are you happy with switching to FF?

DeadJohn · 07-18-2018, 08:25 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Tan68

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

I think that's because the K-5 had the best low light noise performance in its price range. It excelled at night photos and landscapes. The K-3 emphasized better AF and frame rate for wildlife; it was a sideways step rather than upgrade for landscape (it was a big upgrade for wildlife and sports). The K-1, though, improved on what the K-5 did best.

**southlander** · 07-19-2018, 08:07 AM - **1 Like**

Happy with upgrade. Allowed legacy wides to have intended fov, for other legacy lens ff stresses resolution less as images are not starting out with a material crop like you are with an apsc camera. Raw files will take more post processing without much image degradation. Colour tonal graduations are rendered better in my view.

**Mikesul** · 07-19-2018, 08:39 AM - **2 Likes**

Perhaps this has already been pointed out but the question assumes something which is not true of many of us. Many of us did not switch we just added the K-1 to our kit and continue to shoot with the K-3ii or other crop lens camera. It makes a nice combination for different situations.

**southlander** · 07-20-2018, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

Perhaps this has already been pointed out but the question assumes something which is not true of many of us. Many of us did not switch we just added the K-1 to our kit and continue to shoot with the K-3ii or other crop lens camera. It makes a nice combination for different situations.

That is true. Had a week long boating holiday last summer: K-1 with FA31 + K-3 with DA*60-250. Both within arm's reach for wide vs tight shots. Was very handy as they sat just by my helm station but not sure I really wish to carry both about at the same time though if I was walking about, as nice as that flexibility would be in some situation.

**Kerrowdown** · 07-21-2018, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

It makes a nice combination for different situations.

I'm understanding all the pros and cons of the various sensor sizes, but must admit my "Ladies" and I haven't found the need for anything other than FF, for my style of shooting and photography since the K1s arrived.

But then I'm also the same with those other brands too.

roti · 07-22-2018, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by panonski

I would go even smaller - like microfour third

I have explored that option. Olympus seemed like an interesting option (I dismissed Panasonic because they are focused more on video, and the camera size is more or less like an APS-C DSLR). I was however shocked when I took one in my hand (I believe it was an OM-D M5 II): it was heavy and small, and because of that very uncomfortable to hold and my hand got tired pretty soon. The controls were also crammed, and difficult to use. It was so bad that I said to myself "what were they thinking? who would be comfortable with this?".

---------- Post added 07-22-18 at 11:52 PM ----------

Originally posted by greenbaron

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.

So you take your K-1 on your hiking trip and don't mind the weight or size? What lenses do you take with you?

AtitG · 07-23-2018, 03:53 AM

I decided to go the sony mirrorless FF route and chose lenses that would compliment my pentax APSC system. On my travel camera bag I bring a KS-2 with a 18-135, 55-300 & tamron 10-20 plus the Sony FF with a 28mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/1.4. I find it easier to just bring two cameras and just cope with the extra weight. For museums (no flash photography), night photography and travel portraits (bokeh!) I prefer the sony FF. When it rains, snows, in the beach, pool, landscape and wildlife photography I grab my pentax. I never really switched to FF, If I did, Im sure I'll regret it. Having said that, I cant give up my FF system either.ü

Last edited by AtitG; 07-23-2018 at 04:04 AM.

roti · 07-23-2018, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by AtitG

I decided to go the sony mirrorless FF route and chose lenses that would compliment my pentax APSC system. On my travel camera bag I bring a KS-2 with a 18-135, 55-300 & tamron 10-20 plus the Sony FF with a 28mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/1.4. I find it easier to just bring two cameras and just cope with the extra weight. For museums (no flash photography), night photography and travel portraits (bokeh!) I prefer the sony FF. When it rains, snows, in the beach, pool, landscape and wildlife photography I grab my pentax. I never really switched to FF, If I did, Im sure I'll regret it. Having said that, I cant give up my FF system either.ü

I went this Saturday to a Shop and had a look at Sony. Boy is it tempting. I never considered switching to Sony before, but I have to say I really liked the A7III. Especially since the body has a similar price to the K-1. I haven't made my research on the lenses yet, but at the first look it seems like there's no big difference in size & weight to the APS-C lenses, and I don't know why. Everybody is saying that going FF means the glass is heavier & more expensive. Maybe for telephoto, but I guess I can live with shooting in APS-C mode when I need big zooms.

