[monochrome]

This discussion is really funny. For years and years every thread eventually turned into a discussion about why Pentax must have a FF and why jumping ship to X (brand, format) is necessary, with APSc owners defending Pentax. Now that we have the K-1 there's a recurring multi-thread discussion about why FF isn't necessary and how APSc can do every single thing FF can do, with FF owners defending Pentax. And our defense is reduced to, "I'm rich, I want it, and I have it; so there."

Sheesh.

[northcoastgreg]

For example, smoking one pack of cigarettes per day cost you as much as buying one Pentax K1 per year, but the Pentax K1 is much more healthy.

My favorite argument for the K-1, at least from a financial standpoint, that I've heard thus far. Too bad I don't smoke and can't take advantage of it.

Actually, I could easily afford a K-1, along with the DFA lenses I would need to get what I want from an FF camera. The problem is that the current DFA lenses are just not a great fit for my style of photography. The DFA 15-30, while a great lens, is just too big and heavy. And its lack of filter rings is a huge nuisance.

Moreover, I'm not really a camera guy. Lenses excite me, cameras not so much. I look for lenses that give me what I want and then I look for whatever camera is the best fit for those lenses. If I owned the FA Limited trio and they were my favorite lenses, I would already own a K-1. But instead I have a DA Limited trio (15, 21, 35), all APS-C glass, and those happen to be my favorite lenses. With the DA 15, 21, and 35, I can hold my own with other local landscape photographers shooting Sony, Nikon, Canon FF. What I lose in sheer resolution to my FF shooting rivals I make up for in terms of color palette and life-like rendering of the DA Limited series.

If I was a camera guy, I'd buy a K-1. It's the best K-mount digital camera Pentax has ever produced, so of course its de rigueur for any camera-centric Pentaxian (assuming they can afford it). If I was a high ISO shooter, I'd buy a K-1: it's clearly better at that sort of thing than Pentax's APS-C offerings. If I was a narrow DOF junkie, especially at wide to normal FOVs, I'd get a K-1 --- for obvious reasons. If I absolutely needed greater resolution than what I'm getting from my K-5iis, I'd get a K-1 --- again for obvious reasons. I don't really need any of those things right now, so I find no compelling reason to get a K-1.

For those who wish to be zealously rational about their buying choices, they should really ask themselves whether the K-1, with its current DFA lineup, fits their needs better (in terms of photography style and finances) than what is currently available on the APS-C side of things --- and then act accordingly. As for those who have no interest in being rational about their photography-related purchases, you're under absolutely no obligation to defend (or rationalize) your buying choices. Just get whatever you want (and can afford).

[Pål Jensen]

Let's just say clearly that one of the biggest reasons to get a K-1 is because you want it. A lot of the other reasons that follow are rationalizations.

Best argument I've ever heard!

I've always wondered why it so necessary for some people to rationalize their consumerism and not simply admit that they want it. Some go to extreme length in their rationalizations (I won't give names!).

[Nicolas06]

This discussion is really funny. For years and years every thread eventually turned into a discussion about why Pentax must have a FF and why jumping ship to X (brand, format) is necessary, with APSc owners defending Pentax. Now that we have the K-1 there's a recurring multi-thread discussion about why FF isn't necessary and how APSc can do every single thing FF can do, with FF owners defending Pentax. And our defense is reduced to, "I'm rich, I want it, and I have it; so there."

Sheesh.

In fact we had the same discussions. There were the one saying APSC was more than good enough, the other that FF was stricly necessary. We could suppose the FF was made for the last population but a good share of them simply left years ago. A few came back, not all.

In practice, many of the guys that said it was not necessary at all are still there and a part of them now brought the K1 and explain now it is quite critical to buy one.

As some already said. One buy because he want it and can afford it. The rest is rationnalisation.

[monochrome]

In fact we had the same discussions. There were the one saying APSC was more than good enough, the other that FF was stricly necessary. We could suppose the FF was made for the last population but a good share of them simply left years ago. A few came back, not all.

In practice, many of the guys that said it was not necessary at all are still there and a part of them now brought the K1 and explain now it is quite critical to buy one.

As some already said. One buy because he want it and can afford it. The rest is rationnalisation.

Many of the people most ardently decrying the need for a K-1 are the same people who insisted it was a dire necessity (as it was predicted they would do).

I don't care though. I won't likely go back. My gear portfolio will be smaller, more rational and less compromising, and I'll be happier. What's not to like about that?

[biz-engineer]

For me , 645Z was too large with too less versatility for what I do, and a rather big step financially. I loved the K3 and lenses for being speedy and reasonably sized, but on a number of occasions where I used average sharp lenses or iso higher than 1600 for freezing motion, I was not impressed by the image quality. In order to get sharp images with the K3 , I ended up with a restrictive selection of primes and I did not find very convenient to change lenses all the time and in many cases I missed shots because by the time I mounted another prime on the K3, the subject was gone. I also tried to carry two bodies (one K3 and a K5) with a prime on each of them , but I hated to have one camera hanging around when I tired to shot with the other one. Soooo, what I did was to get zooms on a K1 and rationalize to lenses that I use only and by selling the apsc gear (half of them I seldom used) and buying the K1 system as a bundle, I got it for a relatively attractive price. Now, with the K1, I never have ISO issues and I don't need to carry two apsc bodies and I can shoot 3200 iso comfortably, and I don't need to swap lenses, and all my images have some headroom of resolution, and I can crop a zoom and still get high quality. If I cropped the K3 with a zoom, the image quality was average. What has changed is the size... but being a guy, I can even carry the DFA150450 on a K1 for 10 miles up the mountain between 2000 meters and 3000 meters in the alps (what I did two weeks ago) without feeling bad. I don't think I could have done the same with a 645Z and a 800mm lens, but with the K1 it was fine. With the DFA150450 on K1 I could have the equivalent of 100mm on apsc, or 450mm FF or 450mmx1.5 in crop mode. What else can I wish , for me the K1 is the best trade off in terms of resolution, dynamic range, versatility and transport-ability.

