[Nicolas06]

I know someone who sold his Pentax 5 years ago and purchased a D800, he still used the D800 and did not feel the need to buy 2 or 3 different APSC camera bodies, in the meantime he shot full frame for the last 4 years.

To me if he wanted an FF, it made the right choice. Pentax still need a few years to be at Nikon level for a few thing like the FF lens echosystem or AF performance... And yes, AF is maybe the most important feature of an high end camera.

I don't think one should be limited to one brand, but rather it should get the right tool for the job. If FF is an argument, I am not sure Pentax is the best choice, at least not for me. There not yet the lenses I'd like, there not yet a light body. That great your friend got what he wanted, no issue with that. Nikon would still be better for me in particular if I don't keep my current lenses. As I am half APSC, there not that big incentive to stay in the brand anyway.

Now, in 2016, if people were buying only things that are life critical, all economies would collapse. The APSC camera that you have, you don't need it , society made you desire it. Do you need to take photos to live, no you don't. Do you need a car, no you don't you can take the bus and the train instead. Do you need to go to watch a movie ? No you don't, watching movies is a waste of money, it's not life critical. Do you need a Full frame camera, no you don't, it's not life critical, you don't even need to take photos, it's a waste of time.

The same argument can be used for everthing as even a car, a basic APSC camera, seeing a movie are in the same basket as you explain For one that is really after photography more than anything else, or for somebody that is wealthy enough and that like the compromize, a K1 might be a great choice.

For one like me, that still have a mortage to pay, that want to visit the world (so you have things to photograph actually), that still need to put back some money in the bank in case of problem, have to change their heating system, would like to add some air conditioning, would need one day or another to change the electricity counter, and have a 8 year old very basic car, spending even more on photography is not the priority. Even more so to get something bigger/heavier than they would like.

Even among non life critical things, we can't say an FF camera is the priority of most people. Even of DSLR buyers it is a 10% market. Doesn't make it a bad buy, just to say I don't feel bad to think it is not my priority and I don't think I should change theses priority soon neither.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-09-2016 at 12:23 PM.

[reh321]

Now, in 2016, if people were buying only things that are life critical, all economies would collapse. The APSC camera that you have, you don't need it , society made you desire it. Do you need to take photos to live, no you don't. Do you need a car, no you don't you can take the bus and the train instead. Do you need to go to watch a movie ? No you don't, watching movies is a waste of money, it's not life critical. Do you need a Full frame camera, no you don't, it's not life critical, you don't even need to take photos, it's a waste of time.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't know how much economics you've taken, but your entire argument is specious.

Most of us do not live in a subsistence economy, nor do we wish to. We have the capability to provide more than what is needed to survive, so we create more than we absolutely need, but most of us are also able to limit our working time so that we can also enjoy life, and some of our extra output goes to producing things that will enhance that enjoyment.

I am currently 68 years old. I have been taking photographs for roughly 60 of those years; my parents purchased the first three cameras I used {all made by Kodak}, and I have been on my own since then. I buy camera after camera because I enjoy the process of taking pictures and I enjoy the results. If you knew me, you would know that social "pressure" has very little influence on how I make decisions. When I bought my first rangefinder camera in 1969, I did so based on my own personal standards. When I bought my first SLR {a Pentax ME SE} in 1979, I did so based on my own personal standards. When I decided to switch to digital, I first convinced myself that I would be getting better images from digital than I had been getting from 35mm film, and then chose an APS-C camera based on my own personal standards. When I chose to not pursue a K-1, I did so based on my own personal standards.

For fifty years now I've taken pictures of railroading. I do that because I enjoy it. It is not a "waste of time", because it brings joy into my life.

For nearly forty years now, my wife and I have taken nature walks and I've taken pictures of what we saw. We do that because we enjoy it. It is not a "waste of time", because it brings joy into our lives.

I could go further, but I hope you get the pattern by now. The only "waste of time" around here is telling other people that what they are doing is a waste of time.

