[MossyRocks]

I voted but not because I have a full frame but for the reason I would go full frame. I do lots of astro shooting which ends up meaning that low ISO is usually around 1600 on a good day with a bright object so better high ISO performance would be the only reason I would go with full frame. However I realize that my favorite astro lens the A* 400/2.8 would have to be replaced with the FA or A * 600/4 to give the same field of view I like or I would have to use the 1.4x-L converter again losing a stop of light. So given that it really becomes a wash as I get some better high ISO performance but I lose a stop of light to maintain the field of view I want.

[EssJayEff]

Other: ability to make larger prints.

[Alnjpn]

I needed better subject isolation for portraits, and I was glad I did - there is a significant difference.

[noelpolar]

Other (maybe for me)..... K1 was a compelling camera.... and it is not like one had to ditch APSC.... and... you have to do something in retirement.

---

Last edited by noelpolar; 02-15-2020 at 10:30 PM.

[dms]

Other: to use my manual lenses on their native format sensor

Ditto.

[biz-engineer]

Out of focus rendering + ability to make quality print larger other than the average A3 family type photograph, desktop photograph or A4/letter type album. For A4/letter type prints I'd just get a pocket camera such as u43 or apsc MILC kit or a smartphone. For me, full frame is the minimum quality level for anyone wanting to produce future proof images. I regret having done all those compact camera and apsc camera ugrades before getting full frame digital, simply because I have a decade of 25 000 photographs taken with compact/apsc some of them being outstanding compositions but unusable for producing prints A3 and larger. I should have kept using 35mm film until 24Mp full frame was out, then switch to digital.

[camera_nut]

For me, l feel that APS-C is the best fit. Gear is generally smaller and lighter. And much easier on the wallet. As for using film era glass on their native sensor size, that's not important to me. For the wide angle stuff, a dedicated APS-C lens is a logical choice with APS-C bodies. But lenses 35mm and longer work well on either format. A 50mm IMO is actually a better portrait lens on APS-C. And a 50 1.8 costs next to nothing. l feel that my old Nikon 75-150 Series E is better on a crop body. Why? Because on FF 150mm is not very telephoto. But on a crop body it has plenty of "reach". The largest l print is 11 x 14. The only time l had a 16 x 20 made is to see what my D300 was capable of. lt was better than l expected from a 12 mp aps-c body. l don't shoot with really high iso much. Most of my low light shooting is done in December when things are lit up for Christmas. l need long shutter speeds to capture lights that are flashing, so l'm using low iso and a tripod. With wildlife and macro, the "crop factor" is an advantage. l know there are reasons to shoot FF. Each format has it's advantages and disadvantages. For me, APS-C is the most logical choice.

[Alex645]

Because I started with 35mm film photography, full frame is a more of a return to and not a go to. APS-C is more practical and affordable, but because I started photography with the equivalent of FF, I returned to it for all the reasons other than "it was the latest trend".

[zzeitg]

One of my "Other" reasons was that I had collected quite some film era FF lenses and they deserved an FF camera.

While I keep using APS-C for wildlife (esp. birding) photography (and sometimes macro), for all the rest FF is the winner when it comes to image quality.

[dave_roe]

Not a thing wrong the APS-C cameras.

My style of shooting made the K1MII a good decision. I needed the high ISO performance, I do a lot of night and street photography. Having the reach is only exceed by the ability to crop deep to isolate the subject. One last factor was I had a good mix of lenses that crossed over to the full frame without spending additional cash.

I still use my K3 and K5 on a regular basis. Based on what I plan on shooting with the right lens they perform just as well as the FF.

I would not be happy with just a FF as I still find the APS-C rigs perfect in many aspects.

[W412ren]

Yes, surprise- a bit unexpected was my K-1 purchase.
I had been very happy with APSC and the limited lenses. On one of my visits to London I found a camera shop that had a K-1 and tried it out. The camera seemed a much better fit for my hands (always have preferred the Pentax ergonomics) and it just felt right.
I didn’t buy it then but thought about it for a couple of months (justification I suppose) but never regretted my decision.
I still have a K-5iis but it doesn’t get used often.

[Madaboutpix]

Have never made the jump to FF digital, because APS-C digital IQ has improved to a point where it is easily good enough for anything I would ever want to do with it. When well-lit scenes have yielded gorgeous 50 x 75cm (K-7) and 60 x 90cm (K-3) prints which are adorning my walls, there is not much left to be desired. I'm not trying to argue away that those prints would look even better from K-1 or K-1 II files, particularly with low-light shots, but those differences have never seemed compelling enough to me to justify the size, weight, obtrusiveness, and cost penalty that FF brings. If IQ and DOF are really that much of an issue, and costs matter as little as they seem to do, why aren't more people shooting MF? Now that would be a capable sensor format.

Don't get me wrong: I know perfectly well that compromises can be made and justified at various levels, and that people have different quality standards. I appreciate that we have the choice between so many different formats, and I don't begrudge people their FF systems at all. However, the constant rationalizing of the "need" for FF and the whining about marginally smaller sensors "not being good enough for what I do", often from people who shoot little more than family pics, never fail to set off my BS alert. Wanting something is a perfectly valid reason for getting it if you can afford it and don't harm others with it, but relentlessly pretending that you absolutely "need" it is another matter IMO.

[aslyfox]

I finally went full frame

ME Super

Super Program

Z 1

no plans for the K I or K I II

[Wasp]

I am keen to get into full frame digital photography but lack the budget to do so. The price of a K1, even a used one, remains stubbornly out of reach. The Canon EOS RP is about half the price of a K1 in ZA. The Sony A7 series are looking very tempting in used form.

My reasons are varied, but none are compelling:

• shallow DOF on 50/1.4, 85/1.4 or 200/2.5 (quite shallow on crop but I really want to push the envelope)
• wide angle on 20/4 (my Sigma 10-20/3.5 is even wider, even on crop)
• better IQ in low light (my Samsung NX1 is pretty good at that)

[johnha]

Ditto.

Ditto ditto...