[reh321]

I am glad I bought the K-1 full frame, and I still use my K-7 crop sensor as my 2nd body. I find that most of my images are significantly better (although I have a lot of great captures with my K-7) on the FF, although the difference is small when the scene has plenty of light. For "zoom" shots, it seems to me that cropping a FF capture to an equivalent "zoom" provided by a crop sensor still provides a better image than an equivalent shot on a crop sensor. When I can justify the expense, I will be swapping out my crop sensor for another FF.

I would hope that a K-1 gives better images than an {aging} K-7 does.
A better comparison would be a K-1ii and a K-3iii.

[tncasual]

I didn't read through this whole thread. But I bet my use case was similar to others.

I bought a K1 as a compliment to my existing mft system. It brought better dynamic range and ISO performance. But also had features similar to what I like mft for - IBIS, Live Composite, great for legacy glass. I think mft and the K1 are great compliments.

[awscreo]

I didn't read through this whole thread. But I bet my use case was similar to others.

I bought a K1 as a compliment to my existing mft system. It brought better dynamic range and ISO performance. But also had features similar to what I like mft for - IBIS, Live Composite, great for legacy glass. I think mft and the K1 are great compliments.

I moved from MFT to FF (K-1) as well in 2016. While I enjoyed my time with MFT a lot, the image quality and raw flexibility is just out of this world with K-1. I do miss the small EM1 and my favorite Panaleica 25 1.4 :/

[tncasual]

I moved from MFT to FF (K-1) as well in 2016. While I enjoyed my time with MFT a lot, the image quality and raw flexibility is just out of this world with K-1. I do miss the small EM1 and my favorite Panaleica 25 1.4 :/

Each system has its benefits and tradeoffs. That is why I think I will keep a toe in each until my gear is dead.

[awscreo]

Each system has its benefits and tradeoffs. That is why I think I will keep a toe in each until my gear is dead.

Definitely. I have since purchased GRIII, for the size, much easier to carry around than my K-1 with a 15-30)

[reh321]

Each system has its benefits and tradeoffs. That is why I think I will keep a toe in each until my gear is dead.

Last week I lugged my KP with 18-135mm lens - and my entire Q-7 kit - half a mile to the County Fair, then sat and watched a "horse and pony" show there before lugging them back.
Next year we may watch the show again, but I will carry only the Q-7 ,,, now I know which adopted lenses I need to add to the Q-7 kit to capture all the action.

[stanic]

I got the K-x in 2009, K5 in 2011, K5IIs in 2013 (have two bodies, used them extensively when I had a photo company - weddings, portraiture and documentation) and finally got a second hand K1 body for 850 euro last week. I've got it for the obvious reason of wanting to try the full frame but also the inbuilt GPS is a nice thing to have. My main job is landscape ecology and it is very handy feature for field mapping. The O GPS 1 is good but kind of flimsy in the field.
So far I'm very happy, just one thing annoys me, the AF button should be where the green button is LOL.
I'm using it with DFA 100/2,8 WR macro, A 50/1.7, DA 35/2,8 macro all in FF mode and HD 15/4 in crop mode.

[wcs2229]

I went full frame with Nikon Z6 II mirrorless, which is lighter and more advanced than K-1 II. I have no particular need for full frame, but what the heck, why not?

I got my first Pentax SLR in 1972 with a Spotmatic II, then stayed through several Pentax film SLRs (ME, ME Super, Super Program, MX), several Pentax DSLRs (ist*D, K10D, K20D, K-5 II) and dozens of Pentax lenses/accessories. I am keeping my ist*D and K-5 II for sentimental sake.

[reh321]

I went full frame with Nikon Z6 II mirrorless, which is lighter and more advanced than K-1 II.

"Advanced" in what manner?

[wcs2229]

"Advanced" in what manner?

Just Google for point-by-point comparisons between Pentax K-1 II and Nikon Z6-II. Some examples are Nikon have better AF, higher FPS and buffer, 4K video, touchscreen, lighter/smaller, better sensitivity, silent shutter. To me, the main positive of Pentax is higher MPX, which is not very important to me.

In end, it only matters that I think the Nikon is more advanced for my needs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion according to his/her own needs.

[reh321]

Just Google for point-by-point comparisons between Pentax K-1 II and Nikon Z6-II. Some examples are Nikon have better AF, higher FPS and buffer, 4K video, touchscreen, lighter/smaller, better sensitivity, silent shutter. To me, the main positive of Pentax is higher MPX, which is not very important to me.

In end, it only matters that I think the Nikon is more advanced for my needs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion according to his/her own needs.