[biz-engineer]

I could go further, but I hope you get the pattern by now. The only "waste of time" around here is telling other people that what they are doing is a waste of time.

:-) well, I was trying to picture that if some people said that FF was "an engineered fad" to make people buy more cameras.

[emalvick]

One thing to remember is that every person is unique. I don't think people who choose not to buy a K-1 have faulty arguments against it. I'd assume that in most situations the choice not to buy a K-1 is going to be financial. Everybody likes to have the best of what's out there, but we all have to balance value vs. quality, and sometimes the benefits don't seem worth the expense. THe K-1 is nearly twice the price of the K-3ii. But there are of course many ways to incrementally improve one's kit, one of which would be getting a K-1. Another may be getting some high quality lenses (probably should be FF compatible) to get your self ready for FF, and so forth.

And the assessment of making excuses to not buy a K-1 is quite valid because of reasons only the user will know. I have to make excuses for everything otherwise I'd be the brokest guy with the best camera, lens, car, television, etc... But if I had done that, I'd probably would have bought into Canikon years ago anyway.

[PenPusher]

I won't, not because I think there is anything wrong with it or its too expensive, its the weight, I find even my K200D is bothersome lately and I'm gravitating towards the Q end of Pentax's spectrum.

Shock, horror but there you are, that's old age for you.

CD

[Nicolas06]

I won't, not because I think there is anything wrong with it or its too expensive, its the weight, I find even my K200D is bothersome lately and I'm gravitating towards the Q end of Pentax's spectrum.

Shock, horror but there you are, that's old age for you.

CD

It is not only age, young people prefer smartphones anyway. This is conveniance. And even among people that have camera many want a single zoom for vacation and do not have the camera all the time with them. Again, conveniance. But their smartphone, they have it.

It is nice to have a camera that take great picture at 3200 iso. But if the shoot is taken with the smartphone anyway because well you didn't take your camera with you, what the point?

The new small camera, the new pocketable are smartphone. They are the replace the old 24x36 cameras. The current FF digital camera are the new MF. Everybody sacrified quality for conveniance. It didn't show because digital is so much better, but still. 99% of the pro will take an FF or APSC body, even through if they master they craft they would get better pictures with a 645Z or a phase one...

[biz-engineer]

The new small camera, the new pocketable are smartphone. They are the replace the old 24x36 cameras. The current FF digital camera are the new MF. Everybody sacrified quality for conveniance. It didn't show because digital is so much better, but still. 99% of the pro will take an FF or APSC body, even through if they master they craft they would get better pictures with a 645Z or a phase one...

It's good that Ricoh now provide two camera formats of the same mount because people who want to spend more money can do an updgrade to get start of the art technology in terms of sensor, optics and autofocus , and people who don't want to spend money can get dirty cheap apsc or old tech that can still take photos. Note: I wrote "want" because given the average income of rich countries, I don't think that full frame system is not affordable for the masses).

For me, since I switched to full frame, but only partly, it's important that people continue to buy apsc lenses and bodies, the reason being that I can sell my used stuff for a decent price to finance the full frame system before my apsc gear becomes of low value and obsolete.

If you look at the trends, in 10 years from now, you'll have only pro big cameras with ultrafast AF and large sensors and high FPS, and all entry level apsc dsrl will be replaced by mirrorless cameras. The reason being that silicium is getting cheaper over time compared to buying power, and from a business standpoint; there is no interest for camera makers to dump prices (or it would be like shooting themselves in the foot). The camera market is similar to the computer market, prices don't go down but for the same price, the performance increases. In the camera market, increasing performance goes through larger sensor due to physical barriers of the sensors that evolve much more slowly than moore law. Basically, no camera company can afford to wait 10 year for a 1 stop improvement of apsc sensors because they would have to run out of business in the meantime. So what they do it to find ways to provide a good reason to buy every 3 or 4 years. Ricoh introducing the K1 full frame after sony sensors went from manufacturing 8 inch wafers to 12 inch wafers, is typically a hint that they understand market trends. Now, one more hint about the market trend, the first digital camera had sensors smaller than apsc, then apsc format was developed, then Nikon introduced the D600 full frame for the masses, Canon introduced the 6D and noticing the market inflection point Ricoh decided to develop a full frame line and introduced the K1 system. In 5 year from now, full frame will be even more wide spread, along with apsc or full frame mirrorless for folks wanting small sizes, and apsc dsrl will be obsolete.

