[ChatMechant]

Now that I've had the K-1 for a couple years, I could never go back to aps-c. To me, 35mm holds the best set of compromises at this point. Besides the fact that the K-1 is a fantastic camera, the format feels right (lens' focals make sense again) and the images are amazing.

[redpit]

Now that I've had the K-1 for a couple years, I could never go back to aps-c. To me, 35mm holds the best set of compromises at this point. Besides the fact that the K-1 is a fantastic camera, the format feels right (lens' focals make sense again) and the images are amazing.

+1 Exactly that!

[Wheatfield]

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

I'm deliriously happy about switching to full frame. The quality of the images is just better. It was like when I moved from medium format film to large format film. The quality just plain got better, even though for the most part, things like grain and resolution stayed much the same when looking at prints from both.
I was one of the people who didn't see it as any big yip. I figured it was just pixels and there wouldn't be anything to the change other than all my lenses getting "shorter".
Boy, was I wrong.

[agp1337]

I've had the KP for around 18 months now, and the K1 for nearly a year. I will keep both. The main reason I would use the K1 is obviously the better image quality, though the KP is still excellent, and I have no hesitation in using it. The biggest snag (literally!) of the K1 is its size and weight, so I tend to use this on photo-trips, rather than just as a carry around. The lack of FF lenses is a bit of an issue. I have four: 200 f2.8, 15-30 F2.8, 28-105 (of course!) and the Irix 11mm (stunning lens, incredibly wide, little distortion and fairly cheap). I wish that there was, say something like the 15-30 but with f4 rather than f2.8. I rarely shoot wide open anyway, and it would be so much lighter. As well as weight, you need a hefty camera bag to put the K1 in, too - it's big.

[DeadJohn]

Yes, I am happy with my APS-C to FF move. I bought my K-1 18 months ago, saving my K-5 as a backup body that I've only used twice since.

I upgraded primarily for very low light usage. Landscapes with the Milky Way as a background, and night architecture and cityscapes. I avoid ultra high ISOs. I use a tripod and go no higher than ISO 6400. At lower ISOs in the 100-400 range, the K-1 is noise-free and offers great dynamic range. K-1 files are very adjustable during post processing.

Other upgrades the K-1 gave me were improved autofocus, extra control dial (which I use for ISO or bracketing control), astrotracer, articulating screen.

The only downside for me is the K-1's size and weight boost compared to the relatively svelte K-5. For general daylight usage, though, it's not as much as it seems when specs are compared. My main walkaround K-5 lens was the 16-50. I use the lighter 28-105 with the K-1 so my kit ends up weighing around the same. I've evolved to take the K-1 when my goal is getting the best photos, and micro43 when I'm doing something else that might present a photo opportunity.

If you are coming from the K-3 rather than the K-5, your experience will be different. The K-1 has a slower framerate than the K-3. The K-1 can do action photography but the K-3 is better suited for it.

[fehknt]

Picked up a K-1 to have in addition to my "action" K3-ii body; I unexpectedly haven't picked up the K3-ii in a year or so (about when I got the K-1)! I took it along with my Sigma 18-35 Art for two event shoots as it's a nice backup body to the DFA24-70 but for landscape, wildlife, hiking, sports, I'll carry the K-1. I don't find the frame rate much of an issue but I also don't shoot things where I _need_ to have things exactly set up right (e.g., shot a softball match but not for publication where having the ball in the right part of the frame would matter and I'd want 10+ FPS to catch the right moment).

Yes it weighs a fair amount but so does my tripod. I go hiking because I like photography, not the other way around, so I'll compromise on other things before dropping the K-1! (Last trip I did drop my 5lb tripod at home, sad, but I didn't have any shots planned that really required it.) I did carry the K-1, DFA24-70, DFA100WR with me over 20mi and definitely don't regret it over the K-3ii.

However, I also completely recognize that my camera and lens collection far exceeds my photography skills.

[Alex645]

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?
roti

Years ago, when I hit what I felt were the technical limits of 35mm film, I upgraded to the 645 medium format and have never looked back. So with that experience, I knew upgrading to FF from APS-C would have a similar positive outcome, and it has.

Here are some of the reasons why I made the decision:

a) I print my best work with a 44" large format inkjet printer.
b) I often crop my RAW files significantly.
c) I tend to shoot more wide to normal and not telephoto.
d) I don't mind a bigger, heavier body because I shoot primarily with smaller/lighter prime lenses.
e) I appreciate the low light capability and improved dynamic range of the FF sensor.
f) Shooting with a 645Z would be the ultimate, but FF is IMO the best value.

With all that said, switching away from APS-C isn't for everyone and I know many reasons why it would be the wrong move for many photographers.

[shardulm]

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

Well my K-1 images demanded more money and so I upped the price for my work and my clients are even more comfortable paying the upped price for the images they are seeing. It worked great from usability perspective as well since the K-1 is not much different (only better) than my K-5ii. There wasn't a decision to be made on K-1 really. It was just the endless waiting for the K-1 release. Happy because the same effort pays more as I can now offer competing resolutions to my clients than I used to with my K-5ii. And K-1 in itself is a pleasure to use. But it just not end here... plan your 24-70 and 70-200 with it. If you are into the landscape game then 15-30 should be in the game plan too. Things don't end with a FF body... it comes with a trailer load of accessories that you be longing for (primarily lenses) that are expensive right of the bat and will remain so.
Having said that my K-5ii(s) are still in business so are the DA*s. I use them for my economy clients which don't need as much resolution and large print-ability. I also like the fact that the APS-C gear is much lighter on travel and personal trips that don't make me money.

