[Lord Lucan]

The only difference I notice in use is the weight If I am using zoom lenses, I just zoom to frame the subject how I want - I am not conscious of what the focal length is, at least not while I'm taking the shot.
All my primes are all from 35mm film days so they act (composition wise) the same on my FF DSLR as they did back then. I never had any prime APS-C so I never really gave APS-C focal lengths much thought, I just changed from one zoom to another if I needed to. I have sold my APS-C zooms now and I can't even remember what focal lengths they were.

[texandrews]

I'd say this entirely depends on how much you've internalized shooting one format over the other. That said, the difference between shooting 3:2 in apsc and FF is negligible to non-existent, imo. Not so shooting 645's 4:3 back to FF's 3:2.

[Riggomatic]

Going from the K-5 to the K-1, I probably hit the play button on the K-1 for about a week, until my thumb could remember where the green button was positioned.

[UncleVanya]

Stop thinking, look through the viewfinder, you'll figure it out.

Spot on. I shoot multiple digital formats and have no difficulty switching between them. Truth be told I have more difficulty with remembering the camera menus than the format differences. Switching from a Panasonic GX-7 to an Olympus EM-1 is harder than going from the K-3 APSC to m43 in the same day.

[UncleVanya]

I'd say this entirely depends on how much you've internalized shooting one format over the other. That said, the difference between shooting 3:2 in apsc and FF is negligible to non-existent, imo. Not so shooting 645's 4:3 back to FF's 3:2.

Interesting. I don't find that true for me moving between m43 and APSC. I wonder if our experiences are that different or if you are perhaps optimizing the native formats more than I am.

My first camera was 120 Arrow (square format) similar to the Diana camera, but the majority of my younger years were spent with a 35mm rig. 3:2 should be pretty ingrained in my brain. However m43 was an easy format to pick up without any disorientation or weirdness in framing. Granted I sometimes crop either format to the other and even more arbitrary ratios... But it doesn't feel strange at all.

[normhead]

It's like basketball, you need muscle memory. When you pick up the camera, it's distinct shape and size should clue you in immediately to the characteristics of the camera. Not because you thought about it, but because the shape of the camera reminds you of how it works. The only way to become familiar with different formats is to just go out and use it as often as possible, until you understand it without thinking about it.

But you have to do that with every new camera even if they are both APS-c or whatever. SO the only issue here is not FF vs APS-c, but any camera you own vs any other new to you camera. If you have owned a camera before and then bought another, you know the drill.

The problem with FF and APS-c is they aren't different enough in some cases. But with the 28-105 on the K-1 and the 18-135 on the K-3, you do have to pay attention to what's in your hand. I'e walked out with the K-3 thinking it was the K-1.

My conversion K-3 to K-1 didn't last 15 minutes. I just had to work through the button placement and the third dial. Then it was business as usual. This was made easier by the fact that my D FA 28-105 looks about the same as my DA 18-135, and even uses the same lens hood, so when I need that FoV, I just grab a lens that looks right and make sure it's for the right camera.

There is absolutely no benefit to putting my DA* 55 1.4 on my K-1 and thinking about it's field of view on a K-3. It's not useful information. I don't even think of them as the same lens. The DA*55 1.4 on the K-3 does not have the same capability it does on a K-1. Don't even think of them as the same lens would be my advice.

[SimonC]

Stop thinking, look through the viewfinder, you'll figure it out.

Ha, ha... I know what you say is true but I'm a thinker can't help it!

And which ever way I go it will be a significant investment so like to explore a bit first.

Thanks again the replies all very helpful.

[lister6520]

The only readjustment I need is because of using APSc lenses with the K1. Most of them fill quite a bit more than the APS-C size but not quite the full sensor. Because of that I tend to set the camera always to full frame and then I'm supposed to remember to allow for the vignetting but far too often I forget about that and end up with a photo that I have to crop smaller than the composition required so as to get rid of the cut off corners.

