[Nicolas06]

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.

That interresting. Canon #1 overall and has no MF. Until 6 months ago, they had no camera with more than 24MP or 12-13EV of dynamic range. Their 5Ds is not made for high iso. You can't really push shadows on their sensors. Until quite recently, their high iso performance sucked compared to Sony sensor. Still many pro use Canon gear.

The best gear 6-7 years ago, still used by many pro is no better except on dof control than a K3 that is now 3 year old.

While many will buy because they can and pro have a reason to use the latest greatest, most don't even care to touch an MF digital, many go for Canon (even to shoot the Olympics or soccer world cup) and many still have gear that is so-so by today standard. And let's not forget all the pro that just work with APSC.

We buy theses because we can, in some case it does help, true, but it is like a taxi driver that explain a ford can't do it and he need a BMW or a Mercedes. While the last too can be see as better, all do the job to transport people in good conditions.

[biz-engineer]

That interresting. Canon #1 overall and has no MF. Until 6 months ago, they had no camera with more than 24MP or 12-13EV of dynamic range. Their 5Ds is not made for high iso. You can't really push shadows on their sensors. Until quite recently, their high iso performance sucked compared to Sony sensor. Still many pro use Canon gear. The best gear 6-7 years ago, still used by many pro is no better except on dof control than a K3 that is now 3 year old.

Yes, that's true. I'd say that Canon guys have a good reason to upgrade from aps to full frame. First, their aps crop factor is x1.6 (smaller sensor), second, the DR sucks, so they really gain a more useful stop of DR.
But for cameras having apsc Sony sensors (such as Nikon D7x00 or Pentax K5/K3)... can do as good as Canon FF , with regard to DR.

Example below of loss of 1.5bit of information (compression of DR) , after processing (8bits printable file). What it shows is, in 8bits domain (given that standard terminals are 8bits, and the eye can't discern much past 8bits), as soon as you have more than 12ev of DR, you're done. The reason why pro shoot Canon is because of the support they have and the variety of lenses. The weakness of Canon is the sensors, other than that, they have the broadness range of product and wide spread after sale support. For a Pro , Canon is like the Mcdonald drive through.

Also, you can get good sharpness and low ISO on apsc, for the same DoF. So if you use a FA77ltd, it's smaller, faster and sharper, so why carry a full frame system that costs and weight 3 times more?
Come with me shooting dance competition (indoors), you can use any Pentax apsc gear of your choice. I'll use a K1 and a DFA70-200, and lets compare images afterwards :-)
And, sport venues are no that rare , in terms of places where people what to take photos...

[ChristianRock]

The good thing about APSC is that you can buy two bodies and leave one at home, whereas full frame, you buy only one body and three lenses and use them. Some people have 2 or 3 apsc bodies, which cost about the same as to have purchased a Pentax K1 (then they argue that FF is so expensive...).

I have a K10D. Worth 100 dollars. I paid 139 a while back.
I also have a K-r that I paid 150 dollars for, a couple years ago. I guess it still is worth that much, I got a bargain since it was basically new (2800 shutter actuations). This is my wife's camera but I get to use it quite a bit when we are out as a family.
Then I just bought a K-S1 for 240 dollars.

Total 490 dollars. Or just over 500 if you count what I actually paid. With that K-S1 purchase, I finally broke 1000 dollars for my entire APS-C system (I don't have any expensive lenses, my most expensive one was my Pentax DA 35 2.4 that I bought new from B&H back when it cost 182 dollars - on sale!).

So, I don't see your point. Even if I had a K-3 and a K-S2, which a few people do, it would still be about 1200 dollars for both cameras if bought new, as opposed to 1800 for the K-1. Most people have an older model as their 2nd camera.

I think the car analogy is a good one, but I see it like this: I would love to drive a V8 to work like one of my colleagues does, but I have an old 4-cylinder basically because I have other priorities, and for what I do, it does the job of getting me to work. Same with a camera, what I have is good enough for what I shoot. Even the K10D is enough for what I shoot and my level of talent

Also, I think it's kind of amusing that right now there's a "Low Light K1 challenge" in the Weekly Photo Challenges subforum, and though it's just started recently, none of the pictures there could not have been taken with an APS-C camera.

