[Nicolas06]

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 !

Your funny comparison don't match people behavior ans both of your system are terrible. I would immediately resell most of the thing personnally to get a better setup. Hey the K1 setup can't even shoot wide, the 70-200 from tamron is almost twice the price you display and the 28-75 has weak borders on FF as well as field curvature.

Reality is different.

For example, the majority just buy 1 camera and the bundled kit lens and never go past that. That the case for a bit more of 50% of sales. So basically that's K50 + 18-55 = 350$ vs or K3+ 18-135=800$ vs K1+28-105 = 2300$. A good share only upgrade to get a super zoom or a cheap consumer grade tele. So that would be 18-300, 28-300 or 55-300 / 70-300. In all theses cases, the price difference of the body make the FF better but several time more expensive.

Many would just go K3 + 17-50 + 70-200 (1500€ for third party) instead of K1 + 24-70 + 70-200 (3000€ from third party)

If I take my case, what I paid:
DA15: 480€
DA21: 300€
DA35ltd: 440€
FA77: 800€
F135: 318€
55-300: 349€
K3: 800€

Total: 3450€

Would I go to K1, I would have something like:
DA*/ltd24: 800€ (?). I would need it, but it might be huge. I already feel the pain .
FA31ltd: 1400€
FA43ltd: 600€
F135: 318€. As I would use it more often, it beg for a better replacement. If Pentax make it. Likely 600€ at least.
DA*200: 800€ I would need it, but hate it.
70-300: 150€. I don't want an heavy 150-450, thanks.
K1: 1800€

Total: 6150€. Basically the double.

[Nicolas06]

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.

Man let's be clear because you don't get it. The k1 + whatever propoer equipment provide BETTER quality. Nobody deny it. Like nobody deny a ferari faster than a ford focus or if we want to go cheap a Subaru. This doesn't mean that this better is significant for the intended use or people care for it.

This doesn't mean that every ford focus owner are going to buy a ferari next time or a subaru if they find the ferari too expensive. This isn't a question of price. A used subaru can likely be find for less than a new ford focus and many people brought it new otherwise the car would not even be in the market to begin with.

Your K1 offer more resolution. It provide better low light at expense of dof. I simply don't care. And many other don't care neither.

I could be interrested by a 500g APSC or FF body, mirrorless in K mount with an EVF and at least K3 performance overall. because it would be smaller/lighter. It would have to be at reasonnable price, bellow 1000€ and it being an FF or not wouldn't be key for me as to keep lenses size down I would use some of them in crop mode anyway. The EVF would allow me that while keeping good user experience. This I would buy.

I don't want to buy a K1 as it is. Too heavy and it lack the FF lenses that could make me consider FF like a small 24mm, a small modern very sharp 135mm that would allow me to crop it a lot.

You had many reason to buy your K1 and I hope you are happy with it.

But you must understand that we are not all like you. And we don't have to be neither. It not about being wrong or right here.

As for taking interresting photos out of the gear, don't ever think it would make a real difference. If you managed a stuning picture with your K1, it is quite likely you would managed to get an equally stunning one with different gear. The gear is not what make the photo. Nobody care the brushs a painter use, except maybe other painters. You would argue forever with Van Gogh or Sezane finding their painting lack details and how they should use different technique. That's simply irrelevant.

[biz-engineer]

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.

I may not have understood correctly; but the four things that were put forward for not upgrading to K1 were:
- cost
- size
- reach with supertele lenses
- satisfied with current equipment
- finally: "you don't need it"

For the "cost" argument, I realized that it is a concern for about 50% of the posters in this thread, as can be seen in comments below. Yes, sure; cost is not the only valid objection to upgrading from apsc to full frame, but cost is one of them.

If we look at the cost argument, in an objective way, I wanted to point out that cost, depends greatly on how many lenses we buy and whether we specialize or not, the total cost vary enormously. I know, some rejecting the K1 offering because it is more expensive, have bought a pile of lenses for apsc, including multiple camera bodies, most of those seldom used and never sold (slowly depreciating in their original packing) ... I put light on this aspect.

