[UncleVanya]

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.

[pepperberry farm]

really have the itch, eh?

[mattt]

Why do you need convincing? Or do you need us to provide some fresh arguments that you can present to your wife?

Do you print big?
Do you need extra pixels?
Do you do "work" in low light where your images will benefit from downsizing?
Are you considering dropping your gym membership and think the extra large humongous zoom lenses will qualify as therapeutic exercise?

[KingKenny]

Dynamic Range.

[photoptimist]

Honestly, you seem to have a very good system and excellent portfolio of lenses that would be costly to replicate in FF (in addition to the cost of K-1). APS-C and K-3 seem like the best option for you.

But if you are seriously considering FF, then:

1. check the percentage of high-ISO images and ask yourself if another EV or two of ISO headroom would make a difference

2. think about whether the K-3's AF is bothering you enough to pay for a K-1 and replacement lenses

3. think about if shallow DoF or the new dynamic pixel shift would add new avenues of expression to your photography.


But were I you and preferred the lighter weight of APS-C, I'd keep the K-3 and save the money for an eventual K-3 successor which will almost certainly have the accelerator and better Af of the K-1ii.

[dakight]

Well, despite the title of your post, I'm not going to try to convince you. It sounds to me like you're happy with what your have and there are few if any compelling advantages for you to upgrade. When the time does come to upgrade the body, you may very well wish to pt for a premium APSC body again and that's great. The old adage applies here... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I went full frame primarily for astrophotography. I liked the high iso performance and high dynamic range of the full frame sensor and I intend to upgrade my body to the K-1 II as soon as they start accepting bodies for upgrade. For most ordinary shooting there is probably no compelling advantage other than the ones you've already mentioned and there are in fact advantages to the smaller size and lighter weight of the APSC format.

Just the fact that you've asked the question means that you've started thinking about it and may even be having a bit of a tug o' war with yourself. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!

[UncleVanya]

really have the itch, eh?

No, I am a logical guy and I'm trying to examine my own motivations and understand the options.

---------- Post added 04-26-18 at 11:14 AM ----------

Why do you need convincing? Or do you need us to provide some fresh arguments that you can present to your wife?

Do you print big?
Do you need extra pixels?
Do you do "work" in low light where your images will benefit from downsizing?
Are you considering dropping your gym membership and think the extra large humongous zoom lenses will qualify as therapeutic exercise?

I don't print larger than 13x19 at the moment. I don't need anything. I do work in low light some. I am in need of a gym membership so maybe I can kill two birds... lol.

---------- Post added 04-26-18 at 11:14 AM ----------

Dynamic Range.

An excellent and salient point but I honestly don't think I am running into limits today that often.

[ChatMechant]

Ok. Well, the 60-250 doesn't get any bigger if you use it on a k-1, so you're good there. The 24-70 isn't that big, and the 28-105 is downright small. The 28-105 + the k-1's low light capabilities seem to me better or the same as a k-3 and 16-50. Also, the k-1 is just an awesome camera in so many ways.

[UncleVanya]

Honestly, you seem to have a very good system and excellent portfolio of lenses that would be costly to replicate in FF (in addition to the cost of K-1). APS-C and K-3 seem like the best option for you.

But if you are seriously considering FF, then:

1. check the percentage of high-ISO images and ask yourself if another EV or two of ISO headroom would make a difference

2. think about whether the K-3's AF is bothering you enough to pay for a K-1 and replacement lenses

3. think about if shallow DoF or the new dynamic pixel shift would add new avenues of expression to your photography.


But were I you and preferred the lighter weight of APS-C, I'd keep the K-3 and save the money for an eventual K-3 successor which will almost certainly have the accelerator and better Af of the K-1ii.

These are indeed factors that I think about. Better High-ISO would be nice. Shallower DOF on occasion would be great. Focus - I don't find it all that much of an issue but it wouldn't be unwelcome. Pixel shift is something I would like to try.

---------- Post added 04-26-18 at 11:17 AM ----------

Well, despite the title of your post, I'm not going to try to convince you. It sounds to me like you're happy with what your have and there are few if any compelling advantages for you to upgrade. When the time does come to upgrade the body, you may very well wish to pt for a premium APSC body again and that's great. The old adage applies here... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I went full frame primarily for astrophotography. I liked the high iso performance and high dynamic range of the full frame sensor and I intend to upgrade my body to the K-1 II as soon as they start accepting bodies for upgrade. For most ordinary shooting there is probably no compelling advantage other than the ones you've already mentioned and there are in fact advantages to the smaller size and lighter weight of the APSC format.

