[Ahab]

Like some others on this thread I look at FF as being another tool not necessarily a replacement. That many of my lens's are interchangeable only made the decision to purchase more palatable.

[klaus123]

Hello

I got my K1 app. 2 years ago...coming from a K3 & K01(which are still in use).

Even having a lot of lenses at that time I underestimated the effort for new lenses.

I started with a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and was very unsatisfied with - changing to a DFA24-70/2,8. For ocasional purpose (weight/range) I added meanwhile a Sigma UCIII 28-105 and a Tamron 24-135.

On the wide side DA12-24 and DA10-17 have the advantage that they cover FF with app. the same perspective as in Crop (> 16mm) ..... but I could not resist a Tamron 14/2,8 (AF) and a Fisheye-Takumar 17/4.

On the long side I still use the DA55-300WR on the K1 often because it is small and light - even it does not cover FF at all focal lengths. The weight of the long DFAs was much too high. My first compromise was a Sigma 100-300/4 (including 1,4 Converter) and later I added a DA200.


On the fast side the DA*55 works well on the K1 (as long as you do not use the original lens hood). The Sigma 30/1,4 and 24/1,8 were replaced by a 35Art and the Samyang 85 was replaces by a Sigma 85/1,4.

But I do not regret the change to FF.

[pts1958]

K5 II for macro or télé,
K1 for for landscape portrait and so on.
I'm very happy and waitin for K3 iii to see what will be better !

[zahnski]

I bought my first APSC, a Canon, in 2006. Last year I thought it was time to renew the camera. I only had two lenses so it was no big loss to switch over to FF and also to Pentax.
I really am satisfied with FF. I like landscape and architecture so FF works fine. I also appreciate the high dynamic Range.

[pts1958]

Unfortunately the multiplier 1.4 works very badly ... it would need a quick update.

[erikro]

I sometimes use the multiplier 1.4 with my 300mm for birding on my K-1 , gives dark corners, but when cropping the picture it dosent matter.

[RobA_Oz]

If there was a Pentax APS-C body that worked as well as the K-1 at the operator level, I'd be seriously considering it. The KP comes close, but lacks some of the interface features of the K-1. If a next iteration of the KP brought it up to the K-1 standard, I'd probably buy it. I hardly ever use my K-3 now, not because it isn't a decent camera, but the K-1 has raised the bar for operability, and that's almost as important to me as the quality of the images it produces. I like cameras (and other things) that work so well with me that I'm drawn to using them.

The main reason I'd go for another APS-C body is to allow me to travel comparatively lightly with a good camera system. A scoliosis and some lumbar disc compression means my back gives up before the rest of me does. I've probably got one more trip away with the K-1 and a few lenses before I'm forced to seriously consider what I do the next time. Mind you, if a second range of new lightweight 35FF lenses appears, I might just stay with the K-1, but I don't think that's going to happen in the near term.

[jsherman999]

My situation is different, going directly from K20D to 12MP FF to 36MP FF in 2012. (Alas Nikon, since Pentax FF didn't exist in 2012)

There just are a lot of little circumstances where FF is better. One: I liked my 18-55 and especially SDM 16-50 f/2.8 for indoor use because it's FL range was perfect for a lot of indoor shots I wanted to take - but I sometimes thought f/2.8 was too slow for low light, so I'd move to my 50 f/1.8 or 77ltd, etc, giving up the fast FL change for better low light perf.

With FF, I can use an excellent Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which gives me the exact APSC equivalent of an 18-50 f/1.8 zoom - giving me the FL range I wanted at the same time that I'm getting the low-light perf. If I want to go *very low light, I can put on a fast prime and get performance that can't even be matched with aps-c given any lens.

For my long telephoto shooting I don't see much of an advantage for FF besides the better/faster AF lock.

I will also say this: I spent a lot of money on camera equipment between 2007 and 2012 - since 2012 I've spent, IIRC, nothing. So you can say that I've been more satisfied with FF . To be honest though my focal length requirements were filled about the same time as my last camera purchase, so I didn't have to chase any lens gaps there.

.

[zahnski]

I like to add some experiences I made since my last reply:
In between I tried several lens combinations for traveling, especially for sightseeing in cities. Now I prefer taking the DFA 24-70mm and/or the FA31mm Limited (especially when low light situations can be expected) and the DA*60-250mm f4 (adapted to FF) together with the K1. It fits into a quite small messenger bag. For me the weight and size is o.k. and the low light-possibilities are great so I am fully happy with FF.

[LeaderOfThePack]

I have had K1 now for about 2 months. I had K-r with kit and legacy lenses before it. My daughter uses K-r + kits now, as those started to collect some dust..

I shoot mainly near my home, but at autumns I go hunting and usually take whole Lowepro backbag with me. My eatings and some drinks goes in there also. Previously I had K-r + kit lenses, tamron 70-300 and 3-4 primes all the time when shooting with me. Now I carry K1, batterygrip, 24-70 and sometimes that tamron. If I need wider, I take panorama, I don't need more sky in pics. If I need more zoom, I'm happy to crop K1 file afterwards. My camera stuff takes much less space and is actually lighter now. Most of times I just take cam and 24-70 and go outside.

About things like weight and size:
+ I have been shooting guns about 30 years, and more mass means more stability in my mind & hands. With better SR it means that I need tripod very rarely. If I for some reason would want to go light as possible, I would get phone with better camera, not aps-c.
+ We also have thing called winter here in Finland. -20C with cold fingers and you're really happy that there is something to grab on. Even in rainy autumn days, when my fingers are getting stiff because of early marks of arthritis, I'm happy that I have device suiting my hand size. I got batterygrip mainly because I wanted more space for my palms and better handling, extended batterylife is just an extra.

