[csa]

I am most happy with my K3; I have no desire nor the funds to go to the K1.

[biz-engineer]

Same FoV, Same DoF, same ƒ-stop, more DoF for the smaller format.

The K-3 gives you one format (apsc), the K-1 is roughly equivalent to two K-5 bodies in one body, for twice the price. I'm happy to see that Ricoh followed my advice: I once wrote on this forum that since the ff sensor is twice the size of apsc sensor, the price of the camera should not exceed 2 x times the price of an apsc body, and they listenen to me, even Monochrom classified my price as non sense. Per dollar per square foot of sensor areas, pentax apsc and full frame are equivalent. If you consider lenses price per kg of glass, I think it's also equivalent: DFA150-450 weights 2kg and is double price of the DA300 (approx 1kg). It's not for nothing that Ricoh displayed at CP+ the K-1 cut in two half.

[clackers]

You have 100% control of DoF with either format. Technically smaller sensors have a narrower DoF when controlling for all other variables.

Well, that 100% control is *much* easier on smaller formats due to those other variables. A phone is so forgiving, and there's a lot of leeway in point and shoot for missed focus.


But you're quite correct, to a first approximation, depth of field is the same across them.

[carlb]

I am really excited by what the K1 seems to offer and I think it will be a screaming success for Pentax / Ricoh but I've gone through the reasoning dozens of times and in all honesty APSC is (and will continue to be) more than enough for my photography. If I bought the K1 it would only be for the sake of buying it rather than because it would improve my photography. And that's just not enough of a reason for me.

[mohb]

If I bought the K1 it would only be for the sake of buying it rather than because it would improve my photography.

I'm old enough to have bought a new camera because it had a light meter or aperture priority or auto focus or it was digital but I think my K5ll is as far enough along the path of camera development as I want to go. If I was a 'few' years younger the K1 would tempt me as a 'boys toy' but these days I just get satisfaction from being able to take photos.

[klh]

I won't be an early adopter as I am very happy with my K-3s, but I will switch at some point if the image quality of the K-1 cropped mode is equivalent to the K-3. I would enjoy the versatility to use the cropped mode for sports and the wide mode for landscapes.

[normhead]

You have 100% control of DoF with either format.

Hardly, because of the various factors involved in lens design etc, in practical terms, you have a wider range of Dof, on FF cameras. An FF wide open with your fastest lens on it has narrower DoF than a smaller sensor. But you can stop it down to give you 6 feet to infinity as good as any smaller sensor is likely to be. MF would be narrower but you can't practically get as fast glass. So in the real world, not the theoretical world where lenses can be made any size, MF and FF are about equal, but with FF having 1.2 lenses available and most MF lenses being 2.8, even for the faster one..the difference is caused by lens size an availability, not theoretical attributes. If you consider control an attribute, FF gives you a little more range expressed as a ratio than MF or any smaller sensor.

If narrow DoF is your goal it's kind of a sweet spot in digital. That makes it sound like everyone should rush out and by an FF. But the fact is a competent photographer will produce the results he want with the equipment he buys. FF may have a small advantage in getting narrow, but I've seen way more botched shots where someone thought they were doing something cool and went way to narrow, because they could, than I have great images that depended on narrow DoF by a factor of about 1000 to 1. Narrow DoF is not for people who don't have a very keen sense of artistic vision. These guys who think they can just go for the narrowest and it will be special, are caught up in the technical, because technically they are special, but most of them are junk aesthetically, and from an artistic stand point may have been better shot a stop or two wider.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2016 at 10:25 AM.

[monochrome]

I have ten years. K-3 + K-1 + (later) a *zoom + current lenses = RestofLife.

(And in three years I will still have ten years . . . )

I'm old enough to have bought a new camera because it had a light meter or aperture priority or auto focus or it was digital but I think my K5ll is as far enough along the path of camera development as I want to go. If I was a 'few' years younger the K1 would tempt me as a 'boys toy' but these days I just get satisfaction from being able to take photos.

[Eric4]

My justification for upgrading from my k3

In the studio - Sync speed is nice, but more importantly the wifi, tethering, tilt screen, and bigger files for printing
Outdoors - tilt screen, gps astro, bigger prints

Overall - better focal lengths with my current lenses (SMC-A 28mm F2, DA 55mm 1.4, DA 35mm 2.4, 100mm WR Macro

Not a video guy at the moment, but maybe the next model would be 4k and IBIS.

[redrockcoulee]

None of the three features I require are found in the new FF so I will stay with the K5IIs. The features I need are

1) better built in compostion
2) camera better able to get me out shooting in the best light
3) camera able to get me out promoting the images I create.

The K5IIs is more than capable of creating what I wish to do. There are times that the autofocus is not up to what I would require but these are times that I am voluntering and doing photography that do not even enjoy that much. If the price totally falls out of the APS-C market I might even pick up a couple more DA lenses like the 21 or 16-85 but otherwise I am very satisfied with what I have now until I get a little older and have to rethink weight and size. I also just got 45 rolls of 120 film this past week too.

If I was younger and not shooting other film formats I think the K-1 would be on my list for purchasing in the next year or two and replacing my Da limiteds with some FA limiteds. The FF should be a great camera for those who want or need it but even though there are some features I would use for the price of $2500 Canadian I can do a lot of travelling and shooting with what I have.


As far as video goes the only time I have recorded video on my dslrs has been either to test that it does or with the K-r being that the mode control is right where the shutter control is on the MZ5n, by setting to video instead of the shutter speed. Pentax also needs to have at least two good models in APS-C size, one at the K3 level and a good entry level one.

[normhead]

For the most part I agree with you. The things I want are, built in GPS, pixels shift, clean 6400 ISO for BiFs. If I had a K-3II I wouldn't even be looking. I'm looking at it as a K-3II plus.

[Kerrowdown]

How many APSC shooters will truly upgrade to K1

How does in a heartbeat sound?

[monochrome]

Funny thing. The K-1'has gotten me out 'practicing' with my K-3 every day for two weeks now. *



* I'm not going to buy it if I'm not using what I already have. So I'm going to buy it in Augest (6 months of shooting first).

[ChristianRock]

I want it (badly) but can't afford it at the moment. Maybe in a couple of years.

[runswithsizzers]

Not me. If I get another camera, it will be
something smaller than aps c.