And even if the lenses are heavier, having a 650g body means I could just take a ligher lens, compromise on quality a little bit, for those moments when I can't carry 1.5 - 2 kg around.

Anyway, I liked it so much that I was seriously thinking about the A7RIII as well. And I'm not a professional photographer. It's crazy if you ask me, Not once I thought about spending that much on a body. Maybe it's a Sony marketing trap.

Anyway, I am currently not convinced I will get used to the EVF, and unfortunately I can't tell unless I use one for some time. There's something magic about seeing the scene through a glass instead of some electronic sensor.

AtitG · 07-23-2018, 09:40 AM

Sony bodies are relatively good bang for the buck. And that is actually the trap, because sony's FF lenses are a lot more expensive than equivalent canon and nikon brand. Its their lens price that hurts the most when i decided the sony FF route. But sigma, samyang, zeiss and tamron are now offering autofocus FE mount lenses so there are cheaper options today.

reh321 · 07-23-2018, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

I’m happier with using my FF lenses my K-1 than my KP because the lens focal lengths and associated exposure triangle settings are completely intuitive after 45 years of shooting 35mm format. With APSc I’m forever thinking about conversions.

Do you use prime lenses most of the time? When I shoot with zoom lenses, most of the time I'm not even aware of what Focal Length I am using

donpjt · 07-23-2018, 03:18 PM - **1 Like**

I did end up buying a full frame Nikon especially because I wanted the 85mm lens for cheap. And for Nikon used body and lens would work out cheaper. I got the D600 for 500 bucks, slightly above the price of a used K-3. And full frame is so good. The dynamic range, the bokeh on a 50mm are so much better than the K-3 that I have. I still have my K-3 but now, I'm struggling to use my K-3 because I like what the full frame offers me that much. I might think of buying a used K-1, but I'm still considering it.

**clackers** · 07-23-2018, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by roti

I went this Saturday to a Shop and had a look at Sony. Boy is it tempting. I never considered switching to Sony before, but I have to say I really liked the A7III. Especially since the body has a similar price to the K-1. .

It's only 24Mp, Roti, with the K-1 you're getting 36 for the same price!

**monochrome** · 07-23-2018, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by reh321

Do you use prime lenses most of the time? When I shoot with zoom lenses, most of the time I'm not even aware of what Focal Length I am using

In the past, yes, exclusively manual primes. Lately I’ve bought three AF zooms and I understand your reply.

.:

Tranzistors · 07-23-2018, 10:51 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by roti

Everybody is saying that going FF means the glass is heavier & more expensive.

Tell that to my DA 50mm F/1.8. Even DA 40mm F2.8 Ltd. holds well on FF. My guess is that full frame is considered a thing for professionals, where demands on build and image quality are greater, which is is achieved by sacrificing weight.

Another reason for perceived weight increase is unfair comparisons for equivalent lenses. E.g. 70-200mm on FF is roughly equivalent to 50-135mm on APS-C. But F/2.8 on FF is about F/2 on APS-C and zooms tend to not have F/2. Pentax DA* 60-250mm F4 is full frame glass, and it is not that heavy, thanks to F/4. On APS-C, equivalent would be about 40-170mm F/2.8, which I doubt would be much lighter.

kooks · 07-24-2018, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by clackers

It's only 24Mp, Roti, with the K-1 you're getting 36 for the same price!

That is true, but in the other hand you get a lot of other features like much better video, much much much BETTER AF, bigger and faster buffer, really good DR and ISO performance, etc.. so yes, it is a very tempting camera to consider even if is not a 36MP... Ricoh had the chance to fix some of this features with the Mk2 release of the K1 but IMO they Fu**ed it up.

