Upgrading to K1 or sticking with APS-C

amoringello · 07-24-2017, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

It is an upgrade if you shoot with wider angles a lot and/or like narrow depth of field photography.

I seldom shoot longer than my FA 77 limited on the K-1, although I do own a 70-200 for those occasions I want to use it.

More accurately, "if you like wider angle of view photography". DOF doesn't change unless you change your focal length and/or your position (assuming you want to keep your aperture identical). The wider angle of view certainly makes it easier to achieve narrow DOF but you have to change your perspective. This may not be desirable or even possible. Whether that is an "upgrade" is debatable.

Nicolas06 · 07-24-2017, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by normhead

The older glass may not be as sharp as the newer stuff, but the K-1 is still the best camera available to get the most our of your older film lenses. Before I got my DFA 28-105 i was getting great mileage out of my FA 35-80, a cheap kit lens. I know a lot are committed to getting the most out of their camera body, I' more committed to getting the best out of the glass I ow, and the K-1 does that. Pentax would like it if we wanted the best glass for our camera. I'm content with the best camera for my glass.

The only glass I'm likely to buy specifically for my K-1 will be the 31 ltd, because over the years I've really come to appreciate the 21 limited on APS_c, and the 77, Jun Hirakawa's masterpiece. Although if they made a nice small FF 20, I'd go for that too.

I get your point but currently the OP has an FA31 that is an expensive lens that may be worth it. Interrestingly at the focal used on FF, it would be quite likely used closed down at f/8 most of the time where the other excelent Pentax lens in the focal range wouldn't make that of a difference.

There no point to me to spend $2000+ on a body to get slightly more from current lenses in particular if they are not exceptional, one has to be exchanged for an FF compatible and one more need to be brought to cover the range that was covered before...

The same plan when the K1 would be $1000, ok I would get it. And that would open the road for maybe more lenses. But there the whole thing doesn't bring much more than a 17-50 f/2.8 would, but for many time the price.

Ketsuppi11 · 07-24-2017, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

I get your point but currently the OP has an FA31 that is an expensive lens that may be worth it. Interrestingly at the focal used on FF, it would be quite likely used closed down at f/8 most of the time where the other excelent Pentax lens in the focal range wouldn't make that of a difference.

There no point to me to spend $2000+ on a body to get slightly more from current lenses in particular if they are not exceptional, one has to be exchanged for an FF compatible and one more need to be brought to cover the range that was covered before...

The same plan when the K1 would be $1000, ok I would get it. And that would open the road for maybe more lenses. But there the whole thing doesn't bring much more than a 17-50 f/2.8 would, but for many time the price.

You don't think that Carl Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar and DFA 100mm WR are good FF lenses?

Nicolas06 · 07-24-2017, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Ketsuppi11

You don't think that Carl Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar and DFA 100mm WR are good FF lenses?

There really no bad macro primes but they usually quite average in rendering for non macro/proxy shots. Oh, usually macro are extremely sharp, with flat field and constrasty but that also why they don't render people as well for example a portrait prime lens. They are said to be then great for landscapes but from experience I still prefer the FA ltds to the the Pentax macro lenses I tried for that.

Sure, they would beat anything else for macro but I don't get the point of FF for macro. The subjects are small usually, and the focal length doesn't change. The same subject fill the frame less on FF than on APSC. A 24MP APSC give an addiitional 1.3X reach vs 15MP of K1 for the APSC crop... And once the same surface for the subject there no benefit of FF vs APSC. If anything the best Pentax camera for low light for the same APSC surface is the KP. Not the K1.

Actually I think that none of the lenses the OP have fully leverage the FF. FA31 become a WA and less likely to be used with significant bokeh where it shine the most. On FF more modest lenses like the FA28 or FA35 (to keep the FA rendering) would be more often than not undistinguishable from the FA31 for picture quality and rendering on an FF. The 2 macro lenses are doing a fine job on APSC and do not benefit that much of FF for macro. For non macro/proxy there better lenses out there and if you are in research of improved gear for better picture quality, you'd want them. The APSC zoom would work in crop only.

And again let's not forget the crop difference. None of the lenses the OP currently have would be used for the same as before except maybe the DFA100 for portraiture. But already the type of portrait and rendering would be quite different. If the choice of focal length of the prime was not random, the OP might want to change it prime setup entirely in the long run.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-25-2017 at 12:03 AM.

