[northcoastgreg]

I personally wouldn't even call the depth of field advantage "significant," though.

I agree that the DOF advantage has been way over-played. There are more compelling reasons for FF, such as the aforementioned ISO advantage, or the resolution advantage (which is genuine, though it still tends to be over-stated).

For me, the biggest and most compelling reason to get an FF would be the glass. If I had a lot of K-mount FF glass and they were my favorite lenses, I'd get the K-1. If Pentax was offering FF lenses that fit my shooting style, I'd get a K-1. But neither of these stipulations happen to apply. My favorite lenses are mostly APS-C lenses, and the Pentax FF line-up, although it's great for what it is, just doesn't fit my shooting style. I like high quality slow glass -- lenses with great color and contrast and flare-control, like the DA Limiteds. I also need a wide angle zoom with filter rings and a high quality slow aperture standard zoom that starts at FF equivalent 24mm. Pentax's APS-C line-up features these lenses, while their FF line-up does not. So as great as the K-1 undoubtedly is, I just can't get excited about a camera absent the right lenses.

[Qwntm]

I agree that the DOF advantage has been way over-played. There are more compelling reasons for FF, such as the aforementioned ISO advantage, or the resolution advantage (which is genuine, though it still tends to be over-stated).

For me, the biggest and most compelling reason to get an FF would be the glass. If I had a lot of K-mount FF glass and they were my favorite lenses, I'd get the K-1. If Pentax was offering FF lenses that fit my shooting style, I'd get a K-1. But neither of these stipulations happen to apply. My favorite lenses are mostly APS-C lenses, and the Pentax FF line-up, although it's great for what it is, just doesn't fit my shooting style. I like high quality slow glass -- lenses with great color and contrast and flare-control, like the DA Limiteds. I also need a wide angle zoom with filter rings and a high quality slow aperture standard zoom that starts at FF equivalent 24mm. Pentax's APS-C line-up features these lenses, while their FF line-up does not. So as great as the K-1 undoubtedly is, I just can't get excited about a camera absent the right lenses.

And that right there solves the mystery to anyone that doesn't shoot Canon why they continue to sell cameras that are a generation or 2 behind in sensor technology. Canon just has about any lens you could ever imagine needing. Or to put it another way, if you know what you need, it's a lot easier with the canon system to fulfill your requirements. Nikon runs a VERY CLOSE 2nd in my opinion. Also look at Fuji. Those guys bullseyed the lens selection for their target audience of their cameras, and have seen a 300% growth in sales over 5 years. No mystery there either.


Pentax has the best backward compatibility. Fine if your more of a collector, not so fine if your a photographer that needs the right gear now.


So in typical Pentax fashion, lets hope Ricoh fleshes out the lens line up for the K1 over the next few years.

[DeadJohn]

Canon sells cameras because they are the default choice, not because they have the most or best lenses. Most shoppers don't research sensors nor lenses before buying into a system. Nikon's advertising doesn't attack Canon sensor limitations, either, because the mass market buyer doesn't want to know about sensor tech.

(If you want to see an example of tech-focused marketing, look at the astrophotography market. Camera makers release quantum efficiency graphs, talk about bayer filters in marketing materials, and use charts like http://3ainmfntxe31vi9qd1pxgpd1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2...ion-Tables.pdf)

The Canon advantage in lens selection is mostly relevant to specialty/dream lenses. The Canon 200mm f2 costs $5700 and weighs just under 6 pounds. That's a huge cost and weight premium over a 200/2.8. The 800mm f5.6 is a fantastic lens for wildlife. It costs $13000, though. The market for such lenses are specialized professionals and well-off hobbyists.