However for some of us who have a complete set up of APSC lenses and not many full frame lenses this is going to be much tougher.

As soon as the money come, i'll make the switch

I'll upgrade when I can afford to.

Well, I don't have the money

Saving all my money now!!!

when the price is affordable to me

I really want a K-1 and expect to purchase one once the price comes down a bit.

I never intended to get a FF, as long as I assumed the price would be upwards of 3000€!

I have no desire nor the funds to go to the K1.

It's a pretty steep investment.

I always figured the mythical Pentax ff would set me back around $3000au, so I have saved my sheckles and kept aside the money

I'd have to sell camera body and several lenses, plus make an additional 1k payment to just get the K-1 and a 24-70mm - ouch.

I might get one in a few years when I can pick one up used for $600-700 just to see what I can do with it.

I'll probably be getting the K1 later in the year when funds present itself,

I had been wrestling with a switch to the D810 for about a year, because essentially I have just outgrown aps-c.

So it's a no brainer for me despite the cost.

I'm one of those that was not (that) interested to buy K-1, but the price point it's launched IS VERY TEMPTING.

No, if the price here (Japan) is still stay at this level. it is a Japanese product, but it is more expensive than in the US!

I'm waiting for the K3 prices to come down or maybe a K5II or K5IIs.

I can purchase a used K3 for around $500 and new for $699, is the K1 3 times more camera than the K3.

I have thought about getting another K5II / K5IIs or K3, even pondered getting the K1 since i have some very nice lenses that will work on the FF camera, just not sure if it would be worth spending that much money.

can't justify paying full price after just picking up the K3 not long ago.

I'll eventually switch. I'm making the move from film to APSC now, so I'll probably miss my full frame shots, but that's a hefty pricetag for now.

big and expensive setup. Depending of the models this is 3500-6000$ for a body, and 2 f/2.8 lenses... A second body and even more acccessories willl bring you a bit south of 10000$.

I have all APS-C glass too. But other than that, I can't really explain to myself spending 2000 euros on a new camera (and that's just the start).

You clearly value that capacity to get slightly better picture in such condition to be worth spending €1800 on the body, €3000 on lenses.

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.

==========================================================================================
============================================================================================

Your funny comparison don't match people behavior ans both of your system are terrible. I would immediately resell most of the thing personnally to get a better setup. Hey the K1 setup can't even shoot wide, the 70-200 from tamron is almost twice the price you display and the 28-75 has weak borders on FF as well as field curvature. Reality is different. For example, the majority just buy 1 camera and the bundled kit lens and never go past that. That the case for a bit more of 50% of sales. So basically that's K50 + 18-55 = 350$ vs or K3+ 18-135=800$ vs K1+28-105 = 2300$. A good share only upgrade to get a super zoom or a cheap consumer grade tele. So that would be 18-300, 28-300 or 55-300 / 70-300. In all theses cases, the price difference of the body make the FF better but several time more expensive. Many would just go K3 + 17-50 + 70-200 (1500€ for third party) instead of K1 + 24-70 + 70-200 (3000€ from third party) If I take my case, what I paid: DA15: 480€ DA21: 300€ DA35ltd: 440€ FA77: 800€ F135: 318€ 55-300: 349€ K3: 800€ Total: 3450€ Would I go to K1, I would have something like: DA*/ltd24: 800€ (?). I would need it, but it might be huge. I already feel the pain . FA31ltd: 1400€ FA43ltd: 600€ F135: 318€. As I would use it more often, it beg for a better replacement. If Pentax make it. Likely 600€ at least. DA*200: 800€ I would need it, but hate it. 70-300: 150€. I don't want an heavy 150-450, thanks. K1: 1800€ Total: 6150€. Basically the double.