- Yes it's heavy around my neck, but then I can put it back to backbag. In long trips weight of gun is more of an issue for me. 3-4kg in one shoulder for 3 hours hitting your hip makes you forget that 2kg on your neck.
- Raw filesize of K1 means I have to update my PC soon. It's getting slow, but in other hand long and dark winter is great time for postprocessing.

what is it, like, four times the resolution in the K-1 as opposed to the K-50? No brainer for me. I'm keeping the K-50 setup I've assembled, though, for those "gee, if I only had a camera right now!" shots.

funny thing is, I've finally got a real use for that twelve-pound capacity carbon-fiber legged tripod and big-arsed ball head (eight pound capacity on that is the limiting factor), with the K-1, vertical grip battery pack, and the DFA*70-200 lens stuck on top of it. Great for the artsy-fartsy and stock photo trip, but not your best "walking around" camera, but that's what the K-50 is for.

(I bought that tripod & ball head to hold up heavier video equipment, btw.)

---------- Post added 2018-09-02 at 09:02 AM ----------

I have had K1 now for about 2 months....
+ I have been shooting guns about 30 years, and more mass means more stability in my mind & hands. With better SR it means that I need tripod very rarely.
...
+ We also have thing called winter here in Finland.
...
- Yes it's heavy around my neck, but then I can put it back to backbag. In long trips weight of gun is more of an issue for me. 3-4kg in one shoulder for 3 hours hitting your hip makes you forget that 2kg on your neck.
...

Agree as to the mass of the launch vehicle - more stability, less recoil; and as Boris the Blade said, "Heavy is good; heavy is reliable; and if it does not work, you can hit him with it." However, I haven't noticed as much recoil on the K-1 as I might on, say, the SigSauer p226.

Wait a minute - I had the idea that Winter was all there was in Finland. That's why God invented Vodka, right?

Get a synthetic stock for your rifle - they make some really great ones, now, aluminum bedding, very lightweight, very durable (and you won't care if the butt gets scratched like you would something made of walnut). I stick to handguns, myself, when carrying a camera in the woods - a nice 'scoped S&W .44 mag. with a six-inch barrel works wonders on mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, black bear, etc. that we've got here. Of course it's hard to photograph them while they're running away from that awful noise.

[LeaderOfThePack]

Agree as to the mass of the launch vehicle - more stability, less recoil; and as Boris the Blade said, "Heavy is good; heavy is reliable; and if it does not work, you can hit him with it." However, I haven't noticed as much recoil on the K-1 as I might on, say, the SigSauer p226.

Wait a minute - I had the idea that Winter was all there was in Finland. That's why God invented Vodka, right?

Get a synthetic stock for your rifle - they make some really great ones, now, aluminum bedding, very lightweight, very durable (and you won't care if the butt gets scratched like you would something made of walnut). I stick to handguns, myself, when carrying a camera in the woods - a nice 'scoped S&W .44 mag. with a six-inch barrel works wonders on mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, black bear, etc. that we've got here. Of course it's hard to photograph them while they're running away from that awful noise.

You have to read laws we have here, our animals can't be killed with handguns. Even Composite bows doesn't affect to bear and moose in here. Either we have twisted animals or law makers are idiots, you can think what I think.
30-06 have silencer to save ears of my dog, so lighter stock would make center of mass to move more forward. Not good. And recoil of my 338wm is enough with current weight

I'm planning for light 222 or 300 blk for black grouses, but all my money goes to camera gear..

[Rondec]

My situation is different, going directly from K20D to 12MP FF to 36MP FF in 2012. (Alas Nikon, since Pentax FF didn't exist in 2012)

There just are a lot of little circumstances where FF is better. One: I liked my 18-55 and especially SDM 16-50 f/2.8 for indoor use because it's FL range was perfect for a lot of indoor shots I wanted to take - but I sometimes thought f/2.8 was too slow for low light, so I'd move to my 50 f/1.8 or 77ltd, etc, giving up the fast FL change for better low light perf.

With FF, I can use an excellent Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which gives me the exact APSC equivalent of an 18-50 f/1.8 zoom - giving me the FL range I wanted at the same time that I'm getting the low-light perf. If I want to go *very low light, I can put on a fast prime and get performance that can't even be matched with aps-c given any lens.

For my long telephoto shooting I don't see much of an advantage for FF besides the better/faster AF lock.

I will also say this: I spent a lot of money on camera equipment between 2007 and 2012 - since 2012 I've spent, IIRC, nothing. So you can say that I've been more satisfied with FF . To be honest though my focal length requirements were filled about the same time as my last camera purchase, so I didn't have to chase any lens gaps there.

.

Welcome back, Jay. Hope we see a few more of your posts down the road...

[Theov39]

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.

How about the reduced top LCD screen? Is that OK to use?

It seems very crowded on that side of the camera with two top dials and top screen.

[Merv-O]

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

Have had a K-50 and a K-3ii--recently traded up to a K-1 ii and frankly, the results are similar. A 24mp APS-C camera like the K-3ii is a serious tooling though it lacks a bit of the DOF of the K-1ii, I find many photos with the K-1 ii are lacking in certain areas. Part of it is that Pentax has great quality DA lenses developed over a long period of time. The new FA lenses are lacking in volume and in my opinion are not as sharp as some of the DA lenses. Thus, the K-1 ii is currently not reaching its potential. Of all the FF lenses I have purchased thus far, the 18-105mm kit lens produces the best results.
Also, the aftermarket has some great gently used DA lenses that will help you build your kit more economically.