[reh321]

No it's in FF -- I bought it for my K-50, but it's full frame and produces decent results....

Is this the APO DG variant? I wasn't aware it is FF. I put it on my Super Program just now, and the view through the viewfinder looks good; I'll have to see actual results the next time I run a roll of film through my Super Program.

[bkpix]

It's really hard to document,ent that but every FF user knows its true. You get a few images you know wouldn't have been as good on APS-c, but you didn't have an APS_c camera with you that day so there's not comparison image to prove it. Every now and then you get an image where resolution, dynamic range, low light performance all come together to produce a stellar image. I think 645 is more of the same.

I suspect this is one of those images, but, i can't prove it. It's just not that often I'm carrying both the K-1 and K-3 and have time to take an image twice.


I can show you comparative images that are quite good where APS-c was up to the job... but it sure is rewarding when you hit that FF sweet spot.

But APS-c isn't too shabby either.


As I see it, it's a continuum. The larger group being images both APS-c can handle and taking them with FF doesn't make much difference. We have lots of those. Then comes the images where they would look a little better shot with an FF, for whatever reason, resolution, more DR, better high ISO performance,, whatever. That's a pretty small group. The there's those for which nether FF nor APS-c will do the trick. A smaller portion of those will be resolved by MF. Then there are those that just aren't going to work, no matter what you shoot.

Going FF is meaning maybe 5% of my images that will be noticeably better, but you're buying heavier more expensive gear to get that 5%. You have to ask yourself, "Do I take the images that will benefit from FF." That's very individual, if I'm MIkSF the answer is "heck yes". If I'm normhead the answer is "it might be" and I'm still undecided. And the numbers above are my numbers. Someone else might have half to all their images improved by FF, a lot depends on what you shoot, and what you expect from it.

Norm:

I share your pain (or confusion) about what makes FF worth it. I have repeatedly, over the years, dutifully shot side by side comparisons on crop and FF systems, trying to convince myself beyond a reasonable doubt that FF images are noticeably better. I shot a Canon 5D against a 20D. No difference. I've shot a K-1 against a K-5IIs and, later, against a KP. Still, nothing definitive. I've even tried a Canon 5Ds against the KP. The only difference was all those extra pixels.

But the moment I take any FF camera out by itself, with no crop body in sight, I come back -- well, I often do -- with one or two stunning frames that I still believe just wouldn't have been possible on a crop sensor.

I still believe in Tinkerbell, too.

Anyway, I enjoy your ongoing honest real-world appraisal of the relationship between crop and FF shooting.

Bob

[clackers]

Norm:

I share your pain (or confusion) about what makes FF worth it. I have repeatedly, over the years, dutifully shot side by side comparisons on crop and FF systems, trying to convince myself beyond a reasonable doubt that FF images are noticeably better. I shot a Canon 5D against a 20D. No difference. I've shot a K-1 against a K-5IIs and, later, against a KP. Still, nothing definitive. I've even tried a Canon 5Ds against the KP. The only difference was all those extra pixels.

Sure, Bob, unless you change your shooting style, it's going to be a much of a muchness.

If you point both cameras at your backyard and go click with the same exposure, you may well be disappointed at how similar the pics look on your phone, tablet or even laptop at normal size. The extra pixels get resampled in downsize, for starters.

[bkpix]

Sure, Bob, unless you change your shooting style, it's going to be a much of a muchness.

If you point both cameras at your backyard and go click with the same exposure, you may well be disappointed at how similar the pics look on your phone, tablet or even laptop at normal size. The extra pixels get resampled in downsize, for starters.

Clackers,

Not quite sure what you mean by "change your shooting style." I've tried a fairly wide variety of shots in these comparisons and found little difference in the images. One factor I didn't mention is that I usually compare prints -- 18x24 or 20x30 -- rather than looking at images on screen.

As I said I still believe that the K-1 is capable of making better, more interesting photos, at least on occasion, than the KP. But it's been a challenge to define what circumstances make that difference visible.

Bob

[k1man]

Clackers,

Not quite sure what you mean by "change your shooting style." I've tried a fairly wide variety of shots in these comparisons and found little difference in the images. One factor I didn't mention is that I usually compare prints -- 18x24 or 20x30 -- rather than looking at images on screen.