I made some of the best photos with a K200D and 18-250 f6.3, and I sold both of them. Too bad.

To me, that's the quote that tells it all.

[Nicolas06]

Come with me shooting dance competition (indoors), you can use any Pentax apsc gear of your choice. I'll use a K1 and a DFA70-200, and lets compare images afterwards :-)
And, sport venues are no that rare , in terms of places where people what to take photos...

You, some other too. Many likely. Not everybody.

The problem is basically I am not interrested in sport or dance competition. I am not interrested in either and while there technique to it, there often not that must artistics possibilities. It is not photos I would want framed.

I am not alone. And many other simply don't think it is worth spending 5000€/$ and lifting 4kg in the bag all the time for the occasionnal shot.

You'd have to do that often for it to make any sense. and that would have to be preferably indoor or at night so that the lack of light become problematic... Otherwise a guy with some practice a D7000 and an consumer grade TC might be quite successfull. And honestly if this is the priority, I am not sure even K1 + DFA70-200 would be my choice if I was after that. I would have gone Nikon instead. They AF, bodies and lenses are still better I think for this kind of situation... And it is about to spend that much money, replace lenses and body, acutally keeping nothing, there no reason to keep K-mount. Better to take the best out there while you are at it. That would be my take.

In other words, while it is good you found what you wanted, this is not for everybody. Well the statistics still say APSC take the bigger share of the sales. You are the minority.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-16-2016 at 05:06 PM.

[biz-engineer]

And honestly if this is the priority, I am not sure even K1 + DFA70-200 would be my choice if I was after that. I would have gone Nikon instead. They AF, bodies and lenses are still better I think for this kind of situation...

This sentence is from reputation. A Canon guy taught me how to use the Pentax AF tracking in the correct way. There are two issues with Pentax AF: 1) no well documented, if documented at all and 2) user base who is definitely not AF fluent (most users using center point AFS, like in autofocus film cameras).

In fact the K3 AFC system works the same way as Canon 7DII, so the Canon 7DII also shots a lot of out of focus images, and this is for a good and technical reason: skipping focus confirm is done to eliminate any lag between in focus and shutter opening. In focus tracking, the AF loop works continuously asynchronous from the shutter mechanism, both on the Canon 7DII (or 5DIII) and Pentax K3 (or Pentax K1), no difference here. So, if anyone complains about getting out of focus shots with a K3/K1 tracking, before they say "Pentax AF is not as good as Nikon or Canon", they should use a Nikon or Canon, it's the same. My main concern when people saying that something isn't as good as Canon or Nikon is that no evidence is provided to support their statement. With the K3, I've recorded several sequences of 19 shots of moving targets, 100% of them in focus, while some people manage miss focus still photo in good conditions, how is that possible?

---------- Post added 17-06-16 at 08:36 ----------

And it is about to spend that much money, replace lenses and body, acutally keeping nothing, there no reason to keep K-mount.

Of course, I already had 4 full frame lenses, so, that's what kept me on K land. What put me in was the DFA150-450 purchased earlier and used on the K3. For the same cost, I could almost have switched to Nikon D750 + full set of tamron zooms from 15mm to 600mm....

Yes full frame is more expensive than apsc, but... it's interesting for me to see people blocking on it. It appears daunting, but is actually still very consumer oriented, just look at the 6D and D610.... they aren't that much more expensive than flagship apsc, for someone no using the FPS of a K3. And Tamron lenses are nearly half the price as Pentax lenses. Seems to be a threshold like 1000 euros , so below 1000 (950) it's ok, and above 1000 (1300) I can make it , it's wayyyy too expensive...

[Rondec]

I have a K10D. Worth 100 dollars. I paid 139 a while back.
I also have a K-r that I paid 150 dollars for, a couple years ago. I guess it still is worth that much, I got a bargain since it was basically new (2800 shutter actuations). This is my wife's camera but I get to use it quite a bit when we are out as a family.
Then I just bought a K-S1 for 240 dollars.

