobby. Mostly vacation (mountain hiking) hobby shooting. Also occasional aviation and rare city / classical concert / other. I don't travel light; especially in the mountains I want to be sure I carry the best quality in my possession. I'm quite sure the day will come I'll rethink that as the irix 15mm blackstone just arrived and it's a hefty and heavy guy.

But for now.. Very happy to have upgraded. Of course the jump in megapxixel is huge compared to the 16 mp k-5. But also the pristine 'noise performance' the sensor delivers is quite an experience.

**Mikesul** · 07-11-2018, 07:41 AM

Since I still have my K-3ii I guess I have not actually switched so much as expanded my set of tools. If i just had the K-1 I think I would still be very pleased. But having the smaller camera makes the whole thing comfortable.

Ronald Oakes · 07-16-2018, 11:42 PM

Honestly....If I had to do it all over again ?
I would have just kept using Apsc and let the FF fever pass.
My K-1 sits largely unused for weeks on end , and I often think about selling it.
But the FF bug bit me 7 years before it even came out...….and so it goes.

**Mikesul** · 07-17-2018, 08:56 AM

I also tend to use my smaller bodies more but when I use the K-1 I am always very happy I have it. Part of that is the FF lenses but the camera itself is just a joy to operate.

Tan68 · 07-18-2018, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

... And, that, folks, is how I wound up with 3 systems. 1) The K-1 is my main system. 2) Ricoh GR when size is the main concern, without sacrificing too much image quality. 3) Inexpensive micro 43 kit (Panasonic GX85 with 2 kit zooms < $600 total) for trips when I need the versatility of zoom in a much lighter package than the K-1.

I have 3 systems as well
Although one aint a system camera. 3 formats...
Flexibility in cropping is important to me and the K-1 is great for that. I don't use zooms and now carry fewer primes.

I have a small Olympus 4/3 I use only with the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. The weight of this combo isn't much more than similar fisheye for APS-C + camera. I don't know what is comparable FE lens for FF. I love my FE and use it much more than the DA15 I used to carry...

I have a 1" Canon GX9 II for snapshots... [ it surprises me often ]

I use the K-1 with A28/2.8 and FA77. Because of the great cropping ability, this weighs only a few ounces more than the DA15, DA 21, FA77 K-5 I used to carry. I save weight over the rare times I carried the DA35.

I did make a concession with my tripod to save 10 ounces and I end up with the same weight with the Olympus & K-1 as with my K-5 kit. I now have more fisheye fun and fewer lens changes with the K-1.

Keeping weight down is important to me and I struggled with that.

I agree with the comment that there is more to the diff between KP & K-1 than the listed specifications. The K-1 is big but I use it with small lenses. Still miss the K-5

It is interesting there are many K5 To K-1 upgraders in this thread.

**Scorpio71GR** · 07-18-2018, 07:06 PM

The first lens I mounted on my K-1 was my FA 50 macro. It was like revisiting an old friend. The field of view was so different than my K10D and K3. Even using my Tamaron 70-200 just seemed more natural. However the main reason I keep always going for the K-1 is I simply enjoy using it more. It has less to do with FF versus ASP-C. I do feel the K-1 Raw files are easier to work with. However, I said that about the K3 files when I upgraded from my K10D. Ergonomically I find the K-1 better than the K3.

I am very happy with the K-1 and it was evrrything I have been waiting so many years for. Do I feel my photos are better than with the K3? No not really, but I do enjoy using the K-1 more. I am so heavily invested in the ASP-C format that I have no desire to leave it. When I can handle two cameras I put my long lens on the K3 and my wide angle on the K-1. One thing I will say about the K-1 is that I use my 60-250 more now with the K-1 than I did with the K3. I absolutely love the 60-250 on the K1. My poor Tamron 70-200 has been very lonely these days.

In the end if I had to go with one system it would be ASP-C. I can not afford, nor desire, the expense extremely heavy new DFA lenses. Maybe if Richoh comes out with more lenses like the DFA 28-105 I will get more excited about some new DFA lenses. About the only FF lenses I would consider now would be the FA Limiteds. I'm covered in FF from 12mm to 500mm.

07-09-2018, 06:08 PM	#69
shardulm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Cumming, GA Posts: 793	Originally posted by Bui How about the difference in feeling and handling then? I'm currently using a KP, and whenever the idea of moving to FF comes, the most obstacle for me (after price), is size and weight. A toy barbie sure is smaller and lighter (KP). But think real barbie for a second (K-1)... On additional thoughts look what you are turning down for easier handling . Last edited by shardulm; 07-09-2018 at 10:25 PM.

