Originally posted by Oldbayrunner Bull, you don't lose any extra Magnification. The image captured by an APS-C camera vs a Full frame will be the same magnified dimension regardless of how many MP the sensor has, you'll only lose resolution.
IN the APS-c area of the K-1 sensor, the K-3 provides, 24 MP and 2700 lw/ph of resolution.
The K-1 will provide 15 MP and approximately 2100 lw/ph.
Thus using a K-1 to capture the APS-c image area costs you both pixels and resolution.
To get the advantage of a K-1 you must use the whole FF sensor, and that involves a longer, heavier, less portable lens that may not even be functionally practical. If you crop, even 33% (and many of my K-3 images are cropped more than that) using the K-1 will cost you resolution.
The only way to use the whole image area of the FF sensor as opposed to a K-3 sensor, is to use a longer lens. But in many cases, that is physically impossible. I already max out my APS-c capability. Hence the K-1 will cost me resolution.
My choice K-1 to K-3 is to have less resolution for the images I take most, and for the most part, un-needed resolution for most of the images I take that are not using long glass.
For most or the images I take a 6MP *ist was fine.
I guess, unlike myself, you've never seen one of those guys with the 600mm lens on a Full frame walk away from his gear, to get the image he wants with a 70-200 on his APS-c body and leave his big rig in the parking lot. I see it on a regular basis. Unless you can afford both, the majority of the time, the APS-c system is more portable, and that is critical for true wildlife images, and higher resolution, for the same circumstances.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend. You must be one of those folks who believes there is a format out there that is better at everything than other systems or formats. Life isn't like that. Life is full of trade offs. If you just bought a K-1 and ditched your K-3 you just made one.
For most of what I do a K-1 is overkill.
For half the images I take, a K-3 will give me more resolution.
So between the half of my shooting where APS-c is better, and the 45% where I'm using a 1260x 820 image that doesn't need half the resolution I currently have available, I'd essentially be buying a K-1 for 5% of my workflow., at the absolute most.
So, yes, for many folks 24 MP APS-c is better than a 36 MP K-1, although the K-1 will excel in some situations. Get over it.
(If you're still having trouble with the concept, look at the images in this thread.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/322226-nature-return-hummers.html
Taken with a DA*200 and 1.4 TC for 340mm hand held and cropped probably 50%. To take the same image with a K-1 you'd need to be steadily hand hold a 500mm lens, and following the hummer with it. Is that even physically possible? Shooting with the same lens on a k-1 would involve a 75% crop, K-1 pixels, would be 36/4, or 8 MP. 50% of 24 MP on APS-c is 12 MP. 8 MP is pretty good amateur quality, 12 MP is pretty good pro quality. I don't know if I can make this any clearer.)
Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2016 at 06:31 AM.