So yeah, as usually, for every new tech, there are early adopter (the ones jumping on anything new), skeptics (the ones who wait to see others owners before they buy) and laggards (Official definition taken from the web: "in the diffusion of innovation theory, the minority group (roughly 16 percent) of population, which is the last group to try or adopt a new product. It consists largely of seniors, and those with low socioeconomic status. Laggards use friends and neighbors as information sources, dislike change, and accept new things only when forced to"). The Early adopters, skeptics and laggards model of product life cycle is a classic marketing model that works, even when some people reject this statement, the model is still an excellent predictor of what actually happens with the commercialization of new better products. The K1 and lenses will get cheaper overtime especially when Ricoh will not have their factory fully loaded and based on competition and APSC restricted people will see what others can do with full frame, and it will slowly arouse desire. As usual (marketing classic), here in this thread, there will be a number of people currently saying that full frame isn't worth/interesting, who will get a full frame camera in the next three years. We don't need to wait long to verify the product life cycle model, as some of the Pentaxians who had already claimed one or two years ago that FF had no interest over APSC, finally changed their mind and recently purchased a Pentax K1.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-11-2016 at 05:01 AM.

[redrockcoulee]

I don't see FF as new technology. The reason I am not going to buy the K1 is simple, I am currently more than satisfied with my current cameras. They do what I need and want from them. If my K5iis was stolen or broke down I would then need to decide between the K3II or the K1. Yes I can afford a new camera but it would mean not spending the same funds on something else. I could also buy a new bike for that money but both of my bikes satisfy my wants. I could put the funds towards a digital back for my Hasselblad or take two weeks in southern Cuba to escape the winter.

It is not fear of new technology that is preventing me from going FF, it is being satisfied with what I currently own. We live s higher quality of life then our incomes would suggest because we don't feel the need to keep up with the latest. I think the K1 is an exciting addition for Pentax however I see little reason for me to go with a larger camera and larger lenses for what I want from my digital camera. The same goes for the K 70, great features but not worth it for me at this point.

[Nicolas06]

So yeah, as usually, for every new tech, there are early adopter (the ones jumping on anything new), skeptics (the ones who wait to see others owners before they buy) and laggards (Official definition taken from the web: "in the diffusion of innovation theory, the minority group (roughly 16 percent) of population, which is the last group to try or adopt a new product. It consists largely of seniors, and those with low socioeconomic status. Laggards use friends and neighbors as information sources, dislike change, and accept new things only when forced to"). The Early adopters, skeptics and laggards model of product life cycle is a classic marketing model that works, even when some people reject this statement, the model is still an excellent predictor of what actually happens with the commercialization of new better products. The K1 and lenses will get cheaper overtime especially when Ricoh will not have their factory fully loaded and based on competition and APSC restricted people will see what others can do with full frame, and it will slowly arouse desire. As usual (marketing classic), here in this thread, there will be a number of people currently saying that full frame isn't worth/interesting, who will get a full frame camera in the next three years. We don't need to wait long to verify the product life cycle model, as some of the Pentaxians who had already claimed one or two years ago that FF had no interest over APSC, finally changed their mind and recently purchased a Pentax K1.

Thanks for the theory . Like many theory it explain the past very well but may fail to help for predicting the future. Most of the new innovative products never even find anything more than a few early adopters before being left down for example. When you product don't sell you may tell yourself there only a few early adopters, but that may never go past that.

