[sutherland]

'It depends'.

Shooting mainly Nikon:
- D850's noise handling is no better than my D500
- D5, D750 (all of which are Full Frame) are fantastic at low light and produce MUCH cleaner images than the D850 and D500

The point I am trying to make is that 'Low Light Handling' is commonly a trait with Full Frame, but there are certainly exceptions.

Pentax APS-C dispels the common thought that APS-C is not good at Low Light. I much prefer the output of my old K-3II and K-5IIs to my D500 at ISO3200 and above. I have not used the KP/K70, but there are enough first hand use cases and example files at higher ISOs that show that Pentax has continued to improve IQ (especially in Low Light).

When it comes to wildlife, an APS-C has its advantages if you intend to further crop in post production. Exceptions with the D850, being 45.7 MPs in FX mode and is basically a D500 in DX mode. Again..having that flexibility with the D850 comes at a cost:
- low light handling
- file size
- performance requires Grip and Higher Voltage Battery (additional 1k for grip/charger/battery)

Shooting wildlife, if I could get close enough to the subject or have long enough glass (which prevents me from needing to crop excessively), Full Frame does have its share of perks. For me, it's mostly:
- being able to ride the shutter or stop down without much worry about increased ISO
- expanded field of view to see subjects before they hit the center of the frame

A KP with a bigger battery, more FPS, and a deeper buffer would be a really compelling offering given its IQ.

[UncleVanya]

'It depends'.

Shooting mainly Nikon:
- D850's noise handling is no better than my D500
- D5, D750 (all of which are Full Frame) are fantastic at low light and produce MUCH cleaner images than the D850 and D500

The point I am trying to make is that 'Low Light Handling' is commonly a trait with Full Frame, but there are certainly exceptions.

Pentax APS-C dispels the common thought that APS-C is not good at Low Light. I much prefer the output of my old K-3II and K-5IIs to my D500 at ISO3200 and above. I have not used the KP/K70, but there are enough first hand use cases and example files at higher ISOs that show that Pentax has continued to improve IQ (especially in Low Light).

When it comes to wildlife, an APS-C has its advantages if you intend to further crop in post production. Exceptions with the D850, being 45.7 MPs in FX mode and is basically a D500 in DX mode. Again..having that flexibility with the D850 comes at a cost:
- low light handling
- file size
- performance requires Grip and Higher Voltage Battery (additional 1k for grip/charger/battery)

Shooting wildlife, if I could get close enough to the subject or have long enough glass (which prevents me from needing to crop excessively), Full Frame does have its share of perks. For me, it's mostly:
- being able to ride the shutter or stop down without much worry about increased ISO
- expanded field of view to see subjects before they hit the center of the frame

A KP with a bigger battery, more FPS, and a deeper buffer would be a really compelling offering given its IQ.

Thanks for that perspective.

The 850 pixels are getting mighty small. 36mp k-1 has a sweet spot... More resolution than k-3 for frame filling shots, but the pixel size of a k-5.

I'm surprised the d500 isn't better the 20mp sensors seem good in the ks1 & 2, but Sony may have just hit gold with the 24mp apsc chips.

[sutherland]

Thanks for that perspective.

The 850 pixels are getting mighty small. 36mp k-1 has a sweet spot... More resolution than k-3 for frame filling shots, but the pixel size of a k-5.

I'm surprised the d500 isn't better the 20mp sensors seem good in the ks1 & 2, but Sony may have just hit gold with the 24mp apsc chips.

I was surprised with the D500 as well. I think, to be honest, much of my surprise probably stemmed from:
- marketing hype
- price tag

At 3200 it is a very workable file, but the K-3II was certainly cleaner. Despite whatever advancements made in processing, I do not shoot the D500 at 6400 or above. All said, still a fantastic camera, but I don't think it's the 'low light aps-c monster' many 'reviewers' claimed it to be. Better than the direct APS-C competitors, Canon 7DmkII and Fuji X-T2? You bet.