Total 490 dollars. Or just over 500 if you count what I actually paid. With that K-S1 purchase, I finally broke 1000 dollars for my entire APS-C system (I don't have any expensive lenses, my most expensive one was my Pentax DA 35 2.4 that I bought new from B&H back when it cost 182 dollars - on sale!).

So, I don't see your point. Even if I had a K-3 and a K-S2, which a few people do, it would still be about 1200 dollars for both cameras if bought new, as opposed to 1800 for the K-1. Most people have an older model as their 2nd camera.

I think the car analogy is a good one, but I see it like this: I would love to drive a V8 to work like one of my colleagues does, but I have an old 4-cylinder basically because I have other priorities, and for what I do, it does the job of getting me to work. Same with a camera, what I have is good enough for what I shoot. Even the K10D is enough for what I shoot and my level of talent

Also, I think it's kind of amusing that right now there's a "Low Light K1 challenge" in the Weekly Photo Challenges subforum, and though it's just started recently, none of the pictures there could not have been taken with an APS-C camera.



To me, that's the quote that tells it all.

I think if you aren't a professional, then the cheapest way to good quality (at least with Pentax) is with used APS-C gear. I bought my daughter a new KS-1 for 225 dollars and it is a perfect camera for her to learn on. At the same time, a K-1 is fun to use and if you have the money for it, than there isn't a reason not to go for it.

I do think, as well, that the whole "This photo couldn't have been taken on a crop sensor camera" idea is a little silly, in general. Yes, there are photos out there -- mostly wide angle, narrow depth of field images -- that you would have trouble taking on a crop sensor, but other than that, at web sizes with a little noise reduction, APS-C images look pretty amazing, in my opinion. Clearly full frame is a stop better, but compared to the K10/K7 era cameras, a K5 or K3 is pretty amazing.

[normhead]

I think if you aren't a professional, then the cheapest way to good quality (at least with Pentax) is with used APS-C gear. I bought my daughter a new KS-1 for 225 dollars and it is a perfect camera for her to learn on. At the same time, a K-1 is fun to use and if you have the money for it, than there isn't a reason not to go for it.

I do think, as well, that the whole "This photo couldn't have been taken on a crop sensor camera" idea is a little silly, in general. Yes, there are photos out there -- mostly wide angle, narrow depth of field images -- that you would have trouble taking on a crop sensor, but other than that, at web sizes with a little noise reduction, APS-C images look pretty amazing, in my opinion. Clearly full frame is a stop better, but compared to the K10/K7 era cameras, a K5 or K3 is pretty amazing.

^ what he said.

If you're not happy with your images, buying a K-1 won't help.

On the other hand is people are always asking you to sell them prints of your amazing images, and you're making a decent income, a K-1 might help push you to the next level.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-17-2016 at 06:14 AM.

[biz-engineer]

If you're not happy with your images, buying a K-1 won't help.

Some people are happy with their images does not mean images are good. Same for food and drinks, some people buy 1.5 euros bottle of wine and can't tell the difference with 50 euros's bottle of wine: they judge the wine by the percentage of alcohol, as long as it gets them drunk, they are happy.

[Nicolas06]

Some people are happy with their images does not mean images are good. Same for food and drinks, some people buy 1.5 euros bottle of wine and can't tell the difference with 50 euros's bottle of wine: they judge the wine by the percentage of alcohol, as long as it gets them drunk, they are happy.

It is interresting basically that you concentrate more on the price of the thing rather than on the inner quality of the product in your argument.

That's also kind of funny to think that sombody that drink wine moderately, say a glass per day, would have to spend more than 4000€ a year to benefit of the expensive wine. And that's only wine, if one apply the same principe for every par of his life, he would have to earn quite a lot, likely a few hundred thousand euros a year. After taxes.

For one to be able to taste the 50€ wine from time to time or get an expensive car, one may have to deal every day with equivalent of 1.5€ wine in many other aspects of one life.

And then come taste, preference and free will. It is easy to discuss how the bad taste of some people is, how they don't get it while it is just they have different preferences.