[blan01]

1.I completely agree with you on DoF. Plus I would say not just DoF, the whole gap between apsc and full frame is getting smaller.
2. I got a K1 because I have lots of old lenses, they are fine on apsc, but I want my 31 to be a fast wide angle. Pentax DA zoom lenses are great, but the prime lenses are just not fast enough for me. (BTW, I really wish Pentax can build some fast primes for apsc like Fuji did.)
3. High iso performance is important to me, 6400 on K3 is acceptable but not great. On my K1, well...... BIG advantage here.
4. This is just me, the IBIS in K1 is amazing, I don't carry tripod for waterfall anymore.
5.The price of this camera is not bad. Fuji Xpro2 is 1699; 7DMii is 1600; 80D is 1200, not to mention the new D500. However, the new DFA lenses are expensive....

PS: I'd like to see more video from you

[Meg4mi]

4. This is just me, the IBIS in K1 is amazing, I don't carry tripod for waterfall anymore.

What's your settings (shutter speed) when doing waterfall ?

[blan01]

What's your settings (shutter speed) when doing waterfall ?

100 OR 200 iso, ND filter , 1/8 to 1/2 sec. I only use tripod for anything longer than a sec.
I did some test shots recently, see below( 1/8s, 1/2s, 0.4s)
_IMG1823
_IMG1982
_IMG0885

[Kerrowdown]

If only Pentax sold sunshine

They did when my "Ladies" met the K1.

[mattb123]

With a variable aperture kit type of lens you can probably get a more noticeable thin DOF but if that is your sole reason for getting the camera I think you are misguided.
The lower noise at high ISO is probably my favorite single feature but there are a lot of nice little things to make the image better and/or the experience of using the camera more enjoyable.

[HopelessTogger]

They did when my "Ladies" met the K1.

Had a bit of sun today but ended up down the pub instead.

[Kerrowdown]

Had a bit of sun today but ended up down the pub instead.

And you didn't take her with you... (K1) I mean.

[HopelessTogger]

And you didn't take her with you... (K1) I mean.

Nope. Which is a shame because I was in Broadhembury in Devon (been here three years now).

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=broadhembury&rlz=1C1DIMA_enGB685GB685&espv...wCAhYQ_AUIBygC

[Meg4mi]

100 OR 200 iso, ND filter , 1/8 to 1/2 sec. I only use tripod for anything longer than a sec.

With my K-1. I'm not getting sharp image when I go under 1/5sec with 35mm.
But it could be that you're more stable than me

[Tony Belding]

Here's the thing that I don't think a lot of people appreciate about APS-C and FF. . . They're almost the same size! With full frame we're talking about a slightly larger sensor. To move to a slightly larger sensor and expect a big, dramatic difference in optical performance isn't really sensible. It's only through an odd developmental quirk of DSLRs that we even have these two formats so close in size.

From my viewpoint, the Pentax lineup of Q (1/1.7), APS-C and 645 made a lot of sense, and there was enough gap in size and performance between each line that nobody would ever mistake them or get confused about which one filled which role. Then the K-1 dropped awkwardly into the slot i between APS-C and 645, and the rationale is not so clear.

But the K-1 wasn't created to fill a rational, technical need. It exists because we kept asking for it. Because professionals use full-frame. Because Ricoh needed to keep up with the Joneses (i.e. Canon and Nikon) and be taken seriously. Because Sigma and Tamron and Samyang kept churning out more and more full-frame lenses. And so forth. Basically it's all about hype and peer pressure.

And, at the end of the day, they made yet another great camera. Everybody who's got a K-1 seems to love it, and we've all been having a great party here, and far be it from me to throw cold water on the festivities. However. . . I can't help thinking that it's all been a distraction from more interesting and forward-looking things that Pentax could have been working on instead.

[normhead]

Here's the thing that I don't think a lot of people appreciate about APS-C and FF. . . They're almost the same size! With full frame we're talking about a slightly larger sensor. To move to a slightly larger sensor and expect a big, dramatic difference in optical performance isn't really sensible. It's only through an odd developmental quirk of DSLRs that we even have these two formats so close in size.