I use various Internet sources - not just Google - because Google takes money to give someone a good ranking. From them, I see that the Z6ii gives perhaps 400 shots/battery, while the K-1ii gives 50% more.
Also, there doesn't seem to be an adapter that allows the Z6ii to auto-focus with Nikon screw-drive lenses, let alone the Pentax lenses I have.
Also, Photons-to-Photos shows the -1ii giving more dynamic range at all ISO settings.
The K-1ii appears superior to the Z6ii to me, but

I asked you why you consider it to be best.
I have never made a video, seldom use burst, and consider touch screen to be a negative.

[normhead]

Just Google for point-by-point comparisons between Pentax K-1 II and Nikon Z6-II. Some examples are Nikon have better AF, higher FPS and buffer, 4K video, touchscreen, lighter/smaller, better sensitivity, silent shutter. To me, the main positive of Pentax is higher MPX, which is not very important to me.

In end, it only matters that I think the Nikon is more advanced for my needs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion according to his/her own needs.

Have you actually used a K-1II?

Are you comparing the cameras? Or the spec sheets? While the spec sheets are derived from camera performance, in the end, it's how you feel about the camera that counts, not the spec .sheet. Everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are informed, or even relevant. Many are just justifications for what people bought, without much investigation beyond reading the latest hype from the internet click baiters.

But if you've used both cameras, Id be interested in what you might have to say about actual use.

A 24 MP FF is only marginally better than a 24 MP APS-c camera. The main advantage of larger sensors is larger image size( MP), but if you don't need that. do you even need an FF camera?

[Serkevan]

I dunno, the Z6 doesn't have pixel shift nor astrotracer, its tilt screen is less practical than the K-1's moon lander, it doesn't have an OVF, the position of its rear e-dial is uncomfortable (too far to the right), it lacks a third e-dial and quick change to TAv mode, has no screwdrive provision for classic lenses...

I make use of all of those things, so for me the Z6 is crippled. What is advanced? For an awful lot of people that assessment seems to be based exclusively on continuous AF tracking performance, buffer depth and video. I disagree with that. I understand those features are important for some users, but that doesn't make the camera objectively better. It might be better for you. The cost-cutting measures elsewhere make it useless for me.

[wcs2229]

The thread title is "Why did you go full frame?" with emphasis on "you". This thread is not about debating different cameras. If "you" went to K-1 II, that is fine with me.

[normhead]

I dunno, the Z6 doesn't have pixel shift nor astrotracer, its tilt screen is less practical than the K-1's moon lander, it doesn't have an OVF, the position of its rear e-dial is uncomfortable (too far to the right), it lacks a third e-dial and quick change to TAv mode, has no screwdrive provision for classic lenses...

I make use of all of those things, so for me the Z6 is crippled. What is advanced? For an awful lot of people that assessment seems to be based exclusively on continuous AF tracking performance, buffer depth and video. I disagree with that. I understand those features are important for some users, but that doesn't make the camera objectively better. It might be better for you. The cost-cutting measures elsewhere make it useless for me.

Almost all the features mentioned are available on a K-3iii. And with Katie's 26 MP sensor, it may even out resolve that Z6. but the Z-6 still doesn't have pixel shift or 6 million native lenses. We need a thread "why I won't buy a Z6." to inform those who insist on posting about non-Pentax gear in the Pentax FF section of the forum. it could be really popular, in an odd kind. way.

It's almost certain a Katie with pixel shift will leave the Z6 images in the dust for static images and hold it's own for everything else, if you can really get away with 24 MP images.
I can't explain why, but if I can get an image in 36 MP instead of 24, I will.


---------- Post added 08-08-21 at 10:13 AM ----------

I went full frame with Nikon Z6 II mirrorless, which is lighter and more advanced than K-1 II. I have no particular need for full frame, but what the heck, why not?

I got my first Pentax SLR in 1972 with a Spotmatic II, then stayed through several Pentax film SLRs (ME, ME Super, Super Program, MX), several Pentax DSLRs (ist*D, K10D, K20D, K-5 II) and dozens of Pentax lenses/accessories. I am keeping my ist*D and K-5 II for sentimental sake.

You could have just said "I bought an FF because I could, and made my choice based on spec. sheets." You chose to make it about Nikon vs. Pentax, and it was inappropriate to the thread.

Funny thing, you tell people why your camera is "more advanced" than theirs, and they'll tell you why you're wrong. Expect it, no matter who's camera you insult. IN some ways all digital is less advanced than single shot 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras if you are talking about the quality of images. No camera or format is "more advanced" in every feature.