As I said I still believe that the K-1 is capable of making better, more interesting photos, at least on occasion, than the KP. But it's been a challenge to define what circumstances make that difference visible.

Bob

Hi Bob, i used the brilliant 645 and 6x7ii for about 25/30 years, difficult to get film in Thailand so i bought the K7 when it came out but was never really happy compared to the medium formats and then the K1 came out sold all the bodies and 17 lenses and am a complete turn coat the K1 is better as far as i can see than either medium format or for that matter most other cameras out there today, kind regards ian

[normhead]

As I said I still believe that the K-1 is capable of making better, more interesting photos, at least on occasion, than the KP. But it's been a challenge to define what circumstances make that difference visible.

But you know it when you see it.
My wife and I are the same. We know when she takes out the 28-105 and K1 we like the images better, on the whole, but we don't know exactly why. It's difference not based on any metrics we've been able to come up with. A lot of the time we can't even define which picture it is that makes us feel that way. It seems to be some kind of composite, you come home, you process and look at all your images. At the end, on average, the K-1 images are likely to be more satisfying. How do you quantify that?

[Merv-O]

Is this the APO DG variant? I wasn't aware it is FF. I put it on my Super Program just now, and the view through the viewfinder looks good; I'll have to see actual results the next time I run a roll of film through my Super Program.

Yes...I have used it on my k-3 and (former) K-50 with good results...Of course wide open expect some flare from a inexpensive lens, but surprisingly on the K-1ii, very little distortion or moire'. I guess you'll experiment yourself, but I think for the limited times I need that extended focal length, an (AF--albeit somewhat noisy AF) lens is nice to have....

[reh321]

Yes...I have used it on my k-3 and (former) K-50 with good results...Of course wide open expect some flare from a inexpensive lens, but surprisingly on the K-1ii, very little distortion or moire'. I guess you'll experiment yourself, but I think for the limited times I need that extended focal length, an (AF--albeit somewhat noisy AF) lens is nice to have....

That is important to me because the two lenses I'm now using with my K30 {because of Dark Image Syndrome} are FF, so I could purchase a FF camera and not purchase any new lenses immediately.

[normhead]

That is important to me because the two lenses I'm now using with my K30 {because of Dark Image Syndrome} are FF, so I could purchase a FF camera and not purchase any new lenses immediately.

The didn't work for me, but I guess it might work for you. For me the K-1 wasn't functional until I broke down and bought the 28-105/. My style has always been have walk around lens but have somthing to change to.

Before I got my K-1 I had the FA 35-80, F 70-210, FA 50 1.7, DA 35 @.4, Sigma 70 macro, DA*60-250, DA* 200 FA-J 18-35, 40 XS, DFA 100 macro - Tamron 90 macro, FA 50 macro,Tamron 300 2.8.and a number of SMC super taks, it didn't make any difference, I wasn't happy until I got the 28-105. Then it seemed like a workable system. I held out for bit because the 28-105 wasn't 24 -105, but I got over it.

I was convinced I'd be fine without the 28-105, but experience said different.

If you are like me. Everything strats from a walk around lens. I take that, and whatever else I think I might need that day.

[Merv-O]

That is important to me because the two lenses I'm now using with my K30 {because of Dark Image Syndrome} are FF, so I could purchase a FF camera and not purchase any new lenses immediately.

Exactly….I almost sold the 70-300, but when I put it on the K-1ii it was awesome....As an aside, I was on eBay earlier today and the K-1's that are a couple years old with about 10K (on an estimated 300k) on shutter release for about $1,100.00. That is amazing. If you're thinking about dabbling in FF, that would be the best bang for the buck for sure....

[awscreo]

I don't have experience with Pentax apsc files, but I can compare my K-1 files to my mft files, as well as canon's apsc files, and ricoh gr II files, and I see a world of difference. It took me about a year and a half to fully grasp what the K-1 can do, and what I need to do in processing to achieve good results (to me anyway). And there's still room to grow. I feel like my previous bodies, as well as files I played with from Canon don't give me so much wiggle room for improvement. But at this point I probably have more experience with full frame (my K-1, and working with D800 files for three years in my old studio), so I might be bias in this regard.

[clackers]

Clackers,

Not quite sure what you mean by "change your shooting style."