If one is quite happy with the picture he take, and take joy from it who are we to criticize its activity? As long as we are not asked to frame them and put it in our own houses, who are we to complain? Why should that be problem, really ? It would be completely stupid for them to invest into something they don't care so other people would approve. I grand you, people do that all the time. But that doesn't mean it is smart. One should live for himself, not for others.

[Rondec]

Some people are happy with their images does not mean images are good. Same for food and drinks, some people buy 1.5 euros bottle of wine and can't tell the difference with 50 euros's bottle of wine: they judge the wine by the percentage of alcohol, as long as it gets them drunk, they are happy.

I don't think the point of getting a new camera is necessarily to get better images. If, a photographer is struggling with a specific aspect of their gear (not enough resolution, not good enough high iso, not enough dynamic range, not able to get shallow enough depth of field for a given format), then moving to a larger size sensor could help some aspect of that. The tendency for someone moving from a K3 to a K-1 will be to see very similar photos between the two cameras, albeit with less noise and more resolution.

There are a lot of very average images posted on this forum -- I am as guilty as anyone else. But the measure of enjoyment of a hobby isn't how awesome the images produced are, but on a personal level whether or not you had pleasure in getting the photos and post processing them.

[biz-engineer]

If one is quite happy with the picture he take, and take joy from it who are we to criticize its activity? As long as we are not asked to frame them and put it in our own houses, who are we to complain? Why should that be problem, really ? It would be completely stupid for them to invest into something they don't care so other people would approve. I grand you, people do that all the time. But that doesn't mean it is smart. One should live for himself, not for others.

So far, you're arguing as much as me. I return all your arguments to yourself, including this one: " It would be completely stupid for them to invest into something they don't care so other people would approve. I grand you, people do that all the time. But that doesn't mean it is smart."

Why do you need to argue to defend the opinion that the Pentax K1 system isn't worth the money? (what this thread is about... being reassured that not everyone will get a Pentax K1). Please provide a net present value of a camera system based on a discounted cash flow analysis over a 5 years period. I bet, for all hobbyists, the return on investment will be negative, regardless the camera format, apsc included. If I keep a full frame system twice as long as apsc before upgrading , the full frame system cost the same as apsc system. But apsc is worse than full frame is you consider that at least some of the people having a Full Frame camera use it professionally and a lot more APSC users will never make a penny out of it.

---------- Post added 18-06-16 at 16:10 ----------

I don't think the point of getting a new camera is necessarily to get better images. If, a photographer is struggling with a specific aspect of their gear (not enough resolution, not good enough high iso, not enough dynamic range, not able to get shallow enough depth of field for a given format), then moving to a larger size sensor could help some aspect of that. The tendency for someone moving from a K3 to a K-1 will be to see very similar photos between the two cameras, albeit with less noise and more resolution. There are a lot of very average images posted on this forum -- I am as guilty as anyone else. But the measure of enjoyment of a hobby isn't how awesome the images produced are, but on a personal level whether or not you had pleasure in getting the photos and post processing them.

Fully agree on that. I have a K1, and I got used to how to use it and I really like it, including the DFA lenses that work really well, especially for AF much better than the previous lenses I had. It's really an awesome camera system, employing state of the art sensor and optics. I'm spoiled :-), I don't have to worry if the image quality will be good or not, there is plenty or headroom, so, I can concentrate on composition and non camera related things, that's all I can say.

[Nicolas06]

So far, you're arguing as much as me. I return all your arguments to yourself, including this one: " It would be completely stupid for them to invest into something they don't care so other people would approve. I grand you, people do that all the time. But that doesn't mean it is smart."

Why do you need to argue to defend the opinion that the Pentax K1 system isn't worth the money? (what this thread is about... being reassured that not everyone will get a Pentax K1).

You aways fail (for me) to put into perspective, for who; You say how it perform better for dance competition or action very high iso. Like everybody and their dog care about that. You explain how 50€ wine is better than 1.5€ and how some people have no taste, and so on and on and on. People that have no taste exist and all together they are not to be overlooked. There much more bottles of wine sold under the 5€ mark than past the 30€ mark, after all.