I am in my mid 30s. My friend and colleagues range in the 25-40 years old. All have smartphones. Almost all have or had a camera. Something like 5 of them took a DSLR. 1 took a mirrorless another one an advanced compact body (Fuji X20). None taken an FF.

This is not a mater of money, they almost all software engineer. They are all well paid. Some have fancy, expensive cars. Some have very advanced bikes. Some spend a lot for their runing gear or for their skis. Many visit a country on the other side of the world once a year. Several do that 2 or 3 time a year. Many sold their first flat to buy now a house. I wouldn't call them poor, I would not qualify them as low wages.

Beside, early adopters, sceptics and laggards is a way to name things. There nothing brilliant in the idea to spend 3 time more for something to have it 1-2 years when one live on average around 80 years and it mean there 2 other things you wont buy because of that.

DSLR as a product is mature. FF DSLR too. People that wanted one now have it. SLR technology is not new or shiny or innovative.

The new products have almost nothing more against the previous version. Pentax still make noticable improvement, but only because they are 10 years late to the FF game, to the modern lenses game etc.

If you brought the K1 now, you are more on the laggards part of the FF DSLR graph adoption curve anyway than an early adopter.

[reh321]

I don't see FF as new technology. The reason I am not going to buy the K1 is simple, I am currently more than satisfied with my current cameras. They do what I need and want from them. If my K5iis was stolen or broke down I would then need to decide between the K3II or the K1. Yes I can afford a new camera but it would mean not spending the same funds on something else. I could also buy a new bike for that money but both of my bikes satisfy my wants. I could put the funds towards a digital back for my Hasselblad or take two weeks in southern Cuba to escape the winter.

It is not fear of new technology that is preventing me from going FF, it is being satisfied with what I currently own. We live s higher quality of life then our incomes would suggest because we don't feel the need to keep up with the latest. I think the K1 is an exciting addition for Pentax however I see little reason for me to go with a larger camera and larger lenses for what I want from my digital camera. The same goes for the K 70, great features but not worth it for me at this point.

My view is very similar to yours - but none-the-less different. When the K-1 was first announced, I did my own feasibility survey: what would it cost me to get the same capabilities I currently have under the new camera. Currently my lens span 10mm - 300mm, so I thought I would have to span 15mm - 450mm with FF lenses. Recent reports indicate that my Sigma 10-20mm lens doesn't noticeably vignette in the 15mm-20mm range, so the task is slightly simpler than I had thought. I don't currently have FF capability in the 20-28mm range, but I'm not sure I would miss that; I would, however, need to purchase a TC or the new 150-450mm lens to give me the upper range of focal length {I did experiment putting a doubler on the back of my Tamron Adaptall #23A 60-300mm lens, but that seemed to produce too much PF for my taste}. After this research, I decided that the K-1 was the wrong camera for me at almost any price ... and now the K-70 and 55-300mm PLM lens have come out to tempt me. Right now, I'm going to wait and see what Pentax does between now and Black Friday - an MILC based on the K-70 would be extremely tempting to me, for example - but my general conclusion is that the APS-C family is simply more compatible with who I am.

[biz-engineer]

Thanks for the theory . Like many theory it explain the past very well but may fail to help for predicting the future. Most of the new innovative products never even find anything more than a few early adopters before being left down for example. When you product don't sell you may tell yourself there only a few early adopters, but that may never go past that. I am in my mid 30s. My friend and colleagues range in the 25-40 years old. All have smartphones. Almost all have or had a camera. Something like 5 of them took a DSLR. 1 took a mirrorless another one an advanced compact body (Fuji X20). None taken an FF. This is not a mater of money, they almost all software engineer. They are all well paid. Some have fancy, expensive cars. Some have very advanced bikes. Some spend a lot for their runing gear or for their skis. Many visit a country on the other side of the world once a year. Several do that 2 or 3 time a year. Many sold their first flat to buy now a house. I wouldn't call them poor, I would not qualify them as low wages. DSLR as a product is mature. FF DSLR too. People that wanted one now have it. SLR technology is not new or shiny or innovative. The new products have almost nothing more again the previous version. Pentax still make noticable improvement, but only because they are 10 years late to the FF game, to the modern lenses game etc. If you brought the K1 now, even for that mature technology that is an SLR, even an FF DSLR, you are more on the laggards part of the graph than early adopter. But that doesn't mean if one never buy an FF that he is old, or has no money. He can simply be not interrested at all. Not like all product are ultimately brought by the 7 billions people on earth. Beside, early adopters, sceptics and laggards is a way to name things. There nothing brilliant in the idea to spend 3 time more for something than the other to have it 1-2 years before the others when one live on average around 80 years. In particular if it cost you significant amount of money and prevent to use it for other things.