He he; yes; excellent Nicolas. You demonstrate yourself that the total cost of a system can be anything; So, I'm glad that you agree with me on the fact that the total cost does not depend much on the camera but your choice of lenses. In this regard, if you mount cheapo third party lenses on a K3 you get less image quality then if you mount cheapo third pary lenses on a full frame. Yourself could use a Tamron 70-200 on a K1 (equivalent to a 50-13 f2 on a K3) or a 77 ltd on K3; the K1 image would be better, and both solution would be have about same cost + the 70-200 is larger but versatile vs 77ltd.

[Nicolas06]

He he; yes; excellent Nicolas. You demonstrate yourself that the total cost of a system can be anything; So, I'm glad that you agree with me on the fact that the total cost does not depend much on the camera but your choice of lenses. In this regard, if you mount cheapo third party lenses on a K3 you get less image quality then if you mount cheapo third pary lenses on a full frame. Yourself could use a Tamron 70-200 on a K1 (equivalent to a 50-13 f2 on a K3) or a 77 ltd on K3; the K1 image would be better, and both solution would be have about same cost + the 70-200 is larger but versatile vs 77ltd.

I could. The 70-200 would not deliver me the same rendering I came to appreciate on the 77. The 70-200 even on an FF can't do what the 77 can, even restricted to an APSC. The reverse is true, sure but however how strange it may appear to you, I didn't take the 77 for the conveniance of a zoom. I don't even take it for the f/1.8 apperture. I brought it for the size, weight and special FA rendering that the 70-200 will not deliver, whatever the body.

The 70-200 would just stay at home because it is too big and heavy meaning I would not get the shoot at all.

Thing is even if you are sure I would be better with that 70-200, you can't force me man. And even if you steal my current gear and offer me a K1 + 70-200 for free, you can't force me to use it. At worst, if I have no choice I would simply have to stop taking photo if you insist on removing the joy I have using it. That joy isn't about lifting weight or thinking of the many megapixels worth of detail I get. No, it is not about that.

[biz-engineer]

DA21: 300€ DA35ltd: 440€ FA77: 800€ F135: 318€ 55-300: 349€ K3: 800€ Total: 3450€

You cover this range with a K1 system for 2650 euros.

---------- Post added 24-06-16 at 09:18 ----------

I could. The 70-200 would not deliver me the same rendering I came to appreciate on the 77.

The rendering of the FA77 is vexing if I say that it is in the mind of the people. The truth is that the FA77 isn't sharp wide open, you have to stop is down to f2.2 or f2.8 to get it sharp with contrast. So, if you shot the exact same picture with a FA77ltd and a Tamron 70-200 at the same equivalence, not sure you'd be able to tell the difference. I had ALL of the limited lenses before, and when I shot the same scene.. I figured out that the most pleasure of limited lies in the look and feel of the lens itself rather than the image results. The advantage of the limited lenses is essentially size, at the cost of versatility, but that has always been the case since zoom and primes exist. I prefer zooms on full frame because there are a lot of cases where you can't zoom with your feet and even if you zoom with your feet, you achieve the framing but not the perspective.

[Nicolas06]

You cover this range with a K1 system for 2650 euros.

Who care? I cover this range with a 16-300 and a cheap Nikon too for 800€ !

Of course and hopefully you can do everything with a K1 you can do with an APSC. Even if in practice there still hole in the line up. But you continue to pile up comparisons thinking that the only factor is sensor size and that weight/size are not a factor and that all lenses are equivalent too.

This is not how it is. The DA15 would never manage to get the sharpness of a 24-70 but the 24-70 will never manage the flare resistance and constrast of DA15 neither. Each choice is a compromize and depending of the situation, a different compromize will bring different benefits. You can't have it all. Even if you spend 10 time more. A ferari still less comfortable than a Citroen or mecedes.

[biz-engineer]

Who care? I cover this range with a 16-300 and a cheap Nikon too for 800€ !

Ah yes; That's correct. You go down the curve of IQ. You assume that full frame does not deliver more IQ with cheaper lenses; and that's wrong.

---------- Post added 24-06-16 at 09:24 ----------

The DA15 would never manage to get the sharpness of a 24-70 but the 24-70 will never manage the flare resistance and constrast of DA15 neither.

