[gda13]

The real benefit of full frame is in the wide to normal angle lenses where faster apertures are available than are available for APS-C.

Seems as though some birders tend to like the K-1's lower noise at higher ISO performance that gives them the ability to push for faster shutter speeds, so I can see that perspective. For myself I do landscape, macro and closeups most of the time so I definitely appreciate the DR capabilities the K-1 has demonstrated and even though the noise on the K3 cleans up quite well in post, its nice to see DNG files come out of camera virtually noise free (at least so far with the limited use I've been able to put the K-1 through). Although I live in Fl which many consider a birder's paradise I rarely if ever participate in that (less than 3% of the time at best), but perhaps I will at some point in the future.

There's also the fact that back in 2008 when I decided to get more deeply involved with photography (largely due to the accessibility provided to me via digital) as a hobby those wonderful 3 limited FA's were largely what drew me to Pentax...although I could not afford them at the time nor did I really have any understanding of the differences between APS-C or FF. Needless to say I'm all in with FF and I've been steadily acquiring FF glass as I transition over. The only APS-C stuff I plan to retain are my K-01s and some of the small DA limiteds...which make for an outstanding portable high quality kit.


Took me a couple of years to put together this limiteds set

Hello K-1!


Couldn't resist expanding my dream kit to include a classic f1.2 lens...unfortunately no nice colored bag like the others

3 Princesses and a King

[normhead]

Just from consideration of what's gone on in this thread, I don't think any true APS_c shooter will upgrade to a K-1. But, the guys who were pure FF shooters right from the start who have been waiting for a Pentax camera, they will all upgrade.

But the K-70 looks like a great option. It has more advanced noise reduction, I believe it will address the biggest K-3 issue, noise at high ISO and bring it back into an equivalent images for the same size file, with a K-1. I think I prefer the K-70 screen to a 645z / K-1 type of screen. It has improved AF, although improved over what it's hard to tell.

[redrockcoulee]

Seems as though some birders tend to like the K-1's lower noise at higher ISO performance that gives them the ability to push for faster shutter speeds, so I can see that perspective. For myself I do landscape, macro and closeups most of the time so I definitely appreciate the DR capabilities the K-1 has demonstrated and even though the noise on the K3 cleans up quite well in post, its nice to see DNG files come out of camera virtually noise free (at least so far with the limited use I've been able to put the K-1 through). Although I live in Fl which many consider a birder's paradise I rarely if ever participate in that (less than 3% of the time at best), but perhaps I will at some point in the future.

There's also the fact that back in 2008 when I decided to get more deeply involved with photography (largely due to the accessibility provided to me via digital) as a hobby those wonderful 3 limited FA's were largely what drew me to Pentax...although I could not afford them at the time nor did I really have any understanding of the differences between APS-C or FF. Needless to say I'm all in with FF and I've been steadily acquiring FF glass as I transition over. The only APS-C stuff I plan to retain are my K-01s and some of the small DA limiteds...which make for an outstanding portable high quality kit.


Took me a couple of years to put together this limiteds set

Hello K-1!


Couldn't resist expanding my dream kit to include a classic f1.2 lens...unfortunately no nice colored bag like the others

3 Princesses and a King

Its a matter of priorities. Instead of buying the K1 you could have obtained a coloured bag for the 1.2 lens

Looks good a whole collection of silver lenses.

[gda13]

But the K-70 looks like a great option. It has more advanced noise reduction, I believe it will address the biggest K-3 issue, noise at high ISO and bring it back into an equivalent images for the same size file, with a K-1. I think I prefer the K-70 screen to a 645z / K-1 type of screen. It has improved AF, although improved over what it's hard to tell.

Just had my first look at the K-70 now...what an interesting camera! From the article linked to in your post...

"...a hybrid live view/video autofocus system that includes phase detection AF points on the sensor. This will enable faster live view/video autofocus without the guesswork typical of contrast detect systems. Ultimately, the main benefit is that focusing on moving objects while in live view will be more reliable, and AF during video recording will be more responsive."

Would this benefit carry over to static photography? Might be good for wildlife/sports style photogs...honestly the K-3 was the first Pentax dslr I've had (k20d on up) where I had zero AF issues, but as of yet I don't do wildlife nor sports so I can't comment on that aspect.

I for one, hope that Pentax continues their innovative APS-C advancements since there will be a time when I develop enough patience and skill for birding and I can maximize the advantages of a crop camera.

Its a matter of priorities. Instead of buying the K1 you could have obtained a coloured bag for the 1.2 lens

The black da 35mm limited bag I already have fits perfectly. Anyways, I acquired these to use, not sit pretty in some cabinet

[normhead]

I think after the K-70 is released , the K-1 noise advantage will back to an equivalent situation. Using the same noise reduction technology there should be a one stop noise advantage to the K-1 if you are willing to give up a 1 stop advantage in DoF. Right now a K-1 has a 2-3 stop advantage making it functional for birders. My guess is the K-70 will bring the APS_c model up to a one stop difference. You have to remember the K-1 came out with noise reduction algorithms superior to those in the K-3 series. But all Pentax bodies going forward will take advantage of the same technologies.