That's very true. Yes, not every product makes it into a successful mainstream product, majority of new products aren't going into high volume, some products still are produced is sufficient quantities to be viable while many other new products aren't profitable and die. You depict a general trend of the shrinking digital photography business where a large amount of past dslr owners are taken back by smartphones. 25 years ago, I knew only a few persons owning a interchangeable lens cameras such as Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Leica film SLR, in fact most people I knew at the time had plastic film camera and at some point in time disposable 35mm film cameras where more common than SLRs.

It comes down to market segmentation. There has always been different segments: the segment for large format users, the segment of medium format, 35mm and disposable cameras. I have nothing against the mass adoption of cameraphones, it is sanitizing the DSLR fad of the last 15 years when everyone was getting a DSLR including the persons with zero interest and zero knowledge in graphical arts, people were buying a DSLR for taking the same photos that where taken with disposable film cameras of the 90s.

From a sales standpoint, take Harley Davidson motorbikes. They've always been purchased by owners being in their 50s, because they have spare money and want to enjoy life before getting into health issues. The fact that Harley Davidson motorbikes are purchased by men in their 50s, has been the case in the last 30 years, and is still the case today (the people being 50 years old now , aren't the same as the people who were 50 years old in 1990). I don't see why it would be something different for the camera market. Take Leica, they are still selling cameras, far from being snap&shot like a smartphone, but people still buy it.

Nicolas, you are you 30s, you consider that your generation represent the state of the market, you represent only one segment (in France). Consider the market including all segments instead of generalizing to all segment what you see in a single market segment.

As you can see, this thread turns out to be about not upgrading to full frame. But there are other thread about the K1... so that only proves my point, that some people will upgrade to full frame while others won't, based on which market segment they belong to and what state of passion for photography they are in.

[redrockcoulee]

My view is very similar to yours - but none-the-less different. When the K-1 was first announced, I did my own feasibility survey: what would it cost me to get the same capabilities I currently have under the new camera. Currently my lens span 10mm - 300mm, so I thought I would have to span 15mm - 450mm with FF lenses. Recent reports indicate that my Sigma 10-20mm lens doesn't noticeably vignette in the 15mm-20mm range, so the task is slightly simpler than I had thought. I don't currently have FF capability in the 20-28mm range, but I'm not sure I would miss that; I would, however, need to purchase a TC or the new 150-450mm lens to give me the upper range of focal length {I did experiment putting a doubler on the back of my Tamron Adaptall #23A 60-300mm lens, but that seemed to produce too much PF for my taste}. After this research, I decided that the K-1 was the wrong camera for me at almost any price ... and now the K-70 and 55-300mm PLM lens have come out to tempt me. Right now, I'm going to wait and see what Pentax does between now and Black Friday - an MILC based on the K-70 would be extremely tempting to me, for example - but my general conclusion is that the APS-C family is simply more compatible with who I am.

I could get by with the K1 with the lenses I already have. If I wanted the latest and best I would sell all my gear and get the 645Z and three lenses.

For some of us having a kit that exceeds what we need is more than adequate and do not need a kit that far exceeds 😊

By the end of the year it should be clearer what all Pentax has to offer. Good lock with whatever direction you choose.

