[MaineNative]

I have a Pentax K-5 and a K-1. I don’t really notice the size difference or weight when I am shooting, but I do notice the larger size of the K-1 when I am packing for a flight.

I will say that the K-1 and the DFA 15-30 was too heavy for me. I typically carry my camera in one hand when shooting and when I put on the 15-30 and started walking around a park taking pictures, my wrist was tired within 15 minutes. The quality was great, but I ended up buying a used FA 20/2.8 instead. (I rented the 15-30 for a week.)

The K-1 with the DFA 28-105 isn’t too bad... similar to my K-5 with the 16-85. Even with my Samyang 14/2.8, that combo isn’t bad, in my opinion.

Or course, when I was younger, I would hike with a Pentax P30t, Vivitar 28-90/2.8 (“The Stovepipe”) and a Yashica Mat twin reflex medium format in my pack... I don’t do that any more.

[C_Jones]

I use my K-1 II and Pentax 70-200 together. The weight of both together is approximately slightly more than 5 pounds. I actually enjoy carrying the combination comfortably and the image quality and performance of both is amazing.

I also have Pentax aps-c type cameras, and they serve as another type of camera as compared to the full frame. I presently have my Pentax K-5 IIs on a Sigma 150-500 DG OS for Pentax, and my Pentax K-3 II on a Pentax 16-85.

[clackers]

I typically carry my camera in one hand when shooting and when I put on the 15-30 and started walking around a park taking pictures, my wrist was tired within 15 minutes.

(Laughs) I'd like to have seen that, MN! A good shoulder strap is your friend. Just hangs down by your hip, your hands are free to make a call, swig a Budweiser, whatever.

[ffking]

Serious picture quality goes with serious lenses, serious bodies and serious prices, Asko, you just have to figure out personally how serious you are, strangers can't do that for you.

yes - this

[cport]

Question for the OP: why would you like to switch to full-frame? Not that there aren't reasons but I'm wondering what yours are. Interestingly, in terms of image quality, before the K-1, there were lots of posts here declaring how close APS was to full-frame image quality. Suddenly when the K-1 appeared, full-frame benefits became more highly valued - and I don't think that was due to the K-1 producing such superior image qualify vs. all other full-frame alternatives at the time. Similarly, before the K-1, Pentax APS bodies were often cited here for being compact vs. competitors. After the K-1 appeared, those discussions of the value of compactness seemed much less frequent.

For me, FF would be welcome because of smaller dof for some focal lengths! Because 35/2 on FF does a great job. In the Pentax APS-C line you have no alternative, you would need at least 24/1,4.

[Rondec]

I think the big question is the lens. The K-1 with any one of the FA limiteds is very easy to use and not overly heavy. Go on a hike with it and the DFA *70-200 f2.8 or DFA 15-30 f2.8 on a black rapid strap and you'll find that it's a bit more tiresome to carry around.

The K-1 really does give a big boost to landscape type photos and I have been very pleased with mine. I still keep an APS-C camera for when I want to get lighter or longer without quite as much weight. Your DA 21 would need to be replaced with something full frame compatible (or shot in crop mode) to use on a K-1. The FA 77 will work wonderfully though.

[house]

I find a huge difference carrying the K-1 versus carrying the K-3 II and this is with small lenses FA35, FA50. I prefer not to have a bag but carry the camera on strap. The K-1 is difficult to have on your shoulder during a day of doing something else. The K-3 II works. It's kind of hard to understand looking at their actual size but for whatever reason, shape, weight, design I prefer not to take the K-1 for non photo centric days out. If find the K-1 slips of the shoulder more often, bangs my kids heads more often, it at risk for damage more often and is generally hard to handle going about your day.

For photo centric days out the size doesn't matter. So it depends how much of your camera use is dedicated and how much is everyday. I find the IQ of the K-1 significantly better than the K-3Ii.

[3by2]

It's the lenses more than the camera. I had a good think about this before i bought the KP. I was thinking of heading down the sony A7 road (I know, boot me off) but in the end I realized that lenses, size and weight are what makes the difference, particularly zooms. I thought about the K1 but the darn thing is just too big to fit in my current cases which I'm very attached too and upon such trivial things decisions sometimes hinge, plus I'm very much a casual photographer, whose needs are simpler.


For that reason I've currently stuck with the KP and a largely Ltd lens set, that will all pack quite small and weigh not too much, so no worries taking it with me wherever I go. The K1 and the three FA ltds would be a relatively compact combination for a full frame DSLR though.

[normhead]

For me, FF would be welcome because of smaller dof for some focal lengths! Because 35/2 on FF does a great job. In the Pentax APS-C line you have no alternative, you would need at least 24/1,4.

That such a small demographic, people who prefer narrow DoF images, it's a stretch to think the that's where the OP would be going.

I check the exif for my DA*55 1.4 and found one item taken at 1.4, and it was test shot when the lens was brand new.

Have you ever checked the exif to see how often you use narrow DoF. Not to mention that the DoF is one stop narrower on an FF.1 stop is photography. is rarely noticeable. When I use aperture bracketing I use 2 stop increments for the most part. I regularly miss a stop, because there just isn't enough difference.

Not to mention that for his 77 APS-c uses the best part of the lens.

I have no issue with folks buying into narrow DoF, which is little better than an expensive filter type effect. Anyone can buy the gear and do it. Appropriate DoF is much harder to manage.

These questions always come down to, "what do I get for my money." And after that, how much is narrower oF worth to me? Only the exif can tell you that. If you aren't shooting wide open with what you have, gear that can do narrower DoF is irrelevant. But I'd seriously advise against anyone not shooting wide open with their current lenses to buy a whole system to get a one stop improvement in some feature they don't use.

I mostly use the k-1 in situations that require a tripod, anyway, and I use a kp for walkarounding (verb, indicative, active, intransitive).

[aslyfox]

(Laughs) I'd like to have seen that, MN! A good shoulder strap is your friend. Just hangs down by your hip, your hands are free to make a call, swig a Budweiser, whatever.

I use an over the shoulder strap [ optech USA ] plus a joby ultraplate with grip

This allows me to shift the weight when necessary

I also carefully put the camera and lens over my shoulder or in the crook of my off arm from time to time

[C_Jones]

The Pentax K-1 (full frame) is 2.2 lbs. as compared to a Pentax KP (aps-c) which is 1.54 lbs. In terms of lenses, a Pentax 24-70 (full frame) is 1.75 lbs. as compared to a Pentax 16-85 (aps-c) which is 1.1 lbs..

[clackers]

In terms of lenses, a Pentax 24-70 (full frame) is 1.75 lbs. as compared to a Pentax 16-85 (aps-c) which is 1.1 lbs..

Well, in terms of lenses, the DFA 28-105 is about one pound.

Isn't that a better comparison? A slow aperture walkaround?

No saving at all in this case.

[RICHARD L.]