Ok, that's an assumption. I bought the K1+24-70 and I kept the K3 and DA15ltd (for its small size and beautiful finish). I compared the DA15ltd images with DFA24-70 on K1, and the result is that I also sold the DA15ltd... because the field curvature of the 15ltd beyond 50% of the center is killing me. The DFA24-70 @24 has none.. on 36Mpixels. I just have to finish selling what remains of the K3 system. Since I have the K1, I haven't use the K3 a single time, because I haven't find yet an occasion where I need 8.3 FPS, but ok, I hope this will come, or simply will finish to sell all of my apsc gear.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-24-2016 at 12:28 AM.

[Nicolas06]

The rendering of the FA77 is vexing if I say that it is in the mind of the people. The truth is that the FA77 isn't sharp wide open, you have to stop is down to f2.2 or f2.8 to get it sharp with contrast. So, if you shot the exact same picture with a FA77ltd and a Tamron 70-200 at the same equivalence, not sure you'd be able to tell the difference. I had ALL of the limited lenses before, and when I shot the same scene.. I figured out that the most pleasure of limited lies in the look and feel of the lens itself rather than the image results. The advantage of the limited lenses is essentially size, at the cost of versatility, but that has always been the case since zoom and primes exist. I prefer zooms on full frame because there are a lot of cases where you can't zoom with your feet and even if you zoom with your feet, you achieve the framing but not the perspective.

That your choice, your problem, I don't care of it. Don't you understand ? I don't have to shoot my lense at f/1.8 neither. It make no sense to me because the goal is to use your gear to your strength, not its weaknesses and anyway, f/1.8 on APSC is too shallow most of the time.

Again you can't force me even if you are sure I am right and you are wrong.

Your priority is high iso, resolution and zoom. Not rendrering, light, small. That a choice, not everybody choice. I would say about this FF choice, that the choice of a very small minority. And yes that mostly about price and size/weight.

[Nicolas06]

Ah yes; That's correct. You go down the curve of IQ. You assume that full frame does not deliver more IQ with cheaper lenses; and that's wrong

You don't get it. People don't care ! You can't stop speaking of IQ but that is irelevant to most people and they are still master of what they spend their money on. Everybody make its own choice and can decide to buy what they want.

You are sure your gear is better but that just childish. You go there to explain to APSC owner they are stupid to think they could buy another one. Again childish. Why don't you post photos instead and share the joy about this expensive gear of yours? That would make more sense.

[biz-engineer]

You don't get it. People don't care ! You can't stop speaking of IQ but that is irelevant to most people and they are still master of what they spend their money on. Everybody make its own choice and can decide to buy what they want. You are sure your gear is better but that just childish. You go there to explain to APSC owner they are stupid to think they could buy another one. Again childish. Why don't you post photos instead and share the joy about this expensive gear of yours? That would make more sense.

Ah ah, you said yourself you had apsc zooms and not content with IQ of zooms on APSC ; you got a FA77 ltd and other primes; usually in apsc era, people where buying the FA77ltd and other limited to get better IQ over apsc zooms, with the drawback of having to swap lenses when shooting. You also upgraded to a K3 for the additional resolution. Am I wrong? Why are you now saying that IQ is irrelevant? Have you changed your mind regarding you quest for the ultimate IQ?

---------- Post added 24-06-16 at 09:43 ----------

I think, you have to explain for a long time, and I start to understand the Pentax full frame story is about. For the last 5 years, a number of Pentaxians, excited about the full frame dream of the ultimate image quality complained all the time that Pentax did not have a full frame camera. Ricoh did it. And after the so awaited camera is released, half of the people changed their mind... "oh well finally I'm happy with what I have, it's small and the image quality is good, so why should I spend any money on a full frame?".

Two years ago ; number of people were wondering, arguing, about full frame. And a number of them have become ghosts. I get it :-)

I don't regret to have gotten the K1 because it's really good, I enjoy it, but when I read what I read, I start thinking that I should have gone Nikon FF instead of Pentax FF.