**Rondec** · 07-25-2017, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by amoringello

More accurately, "if you like wider angle of view photography". DOF doesn't change unless you change your focal length and/or your position (assuming you want to keep your aperture identical). The wider angle of view certainly makes it easier to achieve narrow DOF but you have to change your perspective. This may not be desirable or even possible. Whether that is an "upgrade" is debatable.

I shoot with a K3 and K-1 both and the K-1 feels like an upgrade over the K3 for what I shoot (landscapes mostly). There is no perfect camera out there, every one of them is a compromise in one way or another.

I don't really want to bring equivalency into it, but there isn't anything like a 15-30 f2.8 for APS-C. The closest is the 12-24 f4. Same with the 31 f1.8 or 35 f1.4 (I think there is a Sigma 20mm f1.8). These are faster lenses than are available for APS-C and one of the side effects of them being faster is that you can shoot with shallower depth of field, if you want to.

Regardless, the OP is weighing the option of spending more money on a full frame camera over what he shoots with currently and there are certainly arguments on both sides, but if you want a K-1 and have the funds for it, it is reasonable to get one.

**aslyfox** · 07-25-2017, 03:06 AM

It should go without saying that

" . . . if you want a K-1 and have the funds for it, it is reasonable to get one. . . . "

no one should be judging what photographic equipment another chooses ( or has to ) use

**Rondec** · 07-25-2017, 03:35 AM - **1 Like**

APS-C is more than enough for most of us. Frankly, I don't need a full frame camera. My wife does shoot weddings and so she probably does (and she paid for it with those funds). Give me a nice APS-C camera and a DA 15 limited and I will be pretty happy. But if you own full frame compatible lenses there is often a feeling in the back of your mind that you would like to try them out the "way they were originally intended to be shot."

**aslyfox** · 07-25-2017, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

APS-C is more than enough for most of us. Frankly, I don't need a full frame camera. My wife does shoot weddings and so she probably does (and she paid for it with those funds). Give me a nice APS-C camera and a DA 15 limited and I will be pretty happy. But if you own full frame compatible lenses there is often a feeling in the back of your mind that you would like to try them out the "way they were originally intended to be shot."

" Memories " and old photographs

depending on when you acquired those types of lenses

to me the ff aspect of the K 1 is not the entire attraction. it is that plus other "advantages " it may offer over my K 3 and K 5 II technology

FF vs APS-C is only one factor

IMHO, YMMV

shootraw · 12-09-2018, 02:36 PM - **1 Like**

I know this is an old thread but I was recently in the same boat.
I have a k70, ks1, k01 and k7 which I really like, but due to the price drops I also have a K1 now.
Damn this thing is amazing, yea it's a bit heavy but what a beauty and joy to use !!!!
and this sensor is magic !
And no I don't want to invest in heavy or expensive glass !
I'm using some cheap FA zoom lenses , 50mm 1.4 , 55mm and 100mm macro and all looks amazing !
I'll be selling most of my aps c stuff now to fund a second K1 (ii)
Pentax already brough my love for photography back,and this camera goes a step further still.

07-25-2017, 03:39 AM	#83
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,582	Originally posted by Rondec APS-C is more than enough for most of us. Frankly, I don't need a full frame camera. My wife does shoot weddings and so she probably does (and she paid for it with those funds). Give me a nice APS-C camera and a DA 15 limited and I will be pretty happy. But if you own full frame compatible lenses there is often a feeling in the back of your mind that you would like to try them out the "way they were originally intended to be shot." " Memories " and old photographs depending on when you acquired those types of lenses to me the ff aspect of the K 1 is not the entire attraction. it is that plus other "advantages " it may offer over my K 3 and K 5 II technology FF vs APS-C is only one factor IMHO, YMMV Last edited by aslyfox; 07-25-2017 at 04:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IQ of FF vs APS-C primes on APS-C bodies	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	11-10-2016 06:50 PM
8mm APS FE + 1.4TC + K1	pcrichmond	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	4	06-15-2016 05:48 PM
Sticking AE-L button	Rnovo	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	06-15-2016 05:11 AM
Will you leave APS-C for the K1?	SteveM	Pentax Full Frame	95	02-21-2016 07:00 PM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C?	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	03-27-2015 07:45 PM

07-24-2017, 02:15 PM	#76
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Originally posted by Rondec It is an upgrade if you shoot with wider angles a lot and/or like narrow depth of field photography. I seldom shoot longer than my FA 77 limited on the K-1, although I do own a 70-200 for those occasions I want to use it. More accurately, "if you like wider angle of view photography". DOF doesn't change unless you change your focal length and/or your position (assuming you want to keep your aperture identical). The wider angle of view certainly makes it easier to achieve narrow DOF but you have to change your perspective. This may not be desirable or even possible. Whether that is an "upgrade" is debatable.