The K-1 will appear to have a noise advantage, until the nest APS-c body is released. Just a guess. The we'll be back to equivalences.

If Pentax doesn't go that route, Nikon already has in thier D7300 with much better tracking AF and K-3 killing DR, so they'll start losing Pentax 24MP landscape and wildlife shooters at some point. We put up with the K-5 limitations because we could get better images at a better price. It's been awhile now since the D7300 came out and so far Pentax hasn't responded. It usually takes tham about a year to catch up., so we're waiting to see what they come up with.

I tend to look at one camera systems that presents workable compromises to do everything. The only thing I don't like about the K-70 would be 6 FPS instead of 8 and no built in GPS. But that's a compromise I could live with if it meant increased DR and IQ, making it a replacement for my K-5 back-up unit rather than my K-3. For some reason, despite the objection of some, Ifiind the K-3 tracking thing a joy to use. The other day tracking some very pesky Terns a was amazed at the way it was able to look focus and snap off 4 frames a second while tracking these fast moving birds in flight.

I'm guessing you'll still need a K-3 to do that, even after you get a K-70, but, we can always hope.

[Kunzite]

Sigh... we won't ever be back to equivalences because we never were there.

The calculated "noise advantage" only works if you don't crop at all (or crop proportionally the same for every format). This factor alone can make a format or the other a better choice.

[biz-engineer]

I think after the K-70 is released , the K-1 noise advantage will back to an equivalent situation. Using the same noise reduction technology there should be a one stop noise advantage to the K-1

Noise reduction without additional light gathering capability turns out to also remove details. BIS or quantum dots may bring 0.3ev true advantage on apsc sensor, but it won't catch up with full frame. Also, full frame will get to BIS at some point in time (already the case of the Sony A7rii 42Mp sensor).

[Nicolas06]

Noise reduction without additional light gathering capability turns out to also remove details. BIS or quantum dots may bring 0.3ev true advantage on apsc sensor, but it won't catch up with full frame. Also, full frame will get to BIS at some point in time (already the case of the Sony A7rii 42Mp sensor).

You explained yourself that there was 1.5EV in practice. Some consider more 2EV. This is because there not just the difference in format.

The theory say 1.22. So with same sensor technology, there should be 1.22EV. If there significantly more or less, it is due to different sensor technology or to the noise reduction algorithm. If the manufacturers don't do it as market segmentation, the long tendancy should stay around 1.22Ev.

But the more we make progress on this area, the less 1.22Ev will mean. Just pushing 2EV more of performance from current level would mean that the FF gain, while still present will not be as significant anymore. You'd have to go past 12800 isos and up with few applications that could not be managed with an f/2.8 zoom on APSC. On the contrary, in many case, this would bring more margin to close down a bit optics getter more dof and sharpness.

In fact 2Ev gain would mean current 1" would get APSC performance and current m4/3 would get current FF performance and that basically smartphone would be similar to current 1" performance. This would only reduce the sales of high end models because the practical difference would be reduced.

[Nicolas06]

Just from consideration of what's gone on in this thread, I don't think any true APS_c shooter will upgrade to a K-1. But, the guys who were pure FF shooters right from the start who have been waiting for a Pentax camera, they will all upgrade.

But the K-70 looks like a great option. It has more advanced noise reduction, I believe it will address the biggest K-3 issue, noise at high ISO and bring it back into an equivalent images for the same size file, with a K-1. I think I prefer the K-70 screen to a 645z / K-1 type of screen. It has improved AF, although improved over what it's hard to tell.

K70 has improved AF hardware only in LV. For OVF usage, it is back to K5/KS2 levels with the old 11 point AF. You'd likely need to wait for the K3/K3-II replacement to get something with great AF. The exposure sensor is also back to K5 levels with the old 77 point metering. The accurary of the metering as well as AF tracking possibilities will suffer except for LV mode.

Manufacturers know that great AF is a key differentiator and much more important in practice that many other features... If the picture is not properly in focus, all the rest is irrelevant. So they keep a reason to buy the high end model.

[biz-engineer]

The theory say 1.22. So with same sensor technology, there should be 1.22EV. If there significantly more or less, it is due to different sensor technology or to the noise reduction algorithm. If the manufacturers don't do it as market segmentation, the long tendancy should stay around 1.22Ev.

Nicolas, what was never taken into account in this calculation is the additional spatial resolution that higher pixel count over larger sensor brings. What I mean is that even if the noise is the same (lets imagine that the full frame sensor pixels have more noise than the better apsc pixels of the same size), the images from full frame are all better. The reason is because when I shoot wide open, my lens isn't as sharp on apsc as it is on full frame (when both images are downsized to 16Mpixels). What's the result? Practically, when I've shot with my 350 euros Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on K3 and I've shot the same lens on K1, I can shoot wide open, images from the K1 look sharper than image from the K3. Even when increasing ISO on K1 by 2 stops; all images look better from the K1, with the same lens wide open. Same goes for the SR, SR works also better on the K1 because of the shorter equivalent FL relative to pixel size.