Because Bob, if we stand side by side and take pictures of an average subject in average conditions, we'll both get an average picture. If I use a 28mm lens and you an 18mm, so will the guy beside us with an iPhone.

Shooting a model in a studio at a fashion workshop, whether we have a Canon 5D Mk IV or a Panasonic m43, we're getting the same shots at f11, 1/125s, ISO100.

There are differences to the cameras, though, here DxO in its flawed way maps out what you get for the extra money:

Pentax K-1 vs Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-5

So you should be shooting to the advantage of your format … in landscapes, get less blown highlights because of the dynamic range, richness in portraits because of the colour depth, less graininess because of the ISO performance.

To shoot with my DA*55 on my K-1, I had to get in fifty percent closer to get the same composition, and look what that's done for the bokeh:



The wider angles go much wider and more spectacular. Here, the DA12-24 at 16mm on the K-1 had me standing so close I was getting the elongation of the limbs and pushing back of the head and torso that I wanted by perspective distortion:

[Rondec]

Norm:

I share your pain (or confusion) about what makes FF worth it. I have repeatedly, over the years, dutifully shot side by side comparisons on crop and FF systems, trying to convince myself beyond a reasonable doubt that FF images are noticeably better. I shot a Canon 5D against a 20D. No difference. I've shot a K-1 against a K-5IIs and, later, against a KP. Still, nothing definitive. I've even tried a Canon 5Ds against the KP. The only difference was all those extra pixels.

But the moment I take any FF camera out by itself, with no crop body in sight, I come back -- well, I often do -- with one or two stunning frames that I still believe just wouldn't have been possible on a crop sensor.

I still believe in Tinkerbell, too.

Anyway, I enjoy your ongoing honest real-world appraisal of the relationship between crop and FF shooting.

Bob

What differences are/were you expecting to see with full frame compared to crop?

The places where I expect to see if differences are (1) high iso situations -- full frame isn't magical, but it does give a one stop boost over APS-C in high iso performance. (2) high dynamic range situations -- to me, this is mainly landscapes shot at dawn or sunset. If I can use a tripod, APS-C actually does really well if I can use low iso. (3) shallow depth of field with mid to wide angles. This isn't a big deal to me, but if you want narrow depth of field with a 50mm lens on full frame, 30mm on crop, it is a lot easier on full frame compared to crop cameras. As I say, this isn't a big deal to me, but it is to some people. I typically shoot portraits in the 70 to 100 mm full frame range and there are plenty of options that cover that equivalent view on crop that will give shallow depth of field.

If you do much post processing with your images, you are more likely to see a difference as well. I also think that you'll see more with landscape photography than many other types, like portraiture.

[reh321]

The didn't work for me, but I guess it might work for you. For me the K-1 wasn't functional until I broke down and bought the 28-105/. My style has always been have walk around lens but have somthing to change to.

Before I got my K-3 I had the FA 35-80, F 70-210, FA 50 1.7, DA 35 @.4, Sigma 70 macro, DA*60-250, DA* 200 FA-J 18-35, 40 XS, DFA 100 macro - Tamron 90 macro, FA 50 macro,Tamron 300 2.8.and a number of SMC super taks, it didn't make any difference, I wasn't happy until I got the 28-105. Then it seemed like a workable system. I held out for bit because the 28-105 wasn't 24 -105, but I got over it.

I was convinced I'd be fine without the 28-105, but experience said different.

If you are like me. Everything strats from a walk around lens. I take that, and whatever else I think I might need that day.

I see some stars in your lens lineup; I've never been willing to pay for that much perfection. Now that Dark Image Syndrome has fully struck, my walk-around lens is a FA 28-105. If I were to purchase a FF camera, I assume that would remain my walk-around lens - but I would gain some wide angle and lose some telephoto there. I'm thinking I would also make better use of the Takumar 50mm f/1.4 that I purchased because I wanted it, not because I would make maximal use of it on my Super Program.

[normhead]

Syndrome has fully struck, my walk-around lens is a FA 28-105. I

If you lived within 50 miles I probably be driving over for a DFA 28-105 FA 28-105 comparison test. You probably already have the lens you'd need. All I could find was a 28-200, and it's terrible lens. Sill good for 4k TV images though. It's amazing how much can be hidden reducing the size of an image.