[jonny1986]

it's interesting that the k1 is two camera in one, ff and pass. so you can still use the apsc lenses and the new ff.
you stil have 16 million pixel. i'm curios to see how much image you can take out from a 16-50 for example...with 36 million you can heavily crop and have a usable image.
and we are talking about a 16-50 2,8...so even if after crop you have a 24-40 2,8 is not that bad.
the k3 is still faster anyway.

[MJSfoto1956]

Do you guys think there will be a flood of used K3/K3ii for sale once the FF K-1 hits the market?

I won't be selling my K-3ii. I expect to have this for many years to come.

Michael

[pathdoc]

and we are talking about a 16-50 2,8...so even if after crop you have a 24-40 2,8 is not that bad.

No, wait a minute. This is a DA lens, so in crop mode it will still be a 16-50. You just get less megapixels.

[6BQ5]

I'm sure there will be some that appear on the market. Those with even older bodies will probably the first in line to snap up the K-3's. Macro shooters and the few who need as much telephoto capability as possible will want to keep their K-3.

[csa]

Do you guys think there will be a flood of used K3/K3ii for sale once the FF K-1 hits the market?

I have a K3, and have absolutely no interest in the K-1; so mine will not hit the market.

[pathdoc]

Macro shooters and the few who need as much telephoto capability as possible will want to keep their K-3.

So as a macro shooter, what do I lose if I shift from APS-C to full-frame? (I have a K-5 rather than K-3, BTW.) Not that this consideration will bother me too much, as the K-1 is currently intended to replace the K-5 in the event of its death - I won't have a choice; it will be K-1 or nothing.

[mee]

If you look at the price of a one time purchase, yes, FF is twice the price of APSC equivalent.

I don't see it this way. If you consider the product life time (number of months between release of new models), IMO cost per year of FF is the same as APSC. For example, someone who had purchased a D800E 4 years ago would roughly still get start of the art image quality / camera performance, which spread over 4 years cost no more than more frequent APSC updates, + having enjoyed FF IQ for 4 years already. So, for the joy of frequent purchases, APSC is better (because for the same amount of money you can purchase something new once a year or so.., you like to await for this amazon delivery and unpacking of this new small lens etc...). I remember the days I had LBA, I ended-up with buying two or three new lenses per year and upgrade camera at each new model, to actually see very little step up in quality. Then I realized that I don't even use half of what I have, so I sold most of it. For me, I get a full frame and three lenses and I'd done for the next 5 years at least.

I'm sure there are some that think this way, but the majority view (at least in the USA) is looking at the up front cost, thinking 'That is a lot of money' and opting for the lesser priced camera.

Few people think "I'm going to buy the 50,000 dollar Lexus because it will last me a longer time in luxury." Instead they buy a Toyota because it is half the price and ~80% of the experience.

APS-C isn't suddenly going to dry into nothingness with the arrival of the FF digital system. There will be some that opt for the FF system and others for the APS-C. Just like there are some that opt for the MF system over FF. A system for everyone.

[MadMathMind]

I don't see myself lugging around a K1 and FF lenses while hiking or travelling internationally.

Yeah, man, those FA limited lenses really break the back. That FA31 at its whopping 345g is quite a burden.

But in all seriousness, Pentax is one brand that totally crushes the weight argument against FF cameras. For one, the flagship APS-C cameras are much closer in weight to the Canikon FF offerings than those brands consumer APS-C models:
K-3 II: 700g
Nikon D810 (FF): 980g
Nikon D5500 (APS-C): 440g
Canon Rebel T3i: 515g
Canon 5DS (FF): 845g

The normal "it's heavy" comes from people who are stepping up from a base model to a FF camera. The difference isn't the sensor. It's that the FF cameras are more rugged and are "pro" cameras. For us Pentaxians who are used to magnesium frames already, it won't be much of an increased burden.

And Canon and Nikon like to build huge hulking lenses. That's the other part of the weight. Canon built a mount that is wider than the max diameter of most of the FA prime lenses (54mm on the EF mount), so what can you expect?

[jonny1986]

No, wait a minute. This is a DA lens, so in crop mode it will still be a 16-50. You just get less megapixels.

i wanted say that if you can use the 16-50 in full frame mode, you will have lot of cut , and a usable image that will resemble probably a 24 mm -40.
i ' don't know if it could be , or the k1 won't let you use the cropd lens in ff mode.

[BigMackCam]

Yeah, man, those FA limited lenses really break the back. That FA31 at its whopping 345g is quite a burden.

But in all seriousness, Pentax is one brand that totally crushes the weight argument against FF cameras. For one, the flagship APS-C cameras are much closer in weight to the Canikon FF offerings than those brands consumer APS-C models

I think the weight is more of an issue based on the lenses used. Sure, a prime isn't much weight, but FF zoom lenses - as a general rule - are going to be quite a bit heavier than APS-C offerings. My Hasselblad HV (A99) with 2 x SDHC cards, battery, battery grip (+2 batteries) and Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 lens is a *lot* heavier than my K-3 with 2 x SDHC cards, battery, battery grip (+1 battery) and Sigma 17-50 f/2.8... 2.422kg versus 1.77kg, a difference of 652g - of which 430g is down to the Zeiss FF lens over the Sigma APS-C model. In addition to the weight difference, the FF camera and lens are quite bulky by comparison - at least, it feels that way to me. I can easily shoot the K-3 one-handed and hold my off-camera flash with the other hand, without any concerns of fatigue. Not so with the HV.

