[Nicolas06]

I pulled several lenses from my collection:

Super Tak 300mm: 19cm long, 1000g

AdaptAll #23A 60-300mm: 17cm long; 896g

Ricoh 75-300mm: 17cm long; 732g

DA 55-300mm ED WR: 13cm; 466g

B&H reports a weight of 442 for the new PLM version of the DA 55-300,
so they reduced the weight by another 24g even though they added a "motor".

From a historical viewpoint, current lenses look good.

For the 55-300 they made an effort, but for the 24-70, 70-200 and 150-450, they didn't seem too focussed on that. The worst is the 70-200, it is almost twice the weight as the screw drive 70-200 from tamron.

[Nicolas06]

It's simple. If one apsc dslr costs $900, two apsc camera cost $1800, about the same has buying one K1 body. And the larger the format the long the life time of the product. If you bought a D800E 5 years ago, you don't need to upgrade because it still is as good as any current models, so even if it costed $3K upfront, it was no more expensive than getting a D7000,D7100 and D7200 to get up to 24Mpixels, and the D800E still beats the D7200.

Should be but look I brought only 2 APSC in 5 years (1300-1400€ total, I sold the previous one), I don't know how much you spend on K3 + K1, but that should bet at least 2500€, maybe 2800€. Still arround twice. My father spent 1200€ for K30 + K3 and he plan to benefit to have 2 bodies for the safari. Before that he had an istDL and before that a film DSLR.

Somebody that would have brought D7000, D7100, D7200 for me would have the kind of issue monochrome explained. Honestly they only mute difference between the models. That is he can't help but buy the new model so if it did it with FF, likely it would have brought first a D600, then a D800, now a D810 or why not, a D5 You can't explain APSC is more expensive because APSC buyers are all people that need something new every 2 years, while the FF buyer is somebody that of course upgrade every 10 years.

Ok, a bit of confusion. I'm not sure I understand. If you like the rendering of the FA77, it's more like more of what you get when moving from apsc to ff, at least some of it.

I use a lot the focal length on APSC, on FF it would be quite different and match a framing I don't enjoy that much. I would need the F135 to replace the FA77 and the F135 is simply not as good and there no better AF prime available to buy. The same way, I would need a DA*200 to replace the F135...

Well, the K1 is 1.5 cm higher than a K3, and about the same width. What are enormous are the new DFA zoom , but when mounting primes on the K1, is about the same as a K3, I fit K1 with prime the same way in the same camera bag. DFA zooms have totally jumped in size, seems like Ricoh did not care about size anymore.

You need 1.5 longer focal length to get the same framing. DA*200 bigger than F135, F135 bigger than FA77 and so on. Hey even FA31 bigger than DA21 too.

[Rondec]

Monochrome is right. Cost versus value returned is really tough when you are doing photography as a hobby. Particularly if you are trying to figure out how much extra enjoyment you would get shooting a K-1 with a D FA 15-30 versus a K3 with a DA 15 limited. Those sorts of calculations are done on a personal basis, as well. It isn't that I am getting so much better photos now than I did before -- a little better maybe -- but I find myself enjoying shooting a little more and going to spots and trying different things. If you have the money for the K-1, that's probably all that's important. If you don't have the money, then it is better to remember that it isn't the gear that makes photos anyway, but the guy standing behind the viewfinder and you can capture great images with just about anything if you work at it.

[biz-engineer]

Should be but look I brought only 2 APSC in 5 years (1300-1400€ total, I sold the previous one), I don't know how much you spend on K3 + K1, but that should bet at least 2500€, maybe 2800€. Still arround twice. My father spent 1200€ for K30 + K3 and he plan to benefit to have 2 bodies for the safari. Before that he had an istDL and before that a film DSLR.

I don't calculate this way. In the past, I spent 6000 euros on APSC gear in the last 7 years, more than 50% of it I used only a few times. Inspired by a long time friend who shot Canon for the last 35 year, and now using only a 5DIII +24-105 f4 + 100-400 f5.6, my goal is to get rid of all unused gear and replace by a FF system, down the only what I use on a regular basis. So, I go for one K1 body, two zooms and one macro, one flash, one tripod, CPL and ND filters. For this full frame system, the cost differential is around 5000 euros, half of it paid by selling used gear. I still have the K3 and 35 macro ltd, if I sell them for 800 euros, I'd have added 2500-800 = 1700 Euros for the transition to a full frame system.

