[Skewed]

Other: ability to make larger prints.

And to make radical crops, if needed.

[Fries]

I added my K-1 to the collection because I shoot landscapes and like the added resolution and the general way the files respond to post production work. Not seeing a successor to my K-3 was also a consideration. I still use a K-3. Mainly for birding. It is my second one after I drowned the first one in a lake. I solved the issue of the added weight by using primes.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Which cheaper, longer lenses for full frame are you referring to? For crop you can get a 55-300 for $350. The equivalent reach in FF Pentax land is a 150-450 that lists at B&H for $1842. I'd at least think about full frame if the equivalent of my PLM wasn't four times as heavy and expensive.

It depends on what you think of as cheaper, in the past anyone that wanted to get into wildlife photography really needed to spend a great deal of money to get into the market of wildlife telephoto lenses, Now we have an array of lens that will get us into the playing field. With current pixel density's to get the equivalent reach of that 55-300 we really don't need to find a lens with the crop factor of in the size differences we needed in the past. The different in pixels densities from FF to crop all we see is a difference in around 1.22 crop factor, all you really see in reach is 370mm under ideal light conditions.

For me the 150-450 is a cheaper lens that can get you into the wildlife field. When we look at what I would think of as a kit in the past 400 F4, 500 F4, 300 f2.8 this gives the user a very cheap alternative for shooting wildlife. One of the problems for me is that I am more looking for a lens that will give me the flexibility for the environment I normally shoot wildlife in and all of the **-300 ƒ3.5-ƒ5.6 lens really did not full those needs in the cropped system.

With the 150-450 on a FF camera we have access to a 100-300mm ƒ3-ƒ3.8 this falls more inline with how would select a lens for wildlife if it was available to me in cropped

[photoptimist]

I should add that I did not really "go full frame" so much as "go full K-1."

Yes, the better high-ISO performance and wider-angle FoV were my top "advantages of FF." And the shallower DoF is nice (but not essential.) However, the K-1 was much more than just an FF version of the K-5 that I had at the time. The K-1 also added the function dial and setting dial, stilty-tilty display panel, interval composite, GPS, pixel shift, astrotracer, more megapixels, better AF, and second SD card slot. The K-1 was just a lot more camera in addition to having a lot more sensor area.

Finally, and as others have said, the crop mode of the K-1 basically meant the K-1 had a K-5 built into it. So I wasn't even losing the reach and frame-rate advantages of an APS-C format camera.

[disconnekt]

Went full frame cuz I needed a slr camera for some film classes I was taking at my local community college lol

But if I were to go digital again (had an Oly E-500 before, sold it), I would go FF. Mainly because I already have 2 manual lenses (a 35mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.7) that will fit nice with a K-1, mainly due to not wanting to buy more lenses to fit on an aps-c camera to get the equivalent ff FoV

[bilybianca]

Other: I already had lots of full frame lenses, and I wanted to exploit their full image circle.

I'm pretty sure that is the answer you will get from most Pentaxians.

Like me.
And I had been waiting for a full frame since I bought my first DSLR (*istDS) in 2005. When it finally came, I liked it and I had had plenty of time to save up the money!

Kjell

[noelpolar]

Upon reflection..... I can see a pattern in the times I'm active on this forum and the times I buy pentax stuff..... so I went FF because I was reading pentax forums.

I bought a 150 to 450 because.... well you guessed it... the same with my K5II, K3, KP.... 31, 43, 77 etc etc. The only thing Pentax I have bought that is not this forums fault is a K200D back in the "BPF" (before pentax forum) era.

Upon further reflection.... I think pentax forums is a Ricoh shelf company run by their mind control marketing department.... and they made me buy a DA21 last weekend.... they must of had a excess supply of silver ones because that is what they made me buy.

---

Last edited by noelpolar; 02-17-2020 at 02:40 AM.

[landofcourtness]

I actually really enjoy shooting Both APS-C and Full-frame...

Having grown up shooting film (k1000, p30, Z-5), I didn't get my first digital camera until the K-5. That pretty much lasted me up until I purchased the K-1. In truth, I probably could have still be satisfied with just that camera (it truly is that amazing!). However, for the 3-4 years that I was using the K-5, I had been reading the major advantages that can come from Full-frame that when they announced the K-1; it seemed to fit. Then when you looked at everything that it came with: 36MP (this was kind of the biggest finalizing factor or what pushed things over the line. 16 to 36MP makes a big BIG difference), Low-ISO, Pixel-shift, 3rd-wheel, Movable Screen, better Live-View, AA-simulator... there's a lot, even in terms of upgrades.

Some factors that I will say that I didn't think about... was that I didn't think enough about the fact that I would have to replace pretty much my entire lens-lineup. I really like my current FF-lineup, but I practically had to start over (aside from my DA 50 1.8). Also, one advantage of moving to FF is the field of view, having that ability to step-back... However, that 1.5 crop factor actually does come into play sometimes!!! Full-frame, you love it... the way it alters your composition. But that 1.5 crop is basically like having a teleconverter inside of your camera. I literally got a K-3 specifically so I can have that again (I would give my K-5 + APS-C lenses to a student's family that I had been working with)... I will also say that it was also due to the painful Buffer that the K-1 has on it too. K-3 eats through RAW photos. K-1, you have to switch to JPEG during fast-shooting moments... but this isn't that discussion.

So as it said in the beginning... I think they both have their place. APS-C for when you need that reach and buffer, FF for when you need the detail. I usually end up double-wielding them when shooting sports/events now (As Joey might say... put your hands together). The last thing I'll say, mostly in terms of ISO-performance. Since the K-1 came out (ex: KP/K-70), I think that advantage is significantly smaller now. Now I feel that the main advantage for a K-1 is mostly the IQ. It'll be interesting to see how this new camera (whenever that happens) will compare. It looks pretty clear that the features will be significant, but the IQ.