[acoufap]

K-5 for years was my always used camera before I bought the K-1 when it reached market. A really great new experience in functionality, ergonomy and image quality. But for hiking in the mountains or longer walks I simply wanted to go more lightweight.

Then I bought the DA55-300PLM for the K-1. An APSC lens that‘s perfect for hiking. Unfortunately the K-5 got no firmware update to support the electro-magnetic aperture control. So the K-5 although still very good in IQ isn‘t appropriate anymore.

In Germany unbelievable marketing effort by Olympus. For a short time I thought about buying an Olympus MFT for trips and hiking. But after some research I think it doesn‘t make sense to open another camera line and the KP for me simply has just the right size and is not beatable by Olympus in IQ.

Then recently I had the opportunity to get the KP for a good price. So I purchased it. Since then I spent a lot of time to get acoustomed to it. And I feel the KP is what I hoped for.

So K-1 will be for my more stationary work or when I can transport it comfortably somehow. Maybe I should get a mule or a lama?! That would be nice. Or simply go by car or bike with trailer for more equipment. The KP will be used for everything else where I have to carry it for hours. But in some areas like macro work both cameras will compete.

So in my case no switch from APSC to FF - both formats will get their time, they will coexist.

[Kerrowdown]

are you happy with switching to FF?

Most certainly... I waited years for Pentax to play catch up and offer FF.

[KiloHotelphoto]

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.

Just looking at the spec B&H have listed for the K1 and KP I don’t understand why people always mention or claim a benefit on size.

They have weight down as 2.04 lb for K1 and 1.41 lb for the KP .63 lb difference.

As for physical size the spec they have listed are 5.4 x 4.3 x 3.4 inches for the K1
and 5.2 x 4.0 x 3.0 inches for the KP

Is that really to much weight and size for people? Just your daily body weight fluctuations are greater than .63 lbs.

The K1 is a great camera, I understand the increase in price being a factor but don’t understand when size is stated.

[acoufap]

Is that really to much weight and size for people?

Don't let us talk about paperware.

Hang the difference of the camera weights of ~360g around your neck and walk around with it for only one hour. Do you feel it? What about after two hours, three, ...?

Take both cameras with same lens, maybe the DFA28-105, in your hands (~ 1.1 kg and 1.460 kg). You don't feel significant difference - neither in weight nor in size? Interesting.

[DeadJohn]

Is that really to much weight and size for people? Just your daily body weight fluctuations are greater than .63 lbs.

Body weight is distributed. Camera weight is more concentrated and can make a difference to your hand, neck, shoulder, etc. depending on how you carry the camera.

In my experience, general walkaround is similar weight whether I used the K-1 or K-5. The K-5 body is smaller but the lenses I've selected (partly due to weight) lead to a kit around the same weight. K-5 plus 16-50 is similar bulk to K-1 plus 28-105. Weight is why I didn't pair the 24-70 with my K-1.

Wide angle shows how much heavier FF can be, especially if limiting choices to Pentax lenses. The most compact (hah!) full frame ultrawide is the hefty 15-30. Stick that on the K-1, and compare it to an APS-C body with the DA 15 Limited. Granted, that is an extreme case, and when weight is a primary concern it is possible to assemble a lighter K-1 kit. The DA 15 can be used in crop mode. There are 3rd party ultrawide FF primes that weight less than the 15-30.

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.

[kiwi_jono]

I went from the K-5 to a K-1. I already had some FF compatible lenses (FA35, FA50, Samyang 85, FA100 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8).
Personally I was immediately completely blown away by how much of an improvement it was over my K-5:
* Amazing IQ (good light and poor light)
* Like how the FA lenses perform on the K-1
* Great features - love the GPS and tilt screen (but was not really expecting to!)
* Better AF performance (certainly more than enough for me). Also I find K-1 AF more consistent than I used to get from my K-5
* I quite like the look of it (not everyone does it seems)

That said there are always going to be some compromises when going to FF. Cost is an obvious one but also size / weight is a factor (although the K-1 is pretty compact for a mirrored FF). Recently I took my compact Pentax K-01 (mirrorless) on a weekend trip to Australia because it was for casual shots and was travelling light. While I would prefer a viewfinder, I'm always surprised what a great job the K-01 does and this is not the first time I have taken the K-01 away on short trips!
Another thing is that most of the newly released & planned lenses for FF are big and heavy which prioritise IQ (great for many review site ratings) over size / weight and cost. If it was not for the smaller / older FA lenses then the K-1 would probably not been a starter for me. That said I purchased a DFA 28-105 and this is very much a pleasant exception (ok size / weight, good price and surprisingly good IQ) - really hope Pentax release more lenses with this balance!

Yes I'm still happy with the K-1, and if I were to start from scratch then I would struggle to pick a system that would suit me better - the closest would be the Sony A7III if I thought I could live with mirrorless full time and the ergonomics.

[shardulm]

Just looking at the spec B&H have listed for the K1 and KP I don’t understand why people always mention or claim a benefit on size.

They have weight down as 2.04 lb for K1 and 1.41 lb for the KP .63 lb difference.

As for physical size the spec they have listed are 5.4 x 4.3 x 3.4 inches for the K1
and 5.2 x 4.0 x 3.0 inches for the KP

Is that really to much weight and size for people? Just your daily body weight fluctuations are greater than .63 lbs.

The K1 is a great camera, I understand the increase in price being a factor but don’t understand when size is stated.

Exactly this. But on additional thoughts.. the APS-C lenses are far lighter (DA*50-135 vs D-FA*70-200). But having said that 70-200 was never a walk around lens for any manufacturer.. that DA*50-135 is quiet a feet in itself. I still carry my most sturdy tripod albeit heavy to hikes where I am going to see a water fall. So it all depends upon how you look at it.