07-23-2018, 09:56 PM	#88
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by reh321 Do you use prime lenses most of the time? When I shoot with zoom lenses, most of the time I'm not even aware of what Focal Length I am using In the past, yes, exclusively manual primes. Lately I’ve bought three AF zooms and I understand your reply. .: Last edited by monochrome; 08-03-2018 at 07:49 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

07-18-2018, 08:25 PM - 2 Likes	#76
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	Originally posted by Tan68 ...It is interesting there are many K5 To K-1 upgraders in this thread. I think that's because the K-5 had the best low light noise performance in its price range. It excelled at night photos and landscapes. The K-3 emphasized better AF and frame rate for wildlife; it was a sideways step rather than upgrade for landscape (it was a big upgrade for wildlife and sports). The K-1, though, improved on what the K-5 did best.

07-19-2018, 08:07 AM - 1 Like	#77
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	Happy with upgrade. Allowed legacy wides to have intended fov, for other legacy lens ff stresses resolution less as images are not starting out with a material crop like you are with an apsc camera. Raw files will take more post processing without much image degradation. Colour tonal graduations are rendered better in my view.

07-19-2018, 08:39 AM - 2 Likes	#78
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Perhaps this has already been pointed out but the question assumes something which is not true of many of us. Many of us did not switch we just added the K-1 to our kit and continue to shoot with the K-3ii or other crop lens camera. It makes a nice combination for different situations.

07-20-2018, 05:46 AM	#79
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	Originally posted by Mikesul Perhaps this has already been pointed out but the question assumes something which is not true of many of us. Many of us did not switch we just added the K-1 to our kit and continue to shoot with the K-3ii or other crop lens camera. It makes a nice combination for different situations. That is true. Had a week long boating holiday last summer: K-1 with FA31 + K-3 with DA*60-250. Both within arm's reach for wide vs tight shots. Was very handy as they sat just by my helm station but not sure I really wish to carry both about at the same time though if I was walking about, as nice as that flexibility would be in some situation.

07-21-2018, 08:45 AM	#80
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	Originally posted by Mikesul It makes a nice combination for different situations. I'm understanding all the pros and cons of the various sensor sizes, but must admit my "Ladies" and I haven't found the need for anything other than FF, for my style of shooting and photography since the K1s arrived. But then I'm also the same with those other brands too.

07-22-2018, 11:46 PM	#81
roti New Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Bucharest Posts: 15 Original Poster	Originally posted by panonski I would go even smaller - like microfour third I have explored that option. Olympus seemed like an interesting option (I dismissed Panasonic because they are focused more on video, and the camera size is more or less like an APS-C DSLR). I was however shocked when I took one in my hand (I believe it was an OM-D M5 II): it was heavy and small, and because of that very uncomfortable to hold and my hand got tired pretty soon. The controls were also crammed, and difficult to use. It was so bad that I said to myself "what were they thinking? who would be comfortable with this?". ---------- Post added 07-22-18 at 11:52 PM ---------- Originally posted by greenbaron 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. So you take your K-1 on your hiking trip and don't mind the weight or size? What lenses do you take with you?

07-23-2018, 03:53 AM	#82
AtitG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 269	I decided to go the sony mirrorless FF route and chose lenses that would compliment my pentax APSC system. On my travel camera bag I bring a KS-2 with a 18-135, 55-300 & tamron 10-20 plus the Sony FF with a 28mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/1.4. I find it easier to just bring two cameras and just cope with the extra weight. For museums (no flash photography), night photography and travel portraits (bokeh!) I prefer the sony FF. When it rains, snows, in the beach, pool, landscape and wildlife photography I grab my pentax. I never really switched to FF, If I did, Im sure I'll regret it. Having said that, I cant give up my FF system either.ü Last edited by AtitG; 07-23-2018 at 04:04 AM.

