[Dan Rentea]

I am a happy man with my K-3, I have a large lens collection with some FF and some Crop only lenses. I shot film so I know the difference in field of view and understand the technical advantages of the larger pixel sites and newer processing engine.

HOWEVER...
I haven't really ever loved the size of FF fast zooms, I don't own any older series full frame zooms, I have some challenges with manual focus without a split prism, and I don't have a ton of money to sink into Full Frame. I don't currently find APSC limiting, and I suspect my technique is more of a barrier to me than equipment despite 40 years+ of photography as a hobby.

My Full Frame Lenses:
FA 31 ltd
F 50 f/1.7
FA 77 ltd
DFA 100 WR
FA* 300

Near Full Frame (or defacto full frame):
DA 40
DA* 200
DA* 60-250 (unmodified)

Not at all Full Frame:
Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
DA 15 ltd
DA 18-50
DA 18-135
DA 16-50
DA 50-135

Some use on Full Frame?:
DA 12-24 (20-24 from what I understand is usable)
DA 20-40 (I don't recall but I thought some of this range was usable)
DA 55-300 (as above)

I shoot zooms and primes. I have a Panasonic GX-7 as a second system (and a GX-1 backup to it.) with a good selection of lenses as well. (Primes 20, 30, 42.5) (fast zoom 12-35) (slower zooms 14-42, 35-100) so my "smaller system" could be filled by this rather than the K-3.

If you'll enter into full frame world it will be because:
1. either you need one
2. either you want one

I don't know if you need one (it's up to you to decide this), but it looks like you want one. Just my personal opinion: as good as an APS-C camera might be these days and I tried the best ones more than once (except KP and I'm intrigued about KP but I can't find it anywhere to rent or borrow it), I don't have a solid argument to go back from full frame to APS-C. Some will say that APS-C may have advantages on macro photography, or on wildlife photography, but I don't see them, at least not in a proportion that it matters. Yes, the APS-C combo will be lighter and cheaper overall, but that's about it. I'm not trying to say that you can't get very good results with APS-C cameras. Far by me this idea. It's just that full frame cameras will give you more confidence (although I don't know if it's the right word) in real life shooting conditions.

[gaweidert]

I have a K5, K5-IIs, K3, K1 and recently a K1-II. Got my first SLR in 1970 or so. It wasn't until I got my K1 that I finally found a camera that I thought was as good as film. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to describe the images and about the best I can come up with delicious. No need to own a crop camera as you can crop the heck out of the K1 images. If the K3 follow on does not offer great autofocus tracking and frame rate I see no need to keep any Pentax APSc equipment. I am 67 and I find myself needing the camera to pick it up for me in that regard. The K1's will stay.

In a few weeks I am heading out to Yellowstone. I will be taking three cameras and here is a good chance that the K3 will not even come out of the bag.

Right now you get a free battery grip when you purchase a K1-II. Just buy the K1-II and don't look back,

[Sandy Hancock]

Your FA31 becomes a uniquely wonderful wide angle lens. That is almost enough reason on its own.

I could go on, but you've read it all already.

[UncleVanya]

Your FA31 becomes a uniquely wonderful wide angle lens. That is almost enough reason on its own.

I could go on, but you've read it all already.

This alone is a strong reason Sandy... Your tempting me. Lol.

---------- Post added 04-27-18 at 09:23 AM ----------

I personally like the difference in FOV between them and have only ever seen it as more options, not something to worry about.

I agree in principle. I can't directly validate this however.

[normhead]

FoV is FoV. If you shoot with two cameras, don't count on there being much difference with the possible exception that much narrower DoF is possible at 50mm K-1 than 35mm APS_c. For most shots, I have to check the exif to tell which is which.

I regularly use both cameras in the same set up and see the images side by side in the same folder. The only thing really special about the K-1 compared tot he K-3 is the dynamic range. There are many images where that is huge.

The picnic table and snow in this image we rescued from near black. I've never worked with another camera you can rescue that kind of detail with. I have many similar images with crisp sharp rescued shadow detail in high contrast images.



If you shoot sunsets/sunrises, you want a K-1.

[repaap]

FoV is FoV. If you shoot with two cameras, don't count on there being much difference with the possible exception that much narrower DoF is possible at 50mm K-1 than 35mm APS_c. For most shots, I have to check the exif to tell which is which.

I regularly use both cameras in the same set up and see the images side by side in the same folder. The only thing really special about the K-1 compared tot he K-3 is the dynamic range. There are many images where that is huge.

The picnic table and snow in this image we rescued from near black. I've never worked with another camera you can rescue that kind of detail with. I have many similar images with crisp sharp rescued shadow detail in high contrast images.



If you shoot sunsets/sunrises, you want a K-1.

there are times fhen I have thought that HDR is not needed with K-1. especially If it is for shots as your examples.

[normhead]

there are times fhen I have thought that HDR is not needed with K-1. especially If it is for shots as your examples.

I haven't used HDR since my *ist D. The K20D made it less necessary, the K-5 made it pretty much un-needed. With the K-1 I don't even think about it. It's close to two stops better than a K-3. With the K-5 my motto used to be "burn the sky dodge the shadows." With the K-1 it's "expose for the sky, lift the shadows in post. It's eliminated one whole process from my PP.

[repaap]

I haven't used HDR since my *ist D. The K20D made it less necessary, the K-5 made it pretty much un-needed. With the K-1 I don't even think about it. It's close to two stops better than a K-3. With the K-5 my motto used to be "burn the sky dodge the shadows." With the K-1 it's "expose for the sky, lift the shadows in post. It's eliminated one whole process from my PP.