07-18-2018, 06:08 PM	#74
Tan68 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 501	Originally posted by DeadJohn ... And, that, folks, is how I wound up with 3 systems. 1) The K-1 is my main system. 2) Ricoh GR when size is the main concern, without sacrificing too much image quality. 3) Inexpensive micro 43 kit (Panasonic GX85 with 2 kit zooms < $600 total) for trips when I need the versatility of zoom in a much lighter package than the K-1. I have 3 systems as well Although one aint a system camera. 3 formats... Flexibility in cropping is important to me and the K-1 is great for that. I don't use zooms and now carry fewer primes. I have a small Olympus 4/3 I use only with the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. The weight of this combo isn't much more than similar fisheye for APS-C + camera. I don't know what is comparable FE lens for FF. I love my FE and use it much more than the DA15 I used to carry... I have a 1" Canon GX9 II for snapshots... [ it surprises me often ] I use the K-1 with A28/2.8 and FA77. Because of the great cropping ability, this weighs only a few ounces more than the DA15, DA 21, FA77 K-5 I used to carry. I save weight over the rare times I carried the DA35. I did make a concession with my tripod to save 10 ounces and I end up with the same weight with the Olympus & K-1 as with my K-5 kit. I now have more fisheye fun and fewer lens changes with the K-1. Keeping weight down is important to me and I struggled with that. I agree with the comment that there is more to the diff between KP & K-1 than the listed specifications. The K-1 is big but I use it with small lenses. Still miss the K-5 It is interesting there are many K5 To K-1 upgraders in this thread. Last edited by Tan68; 07-18-2018 at 06:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ?	zoolander	Pentax DSLR Discussion	89	11-16-2018 08:24 AM
Why I am Switching Back from Canon FF	cali92rs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	06-26-2015 09:17 AM
Alien Skin Software/ Switching to FF?	dr_romix	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	01-08-2013 11:00 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR?	slackercruster	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	07-18-2012 10:09 PM
Switching from Pentax to FF	123ben	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	31	05-25-2012 02:40 AM

06-26-2018, 03:57 PM	#61
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	My problems with APS-C (compared to film) are: the smaller viewfinder, the crop factor and that there are few fast/compact primes for the format (i.e. nothing like 28/2.8, 35/2 & 50/1.4 equivalents). The DA Ltd 15 & 21 are ballpark focal lengths but they're f/4 and f/3.2 respectively - although I can live with my FA35/2 as a 'fast fifty' option. APS-C is a smaller format, similar or wider aperture lenses should be easier to make (and are really needed for shallower DoF). There is a general trend for huge, heavy & expensive zooms (some seem as big & heavy as my P6x7 55-110 f/4.5 zoom - and that's a big lens). I'd much rather cart my P6x7 and prism with a shortish prime than a K-1, grip and f/2.8 zoom - for similar size & weight. Apparently a K-1 is 85mm deep front to back - my P6x7 measures 88mm (lens flange to back door). My most convenient lens on my K-5 is the DA17-70/4 - but it's too big to carry around - I much prefer the FA20-35/4, it's much smaller & lighter and balances better with the camera, even though it doesn't have the same reach.

06-26-2018, 04:05 PM	#62
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,093	Originally posted by normhead That's just sad. You really can't enjoy photography like that. My wife is like you, a perfection hunter. Before I print anything I pass it on to her to clean it up. And when we sit and watch digital slide shows she makes me take out images I like, because she can't bear to look at them. (Usually not more than 2 or 3 per 500, but hey, it's still pain.) I feel the same way about proof readers, you have to have them, but they often don't enjoy the writing the way the rest of us do. Your talent is a curse. Most of us don't consider art directors in our process. That's whole different level, and you get paid. I get annoyed with people commenting on my PP> I often do 30 images in an hour and a half sitting, and if there's going to be a pay check when I'm done, that's one thing, but people who want to apply art director standards to the forum, and some do, I have no use for that. It's a volunteer activity done for my own enjoyment. I can do the other thing, but why would I? It's work, and it's my time. If I don't needt art director standards to enjoy the work, anyone who doesn't like it can buzz off. I'm not being paid. I have to live with my expectations, others should live with theirs. But if anyone wants to point out where I can make more money meeting art directors expectations, who will pay me more than the guys who just buy my stuff the way I print it, I'll be happy to comply. Those of us who have received offers from galleries , Art Wholesalers etc. know we can make money without going that route, should we choose to do so. So the big question satisfying art director standards would be what's in it for me? More work for me, for the same level of enjoyment boils down to wasted time. Here here Norm!

