[Dartmoor Dave]

In the poll, could I suggest changing:
I need better high ISO performance
I need more shallow DOF

To:
I want better high ISO performance
I want more shallow DOF

I still shoot with APS-C because I don't want any of the things that I'd get from FF.

[zapp]

ALL Pentax lenses are designed to fit FF k-mount. They all clear the mirror of K1... APS-C sensor cameras could work with even smaller lenses. Longer flange focal distance increases distortion... so k-Mount is FF. FA31 for instance has complicated design of a wide angle with back clearance longer than focal length. Performs like a 50 on APS-C, but weighs and costs much more.
I am happy to make full use of FF lenses, larger pixel pitch, shallow DOF, ... just looking for more modern FF lenses. APS-C is a TC-Option for FF owners. Denser pixel pitch result in narrower effective field of view. K1 performs much better than K3 and cropping is a joy. Resolution is insane, I agree, but 24Mpix is significantly less on smaller format and low Iso performance is also worse.
The new aps-c flagship may compete feature wise with K1. K1 clearly stands out against K3 and also KP on the feature leveler me. The new aps-c may be interesting as TC, for travel as well as for really new feature set above K1.

[ffking]

Like a lot of others, I haven't stopped using APS-C, but I now use it for telephoto reach and macro - but I jumped at the K-1 becaue I grew up with 35mm, and the format just feels natural (though I must admit, in my later film days, I used 120 film in the 67 and used 35mmfor telephoto and macro )

[robgski]

Like several Other responses, I wanted to use my vintage lenses to best effect, I wanted the higher pixel count for detail and enlargements. I valued the performance of my K-5, but the K-1's images hit my sweet spot.

[TaoMaas]

I needed better high ISO quality so I was going to have to upgrade my main camera regardless of whether I stuck with APS-C or switched to FF. Almost all my lenses are FF anyway so as long as I was making a jump, I went with FF.

[iheiramo]

Like several others I wanted to use my vintage lenses in their native format and glad I did

[Oldbayrunner]

I resisted going to a full frame since they first came out, thinking I didn't really need it as both my K5lls & My k3ll have served me well. As I have gotten older getting down into some shooting positions and up from them have become increasingly more difficult so there were things I have missed from my old Olympus days like an articulating screen, more axis shake reduction to name a couple, however I dont miss the noise found with a 4/3rd system. So it got to a point that I had choices to make. I could go with the K70 or KP, both fine cameras with articulating screens, but lacking in things I would miss from my existing aps-c cameras. I came from many years of 35mm Film camera use and I weighed that I had enough glass to be able to use on a full frame Pentax without going into another major expense.

So recently I picked up A K1 mkll. I must say this camera has everything I have wanted in a camera and performs so much better than I expected. I still will keep one of my aps-c cameras and lens for how long time will tell. Though it's hard for me to let go of really good cameras...lol

[sbh]

My "Other": For me personally, lenses are more satisfying especially on the wide end. It feels like a better fit.

[lesmore49]

'I like a larger negative. '

Yeah, I know we're talking about digital , not film cameras. But in the film era I used medium format (120 film) and 35mm film cameras exclusively. I like to have lots of room on the bone to crop, as it were. With my K1 I really like the high ISO performance.

But the K1 , especially with a battery grip is heavy...and I am starting to notice it since I screwed up my rotator cup. I'm also finding my K5 (ASP-C) body a little on the hefty side too. I'm getting medical care for the rotator issue and hope to get back into some semblance of shape...as I was before...when I was healthy and didn't notice the weight of the FF or ASP-C bodies.

But in the meantime...I'm finding my little Ricoh GR ll to have an inordinate amount of appeal...hardly any weight/size to contend with...and great pix from that big ASP-C sensor crammed into the miniscule , high quality GR body....with it's excellent, albeit fixed 28mm F 2.8 lens.

I'm starting to think...could I give up interchangeable lenses and DSLRdom...for small, light yet similar quality image producer as a good ASP-C, DSLR body ?

Maybe the key is to think small...really small ?

[WorksAsIntended]

The viewfinder and DOF

[ThorSanchez]

I went with FF for the major reason of flexibility and versatility by using only 1 body to cover almost all my needs, using cropped in the past had its benefits that have shrunk in recent years with the release of higher pixel density and cheaper longer lenses.
The only real reason for me to use cropped was the reach factor allotted the user from the higher pixel density, but most of this has nearly evaporated in recent years along with the newer lens selections we see today this is even more less evident.

I use FF mostly for its IQ that we see near its base iso, add to mix that old lenses that are so so on cropped are given new life of FF bodies. For me once the pixel density along with the newer lens select gave me what I need as a single system user cropped was no longer needed and have never looked back at using cropped

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.

---------- Post added 02-16-20 at 11:07 AM ----------

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.

Didn't you start a long thread about how FF was no good? APS-C is great for smaller prints, but Medium Format is the smallest acceptable size for large prints?

[DWS1]

I seriously thought about going FF, but when I analyzed things I concluded ASP-C is still my best option. I tend to shoot more telephoto than wide angle and do not shoot much in nighttime or extremely low light situations. I did however decide that any future lens purchases would be FF compatible in case I ever decided to add a FF body. At the time I did not consider or realize how much better FF lenses are on a crop body compared to their crop only counterparts. The D FA 28-105mm is a wonderful lens on a crop body.

[bjolester]

I went Pentax full frame in 2010, when I purchased two very nice Pentax MX. Since then I have added several Pentax KX and other Pentax 35mm bodies to my collection. It is great to use Pentax film era lenses like they were intended😊

If I ever should need to make very large prints, I could shoot with my Pentax 67ii medium format camera, and have the film drum scanned.

My main digital camera is a Pentax K5iis, a superb camera IMO.

[clickclick]

Voted other for predominately the wider FOV with certain lenses and also already had vintage lenses and is what I was used to at some level having started with a K 1000 in the 70's as my first SLR. But, I use my K-3 II perhaps more, and I intend to buy the K new. I go between formats depending on lighting, subject (e.g. birds = APS-C, landscape = full frame), and then general mood and whatever lenses I feel like carrying/playing with on any given day. I'd be hard pressed to give up either format at this point.

[biz-engineer]

Didn't you start a long thread about how FF was no good? APS-C is great for smaller prints, but Medium Format is the smallest acceptable size for large prints?

That's right, I'm at the limit for my larger prints with the K1, due to lens resolution at corners. I openned the thread about full frame nearly 4 years after buying the Pentax K1, so my thead about FF, MF and APSC originated from the 4 years of experience with full frame. When I purchase the K1 was 4 years earlier than the thread. In 2016 when I purchased the Pentax K1 (decision making = reason to buy Pentax K1), was before the experience. I hope it's understandable.