Originally posted by kjphilippona I am just curious, for those that owned the K3 or K3II and have purchased the K1. I can purchase a used K3 for around $500 and new for $699, is the K1 3 times more camera than the K3. For me i started with the K50 and K30, then some off the best glass, but still no WOW. Everyone said it was the photographer and not the gear, they can take great pictures with the same setup. I then purchased the K5II and with the DA* and FA primes i own, WOW! I don't have to try very hard to get good pictures, with the other two i had to be on my game to get decent pictures. My daughter has confiscated the K5II and all my FA limited primes and DA* lenses so i want another just for me. I have thought about getting another K5II / K5IIs or K3, even pondered getting the K1 since i have some very nice lenses that will work on the FF camera, just not sure if it would be worth spending that much money.
I would say that the things that I notice as improvement are (in no particular order) better tracking auto focus, better high iso, better dynamic range, better resolution, and shallower depth of field (at wide angles). Full frame lenses have wider angle of view on a K-1 than on an APS-C, which is neither here nor there, but it does make a difference if, for instance, you are used to being able to do portraits with a 50mm lens.
It is really hard to know what you need and whether the K-1 would push your images to another level, but it certainly is a step above the K5 II.
I think most people who shoot with a K-1 will have really similar results to what they got on APS-C, albeit with more resolution.
Last edited by Rondec; 05-15-2016 at 05:27 AM.