06-26-2018, 06:09 PM	#63
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Tranzistors That is true, but the extra sensor area buys you reduced overall image noise (not per-pixel noise) and thinner DoF. Well, all images are made of pixels, and the thinner DoF was because you are now having to stand closer to the subject to get the same framing, but … Originally posted by Tranzistors For a well controlled studio work, shooting at F8, there really is no reason to move to full-frame. Even μ4/3 will do just fine. I agree with you there, Tranzistors. And for an evenly lit landscape or whatever, too.

06-27-2018, 07:53 AM - 2 Likes	#64
Tranzistors Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Latvia Photos: Albums Posts: 112	Originally posted by clackers [..]the thinner DoF was because you are now having to stand closer to the subject to get the same framing[...] Well, full-frame camera allows me to stand closer to the subject, which makes conversations with them less awkward. You heard it here first, folks: FF cameras improve your social life.

06-27-2018, 08:16 AM - 2 Likes	#65
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Yes and when they are that close to the K-1 they will want to stroke it's loveliness!

06-27-2018, 04:17 PM	#66
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Tranzistors Well, full-frame camera allows me to stand closer to the subject, which makes conversations with them less awkward. You heard it here first, folks: FF cameras improve your social life. (Laughs) Yes, with a 70-200 on APS-C, at the long end you need to communicate with your model by text message, or perhaps semaphore flags.

06-29-2018, 03:40 AM	#67
Jyrkira Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 215	Very new FF owner here. K-1 is not much bigger than K-3. Viewfinder is excellent. My prime set starting from 24 mm makes much more sense now. FA* 24 is fantastic on K-1. K-1 images are clear step up from K-3. So the first thought is very happy.

07-09-2018, 02:23 PM	#68
k1man Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Si Chiang Mai. Nong Khai Province Photos: Albums Posts: 358	Originally posted by Bui How about the difference in feeling and handling then? I'm currently using a KP, and whenever the idea of moving to FF comes, the most obstacle for me (after price), is size and weight. big fairly heavy fits in my hand like a well tailored glove

07-10-2018, 11:24 PM	#70
greenbaron Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 56	Hi, fresh k-1 and ff first-timer checking in. After 7 years of k-5 shooting I made the jump as low-light and night / astro became important aspects of the hobby. Mostly vacation (mountain hiking) hobby shooting. Also occasional aviation and rare city / classical concert / other. I don't travel light; especially in the mountains I want to be sure I carry the best quality in my possession. I'm quite sure the day will come I'll rethink that as the irix 15mm blackstone just arrived and it's a hefty and heavy guy. But for now.. Very happy to have upgraded. Of course the jump in megapxixel is huge compared to the 16 mp k-5. But also the pristine 'noise performance' the sensor delivers is quite an experience.

07-11-2018, 07:41 AM	#71
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Since I still have my K-3ii I guess I have not actually switched so much as expanded my set of tools. If i just had the K-1 I think I would still be very pleased. But having the smaller camera makes the whole thing comfortable.

07-16-2018, 11:42 PM	#72
Ronald Oakes Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2017 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,585	Honestly....If I had to do it all over again ? I would have just kept using Apsc and let the FF fever pass. My K-1 sits largely unused for weeks on end , and I often think about selling it. But the FF bug bit me 7 years before it even came out...….and so it goes.

07-17-2018, 08:56 AM	#73
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	I also tend to use my smaller bodies more but when I use the K-1 I am always very happy I have it. Part of that is the FF lenses but the camera itself is just a joy to operate.

07-18-2018, 07:06 PM	#75
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,014	The first lens I mounted on my K-1 was my FA 50 macro. It was like revisiting an old friend. The field of view was so different than my K10D and K3. Even using my Tamaron 70-200 just seemed more natural. However the main reason I keep always going for the K-1 is I simply enjoy using it more. It has less to do with FF versus ASP-C. I do feel the K-1 Raw files are easier to work with. However, I said that about the K3 files when I upgraded from my K10D. Ergonomically I find the K-1 better than the K3. I am very happy with the K-1 and it was evrrything I have been waiting so many years for. Do I feel my photos are better than with the K3? No not really, but I do enjoy using the K-1 more. I am so heavily invested in the ASP-C format that I have no desire to leave it. When I can handle two cameras I put my long lens on the K3 and my wide angle on the K-1. One thing I will say about the K-1 is that I use my 60-250 more now with the K-1 than I did with the K3. I absolutely love the 60-250 on the K1. My poor Tamron 70-200 has been very lonely these days. In the end if I had to go with one system it would be ASP-C. I can not afford, nor desire, the expense extremely heavy new DFA lenses. Maybe if Richoh comes out with more lenses like the DFA 28-105 I will get more excited about some new DFA lenses. About the only FF lenses I would consider now would be the FA Limiteds. I'm covered in FF from 12mm to 500mm.