You make a calculation of a parameter (noise level) independent from the resolution. The calculation is true, but the inference on final image quality does not work. I'm saying the truth, unbiased, from what I get from the K1. The compounded effect of higher MTF and lower noise is greater than the 1.22ev of physical noise reduction. We really need to take real photographs to confirm (or not confirm) theory.

I know that the K1 system is; at the moment; over budget for a lot of people. But we should not turn things in a way to shrink technical capabilities of a camera in order to feel better about not upgrading to full frame. People have to be comfortable with their choices. If you say, K1 is too expensive for me, that's Ok. There is no need to carve out a theory to diminish the objective differences between camera formats. Yesterday I was out at night and took some shots with the K1, handheld. Images are incredibly clean and sharp. The lower shutter speed allowance of the K1 is higher than on a K3, combined with lower high iso noise, it's simply a big significant above the K3.

[Rondec]

Seems as though some birders tend to like the K-1's lower noise at higher ISO performance that gives them the ability to push for faster shutter speeds, so I can see that perspective. For myself I do landscape, macro and closeups most of the time so I definitely appreciate the DR capabilities the K-1 has demonstrated and even though the noise on the K3 cleans up quite well in post, its nice to see DNG files come out of camera virtually noise free (at least so far with the limited use I've been able to put the K-1 through). Although I live in Fl which many consider a birder's paradise I rarely if ever participate in that (less than 3% of the time at best), but perhaps I will at some point in the future.

There's also the fact that back in 2008 when I decided to get more deeply involved with photography (largely due to the accessibility provided to me via digital) as a hobby those wonderful 3 limited FA's were largely what drew me to Pentax...although I could not afford them at the time nor did I really have any understanding of the differences between APS-C or FF. Needless to say I'm all in with FF and I've been steadily acquiring FF glass as I transition over. The only APS-C stuff I plan to retain are my K-01s and some of the small DA limiteds...which make for an outstanding portable high quality kit.


Took me a couple of years to put together this limiteds set

Hello K-1!


Couldn't resist expanding my dream kit to include a classic f1.2 lens...unfortunately no nice colored bag like the others

3 Princesses and a King

I think folks that are really into wildlife/birding/sports photography have forgotten the ideas of budgets. There is a photographer who was posting on here and had a list of his gear priced for APS-C and full frame to get equivalent telephoto lenses, it was pretty close in price for the two systems. But the total was significantly over 10,000 dollars. Pretty rich for my tastes. I'm satisfied keeping a K3 as a back up to my K-1 and shoot it in situations where I am wanting a little more reach. But I have never been much of a wildlife shooter, except at zoos, where you don't need as much length in your lenses anyway.

[jgnfld]

...[personal situation]...The same goes for the K 70, great features but not worth it for me at this point.

All that said, for my own personal situation as an early adopter K-50 user, I do have to say the K-70 looks very intriguing. The K-1 does not as it is way over my own needs.

[biz-engineer]

The cost of K1 seems to be an obsession.
- K3 : $800
- Pentax 16-50: $850
- Pentax 50-135: $850
- Pentax 15ltd: $500
- Pentax 21ltd: $400
- Pentax 31ld: $1000
- Pentax 43 ltd: $600
- Pentax 77 ltd: $1000
- Pentax DFA100 macro: $450
- Pentax DA200 f2.8: $1000
- Pentax DA300 f4: $1000
- Pentax HD 1.4x RC: $400
Total: $8850

-K1: $1800
- Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (equivalent to 18-45 f2): $350
- Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 (equivalent to 50-135 f2): $450
- Pentax DFA100 macro: $450
- Pentax DFA150-450: $2000
Total: $5050

So the K1 full frame system costs significantly less than a K3 system, and cheap Tamron third party lenses on 36Mp FF sensor deliver better image quality than primes on a K3. Even the DFA28-105 is cheaper than a DA16-85 !

[reh321]

The cost of K1 seems to be an obsession.

Yeah, if you insist on using prime lenses on the K-3 but any available lens on the K-1, then the K-1 costs less

[redrockcoulee]

I do not remember many saying that the K1 was too expensive but more saying it was not for them. You have several times brought up costs in trying to justify the correctness if your choice. Almost half of your cost for the K3 are for full frame lenses. The K1 appears to be a great camera and is reasonably priced. The thread asks if crop sensor shooters are switching to FF and you come down on those of us who say no and attempt to prove ours is the wrong choice.

If I was to switch it would cost me 2500 Cdn. I could get by with no new lenses but it would cost me money minus what I can get for my existing body. The obession seems to be on your part not those you are debating. Many buying the K1 are also using prime lenses and there is reasons other than DoF for using them. I paid 100 less for my 15 than you did and 600 less for my 70 than you did for your 77 and it is more appropriate in your pricing comparison for APS-C than the 77.

We get that you like your new camera but forget about claiming that those who are not jumping on board are not doing so because they think the camera is too expensive. Your persistent claims are distracting from others providing their personal reasons for not changing. There are great photos being created with cameras with even smaller sensors than the K3 and great ones made with large MF sensors.