---------- Post added 06-11-16 at 03:00 PM ----------

That's very true. Yes, not every product makes it into a successful mainstream product, majority of new products aren't going into high volume, some products still are produced is sufficient quantities to be viable while many other new products aren't profitable and die. You depict a general trend of the shrinking digital photography business where a large amount of past dslr owners are taken back by smartphones. 25 years ago, I knew only a few persons owning a interchangeable lens cameras such as Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Leica film SLR, in fact most people I knew at the time had plastic film camera and at some point in time disposable 35mm film cameras where more common than SLRs.

It comes down to market segmentation. There has always been different segments: the segment for large format users, the segment of medium format, 35mm and disposable cameras. I have nothing against the mass adoption of cameraphones, it is sanitizing the DSLR fad of the last 15 years when everyone was getting a DSLR including the persons with zero interest and zero knowledge in graphical arts, people were buying a DSLR for taking the same photos that where taken with disposable film cameras of the 90s.

From a sales standpoint, take Harley Davidson motorbikes. They've always been purchased by owners being in their 50s, because they have spare money and want to enjoy life before getting into health issues. The fact that Harley Davidson motorbikes are purchased by men in their 50s, has been the case in the last 30 years, and is still the case today (the people being 50 years old now , aren't the same as the people who were 50 years old in 1990). I don't see why it would be something different for the camera market. Take Leica, they are still selling cameras, far from being snap&shot like a smartphone, but people still buy it.

Nicolas, you are you 30s, you consider that your generation represent the state of the market, you represent only one segment (in France). Consider the market including all segments instead of generalizing to all segment what you see in a single market segment.

As you can see, this thread is turns out to be about not upgrading to full frame. But there are other thread about the K1... so that only proves my point.

Do the threads about the K 70 disprove your point? ☺

First time Harley riders were not men in their 50s when I started to ride and they certainly were not accountants.

[normhead]

Areas in which the K-3 exceeds the K-1.

Much higher maximum frame rate, 2x more. For some of us, this is the choice between a great image or no image. More frames increases you chances of getting the keeper you want. 2x more chance to get a keeper is significant.
More magnification and DoF using the same lens and ƒ-stop.

As I see more and more K-1 images the more I suspect it may not be in my future. I know every K-1 image posted gets 5 likes and everyone loves it. I'm just not seeing it. It's a D800 all over again for me. It has great potential, which much of the time is wasted, A K-2 APS_c with more advanced tracking, and faster AF, higher frame rate, Pixel shift and an APS-c version of the tilting screen, and maybe 28 MP with reduced noise would be more to my liking.

The last little while I've gone back to the K-5 for many of my images.

I used to say if I wanted an FF I'd buy a D810. Thanks to release of the K-1, I'll now say, if I wanted an FF, I'd buy a K-1. But, I'm saying almost exactly the same thing with a few improvements.

[monochrome]

@reh321 - yes, I believe you understand, where @Nicholas 06 and @biz-engineer don't (or they're off in some ooda loop arguing about something objective, which misses the point).

I bought a K-1. I bought it retail, over the counter with local sales tax. I'm extremely happy I did because I've now had it more than a month. I bought it even though I already have a K-3, which I will never fully utilize, because I like using old full frame lenses. I like using them better on my K-1 than I like using them on my K-3 or on one of my several dozen film cameras. It brings my joy to use these things, and more joy to use them in the manner they were designed to be used.

That's the only necessary justification. It brings me joy. Rational argument is pointless and meaningless because joy isn't rational. Joy is evocative.

RICOH, I believe, knows this.

[biz-engineer]

That's the only necessary justification. It brings me joy. Rational argument is pointless and meaningless because joy isn't rational. Joy is evocative. RICOH, I believe, knows this.

Fair enough. From this last sentence, I'm unsubscribing this thread and go enjoy taking photos with my K1 :-), instead of sterile argumentation.