[Rondec]

I may not have understood correctly; but the four things that were put forward for not upgrading to K1 were:
- cost
- size
- reach with supertele lenses
- satisfied with current equipment
- finally: "you don't need it"

For the "cost" argument, I realized that it is a concern for about 50% of the posters in this thread, as can be seen in comments below. Yes, sure; cost is not the only valid objection to upgrading from apsc to full frame, but cost is one of them.

If we look at the cost argument, in an objective way, I wanted to point out that cost, depends greatly on how many lenses we buy and whether we specialize or not, the total cost vary enormously. I know, some rejecting the K1 offering because it is more expensive, have bought a pile of lenses for apsc, including multiple camera bodies, most of those seldom used and never sold (slowly depreciating in their original packing) ... I put light on this aspect.

























































==========================================================================================
============================================================================================





He he; yes; excellent Nicolas. You demonstrate yourself that the total cost of a system can be anything; So, I'm glad that you agree with me on the fact that the total cost does not depend much on the camera but your choice of lenses. In this regard, if you mount cheapo third party lenses on a K3 you get less image quality then if you mount cheapo third pary lenses on a full frame. Yourself could use a Tamron 70-200 on a K1 (equivalent to a 50-13 f2 on a K3) or a 77 ltd on K3; the K1 image would be better, and both solution would be have about same cost + the 70-200 is larger but versatile vs 77ltd.

The cost argument is only applicable if people don't already own an APS-C set up. The cost of staying with whatever you currently have is zero. The cost of upgrading is something -- whatever the cost of your new body (less the sale of your old body) plus any lenses you need to upgrade because they don't cover full frame. So for me, the cost of moving to a K-1 is 1800 dollars plus a 24-70 for 1500 dollars plus some wide angle prime or zoom for (hopefully) 600 dollars. If I had stayed with a K3, my cost would have been zero, as I had completed my lens line up.

The biggest problem with all of the image quality arguments is that for most people APS-C is "good enough." They just don't need the improvement in dynamic range or shallower depth of field that a full frame camera offers. My brother shoots with a K5 II that's four years old and an 18-135. I've suggested he get a prime, even a cheap one, but he doesn't want to because it is just easier to use the zoom. He certainly isn't going to upgrade his camera till he needs to when his breaks and he isn't going to get a full frame camera when he does upgrade, as his two lenses --18-135 and 55-300 aren't full frame compatible.

All in all, there is real expensive involved with going full frame. This thread assumes that people are already shooting with an APS-C SLR and questions how many will upgrade. My guess would be that it will be somewhere between five and ten percent, but given enough time, as the price of full frame comes down and used bodies hit the market, that number will slowly climb.

[MattCard]

I may not have understood correctly; but the four things that were put forward for not upgrading to K1 were:
- cost
- size
- reach with supertele lenses
- satisfied with current equipment
- finally: "you don't need it"

For the "cost" argument, I realized that it is a concern for about 50% of the posters in this thread, as can be seen in comments below. Yes, sure; cost is not the only valid objection to upgrading from apsc to full frame, but cost is one of them.

If we look at the cost argument, in an objective way, I wanted to point out that cost, depends greatly on how many lenses we buy and whether we specialize or not, the total cost vary enormously. I know, some rejecting the K1 offering because it is more expensive, have bought a pile of lenses for apsc, including multiple camera bodies, most of those seldom used and never sold (slowly depreciating in their original packing) ... I put light on this aspect.

























































==========================================================================================
============================================================================================





He he; yes; excellent Nicolas. You demonstrate yourself that the total cost of a system can be anything; So, I'm glad that you agree with me on the fact that the total cost does not depend much on the camera but your choice of lenses. In this regard, if you mount cheapo third party lenses on a K3 you get less image quality then if you mount cheapo third pary lenses on a full frame. Yourself could use a Tamron 70-200 on a K1 (equivalent to a 50-13 f2 on a K3) or a 77 ltd on K3; the K1 image would be better, and both solution would be have about same cost + the 70-200 is larger but versatile vs 77ltd.