[Benz3ne]

I'm in the 'because I had predominantly legacy lenses' category, too.
That being said, the high ISO performance is a nice bonus.
Edit: It offered a significant improvement in autofocus ability over my previous crop body, not that I have (or even will) utilised that much.

[Papa_Joe]

I wanted to upgrade from my K10D to a K1, the main reason being, I did not get the same pictures out of my APS-C, as I did out of my 24x36 cameras.
In film times I shoot 64 ASA which meant most time wide open and a shallow DOF. Even the pictures of a 2.8 / 35 mm M lens in FF have a much better look then from a 2.8 / 24 mm on APS-C in terms of DOF. Thus when trying the K-1, I tried it with my smc A 1.7/50 mm (among others) and the pictures where more satisfying then I ever thought, despite beeing ASA 1.600. Unluckily I found the K-1 way too bulky. Instead I bought a K-70 and a Sigma 1.4/35 mm. Comes near to the K-1 with the 1.7/50 mm, in price and weight also .

Brief summary, why I will sometime buy a FF :
- Better DOF and bokeh, escpecially in short focal length.
- General ergonomics (I think a K3 would do the job as well).
- A bulk of vintage lenses (the nice word for waste glass) to test on the K-1.

I still prefer ASA 100, so high ISO is not on my list.

[Rondec]

I guess if I were honest, the number one reason was that I just wanted to try it out. I had a number of lenses (DFA 24-70/FA31/77/DFA100/DA *200) that were full frame already and getting the K-1 did not require a huge investment in glass. If I were going to say personally, the biggest improvement I see is in low iso performance (which wasn't an option). The dynamic range, particularly with pixel shifted iso 100 shots is amazing and I have been able to forget shooting HDR due to this.

My wife does shoot weddings and so having the ability to shoot higher iso and get shallower depth of field did come in handy for her, but honestly, you have basically one stop difference between full frame and APS-C and that typically isn't the difference between a great shot and a lousy one.

I will say as well that the K-1 was packed with a lot of goodness and Pentax really delivered with that camera. I still shoot some with my K3 and even my K-01 and I enjoy the experience, but the quality of images I get from the K-1/K-1 II is better -- particularly for landscapes, which is what I like shooting most.

[ThorSanchez]

It depends on what you think of as cheaper, in the past anyone that wanted to get into wildlife photography really needed to spend a great deal of money to get into the market of wildlife telephoto lenses, Now we have an array of lens that will get us into the playing field. With current pixel density's to get the equivalent reach of that 55-300 we really don't need to find a lens with the crop factor of in the size differences we needed in the past. The different in pixels densities from FF to crop all we see is a difference in around 1.22 crop factor, all you really see in reach is 370mm under ideal light conditions.

For me the 150-450 is a cheaper lens that can get you into the wildlife field. When we look at what I would think of as a kit in the past 400 F4, 500 F4, 300 f2.8 this gives the user a very cheap alternative for shooting wildlife. One of the problems for me is that I am more looking for a lens that will give me the flexibility for the environment I normally shoot wildlife in and all of the **-300 ƒ3.5-ƒ5.6 lens really did not full those needs in the cropped system.

With the 150-450 on a FF camera we have access to a 100-300mm ƒ3-ƒ3.8 this falls more inline with how would select a lens for wildlife if it was available to me in cropped

Thanks for the response, you have a different perspective than I do. For me $2000 isn't a cheaper lens for anything I'd be spending my money on, but obviously your mileage my vary. I've never spent $500 on a lens.

[wstruth]

I clicked both High ISO and Other. I really did want better high ISO capabilities, and other since i had some old film era lenses. I was buying full frame glass after the K-1 was announced, so i would be "ready" when I made my purchase. I also shoot a lot of landscapes and the reviews on the K-1 touted its landscape abilities, but honestly i have not tried out the pixel shift feature yet. The KP closed the gap on High ISO. If circumstances were different for me I would be happy with just my KP, but I'm looking forward to the next generation for both APS-C and Full frame.

[gaweidert]

Because if I can put either 24MP or 36MP on the same scene I will go 36MP every time. Not only do I get more detail, I also get better low light performance than with my K3. The images from the K1 are wonderful to work on in post processing. They have a quality to them that I call delicious. No other way to describe it.


The images off my K3 are good too, but the images from my K1 and K1-II are just technically better. Whether it is a good photograph of not is up to me, but the K1 gives me more to work with. I am eagerly awaiting the new APSc camera. If the AF, buffer and processor are significantly better, it will become my action/wildlife camera. I already have the money set aside for it.


Most of my working career was spent looking at the details in an image. It is what strikes me even before I look at the subject matter. That is over 45 years of programming my brain to do so. To me the K1 looks better in the details.

[johnha]

I've shot film since the '90s and the only formats that really counted were FF and medium format (I used to shoot airshows with a Mamiya 645 Pro, 210mm lens and a 2x TC). I was never happy with the K-5 finder, its 'stubby' form factor or the 1.5x multiplier and wanted to use my FA43 on its native format. I'd given up on a Pentax FF and bought a P67 and some lenses, it was only later after the K-1ii had arrived and K-1s were selling significantly cheaper that I jumped for a K-1. Since doing so I haven't used the K-5, but still shoot 135 & 120 film alongside the K-1.

For me it was about getting my focal lengths back, getting a better finder, the ability to reduce DoF and a camera that didn't need a grip attached to be comfortable in my hands. GPS and Astrotracer were a bonus (buying the K-1 saved me £££s buying the O-GPS1 for my K-5) as was being able to use the same battery/charger etc.