From my viewpoint, the Pentax lineup of Q (1/1.7), APS-C and 645 made a lot of sense, and there was enough gap in size and performance between each line that nobody would ever mistake them or get confused about which one filled which role. Then the K-1 dropped awkwardly into the slot i between APS-C and 645, and the rationale is not so clear.

That would be true if it weren't for the Pixel shift enabling the K-1 to exceed the 645z's dynamic range and low light performance. That leaves the only pure 645z advantage as pure resolution.

After careful consideration... there is no DoF advantage to APS-c in the actual photographs taken however there is a considerable advantage in cost to APS-c.

To take a K-70 ( assuming the K-1 noise reduction unit has been added to the K-70) and the DA*200 ƒ2.8, you take exactly the same image with a K-1 and DA*300 ƒ4.
IN this case the difference in cost, is the cost of the cameras, which will still be about $100 dollars, and for that $1000 you get an extra 25% more lw/ph, or more resolution.

But, look at the image you get with the K-70 and DA*300, where you have to go to the F DA 150-450 at full reach achieve a comparable image. Now it is $1000 difference for the body, $1000 difference for the lens, and considerable cost in carrying weight. Now, you can argue, if you get the subject in your cross hairs, you get a better image with the 150-450 K-1 combo. But you can also argue, there will be instances when you'll get an image with the APS-c combo, just because it's easier to hand hold, pan, etc. SO, now you have a situation where, you can get an image with APS-c, but you can't with the K-1. And with the K-3, if you only have the little bird ( or rampaging child) in your viewfinder for a second, you have twice as many poses to choose from with the K-3.

There are many considerations into

If you take the same picture, the same shutter speed, the same Depth of Field, the same Field of View, essentially the same image...

You need to stop down 1 stop of the 36x24 sensor to achieve the same DOF. You need need to raise your ISO one stop to maintain your shutter speed, which cancels the high ISO noise advantage.

It's not so much that the K-3 gives you an advantage, it's that for the less money, there's not really a disadvantage. In most use, too narrow DOF is a disadvantage, and shooting APS-c and FF are functionally the same. Regardless of what some might imply, lower cost for the same thing is an advantage.

The K-3 advantage is 24 MP packed into the same area a K-1 puts only 15 MP opening the possibility of more magnification ( and more of the resolution being confined to the subject as opposed to more resolution but most of it wasted on an unimportant background.) with the same lens.
The Advantages of the K-1 would be higher resolution in uncropped images, but not necessarily so in cropped images.
The ability to trade a stop of DoF for a stop of ISO for low light performance in 1.4 lenses. IF you're using a 50 ƒ2 on FF you buy a 55 ƒ1.4 on APS-c and you've pretty much neutralize and K-1 advantage, at least for low light and narrow DoF. Sure the K-1 has the advantage in what's available, but for anyone shooting with kit or consumer lenses, there's no K-1 advantage.

Essentially there is and advantage to the K-1 only if you print big and shoot wide open. If you don't do those things, it may be a bit more work for you to ket your K-3 images, but they'll be pretty much the same, at best up to a 3000x2000 file size,

The K-1 has some advantages, but it doesn't have all the advantages. The biggest bummer for me would be the burst rate, that is half the speed of the K-3. There are simply situations where you can't over-come that. Those guys that pay the $6k for the 14 FPS, 20 MP canons, they do know what they're doing. The K-3 enables me to shoot beside them with some hope of better images. A K-1 isn't even in the picture, it's a field camera, so sayeth Petnax.

SO altogether, you can ask what's the APS-c DoF advantage, and really there isn't one. The APS-c advantage in Pentax is cost, burst and magnification. But, as noted above, it's a lot more complicated than could be handled in a simple answer. There are a lot of other factors when taking pictures. And in features like burst rate, K-1 to K-3, you're paying more for less.

[HopelessTogger]

That would be true if it weren't for the Pixel shift enabling the K-1 to exceed the 645z's dynamic range and low light performance. That leaves the only pure 645z advantage as pure resolution.