For sure cost is the major thing in the way in basically all things we buy and dictate in a way what we buy. I would like to have a nicer car, but its expensive...The money argument out of the way, you make your choices according to your needs/what you like/whant.

[redrockcoulee]

For sure cost is the major thing in the way in basically all things we buy and dictate in a way what we buy. I would like to have a nicer car, but its expensive...The money argument out of the way, you make your choices according to your needs/what you like/whant.

Exactly. And many of us if need be would find the money to buy the K1 somehow. Heck if I wanted to max out my one credit card I could buy 9 of them. For the price of the K1 I could also get a Mamiya 6 or 7 with lenses or put it towards the new Hasselblad. Or I can say that currently I have no need for any of those cameras. For lenses I can use my FA 20-35, F 50 1.7 and Sigma 70 -200 which are all full frame and 3 of my 4 DA primes cover full frame. With the cropped sensor some people shot all with primes and others all with zooms. Now biz is claiming that the reason for shooting with primes was the low quality.

Biz, let me make this cost thing clear. If you were to offer to swap my current camera for a K1 at no cost to me but on the condition that I could never use a cropped sensor or smaller camera again I would have to think long and hard before I would make the decision as I am not sure if I would take you up on that offer.

---------- Post added 06-24-16 at 08:33 AM ----------

Ah ah, you said yourself you had apsc zooms and not content with IQ of zooms on APSC ; you got a FA77 ltd and other primes; usually in apsc era, people where buying the FA77ltd and other limited to get better IQ over apsc zooms, with the drawback of having to swap lenses when shooting. You also upgraded to a K3 for the additional resolution. Am I wrong? Why are you now saying that IQ is irrelevant? Have you changed your mind regarding you quest for the ultimate IQ?

---------- Post added 24-06-16 at 09:43 ----------

I think, you have to explain for a long time, and I start to understand the Pentax full frame story is about. For the last 5 years, a number of Pentaxians, excited about the full frame dream of the ultimate image quality complained all the time that Pentax did not have a full frame camera. Ricoh did it. And after the so awaited camera is released, half of the people changed their mind... "oh well finally I'm happy with what I have, it's small and the image quality is good, so why should I spend any money on a full frame?".

Two years ago ; number of people were wondering, arguing, about full frame. And a number of them have become ghosts. I get it :-)

I don't regret to have gotten the K1 because it's really good, I enjoy it, but when I read what I read, I start thinking that I should have gone Nikon FF instead of Pentax FF.

You can still switch to Nikon or to MF. On getdpi when discussing the X1d the two non MF cameras they compared it to were the Canon 50 mp and the K1. Nikon and Canon still make cropped sensor cameras too. You come across like a person who just found religion and have the need to tell everyone including those who have no interest and those who who have had it for life.

I am less than 1 year from retirement and have a sum of money set aside to buy a small used RV which will do more for my photography than upgrading my camera. The cost of being satisfied with my current gear is zero no matter how you frame the discussion. Why can you not accept it that not everyone is going to do what you did? I am also not upgrading to another cropped sensor camera and not doing so is also zero.

If you switched to Nikon you could get both the D810 and D5 ,☺

[sibyrnes]

I come from a film background and I don't know as much about the digital world as most of you, so far, but I think the APSC format will eventually be obsolete. It is just one more step in the evolution of photography. Anyone remember 110 film? There were those who said "only pros need 35mm, 110 is good enough for most people". As 35mm cameras became more affordable and easier to use, there was no need for 110 film or 110 cameras. When full frame digital cameras become cheaper, smaller and lighter, (and they will) why would anyone want APSC? I'm sure those with a big investment in the format will hang on as long as they can but there will eventually be no reason for a new user to buy anything but full frame. Time, and technology, marches on!

[BarryE]

Any chance of seeing some examples of quality images that can be achieved on the k-1 that would be a struggle on an apsc. Then the value arguments being made here could gain some objectivity.

And for me personally I would be very interested if anyone could also drop some raw images of 100 iso test images, comparing k3 v k1, particularly of a high dynamic range subject. Anyone ...?