[MJSfoto1956]

Are there any major benefits of using the K-1 with a DA lens (such as the 16-85mm) over using it with a K-3ii?

well for one, in most cases you can crop -- at a minimum -- square. Thus if you shoot your lens on a K-3 you get a 24mp 2:3 format. If you shoot with the K-1 and the same lens and crop square, you end up with a sweet 24mp 1:1 format. If you just so happen to love the square format (and I certainly do), then repurposing your crop-sensor lenses will give you a lot of flexibility. Think of the K-1 as "extending" your K-3 not the other way around. (and frankly I'm a big fan of having a two-body setup anyway)

Michael

[slip]

I think my DA * 200 would really rock on FF.. it is to long for general portraits with my K3

Randy

[dcpropilot]

In my experience the DA 20-40 is useful starting at approx 23mm.

[snostorm]

For my purposes, the K-1 holds up as a legitimate upgrade for any Pentax DSLR (read APS-C) shooter, with the exception of those who will greatly benefit from the 24MP resolution alone in the K-3 series bodies or can't work with a bigger heavier body. Over the past 12 or so years, I've continued to upgrade my Pentax bodies to get either better high ISO performance or better AF performance (or both). Considered as an APS-C body, the K-1 gives me a similar step up in ISO and AF S performance as I got going from the K-7 to the K-5, and at the time of the intro of the K-5, this was considered very significant. I doubt if too many here would spend much time considering between these two models if all things were equal.

As a shooter who is very satisfied with APS-C format (I shoot long tele for the most part), I look at using the "full frame" sensor more as another option that I can bring into play if I want, and it's a very significant option. I'm sure that many will see this as a stupid perspective, but it was worth it to me to become an early adopter of the K-5, and for a couple of hundred dollars more, about 6 years later, it's been very worthwhile for me to become an early adopter of the K-1.

I don't crop much to gain "reach", so the extra resolution of the K-3 has not really reflected much in the number of usable images I can get over a 15-16 MP body. Though my cameras are always set up in "burst high" for those few times I want a sequence, the slower burst rate of the K-1 is not a handicap for the way I shoot. I hold high ISO IQ and low light AF speed and accuracy as higher priorities for my shooting than these specs. Although I own competent lenses in the 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 constant 35mm format classes, I much prefer carrying and shooting my DA* 16-50 and DA* 50-135 to get the same FOV ranges in fast zooms, and for me, extra resolution doesn't offer nearly as much advantage as the ability to go to higher ISO and get fast and accurate focus in lower light. My fast 50's serve dual duty as fast normal and short tele (portrait) in crop mode. My FA 77 Ltd gives me another portrait option with much greater resolution if I want it. If I need to go wider, then my DA 12-24 covers the 35mm frame from @ 18 - 24mm and that's wide enough for me in a rectilinear lens. I also have a DA 10-17 FE to play with wide.

I look at a new body and ask if this one will expand my ability to capture images that I want. A lot of the esoteric arguments for the larger format (thinner DOF, higher ultimate res, using legacy lenses "as they were designed", etc) aren't very relevant for me. I realize that I don't look at this from the same perspective as most will, but it certainly is working for me.

Scott

[geomez]

What's the viewfinder experience like with a vignetting crop lens?

I actually find the viewfinder crop mode to be worse than I expected. It's quite difficult for me to ignore the parts of the frame outside of the crop border. I prefer using APS-C lenses in live view because in crop mode, it completely cuts out everything that won't end up on your image.

[slip]

the K1 to me is like 2 cameras in one...FF and crop sensor combined.

Randy