Some Pentax apsc dsrl long timers wanting more image than apsc image quality acquired a 645Z body with one or two lenses, on top of their apsc dslr system. I considered that MF brings image quality well above than apsc, but with a big drawback that long lenses and versatile zooms are to be forgotten, + super slow FPS. So, instead of running two systems, I took the middle way: full frame, which offer more than apsc IQ , and the same zoom versatility in terms of range of the focal length available, and still more cost effective as opposed to medium format. Just wondering how many K1 shooters users will truly upgrade to 645Z.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-14-2016 at 04:42 AM.

[redrockcoulee]

I don't calculate this way. In the past, I spent 6000 euros on APSC gear in the last 7 years, more than 50% of it I used only a few times. Inspired by a long time friend who shot Canon for the last 35 year, and now using only a 5DIII +24-105 f4 + 100-400 f5.6, my goal is to get rid of all unused gear and replace by a FF system, down the only what I use on a regular basis. So, I go for one K1 body, two zooms and one macro, one flash, one tripod, CPL and ND filters. For this full frame system, the cost differential is around 5000 euros, half of it paid by selling used gear. I still have the K3 and 35 macro ltd, if I sell them for 800 euros, I'd have added 2500-800 = 1700 Euros for the transition to a full frame system.

Some Pentax apsc dsrl long timers wanting more image than apsc image quality acquired a 645Z body with one or two lenses, on top of their apsc dslr system. I considered that MF brings image quality well above than apsc, but with a big drawback that long lenses and versatile zooms are to be forgotten, + super slow FPS. So, instead of running two systems, I took the middle way: full frame, which offer more than apsc IQ , and the same zoom versatility in terms of range of the focal length available, and still more cost effective as opposed to medium format. Just wondering how many K1 shooters users will truly upgrade to 645Z.

The problem with your arguments in this thread is you are using your personal experiences and projecting them to everyone else. I have spent less than half of what you did on my system and there is really nothing that I need to add to it for the moment. I might sell off my 17-28 FE or trade it for a DA21 but otherwise I am more than satisfied with my system nor do I intend on upgrading the camera for the foreseeable future. I took more shots with my K-r than the K5IIs in the same time of ownership, not because the K-r was a better camera but I went back to shooting more film. My entire Hasselblad system cost me less than the body of the K-1 would.

The fact that you are happy with your change to FF and I am satisfied with my K5IIs and others shot the 645Z or the Qs is proof to me that people are different and have different wants and needs. To you the cost is not great because you overspent on the ABS-C whereas to me the cost would be greater as the body itself is almost as much as I spent on my system as all the lenses but one were bought used. For those who buy a new camera with every upgrade going to FF may indeed be less expensive for them as the upgrade cycle is normally longer for the more expensive models but for those who do not upgrade that is not the case.

You need to be able to see that each and everyone of us is different and what works for you or how you bought gear is not universal and therefore may not be applicable. Pentax seems to have hit a home run with this camera and I do hope that the next APS-C camera is likewise and that a lot of new and interesting lenses also come out but for now my only interests in any of that is to see the company thrive so is I ever do what or need new gear it is there for me

[Rob Shepter]

I started photography with a P30n. I progressed through SF7, SFXn, MZ7 (insurance company replacement for the P30n) to *ist D (two off) then K5IIs and K3.
I will be buying a K1 to go with my *ist 35mm and full-frame glass (F 28mm, F 50mm, FA 100mm, DA* 60-250mm, DA* 300mm) and glass that can sensibly be used on FF (DA 10-17mm, DA 16-45mm, DA 7-mm Ltd, DA 55-300mm).
My consideration will then be whether to keep the K5IIs and K3 for street work, which I used mainly with short telephotos (DA 18-55mm, DA 55-200mm) for candid and quick daytime shots where there is no time to set up and compose.
There is no camera that does everything, but to have one film camera, and two or three digital bodies, each one with a different lens already mounted, gives me the ability to grab a camera from the bag and take a shot, knowing I will have the right body, the right settings and the right lens for the shot I want, without having to change lenses or fiddle with settings.
My entire collection has cost me around 6000GBP over 25 years, but all of it (apart from the P30n and SF's) are still with me and still working, so much cheaper than many other "hobbies".
In fact the only thing stopping me from ordering a K1 today is the gross price difference between the UK/EU pricing, and the rest of the world. 1700USD v 1600GBP v 1700euro! Clearly Ricoh think the UK is richer than the rest of the world.

[normhead]

@Nicholas06 @biz-engineer

You're sort of missing the point. Making generalizations about Value for Money is always a mistake. As Nicholas said about me, every decision is individual. Unless there is some kind of pathological disorder (actual destructive buying addiction), every purchase is correct and optimal value for the individual buyer at the moment in time.

You all don't know better than the individual buyer.

Arguing that almost any westerner doesn't suffer from pathological buying disorders might not be clinically supportable.

