[Neville Holmes]

Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format. I know the theory of it all but what happens in practice.

A club member and I both had the same 16Mp mirrorless. He upgraded to 24Mp so I asked him if the images when printed 16"x12" were any better. He did not think so, just he could crop a little more. It does not seem worth me upgrading for that. Then he justified the expense claiming bells and whistles but I am happy with the functions that I have.

I have a K3, now convince me that for 16"x12" prints I do not need to spend the money for a K1. Practicle examples please, not opinion.

Thanks

[Na Horuk]

Then he justified the expense claiming bells and whistles but I am happy with the functions that I have.

Since its your money, you are free to spend it however you want. You don't need to justify it. But if you want to justify it, set your own standards. Upgrade when you can tell exactly why you need the upgrade.
Some people might need more MP, but most people don't. Some people like wider angle perspective of FF, but many people don't need it. Some people want fast burst mode of K-3, others want compact form of K-01, and some want a big monster with battery grip like K-1 with Sigma 35mm art on top.

You are not a bad person for sticking to the camera you like, and you are not a bad person for getting the newest, biggest camera you can find.

Edit: I still use K-01 and occasionally K-r. When I upgrade, it will be because these are no longer functioning, or because the new ones will have significantly better ISO performance. Or if I win the lottery and splurge

[timw4mail]

I like the K-1 because it's full frame, so all the focal length references make sense, and it's the same perspective that would be recorded on film.

[pschlute]

because it's full frame, so all the focal length references make sense

Try telling a 645 user that his focal lengths do not make sense

[wanderer2]

<<Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format>>

Here's one example. I have a 20X30 print on my wall of a mountain range that shows spectacular sharpness, taken with a FF camera. I have hundreds of images of the same scene taken with an aps-c camera and none of them match this one (and others) taken with FF. I think it's fairly universally accepted that for very large prints larger sensors are superior. I'm not surprised you do not see differences in 12x16 prints.

[timw4mail]

Try telling a 645 user that his focal lengths do not make sense

Well 35mm is generally assumed when talking about camera focal lengths, and it was a lot more pervasive with the general public than medium or large format.

Anyway...

[WPRESTO]

I started photography when there were still many 4X5 users who scoffed at "miniature" cameras (= 35mm). Where are they now? Truth is, I've posted many images on PF taken with a shirt-pocket P&S, and if any Pentaxian noticed the difference, they never commented. My wife uses a superzoom Panasonic (24~600mm equivalent). I look at her images taken on our Utah trip compared to mine taken with a K1, and I really wonder if the heavy backpack of equipment is justified. My K1 with the basic zoom is significantly heavier and bulkier that her Panasonic with a much, much greater zoom range. Purchase-carry-use whatever provides images satisfactory to you, or satisfies your psychology about what equipment you want to use.

[derekkite]

Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format. I know the theory of it all but what happens in practice.

A club member and I both had the same 16Mp mirrorless. He upgraded to 24Mp so I asked him if the images when printed 16"x12" were any better. He did not think so, just he could crop a little more. It does not seem worth me upgrading for that. Then he justified the expense claiming bells and whistles but I am happy with the functions that I have.

I have a K3, now convince me that for 16"x12" prints I do not need to spend the money for a K1. Practicle examples please, not opinion.

Thanks

f/5.6 1/800 500mm ISO2000. This is a shot I couldn't have gotten with the K3. I would have been down to 1/400 and maybe f4.5 to get the noise down. It was low light in the morning. I would have had movement blur and even at those lower iso values the noise in that light condition on the K3 is quite bad.

I shot the K3 for two or three years, can't remember. I got many fine shots with it, but the image quality degraded in low light.

[pcrichmond]

Print viewing size is also proportional to viewing distance. Our marketing dept. does it's own photography for our vehicle and building wraps, up to 40 foot prints all done with a Canon 5D. Up close they show every horrifically magnified pixel margin but are spectacular prints when viewed from across the parking lot or driving down the freeway.

Think how you want your prints to be viewed - arms distance, gallery strolling distance or from across the room and what print medium you want to use, fine art paper vs canvas, vinyl, etc.
These factors can influence as much as MP or sensor size.