I have used HDR woth K-7 &-3. once with K-1 when ended using just one of those frames

[mattb123]

I use HDR either in-camera or via bracketing on a somewhat regular basis for sunrise or sunset photos.
Sometimes the sky is so bright and shadowy foreground so dark, the usual tricks aren't enough to even it out.
For both my K-3 and K-1ii I like the HDR: Auto setting much better than the others. As much as I don't usually like auto settings, this seems to just get the extra DR info without doing any other tuning or texture mapping, leaving the tuning to me and my preferences. I try to make my HDRs look like they aren't HDRs if I can.
Here's a recent one where the sky area where the sun was coming through was very bright compared to everything else so I used a in-camera HDR and then finished that image in LR6 and Color Efex Pro.

[repaap]

I use HDR either in-camera or via bracketing on a somewhat regular basis for sunrise or sunset photos.
Sometimes the sky is so bright and shadowy foreground so dark, the usual tricks aren't enough to even it out.
For both my K-3 and K-1ii I like the HDR: Auto setting much better than the others. As much as I don't usually like auto settings, this seems to just get the extra DR info without doing any other tuning or texture mapping, leaving the tuning to me and my preferences. I try to make my HDRs look like they aren't HDRs if I can.
Here's a recent one where the sky area where the sun was coming through was very bright compared to everything else so I used a in-camera HDR and then finished that image in LR6 and Color Efex Pro.

Well there is so much DR that it would not be possible to get from one frame. Then again I don't shoot so much sunsets...when I have used HRD for those, they allways comes out looking cooked too much. You have found good balance with HDR and 'natural' look.

[builttospill]

Agreed about the balance. I quite dislike most HDR images because most don't represent a scene the way my eyes see it. If exposure is correct, the K-1 excels and I don't see the need for HDR.

The K-1's images most closely resemble those from my K10D more than any other Pentax DSLR in between those two models. Here's a non-HDR shot from the K10D and FA 77 as the morning light appeared on the horizon in Montana:

[bdery]

I'm late to the party but still...

I haven't really ever loved the size of FF fast zooms,

Their IQ is amazing, especially the 70-200. But it's true, they're big. The 28-105 is quite compact however.

I don't own any older series full frame zooms

LBA!!! Finding a 35-70, 70-210, some other stuff can be a lot of fun!

I don't currently find APSC limiting

Neither did I, before getting the K-1...

I suspect my technique is more of a barrier to me than equipment despite 40 years+ of photography as a hobby.

That's true of everyone, and you're wise to realize it.

My Full Frame Lenses:
FA 31 ltd
F 50 f/1.7
FA 77 ltd
DFA 100 WR
FA* 300

That's a pretty fantastic lineup to begin with! Some would say it's enough. The 31, 50 and 77 in particular feel more natural on FF.

Near Full Frame (or defacto full frame):
DA 40
DA* 200
DA* 60-250 (unmodified)

Modifying the 60-250 is easy and would answer your wondering about fast full frame zooms.

Not at all Full Frame:
Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
DA 15 ltd
DA 18-50
DA 18-135
DA 16-50
DA 50-135

18-50, 18-135 would be easily replaced by the 28-105. The others, not so much but your primes do a good job.

Some use on Full Frame?:
DA 12-24 (20-24 from what I understand is usable)
DA 20-40 (I don't recall but I thought some of this range was usable)
DA 55-300 (as above)

Do you use those often? I'd love to see a FF equivalent to the 20-40, that would be fantastic.

You're obviously considering making the move. In that case, if you can afford it, I'd say do it.

The IQ, dynamic range, etc, are all a bit better, that's for sure. However, to me the K-1's main strengths are:

1-ergonomics: that camera is such an amazing tool that when I go back to my K-3, I feel limited. It really is that well made.

2-using FF lenses. All your wonderful primes will deliver a different field of view and open up new possibilities.

[SteveinSLC]

Yes, the dynamic range thing is a huge benefit. I frequently find myself underexposing a little, as I can better avoid blown out highlights, and because it's so easy to use LR to pull details out of the shadows.

[Eyewanders]

I agree in principle. I can't directly validate this however.

To be fair, I only have a single DA lens remaining that doesn't translate to 35mm or FF (the 50-135) so I mitigated "worry" a long while ago.
This was intentional, mostly because I began shooting primarily film again (albeit slowly at first) and then in anticipation of a Pentax FF several years ago, when it was still but a rumor and a ghost story.

What's odd is, now that it's been released (it's well over a year now isn't it?), I've largely lost interest... partially due to the size/weight/cost of it, partially because I'm completely satisfied with digital on the K-3 for gigs and personal projects that require it, and partially because I'm just generally shooting film 95% of the time now. I only keep the DA*50-135 around for event gigs and occasional inclement weather use, along with the DA*300 for birding mostly (which *does* translate to the 35mm though only on a select few cameras in which I can control the aperture in-camera --- none of which I currently own, so it's just about permanently mounted on the K-3).

Anyhow - just buy it already if you want it.

[UncleVanya]

That's a pretty fantastic lineup to begin with! Some would say it's enough. The 31, 50 and 77 in particular feel more natural on FF.

Modifying the 60-250 is easy and would answer your wondering about fast full frame zooms.

Do you use those often? I'd love to see a FF equivalent to the 20-40, that would be fantastic.

You're obviously considering making the move. In that case, if you can afford it, I'd say do it.

While I can make budgeting decisions to make it happen - my gut tells me it isn't the right move yet. But I could spin on a dime. Lol.

---------- Post added 04-27-18 at 07:45 PM ----------

I really think I'm holding out to see the next apsc flagship model. Then I can make up my mind.