After careful consideration... there is no DoF advantage to APS-c in the actual photographs taken however there is a considerable advantage in cost to APS-c.

To take a K-70 ( assuming the K-1 noise reduction unit has been added to the K-70) and the DA*200 ƒ2.8, you take exactly the same image with a K-1 and DA*300 ƒ4.
IN this case the difference in cost, is the cost of the cameras, which will still be about $100 dollars, and for that $1000 you get an extra 25% more lw/ph, or more resolution.

But, look at the image you get with the K-70 and DA*300, where you have to go to the F DA 150-450 at full reach achieve a comparable image. Now it is $1000 difference for the body, $1000 difference for the lens, and considerable cost in carrying weight. Now, you can argue, if you get the subject in your cross hairs, you get a better image with the 150-450 K-1 combo. But you can also argue, there will be instances when you'll get an image with the APS-c combo, just because it's easier to hand hold, pan, etc. SO, now you have a situation where, you can get an image with APS-c, but you can't with the K-1. And with the K-3, if you only have the little bird ( or rampaging child) in your viewfinder for a second, you have twice as many poses to choose from with the K-3.

There are many considerations into

If you take the same picture, the same shutter speed, the same Depth of Field, the same Field of View, essentially the same image...

You need to stop down 1 stop of the 36x24 sensor to achieve the same DOF. You need need to raise your ISO one stop to maintain your shutter speed, which cancels the high ISO noise advantage.

It's not so much that the K-3 gives you an advantage, it's that for the less money, there's not really a disadvantage. In most use, too narrow DOF is a disadvantage, and shooting APS-c and FF are functionally the same. Regardless of what some might imply, lower cost for the same thing is an advantage.

The K-3 advantage is 24 MP packed into the same area a K-1 puts only 15 MP opening the possibility of more magnification ( and more of the resolution being confined to the subject as opposed to more resolution but most of it wasted on an unimportant background.) with the same lens.
The Advantages of the K-1 would be higher resolution in uncropped images, but not necessarily so in cropped images.
The ability to trade a stop of DoF for a stop of ISO for low light performance in 1.4 lenses. IF you're using a 50 ƒ2 on FF you buy a 55 ƒ1.4 on APS-c and you've pretty much neutralize and K-1 advantage, at least for low light and narrow DoF. Sure the K-1 has the advantage in what's available, but for anyone shooting with kit or consumer lenses, there's no K-1 advantage.

Essentially there is and advantage to the K-1 only if you print big and shoot wide open. If you don't do those things, it may be a bit more work for you to ket your K-3 images, but they'll be pretty much the same, at best up to a 3000x2000 file size,

The K-1 has some advantages, but it doesn't have all the advantages. The biggest bummer for me would be the burst rate, that is half the speed of the K-3. There are simply situations where you can't over-come that. Those guys that pay the $6k for the 14 FPS, 20 MP canons, they do know what they're doing. The K-3 enables me to shoot beside them with some hope of better images. A K-1 isn't even in the picture, it's a field camera, so sayeth Petnax.

SO altogether, you can ask what's the APS-c DoF advantage, and really there isn't one. The APS-c advantage in Pentax is cost, burst and magnification. But, as noted above, it's a lot more complicated than could be handled in a simple answer. There are a lot of other factors when taking pictures. And in features like burst rate, K-1 to K-3, you're paying more for less.

APS-C + slightly slower lenses or APS-C lenses = much higher probability of use.

I hadn't realised quite how physically weak I'd become until I went out shooting with the K-1 and D-FA* 2.8/70-200 the other day. It's a great combination, but the weight and handling negates the marginal optical benefits over say, my A6000 and 4/70-200 G OSS.

For me, the lens weight limit is around a kilo before it becomes too uncomfortable, so my preference for general shooting is APS-C, both camera and lens.