Originally posted by Rico The major thing why the K3 or any APS-C camera can not be as good as a Full Frame camera is Field of View for wide angle lenses. Some may prefer the crop factor on APS-C for telephoto but for wide angle shooting Full Frame can not be beat.
Agreed, up to a point. 15/16mm on APS-C is wide enough for the vast majority of landscape shots for me. As shots go wider and wider then the image's depth can often start to be lost, I feel. Ignoring the portability of a K-3/15mm combination .... against what's on offer for the K-1.
Anyway, that is a little distraction from my original point. I've now received my 24-70 and had a quick play. It
is big and heavy on the K-1, but the balance is fine. It is quickly obvious that noise is of no consequence to 800 ISO and negligible to 1600 even 3200 on the K-1. I was never really happy going above 400 on the K-3. So that's giving me at least 2 stops of extra speed, if I require it - but on a tripod, I don't ! I'm back to seeing negligible difference between the two cameras at low ISO. With time I'll run a print experiment to see if the negligible difference on screen equates to no difference when printed, in these low ISO circumstances.
I'm looking forward to be able to change the aspect ratio to 4:3 and 1:1 with sufficient resolution and no interpolation. This will be a big plus for the K-1.
So what if I leave the tripod at home ? Can I get the quality I want hand held ? A quick test has freed me up a little in composing without the tripod. I can keep the speed up and use the ff dof to work differently. It will be interesting to see where this goes. However, I've never really made use of the SR before as I tend to use a tripod all the time. With no tripod and SR on, the images do seem to be a little softer at times. Could be me or does the SR soften slightly, whilst protecting against larger shake issues ? Guess I'll find out.
I do tend to hike to a location. Plonk the tripod down and work a small area slowly over a few hours as the light changes. Now I've got an FF system, as well as APS-C, I can see that on many occasions the results will be comparable, but it's the new compositions and more extreme conditions where I feel I'll see an FF gain. This is likely to take some time...
Maybe on my first proper outing I'll carry a K-1 & 24-70 and a K-3 & 16-50, with of course my trusty tripod and remote - that could prove an interesting start. To be truthful, though, I've actually got little interest in any points scoring between the two cameras - I just want to understand what works for me and build on it.
I'll feed back occasionally if anyone is interested ...