[UncleVanya]

I keep seeing this argument repeated in both professional reviews, user comments and forums. But are those 210 grams over the K-3II so noticable? Or does the heavy lugging indirectly assume that the chosen lenses are heavier? How much less would those 210 grams mean for us that have no plans on lugging around D-FA zooms?

I think the latter - lens plus body is what they are talking about. Look at the recent discussion of kits that work. Even if you really cut back from D FA to something else full frame the lenses are just bigger - particularly the non-telephotos and the higher end options. Take the DA 55-300 for example. It isn't fully full frame by most accounts (although I see people who disagree with that). I think that the weight argument is relevant but only for those who are pushing for things to go lighter. My dad for instance has given up his K-3 and all Pentax gear for my Panasonic GX7 to try that. He found the bulk (more than weight) was just putting him off. He doesn't want to carry something that large and heavy any more.

[Simen1]

Personally I find that some of the lenses I have are already pushing the limit on what I choose to carry around. So If I choose to go 270 grams up from K-5 to K-1, I want to cut weight elsewhere. Fewer lenses in the bag is one possibility. Replacing some of the heavier ones with lighter is another. I just don't want to loose to much light gathering ability or versatility. I have to choose wisely and calculated.

[nomadkng]

I keep seeing this argument repeated in both professional reviews, user comments and forums. But are those 210 grams over the K-3II so noticable? Or does the heavy lugging indirectly assume that the chosen lenses are heavier? How much less would those 210 grams mean for us that have no plans on lugging around D-FA zooms?

Here's the quandary, a lot of K1 adopters are photographers with a purpose. They are advanced amateurs, semi-pro or pro. They pixel peep, they shoot for more than just populating flickr or Instagram. These shooters find it ironic that one would spend all this money for a FF body and not maximize its potential. Well, maximizing the K1 requires "pro" series lenses. Most pro series lenses, legacy or otherwise weigh more.

So then you have this logorithmic spiral where a heavier camera begats heavier lenses AND potentially REALLY heavy lenses. A 300mm f4 becomes a 500mm f4.5. A 17-50 becomes a 15-30 etc. 210g becomes 1000g-1500g pretty quick. Let's take a look a wedding kit; on APS-C where you can use very small, compact and light 17-50s, you now need a big 82mm 24-70. A 50-135 or 50-150, becomes a 70-200. It's even crazier on the long end. Even my GND filters weigh an extra 200g grams because my Cokin P's vignette badly on FF. I had to purchase the Z series, which are bigger (and heavier). The final straw is that bigger lenses (and filters) require a bigger bag. My FF bag weighs 2.5 lbs more than the same bag I used to carry equivalent APS-C gear.

... fewer lenses in the bag is one possibility. Replacing some of the heavier ones with lighter is another. I just don't want to loose to much light gathering ability or versatility.

For me, fewer lenses isn't really an option. I am down to 5 lenses and a TC and I'm not sure where I could trim more. Now, can you own a K1 and still go light? Sure, if you can live with a couple small primes (Pentax's specialty), then 210g is not a whole lot. But very few "working" photographers can do that. You also don't see a lot of sub 52mm filter thread FF f2.8 zooms out there. Why? Because you have a whole lot more sensor area to cover. To get the same "light gathering and versatility", you end up with bigger lenses and the laws of physics are very forgiving in that regard.

[Nicolas06]

I keep seeing this argument repeated in both professional reviews, user comments and forums. But are those 210 grams over the K-3II so noticable? Or does the heavy lugging indirectly assume that the chosen lenses are heavier? How much less would those 210 grams mean for us that have no plans on lugging around D-FA zooms?

Even if not using DFA zoom but old FA/F/M/K zooms and prime, there no way around the 1.5 crop factor for reach. You need 450mm on FF to match 300mm on APSC. If you do crop to compensate, your FF become basically a K5-IIs that can be find used for 300-400€ instead of 2000...

When today I go with FA77 for my longest lens, I'd need F135 instead, and when I got for with up to the F135, I need a 200mm lens instead... The 200mm lenses tend to be heavy and big...

[EArenz]

Personally I find that some of the lenses I have are already pushing the limit on what I choose to carry around. So If I choose to go 270 grams up from K-5 to K-1, I want to cut weight elsewhere. Fewer lenses in the bag is one possibility. Replacing some of the heavier ones with lighter is another. I just don't want to loose to much light gathering ability or versatility. I have to choose wisely and calculated.

Unfortunately it's impossible to replace APS-C lenses with equivalent FF lenses that are lighter/smaller. Dang those laws of physics!
As you say, fewer lenses might be a solution. Maybe we could head to the dollar store and stock up on some of those Mylar balloons!

[Tony Belding]

Personally, I'd go for the APS-C system. A while back I got a K-S2 body and the 20-40mm Limited lens, which proved a very pleasing combination to carry and use, and the output to my eyes was excellent. And now there's the K-70 as well. From where I sit, the K-1 is just overkill.

However... Full disclosure: The K-S2 will probably end up pushed aside in favor of a Sony Alpha A7 and a nice set of Super Takumars, and some other vintage M42 lenses. I've decided autofocus was merely a passing fad.

[UncleVanya]

Personally, I'd go for the APS-C system. A while back I got a K-S2 body and the 20-40mm Limited lens, which proved a very pleasing combination to carry and use, and the output to my eyes was excellent. And now there's the K-70 as well. From where I sit, the K-1 is just overkill.

However... Full disclosure: The K-S2 will probably end up pushed aside in favor of a Sony Alpha A7 and a nice set of Super Takumars, and some other vintage M42 lenses. I've decided autofocus was merely a passing fad.

Don't forget the Samyang primes - they agree with you to a degree.

[EArenz]

I've decided autofocus was merely a passing fad.

Wait until your eyes get a little older
But there's always focus peaking.
A godsend on the K-01.