[biz-engineer]

1700USD v 1600GBP v 1700euro! Clearly Ricoh think the UK is richer than the rest of the world.

I noticed that the prices in the UK are the same as in Euro in Germany or France. Amazing, Euro prices are already higher than in USD, but on top of it when it converts in GBP, it's about 40% more expensive.
Across EU, there is no custom tax, so you are free sell where it is the most expensive and buy your gear where it is cheaper, Italy, France or Germany, anyway the shipment costs about the same.

[Nicolas06]

I don't calculate this way. In the past, I spent 6000 euros on APSC gear in the last 7 years, more than 50% of it I used only a few times. Inspired by a long time friend who shot Canon for the last 35 year, and now using only a 5DIII +24-105 f4 + 100-400 f5.6, my goal is to get rid of all unused gear and replace by a FF system, down the only what I use on a regular basis. So, I go for one K1 body, two zooms and one macro, one flash, one tripod, CPL and ND filters. For this full frame system, the cost differential is around 5000 euros, half of it paid by selling used gear. I still have the K3 and 35 macro ltd, if I sell them for 800 euros, I'd have added 2500-800 = 1700 Euros for the transition to a full frame system.

Some Pentax apsc dsrl long timers wanting more image than apsc image quality acquired a 645Z body with one or two lenses, on top of their apsc dslr system. I considered that MF brings image quality well above than apsc, but with a big drawback that long lenses and versatile zooms are to be forgotten, + super slow FPS. So, instead of running two systems, I took the middle way: full frame, which offer more than apsc IQ , and the same zoom versatility in terms of range of the focal length available, and still more cost effective as opposed to medium format. Just wondering how many K1 shooters users will truly upgrade to 645Z.

To me, reselling everything you don't use, is a good strategy, money wise. but you overall spent a lot, so it is difficult you had any cost effective strategy.

Your have to notice also key point for going FF for you are high iso, high definition and more shallow deph of field.

Your friend was reasonable to keep the same gear for year. But honestly with his gear doesn't that much more than if he had brought a D7000, a 17-50 f/2.8 and a 100-300 f/4. He likely get a bit more sharpness at time, and while high iso is better, he also has to choose higher isos setting due to slower appertures.

I don't say this is bad, but this is not that obvious neither. Would you have said 5DIII + 24-70 + 70-200 both f/2.8 I would have said yes, without doubt. But he doesn't have the best gear. That not an issue at all, but somebody that tend to spend a lot and upgrade would soon decide he want f/2.8, he want a body with more resolution etc. And will spend lot of money to acquire that.

[biz-engineer]

To me, reselling everything you don't use, is a good strategy, money wise. but you overall spent a lot, so it is difficult you had any cost effective strategy.

Yes, I spent more money than I should because I did not have enough experience, so it was costly for me to learn. Now I know.

Your friend was reasonable to keep the same gear for year. But honestly with his gear doesn't that much more than if he had brought a D7000, a 17-50 f/2.8 and a 100-300 f/4. He likely get a bit more sharpness at time, and while high iso is better, he also has to choose higher isos setting due to slower appertures.

What I learned is , On paper , the equivalence works very well, but in practice, larger sensor deliver better IQ. The fastest 645 lenses at f2.8, most being f3.5 or f4 wide open, this does not prevent 645 images to a visible step above apsc or FF. In an photo gallery, 645 images are just stunning, you would definitely tell which one is from apsc and which one is from 645. Full frame seats in between, FF does not deliver MF image rendering, but it certainly benefit from the same versatility of apsc. The reason why equivalence does not work that well, is because large sensor isn't a tradeoff, it cumulates both less noise and more resolution. When is you upgrade from a K5 to a K1, it's 16Mpixels to 36Mpixels of the same size, so you get image of twice the area. When going from apsc 12Mpixels to apsc 24Mpixels, the pixel count is twice but the overall color and tone definition remains roughly the same, that's the elusive apsc upgrade cycle. People claiming there's not difference in FF are doing so because their main activity is to low at image on LCD displays which at best are 8bits 2000 pixels wide, end of discussion.

[PenPusher]

It doesn't matter what camera or lenses you have, you will set the camera up the way you want it and the features you never use will be ignored and forgotten, with lenses its the same you buy lenses because you think you will use it for this and that but after a while you find there are one or two lenses you use all the time and the rest are stored carefully away and forgotten.

All you really need is the most basic equipment, a camera that can measure light, set a shutter speed and a lens with aperture control all the other gizmos are nice but unnecessary.

[biz-engineer]

All you really need is the most basic equipment, a camera that can measure light, set a shutter speed and a lens with aperture control all the other gizmos are nice but unnecessary.