With the D850, it's not uncommon to hear people complain about the file sizes of a 14bit uncompressed 45MP file. In fact, it's also not uncommon for people to shoot in mRAW or sRAW to combat the noise/grain of the default large RAW file. That said, I am not sure if the downsize approach applies a hit to detail and dynamic range.

[normhead]

I was surprised with the D500 as well. I think, to be honest, much of my surprise probably stemmed from:
- marketing hype
- price tag

At 3200 it is a very workable file, but the K-3II was certainly cleaner. Despite whatever advancements made in processing, I do not shoot the D500 at 6400 or above. All said, still a fantastic camera, but I don't think it's the 'low light aps-c monster' many 'reviewers' claimed it to be. Better than the direct APS-C competitors, Canon 7DmkII and Fuji X-T2? You bet.

With the D850, it's not uncommon to hear people complain about the file sizes of a 14bit uncompressed 45MP file. In fact, it's also not uncommon for people to shoot in mRAW or sRAW to combat the noise/grain of the default large RAW file. That said, I am not sure if the downsize approach applies a hit to detail and dynamic range.

Downsizing applies a hit to resolution, not to dynamic range. One of the reasons, my K-1 is more useful, is you can downsize the image 50%, which gets rid of a lot of noise, and still have a K-5 image. The K-1 was already better for noise at high ISO, downsizing makes it even better. And you still have an image you can do anything you can do with a K-5, which is still a top 50 camera.

[emalvick]

Back early on when the rumors of Pentax's FF (or not) were flying like wildfire, all we had to look at were other companies offerings. I only had a k10d or K5 at the time, and it was easy to buy into the hype about FF's.

These days, I can't help but think that it is more than just the size of the sensor, and I've questioned my own need for an FF. I have an original K3 right now, and I am at the longest gap I've ever had between body purchases for a few reasons.

1. I still think my K3 gives fantastic image quality for the type of photography I shoot. DR, noise, resolution are all excellent for my need and I rarely find myself wishing for more.

2. I've adjusted to shooting with APSc bodies in terms of focal length / field of view. I don't shoot telephoto a ton, but I do like having the 60-250 lens and shooting at 250 mm enough that I would feel lost if I didn't buy a larger lens on a FF to compensate.

3. I've actually been awaiting the next top-tier APSc body to make the decision and save a bit more towards an FF if I went that route.

That being said, you see with #3 that I don't discount the idea of an FF. I wouldn't mind switching for the purpose of having a wider field of view with the 31-mm and 43-mm lenses. The one thing I'm not super happy with at APSc is the lens selection at wider angles than 31-mm. I would love a new fast 24-mm lens, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now. A FF would essentially give me that benefit.

Other than that, I'm more of an amateur user, so the FF doesn't necessarily provide me with a cost-benefit that I can justify the purchase. I would still rather buy great lenses in general, and have been doing so in the quiet period since I purchased by K3. However, since we have had a K1 available, I am much more conscious of whether the lenses can work on the FF if I ever go that route. Again, I haven't shut that door, but I'll continue to wait. I really do want to see the K3-ii successor if it ever arrives.

[normhead]

1. I still think my K3 gives fantastic image quality for the type of photography I shoot. DR, noise, resolution are all excellent for my need and I rarely find myself wishing for more.

FF proponents hate people like you.

2. I've adjusted to shooting with APSc bodies in terms of focal length / field of view. I don't shoot telephoto a ton, but I do like having the 60-250 lens and shooting at 250 mm enough that I would feel lost if I didn't buy a larger lens on a FF to compensate.

The cost of those FF alternatives is just scary, as is the weight. There i nothing like my 60-250 on FF, and many of my 60-250 images are taken with the 1.4 TC. There isn't even an FF TC, even if there was an equivalent lens.

Like you I was buying FF compatible lenses long before the K-1 came out, still, I'm still amazed at the cost in lenses I paid going to the K-1. With the accelerator enhanced k-70 and K-P images, the low light advantage of the K-1 series is less than one stop. And if you can't fake a stop, you aren't af photographer.