[texandrews]

Interesting. I don't find that true for me moving between m43 and APSC. I wonder if our experiences are that different or if you are perhaps optimizing the native formats more than I am.

I think it may have something to do with going down from 645 to FF and also from 4:3 to 3:2. The thing that hit me hardest was 2 fold, but related: my 645 wides seemed so much wider with the extra vertical dimension---so much so that my use of wides dropped, especially outdoors and/or in my personal work. Then, I found that I was shooting much more at a normal/normal-ish FL than ever before, and that it seemed plenty wide for a lot of things. The 55 is basically on the camera by default, and I use it all the time. Now, my 645 wides are mainly used indoors within architectural settings (museums) for documentary work.


When I drop back down to FF, I then tend to revert to shooting wider....This did not happen to me when I moved up from Oly 4/3 to FF.


Not sure I am optimizing more than you are, but it has been a pronounced change for me, sort of startling. I was never much of a normal shooter long ago, except in 4x5. I remember something similar happening when I flirted with 4x5, but I had chalked that up to the difficulty shooting really wide in that format. Now, not so sure.

Underlining this is my disappointment that the 645 45 is the weakest of the primes. That translates roughly to a 35FL in FF---an FL that appealed so little to me back in the day that I didn't even have one. Now, I have to use the 45-85 or the 28-45 to get it---what would be a darn useful prime FL for me in 645.

[jatrax]

I shot film ages ago but with a large gap between that and buying a DSLR. So my modern experience was with APS-C. When I bought the K-1 I had the same worry, that things would look different. That I might have trouble adjusting And yes they did look different, but it really did not take long to adjust.

Stop thinking, look through the viewfinder, you'll figure it out.

This is the best advice. I now switch between the K-1 and the K-3II with no issues at all. I think using two formats has really helped my "eye". I am not expecting things to look a certain way, I am looking through the viewfinder and shooting what I see.

[normhead]

Ha, ha... I know what you say is true but I'm a thinker can't help it!

And which ever way I go it will be a significant investment so like to explore a bit first.

Ya, I do the same thing, I overanalyze, I look at every little case and scenario 5 times, I usually don't buy until I'm sick of studying and analyzing. I was trying to save you from all that.

[stevebrot]

I shoot both APS-C digital and 35mm film with basically the same lens kit. No problems...


Steve

[UncleVanya]

I think it may have something to do with going down from 645 to FF and also from 4:3 to 3:2. The thing that hit me hardest was 2 fold, but related: my 645 wides seemed so much wider with the extra vertical dimension---so much so that my use of wides dropped, especially outdoors and/or in my personal work. Then, I found that I was shooting much more at a normal/normal-ish FL than ever before, and that it seemed plenty wide for a lot of things. The 55 is basically on the camera by default, and I use it all the time. Now, my 645 wides are mainly used indoors within architectural settings (museums) for documentary work.

Thank you for the detailed thinking behind your experience. I do find that the specific lenses I have in each format have an influence - maybe due to how they feel to use and how they render, so your overall experience does resonate somewhat with me.

As an example that may help the OP, I find the FA 31 a little unexciting on my K-3, but when I used it on the K1 it was really a great experience. This came down to the 31 being a wide angle lens that fills a perspective I can only get using my DA 20-40 close to the 20mm end with my K3. That perspective while available on the K-3 doesn't look identical (obviously) between the two lenses and shooting a zoom vs a prime feels different also.

[SimonC]

Ya, I do the same thing, I overanalyze, I look at every little case and scenario 5 times, I usually don't buy until I'm sick of studying and analyzing. I was trying to save you from all that.

I wish!

[pschlute]

Interested in others thoughts

I went from 35mm film to Pentax aps-c and then to Pentax FF. No adjustment needed at all.

If you try to frame a scene with a FF camera and it is too wide or narrow you have the options of moving closer or further away. Or using a longer or shorter focal length lens on your camera. Exactly the same as you do with a aps-c camera