[Pål Jensen]

What else can I wish , for me the K1 is the best trade off in terms of resolution, dynamic range, versatility and transport-ability.

Sure, but is the best trade off is purely subjective.

---------- Post added 08-12-16 at 01:43 AM ----------

Many of the people most ardently decrying the need for a K-1 are the same people who insisted it was a dire necessity (as it was predicted they would do).

That's not my impression. However, whats needed for Pentax is not necessarily the need of the individual photographer.
Pentax have 25 000 000+ FF lenses out there. An FF body was an obvious move.....

[monochrome]

Sure, but is the best trade off is purely subjective.

---------- Post added 08-12-16 at 01:43 AM ----------



That's not my impression. However, whats needed for Pentax is not necessarily the need of the individual photographer.
Pentax have 25 000 000+ FF lenses out there. An FF body was an obvious move.....

Well maybe I exagerated a bit. i've always been a buyer of used gear - even the contemporary stuff. Since the K-1 was announced I have purchased more new Pentax gear, in units and dollars, than in the prior ten years aggregated. K-1, D FA28-105, Ricoh-era Limiteds, some small stuff - at B&M dealers, too..

[reh321]

Sure, but is the best trade off is purely subjective.

That's not my impression. However, whats needed for Pentax is not necessarily the need of the individual photographer.
Pentax have 25 000 000+ FF lenses out there. An FF body was an obvious move.....

Part of the issue is that too many believe the "glass is forever" myth.
Yes, 20-year-old glass may work just as well today as it did 20 years ago, but working exactly as it did 20 years ago is its limit, and even people who thought it was great 20 years ago may not feel it is so terrific today.
Thus, for a few weeks people are happy trying their old glass on their new camera, but then will start comparing it to the new glass elsewhere and discontentment builds up quickly.
There is only so much modern FF glass available.

[Nicolas06]

For me , 645Z was too large with too less versatility for what I do, and a rather big step financially.

And that's from somebody that make $10K a day... For most the K1 is a rather big step financially.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

For example, smoking one pack of cigarettes per day cost you as much as buying one Pentax K1 per year, but the Pentax K1 is much more healthy.

My favorite argument for the K-1, at least from a financial standpoint, that I've heard thus far.
Too bad I don't smoke and can't take advantage of it.

I'm in the same predicament... It's practically impossible to quit when you haven't even started!

I'm actually having a hard enough time funding my APS-C gear, let alone any dreams of the K-1. Maybe if I can train my 6 month old to quit using diapers I can start putting unused diaper funds aside for new camera gear! (Only used APS-C lenses for now though... I'm already eating 25¢ ramen noodles for lunch, so I can't really think of many more ways to scrimp and save.)

[biz-engineer]

For most the K1 is a rather big step financially.

Ohhhh yeahhh . If you can't save 2K over 5 years , you should ask for social assistance. 2K over 5 years = 1.09 euros per day. When it's like this, it really turns to a kind of loss of interest for photography, sounds like the K3 is going to stay in its carton more and more, while focusing a lot more on some other interests. We have to let go people who lost passion in photography, that can happen.

[Nicolas06]

Ohhhh yeahhh . If you can't save 2K over 5 years , you should ask for social assistance. 2K over 5 years = 1.09 euros per day. When it's like this, it really turns to a kind of loss of interest for photography, sounds like the K3 is going to stay in its carton more and more, while focusing a lot more on some other interests. We have to let go people who lost passion in photography, that can happen.

You can't save 30K on a 645Z system while you pretend to make 10K a day. You didn't even manage to aquire an FF before Pentax offered one. Basically that was really not that important, certainly not enough to change brand... Not that long ago, having terrible photos from very limited APSC gear was no issue for you.

Don't expect people that have to actually work 25-50 days full time (not counting food, transportation, savings for the scholarity of childs etc) to buy a K1 and the associated lenses just to do it just so that you biz-engineer would not criticize their practice of photography.

Trying to equate an hobby or a passion to an amount of money rather than the pleasure you may take from it is a bit depressing.

As for social assistance, nothing prevent your to put your wallet were you mouth is and give money to all theses poor people that can't even spend 2000€ on a K1... I am sure they'll appreciate it . After all helping one poor guy aquire a K1, is just 1€ a day... Really not that much.

[biz-engineer]

Trying to equate an hobby or a passion to an amount of money rather than the pleasure you may take from it is a bit depressing.

Honestly I'm bored, from there I do what others have done.

[BrianR]

My favorite argument for the K-1, at least from a financial standpoint, that I've heard thus far. Too bad I don't smoke and can't take advantage of it.

I'm thinking of taking up smoking so I can quit and justify purchasing a k-1. I'm going to ease into it though, I'm starting with nicotine gum then I'll work my way up to the patch. Eventually I hope to be a chain smoker so quitting will "save" me enough to get a 200mm macro as well...

As a side benefit, I have been wanting to try some B&W film work and all this smoking should make it nice and atmospheric.