Originally posted by Nicolas06 Sure that FF allow for better technical image quality but the question is how often it will be really visible on the final product like a medium sized print or on a display? Sure the whole thing is about that equiv. formula that 90% of people seems to not get + that lenses are sharper more closed down. In poor shooting conditions, the difference might be quite visible. The rest of the time, this doesn't really matter. So it depend of your practice, too.
Originally posted by emalvick I won't be upgrading to FF any time soon, mostly because my own photography wouldn't benefit enough. I figure I need to be selling photos to justify the need for FF. If you would have asked me 5+years ago (before or around the time of the K5), I would have said I was waiting anxiously for a FF. I even came close to jumping ship to Nikon just to get a FF. But then Pentax (and others like Nikon and Sony) started producing APSC cameras and sensors that solved some of the limitations I perceived in terms of image quality. To change now would be for the subtle improvements one gets out of the physical difference in sensor size. I've gotten so used to shooting APSC that I am happy to stick with it for the time being. I'm also quite happy with the field of view on APS-C, and I now know my lenses very well with the format. Finally, I'll be looking forward to the next flagship APS-C, assuming there is one. I'm not certain I'll jump on that as my K3 and K5 have me quite content, and perhaps when I really NEED a new body, I'll then consider a K-1.
As long as you don't try a K1 for a couple of weeks, you are safe :-) -
I mean, it's great to infer what image quality would be like on FF versus APSC, based on lens aperture, iso , crop factor and so on, backed with some conviction to defeat that FF images are a step above APSC images. I believed it, I was sure of it, but someone handed me a K1 to try for a week and using the K1 was biggest mistake I made, because I did not plan to upgrade to FF , but when I saw how good it was compared to APSC, I purchased it, along with new lenses. Today, I tried a Fuji X-T1, and yes, the AF is good in good like, faster than Pentax... but even with f1.4 pimes on it, image quality does not touch the IQ from the K1. The guy was telling me that his Fuji X-T1 deliver as good images as his 5DIII, he made a demo at ISO3200 with the Fuji 35 f1.4 prime lens, I took the same photo with the K1 and DFA24-70, the K1+zoom completely beat the Fuji with the prime. But of course the XT1+prime beats the K1 zoom for size. But I could also compare the XT1+prime to a K3+limited lens, and then I'm not sure if there is so much difference is size , except that the K3 can AF in the dark and the XT1 can't. We have to be carreful about theory because sometimes, practice gives different results.
Now I've lost interest in APSC, I don't use my K3 anymore. It looks like when pass the point of shooting with K1, it's the point of no return to APSC.
Here, in this thread, some people don't want to spend more money on photography, in order to avoid the spending the K1 involves, they need to find arguments to avoid taking the plunge into the Pentax K1 thing and I can understand them, but to be safe I don't recommend then to try a K1.