That's it. 5 stops of effective SR combined with sensor that shoot clean images at ISO3200, means shooting with a standard zoom that remains mounted on camera all the time, for shooting in any conditions.

[emalvick]

I never really calculated a cost benefit for myself, I just figured that I couldn't justify it and I didn't need the K-1 for myself. There are of course other factors.

First off, I'm not sure many people really NEED anything. I'm not sure I've ever purchased a camera because I really needed it. Enjoyment of photography as a hobby drove me to buy my first digital cameras all the way to my current K3. I can argue that every dSLR I purchased was necessary, but it was only really necessary from the aspect of increasing my enjoyment of my hobby. However, each subsequent dSLR (K10d, K5, K3) has provided less and less joy to some extent, not because they aren't better but because they aren't doing a lot more than I could do before.

For now, I'll stick with the K3. With a new daughter, I'm sure I'll convince myself I need a K-1, but truthfully, my daughter is giving me all the joy I need right now, and that is priceless.

That all being said, I think it is fantastic that people are buying the K-1, and it shouldn't even be about need. If it makes you happy, than do it.

For me, I feel fairly successful with my photography, but I've also grown comfortable with one aspect a K-3 and APSC camera provides, and that is what I'll call size-benefit. With the K-5, I was purchasing the battery grip and large zoom lenses. With the K-3, I've spent extra money getting some of the DA-limiteds and older FA-limiteds. I've quite using the grip. I was close to purchasing a Leica digital rangefinder (talk about not needing something) just for the convenience of size, and then I realized that my K-3 with the 21-mm or 43-mm lens makes a relatively compact system, not all that much bigger than a Leica.

I've shifted my joy back to the photography and not the equipment. I'm becoming a comfortable street photographer, and I just love my K-3 and the kit I've been using more than any camera I've ever had.

So despite my own perceived lack of cost benefit to a K-1, I fear that a K-1 would make things larger again for me. I also suspect that I'll get more enjoyment buying better lenses rather than a better camera.

[Nicolas06]

People claiming there's not difference in FF are doing so because their main activity is to low at image on LCD displays which at best are 8bits 2000 pixels wide, end of discussion.

They may just not shoot at 3200 isos or 6400 isos all the time. FF is better but this is a bit better, not that much better. As you explained, you need cropped MF or better full frame MF to get to the next level. or even bigger. It is easier done in film than digital, but you people use much bigger size than FF.

FF and APSC are just too format that are quite similar. In some case like some intermediate iso settings like 1600-3200 it make a difference the FF still great, the APSC start to show its limitations but that's it.

The fastest 645 lenses at f2.8, most being f3.5 or f4 wide open, this does not prevent 645 images to a visible step above apsc or FF. In an photo gallery, 645 images are just stunning, you would definitely tell which one is from apsc and which one is from 645.

What people often associate with quite high end gear may not come in practice from the sensor but from what the photographer was able to get out of the whole chain. Including great lighting equipment and lighting conditions, perfect and good taste for the post processing. Some picture I see and think... Wow that incredible... and after you understand it come from a simple APSC, maybe even a basic one like a K20, but the photographer is somebody that know his craft. On the opposite there millions of meh FF pictures. The thing is there almost no newbie that has an MF, already many on FF, and on APSC, there all level and most beginers that are serious about it start here.

I agree on some circonstances there a difference, but it is not always, and it not just the LCD. Ultimately, if you picture are truely stuning, you don't need A0 print with a magnifying glass to discover. You'll find it stuning on a LCD screen, printed on a book and at various size. Indeed the actual size and display medium may not be that important.

All of this notion that you need huge resolution, huge SR number at very high iso is nice to push sales, but this is not really how you get great photos anyway.

If your photo isn't stunning already at 2MB (so 2000 pixel wide), there no point to zoom more or look at what it would be at 16, 24 or 36MP, it will not improve.

[biz-engineer]

All of this notion that you need huge resolution, huge SR number at very high iso is nice to push sales, but this is not really how you get great photos anyway. If your photo isn't stunning already at 2MB (so 2000 pixel wide), there no point to zoom more or look at what it would be at 16, 24 or 36MP, it will not improve.

Yep, meanwhile, people buy stuff like Canon 5Dsr , Pentax 645Z or Phase One !! Even Yann Arthus Bertrand and Eric Valli don't need full frame, but that's what they use essentially. The last expo from Eric Valli was awesome.
I made some of the best photos with a K200D and 18-250 f6.3, and I sold both of them. Too bad.

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

Below, some kind of comparison between 36Mpixel full frame and medium format film:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/