If you read I continously said that K1 is great, that if you want it you should get it. But this is has nothing to do with other solutions being actually better or worse for other people and other circonstances. One can't have the best all the time and even the definition of best is diferent.

For me that include small primes (and the line up is missing for that at the framing I want for FF), that include having reasonably light, compact gear. For price, that also a compromize. I could spend anything from 0 to infinite for photo gear but I don't see why I should settle for anything less or more than I decided for my situation. I may update one day, but I don't know why I couldn't wait for the FF to become twice as light, and I don't know why I could not just wait for Pentax to get a mirorless K-mount that would be 500g instead of 1kg. I don't know why I couldn't wait until at least the lens I care would be available: small and light, covering something like 20-24mm, 30-40mm, 120-135mm and 200mm. No, Sony A7 doesn't fit the bill, the lenses are not small and when they exist, they are very expensive for what they actually offer.

If it doesn't happen, this is no big issue as what I have already work for me.

The thread is about how many APSC shooter will truely upgrade to K1. You were one. You are no longer one. While you are surely representative on a part of the current and formers APSC shooters, not all we behave, think and conclude as you do. For now APSC still the majority of sales.

Low light






Indoor









Wide






A bit of action/sport/wildlife

[Rondec]

The biggest problem with the K-1 is clearly that it is much more expensive than the cheapest APS-C cameras. If it were the same price as a K50, you wouldn't even have the discussion. The question then becomes one of how much you value the bump in quality of images/improvement in auto focus versus the actual cost of the camera. Since each person's budget is different and each person puts a different value on photography, this is pretty hard to generalize.

In a year or two, when used K-1s hit the market at 800 or 900 dollars, the equation will shift again and more folks who said that APS-C was all they would ever need will think to themselves, "Well, at that price I might as well try it..."

[biz-engineer]

For now APSC still the majority of sales.

Hopefully, there will still be candidates to buy current second hand and future Pentax apsc dslrs. That apsc is, currently the majority of sales, hum , not at the moment. At the moment, what sells the most is the Pentax K1. It's easy to see from the mount of new subscribers per week in the flickr camera pools for the K1, K3 and K5, that the K1 pool is filling a lot faster than the K3 was when it was introduced. After 3 years, the K3 counts approx. 1360 pool members, while after 3 months of its introduction, the K1 already counts more than 480 pool members. In about 6 months from now, the K1 will have surpassed the K3.

---------- Post added 18-06-16 at 17:11 ----------

In a year or two, when used K-1s hit the market at 800 or 900 dollars, the equation will shift again and more folks who said that APS-C was all they would ever need will think to themselves, "Well, at that price I might as well try it..."

Plus , in a couple of years from now, it may be possible to buy K1 second hand, making it really affordable for some people already having full frame lenses.

[Nicolas06]

Hopefully, there will still be candidates to buy current second hand and future Pentax apsc dslrs. That apsc is, currently the majority of sales, hum , not at the moment. At the moment, what sells the most is the Pentax K1. It's easy to see from the mount of new subscribers per week in the flickr camera pools for the K1, K3 and K5, that the K1 pool is filling a lot faster than the K3 was when it was introduced. After 3 years, the K3 counts approx. 1360 pool members, while after 3 months of its introduction, the K1 already counts more than 480 pool members. In about 6 months from now, the K1 will have surpassed the K3.

Sorry to say, but K3 is only 1 APSC model there K200, K20, K10, Kx, K7, K30, K50, K5 and so on and on.

K1 is the only FF body out there for Pentax... For now as you explain, it does less than 1 single 3 year old APSC body while there dozen of them. Hopefully time will improve theses figures for the k1, but this is not that impressive. Even if in 6 month K1 beat K3 figure it would still be a minority, it would still be only this forum and it would ignore the fact that some K1 owner kept their old APSC and may continue to use them at time.

It is logical as the sole represent of its market K1 see lot of popularity. I am not sure the next FF model will get that much... Remember you said that the guy that brought a D800 5 years ago didn't feel the need to upgrade... All theses people, you included that brought that K1, will not be in the market for the years to come as per your own point.