[reh321]

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 must see by now that this was inappropriate in this thread:

1, You could have compared a generic full-frame camera to generic cameras of other sensor sizes.

2. Instead you compared the full-frame Nikon Z6ii to the full-frame Pentax K-1ii, and found that it was better for you because of very idiosyncratic comparisons.
A reasonable comparison finds as many reasons for one as for the other. The Z6ii is not "more advanced" than the K-1ii. Punct. Period. "Full stop".

[biz-engineer]

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.

Why I went full frame? 24Mpixels wasn't enough for my needs, and especially with apsc lenses in corners, no good enough to 30" prints. I needed better image quality for making large prints and I already had 3 full frame K mount lenses in my bag. In addition, when I hand-held the Pentax K1 it fitted my hand immediately, and the K1 was cheaper than D810. Moreover, the K1 featured in body image stabilization, face detect AF, astro-tracer and pixelshift, that neither Nikon nor Canon offered back in 2016. So for me the choice was obvious, I went for the Pentax K1.

---------- Post added 08-08-21 at 19:10 ----------

Funny thing, you tell people why your camera is "more advanced" than theirs, and they'll tell you why you're wrong.

It's fine to make wrong camera choices, a lot of people do it. I saw a Pentax user who went from Pentax apsc to a Canon 5D Mk II for landscape photography, his resolution and dynamic range went down, he probably got the camera and lens for cheap or for free which may explain the choice. Another guy made a spec / price comparison and figured the Pentax offer was better, but his friends and family were shooting Canon, he didn't dare to be different, so he went for the inferior Canon offer.

[Henrico]

Most buy that camera they can afford and suits best at their specific situation. I still am in Pentax because I always was and want to re use all my (legacy) lenses. It might be the case that Pentax is still there just because their great backward compatibility.

When I, 40 years younger, now started all over again investing in equipment I doubt it would be Pentax. But in the end it doesn't matter, with all nowadays > € 1000 ILC's (mirror or not) and > € 500 lenses everyone little talented shooter should be able to make HQ pictures. So enjoy the stuff you own and go out shooting

I shoot both FF and APS-C, I grab FF for wide angle shooting with MF (super) wide angles, for High ISO indoor shots, landscapes, macro and portraits (small DOF). APS-C for street shooting and tele work and all situations I avoid bulkiness. Both formats are complementary, not competitive... Advantage of being in the K-mount is you can use all lenses on both.

[normhead]

It's fine to make wrong camera choices, a lot of people do it. I saw a Pentax user who went from Pentax apsc to a Canon 5D Mk II for landscape photography, his resolution and dynamic range went down, he probably got the camera and lens for cheap or for free which may explain the choice. Another guy made a spec / price comparison and figured the Pentax offer was better, but his friends and family were shooting Canon, he didn't dare to be different, so he went for the inferior Canon offer.

I think the point I was making was that we buy cameras for the things that appeal to us personally. Everyone does. When you talk to a camera owner, they will tell you what they appreciate about their camera. The fact that you may find some other thing appealling about your camera, and things on other brands unappealing, is irrelevant to everyone but yourself. The things others find unappealing, in no in no way changes the things you find appealing.

People are always saying :slow AF, no lenses, poor DR, slow FPS, etc. as if their choices are everyone's. There is no one single factor in camera engineering that is universally admired by everyone. Most of us don't need fast AF for every shot, wide DR for every shot, fast FPS for every shot, in fact I often set my camera to single shot, not burst, nd focus manually in live view.

Everything is important or not, depending on how you take pictures. My last trip out, I took my K-1. The FPS, buffer, AF etc. were un-needed in 7 days of tripping. My broad-winged hawk images were taken with my K-3. Recently some low light frorest images were taken with my Lumix ZS-100.

The only one who can decide what camera is better than which, is the person making the decision. And or people with multiple cameras we make those decisions when we go out every day.


What works best for another person is irrelevant. What worked for me yesterday is irrelevant. Today I may have different requirements.


But then here in lies my problem with the question. I didn't "go full frame", I bought a full frame to compliment my other cameras. Sometimes I "go full frame" someday I "go AP-c" and somedays I "go 1 inch sensor". Somedays I even go 1:2.3

When I go full frame with my k-1, it's for the tilting back screen, pixel shift, widest possible DR, best colour reproduction. But that's just my full frame compared to my other cameras. Others have many of those feature on their APS-c cameras. So my experience is irrelevant to them.

I don't recommend any single format. I recommend owning different cameras for different purposes. I don't recommend "going full frame" but I do recommend owning one if it fits into your budget and meets some (but not necessarily all) of your shooting needs.

Why did I buy a K-1, 4 PS, 36 MP Pixels shift camera with GPS?
I already had my most general use features covered on my K-3, 8 FPS, 24 MP, 23 shot buffer. The K-1 added 36 MP, Pixels shift, GPS and tilt screen, (all things I wanted) but cost me FPS and buffer,things I would have paid for before the FF things if I didn't already have them,

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-12-2021 at 06:14 AM.

[felixkh]

The reason I went full frame is because I have film lenses that can be used on FF.

[reh321]

The reason I went full frame is because I have film lenses that can be used on FF.

I do use old film lenses on my “APS-C” K-30, but I have to use a 35mm lens to get roughly the view that a 50mm lens gave me on a film SLR.
The original motivation behind the K-1 was “I want my 50mm lens to act like a 50mm lens”.

[MegaPower]

FA limited to be a real FA lens.

[aldo taddia]

I took the K1FF to be able to use the old lenses in my possession. Maybe also to rediscover the joy I felt taking photographs in the 80s. Maybe I thought I didn't have the same feelings about Apsc. And then first I was shooting with Canon in FF.

[Phil Martin]

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

Same here, I wanted to use my 43mm ltd and 35mm f/2.0 again without cropping, plus the extra detail and dynamic range. I've had a K1ii for three weeks now and I've not been disappointed but I'll still keep my K5 and KP when I need greater flexibility and to travel light.