I upgraded to the K-1 from the K3 for the lower noise during night photography and also so that my legacy glass would act as I'm used to with film, not the FOV but that expansion/compression characteristics, (etc.) are in proportion to focusing & film plane distance.
I use my converted K-01 more than the K-1 in preference to the monochrome it produces and still love using my old 6x7 when shooting film.
I've also sold enough 16x20 inch prints from the K3 (low light & nighttime light paintings) to know it is a solid performer.

The K-1 for me is like using the K1000 again with the advantage of AF, I love it and am glad I made the jump but I still have the K3 and don't plan on selling it as it is a solid performer if I need the backup.

[lytrytyr]

I started photography when there were still many 4X5 users who scoffed at "miniature" cameras (= 35mm). Where are they now?

Using 35mm digital, and scoffing at the Q cameras.

[DeadJohn]

Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format. I know the theory of it all but what happens in practice....

My perspective, having upgraded from the K-5 to the K-1. The depth of field control(*) doesn't matter to me. I upgraded primarily for better dynamic range and low light performance because I do a lot of night photography. The K-5 was a very capable night camera, but the K-1 sensor is significantly better. Colors are better at high ISO and there's less noise. (*) There are many other threads that argue whether APS-C can show similar thin depth of field to FF. It doesn't matter for my type of photography.

The larger format explains part of that improvement. When a K-1 image and K-5 image are viewed at the same size, whether screen or print, more K-1 pixels fit into the same print area so random pixel noise is less noticeable. The larger sensor allows each of those pixels to remain a reasonably large size; squeezing 36mp into APS-C would shrink pixels and increase noise.

Here are 2 examples. I wanted sky and landscape in a single exposure, capping me to 30 seconds. The upwards shot through trees is ISO 3200 and better than anything I ever got with the K-5. The 2nd sample is a less interesting composition but shows how well ISO 6400 works, similar to what I got with 1600 on the K-5.

[timw4mail]

Using 35mm digital, and scoffing at the Q cameras.

But before that they were scoffing at APS, 110, 126, Disc, and any other "small-format" film

[Rupert]

I shoot some in the Crop Mode (love it!) and more often in FF mode and crop in processing. For what I do, I can't see much difference than my old K5iis in IQ when printed at medium sizes.
The other features, such as the much better AF and AF in very low light are important to me and make the K1 worth the difference......but seriously, I could be happy with just the K5iis.
I think the answer depends entirely on the shooter and what they do and need the most. For me I shoot a lot of squirrels and they have been praying for a FF camera simply for the status of it.......they are egotistical creatures. For me that is not important.

Answered prayers?


Regards!

[jab2980]

If sharpness is your only concern, photo prints at 300DPI are really not going to show much difference, since at the size you mention, you are only looking at a bit more than 16MP anyway, and with paper texture and pigment/dye bleed, you aren't getting true per-pixel resolution even at a 1 pixel:1dot reproduction. In short, better cropping is probably one of the smallest advantages an FF has over an APS-C.

Full frame's real advantages lie more with 1) more control over DOF effects 2) better ability to produce wider compositions, 3) better dynamic range/color reproduction with more headroom for postprocessing manipulation, and as a corollary of 4) better noise characteristics. These are all things that can come through in prints, but to effectively realize their advantages requires a deeper understanding of the process of taking the photograph and preparing it for print than just shooting away and sending it to your printer or a lab.

In short, for a casual shooter, the advantages of Full Frame are much less. So it's more a matter of asking yourself whether it's worth it to you to put in the time and effort to make use of the potential of the FF body. If not, then save your pocketbook the pain and enjoy the camera you have.

Some tech support sites take the correct answer to a question and put it at the top.... that would be useful here and this would be the response that would be at the top. If I could add one more thing - the viewfinder is slightly larger on FF cameras as well. On a complete side note, Wifi, built in gps, and the tiltable screen are two non-ff specific features that were very nice upgrades from my K-5II.

[DeadJohn]

Can you K1 users give examples when they believe that an image was better for being on the Full Frame format ... I have a K3, now convince me that for 16"x12" prints I do not need to spend the money for a K1.

I already replied how great the K-1 sensor is for night photos. However, I didn't address the 2nd part.

The K-3 is a great camera and should be fine even significantly larger than 16"x12". Is there anything wrong with your 16x12 prints? What types of photography do you do? If you think the K-3 is limiting you, also let us know what printer and lenses you use because maybe you'd be better served by an upgrade in those areas instead of buying a K-1.