If I was going out for a long shoot, I'd take my K3 every time, no question.

I don't know how the K-1 + battery grip will measure up when paired with certain FF lenses... but I suspect the weight and bulk will be considerably greater than for the equivalent K-3 setup... That said, it wouldn't put me off the K-1!

[6BQ5]

So as a macro shooter, what do I lose if I shift from APS-C to full-frame? (I have a K-5 rather than K-3, BTW.) Not that this consideration will bother me too much, as the K-1 is currently intended to replace the K-5 in the event of its death - I won't have a choice; it will be K-1 or nothing.

APS crops out what would be softer corners and edges that are natural in all lenses to some degree. You are basically using the center of the lens. This will make your super sharp macro lens will appear even sharper. Your corners are actually more like the upper left or right of the center-ish part of the image circle.

[redrockcoulee]

If you look at the price of a one time purchase, yes, FF is twice the price of APSC equivalent.

I don't see it this way. If you consider the product life time (number of months between release of new models), IMO cost per year of FF is the same as APSC. For example, someone who had purchased a D800E 4 years ago would roughly still get start of the art image quality / camera performance, which spread over 4 years cost no more than more frequent APSC updates, + having enjoyed FF IQ for 4 years already. So, for the joy of frequent purchases, APSC is better (because for the same amount of money you can purchase something new once a year or so.., you like to await for this amazon delivery and unpacking of this new small lens etc...). I remember the days I had LBA, I ended-up with buying two or three new lenses per year and upgrade camera at each new model, to actually see very little step up in quality. Then I realized that I don't even use half of what I have, so I sold most of it. For me, I get a full frame and three lenses and I'd done for the next 5 years at least.

The same can be said with most top of the line APS-C cameras that have been released the last couple of years. Personally I think much of the reason for the slump in sales of new cameras is just how satisfied many people are with what they have now. I am not only not buying the K1 but have no interest in any replacement for my K5IIs. It is not perfect but it does what I like to shoot as well as I need or even want. I can see some of the older models dropping in prices as some of those who have multiple upgrades simply decide that they will never use their K5 and K5II when they have the K1 and a few K3 cameras.

The new K1 would cost me the price of what I paid for my last car which coming up to two years ownership still feels new enough to me and I am the at least third owner. I am looking forward to getting the K01 I recently bought off this forum mostly because I am having it converted to IR and am looking forward to shooting the ESII that was given to me.

I do not see the flood being anymore than when other models came out, so many have waited for a while for the K1 that their purchasing of the lastest K3II may have been postponed so that might lower the number of units for sale. If there is a sudden flooding of the market of K3 and K3II and the price totally crash then I will abandoned my notion of not upgrading and get a K3 for my wife and a K3II for myself. She, unlke most on this forum, does not like getting a new model to learn on and would still be happy with her K10D if she had not dropped it and broke the screwdrive mechanism for AF.

I am also not sure that buyers of the K1 will want to wait for 4 years for the next model.

[pathdoc]

APS crops out what would be softer corners and edges that are natural in all lenses to some degree.

*shrugs* Most of my macro work is technical; the subject is in the centre of the frame anyway. And my primary macro lens is the DA35 Limited, so I'm probably going to go to auto-crop anyway... (Can I justify the D-FA50???)

[biz-engineer]

My 2 cents, either you already planned to get a full frame camera and sold your apsc stuff at a good price, or you still have you k-5 / k3 / K-3II and lenses and then, you'd better keep as a piece of museum apsc camera system.
Why? Because if Ricoh decided to do a ff camera it is because they believe that apsc market was maturing and that price dropping ff sensor signed the beginning of a new era: spreading of ff digital.
In less than 5 year, you'll see that apsc camera will have nearly disappeared and that FF cameras will be mainstream because quantities drive costs down and lower prices drive quantities, so, we are going to get a new subgrowth cycle with decreasing prices and increasing volumes. In fact , when priced $2000, a full frame camera such as the K-1 is a super good deal for Ricoh because the sensor cost $100 more than a K-3 sensor and the rest of the camera is about the same as what's in a K-3 (similar bitrate, same battery, same battery management chip, same lcd display, same buttons, about same magnesium alloy chassis), but the K-1 is 3 times the price... so Ricoh can enjoy a pretty fat gross margin and still there is a lot of room for dropping the price compared to a K-3.

[monochrome]

I still have my K10D and K-01, so I likely won't sell my K-3. I'll do most of my shooting with K-1 because using FF lenses on a 36x24 sensor is the whole point of the camera, for me. But that DA15 will get it's days on the APSc cameras and the K400 and the like will benefit from the crop while keeping 24 Mp.

It just means I'll have more choices.