07-23-2018, 07:29 AM	#83
roti New Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Bucharest Posts: 15 Original Poster	Originally posted by AtitG I decided to go the sony mirrorless FF route and chose lenses that would compliment my pentax APSC system. On my travel camera bag I bring a KS-2 with a 18-135, 55-300 & tamron 10-20 plus the Sony FF with a 28mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/1.4. I find it easier to just bring two cameras and just cope with the extra weight. For museums (no flash photography), night photography and travel portraits (bokeh!) I prefer the sony FF. When it rains, snows, in the beach, pool, landscape and wildlife photography I grab my pentax. I never really switched to FF, If I did, Im sure I'll regret it. Having said that, I cant give up my FF system either.ü I went this Saturday to a Shop and had a look at Sony. Boy is it tempting. I never considered switching to Sony before, but I have to say I really liked the A7III. Especially since the body has a similar price to the K-1. I haven't made my research on the lenses yet, but at the first look it seems like there's no big difference in size & weight to the APS-C lenses, and I don't know why. Everybody is saying that going FF means the glass is heavier & more expensive. Maybe for telephoto, but I guess I can live with shooting in APS-C mode when I need big zooms. And even if the lenses are heavier, having a 650g body means I could just take a ligher lens, compromise on quality a little bit, for those moments when I can't carry 1.5 - 2 kg around. Anyway, I liked it so much that I was seriously thinking about the A7RIII as well. And I'm not a professional photographer. It's crazy if you ask me, Not once I thought about spending that much on a body. Maybe it's a Sony marketing trap. Anyway, I am currently not convinced I will get used to the EVF, and unfortunately I can't tell unless I use one for some time. There's something magic about seeing the scene through a glass instead of some electronic sensor.

07-23-2018, 09:40 AM	#84
AtitG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 269	Sony bodies are relatively good bang for the buck. And that is actually the trap, because sony's FF lenses are a lot more expensive than equivalent canon and nikon brand. Its their lens price that hurts the most when i decided the sony FF route. But sigma, samyang, zeiss and tamron are now offering autofocus FE mount lenses so there are cheaper options today.

07-23-2018, 03:13 PM	#85
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by monochrome I’m happier with using my FF lenses my K-1 than my KP because the lens focal lengths and associated exposure triangle settings are completely intuitive after 45 years of shooting 35mm format. With APSc I’m forever thinking about conversions. Do you use prime lenses most of the time? When I shoot with zoom lenses, most of the time I'm not even aware of what Focal Length I am using

07-23-2018, 03:18 PM - 1 Like	#86
donpjt Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 190	I did end up buying a full frame Nikon especially because I wanted the 85mm lens for cheap. And for Nikon used body and lens would work out cheaper. I got the D600 for 500 bucks, slightly above the price of a used K-3. And full frame is so good. The dynamic range, the bokeh on a 50mm are so much better than the K-3 that I have. I still have my K-3 but now, I'm struggling to use my K-3 because I like what the full frame offers me that much. I might think of buying a used K-1, but I'm still considering it.

07-23-2018, 06:10 PM	#87
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by roti I went this Saturday to a Shop and had a look at Sony. Boy is it tempting. I never considered switching to Sony before, but I have to say I really liked the A7III. Especially since the body has a similar price to the K-1. . It's only 24Mp, Roti, with the K-1 you're getting 36 for the same price!

07-23-2018, 10:51 PM - 2 Likes	#89
Tranzistors Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Latvia Photos: Albums Posts: 112	Originally posted by roti Everybody is saying that going FF means the glass is heavier & more expensive. Tell that to my DA 50mm F/1.8. Even DA 40mm F2.8 Ltd. holds well on FF. My guess is that full frame is considered a thing for professionals, where demands on build and image quality are greater, which is is achieved by sacrificing weight. Another reason for perceived weight increase is unfair comparisons for equivalent lenses. E.g. 70-200mm on FF is roughly equivalent to 50-135mm on APS-C. But F/2.8 on FF is about F/2 on APS-C and zooms tend to not have F/2. Pentax DA* 60-250mm F4 is full frame glass, and it is not that heavy, thanks to F/4. On APS-C, equivalent would be about 40-170mm F/2.8, which I doubt would be much lighter.

07-24-2018, 08:37 AM	#90
kooks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San José, Costa Rica Photos: Albums Posts: 794	Originally posted by clackers It's only 24Mp, Roti, with the K-1 you're getting 36 for the same price! That is true, but in the other hand you get a lot of other features like much better video, much much much BETTER AF, bigger and faster buffer, really good DR and ISO performance, etc.. so yes, it is a very tempting camera to consider even if is not a 36MP... Ricoh had the chance to fix some of this features with the Mk2 release of the K1 but IMO they Fu**ed it up.