Just the fact that you've asked the question means that you've started thinking about it and may even be having a bit of a tug o' war with yourself. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!

LOL - You are on the money. I have been torn - logical thought dictates a course of action the heart wants to deviate from.

---------- Post added 04-26-18 at 11:19 AM ----------

Ok. Well, the 60-250 doesn't get any bigger if you use it on a k-1, so you're good there. The 24-70 isn't that big, and the 28-105 is downright small. The 28-105 + the k-1's low light capabilities seem to me better or the same as a k-3 and 16-50. Also, the k-1 is just an awesome camera in so many ways.

The 16-50 honestly isn't my favorite lens. I find it larger than I would like given the focal range, but more importantly it just doesn't perform that strikingly - flare and a bit of weak performance wide open leave me reaching for the DA 15 more often paired with the 18-135.

What's my DA 15 alternative?

[ChatMechant]

What's my DA 15 alternative?

Been asking myself that since I got a k-1 :/
I guess the answer is "crop mode" unfortunately.

[normhead]

This year, I have 1253 K-1 images on my drive.
I have 700 K-3 images.

The first full year (2016-2017) I had 700 K-1 images and 1200 K-3 images image that were keepers. Many K-3 images were shot in burst mode where I might have kept 1 in 7 or 8. SO the K-3 is still uses a lot more. But the K-1 images are awesome. It's hard to think of giving up the camera now.

SO that's the conundrum, you don't need it, there are many places you won't take it to keep the weight of the gear you are carrying down, but it's nice to have.What's that worth to you is anybody's guess.

I have K-3 images I wish were taken with the K-1 , I have many K-1 images I wish were taken with the K-3. I like having both, but it was some completely fortuitous money coming my way from a pension I didn't know I was entitled to that gave me the money to buy it. Without that money I never would have bought a K-1. But now that i did, I like it. And in the car for my drives through the park and even shooting wildlife from along the highway or my blind, I take both. In that sense, it's replaced y K-01 as my second body.

Us retired guys have different set of purchasing constraints than we did when we were working. So far this month in my Algoqnuin Park trips, I have 26 K-3 images and 13 K-1 images.

From the wedding I shot, 250 K-1 images, 5 K-3 images.

It all depends on what you're doing.

It's just not that big a difference, except for the part where the K-1 needs better lenses. I shot the wedding indoors with the FA 50 1.7. I wouldn't do another one without the new 50 1.4. That lens (and I suspect all FA lenses) just do not keep up with moderns sensors, and some of the CA couldn't be removed. The customers won't notice, but I do.

I still wonder if a KP wouldn't have been a better choice. My 18-135 sees a fraction of the use it used to, replaced by the K-1 and 28-105 for walking around. It almost always has a telephoto or a macro on it these days. The 18-135 only gets used when I want just one camera body and there's a possibility of wildlife on a hike or paddle, meaning the K-3 is going and the K-1 is optional.

[caliscouser]

if you want it get it, life is too short....

...however sounds like you would have to drop your APS-C kit to make the move.
Would I want to drop the DA 15, 20-40, 12-24, 50-135? No thank you.

[aslyfox]

. . . I am in need of a gym membership so maybe I can kill two birds... lol. . . . .

alternative to gym membership without buying a K 1

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW

HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW

SMC Pentax-FA* 600mm F4 ED [IF]

SMC Pentax-FA* 400mm F5.6 ED [IF]

you get the idea

on your dilemma

good luck and stop tempting me to look at the K 1 too

[UncleVanya]

All replies appreciated.

[Deimos]

I just upgraded to the K-1 from the K-5. I always wanted a K-1 but worried about the extra size and weight plus the expense.

Wow, it blew me away. So much of an upgrade in every area, by leaps and bounds. Being able to use the FA Limiteds as intended with full fov and the big viewfinder is amazing. Its like everything is new again... The 77 which I didn't enjoy using too much on APS-C with the long fov is a revelation on FF. An adjustment using my APS-C favorite the 31 but now I can see what it was really designed for and the K-1 body must have been styled to pair with the 31, together the exterior look is perfect...those two lenses are just really something extra special on FF.

Within a couple of minutes I could barely tell the difference with the additional size (which is not that much), the handling and controls were so familiar. It does weigh a bit more but it is not a big deal at all.

The image quality is amazing, what a camera... If you get the K-1 the moment you mount a favorite lens and take a shot you will be in love and so happy with your decision

For a DA15 replacement (a lens I used to love), you can consider the M20 F4. Haven't tried it yet but it seems to be similar in many ways and to have a great character and size.

I was on the fence before but there is no way I would go back now!