07-24-2017, 02:17 PM	#77
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by normhead The older glass may not be as sharp as the newer stuff, but the K-1 is still the best camera available to get the most our of your older film lenses. Before I got my DFA 28-105 i was getting great mileage out of my FA 35-80, a cheap kit lens. I know a lot are committed to getting the most out of their camera body, I' more committed to getting the best out of the glass I ow, and the K-1 does that. Pentax would like it if we wanted the best glass for our camera. I'm content with the best camera for my glass. The only glass I'm likely to buy specifically for my K-1 will be the 31 ltd, because over the years I've really come to appreciate the 21 limited on APS_c, and the 77, Jun Hirakawa's masterpiece. Although if they made a nice small FF 20, I'd go for that too. I get your point but currently the OP has an FA31 that is an expensive lens that may be worth it. Interrestingly at the focal used on FF, it would be quite likely used closed down at f/8 most of the time where the other excelent Pentax lens in the focal range wouldn't make that of a difference. There no point to me to spend $2000+ on a body to get slightly more from current lenses in particular if they are not exceptional, one has to be exchanged for an FF compatible and one more need to be brought to cover the range that was covered before... The same plan when the K1 would be $1000, ok I would get it. And that would open the road for maybe more lenses. But there the whole thing doesn't bring much more than a 17-50 f/2.8 would, but for many time the price.

07-24-2017, 11:22 PM	#78
Ketsuppi11 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Photos: Albums Posts: 217 Original Poster	Originally posted by Nicolas06 I get your point but currently the OP has an FA31 that is an expensive lens that may be worth it. Interrestingly at the focal used on FF, it would be quite likely used closed down at f/8 most of the time where the other excelent Pentax lens in the focal range wouldn't make that of a difference. There no point to me to spend $2000+ on a body to get slightly more from current lenses in particular if they are not exceptional, one has to be exchanged for an FF compatible and one more need to be brought to cover the range that was covered before... The same plan when the K1 would be $1000, ok I would get it. And that would open the road for maybe more lenses. But there the whole thing doesn't bring much more than a 17-50 f/2.8 would, but for many time the price. You don't think that Carl Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar and DFA 100mm WR are good FF lenses?

07-24-2017, 11:56 PM	#79
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Ketsuppi11 You don't think that Carl Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar and DFA 100mm WR are good FF lenses? There really no bad macro primes but they usually quite average in rendering for non macro/proxy shots. Oh, usually macro are extremely sharp, with flat field and constrasty but that also why they don't render people as well for example a portrait prime lens. They are said to be then great for landscapes but from experience I still prefer the FA ltds to the the Pentax macro lenses I tried for that. Sure, they would beat anything else for macro but I don't get the point of FF for macro. The subjects are small usually, and the focal length doesn't change. The same subject fill the frame less on FF than on APSC. A 24MP APSC give an addiitional 1.3X reach vs 15MP of K1 for the APSC crop... And once the same surface for the subject there no benefit of FF vs APSC. If anything the best Pentax camera for low light for the same APSC surface is the KP. Not the K1. Actually I think that none of the lenses the OP have fully leverage the FF. FA31 become a WA and less likely to be used with significant bokeh where it shine the most. On FF more modest lenses like the FA28 or FA35 (to keep the FA rendering) would be more often than not undistinguishable from the FA31 for picture quality and rendering on an FF. The 2 macro lenses are doing a fine job on APSC and do not benefit that much of FF for macro. For non macro/proxy there better lenses out there and if you are in research of improved gear for better picture quality, you'd want them. The APSC zoom would work in crop only. And again let's not forget the crop difference. None of the lenses the OP currently have would be used for the same as before except maybe the DFA100 for portraiture. But already the type of portrait and rendering would be quite different. If the choice of focal length of the prime was not random, the OP might want to change it prime setup entirely in the long run. Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-25-2017 at 12:03 AM.

07-25-2017, 02:51 AM	#80
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by amoringello More accurately, "if you like wider angle of view photography". DOF doesn't change unless you change your focal length and/or your position (assuming you want to keep your aperture identical). The wider angle of view certainly makes it easier to achieve narrow DOF but you have to change your perspective. This may not be desirable or even possible. Whether that is an "upgrade" is debatable. I shoot with a K3 and K-1 both and the K-1 feels like an upgrade over the K3 for what I shoot (landscapes mostly). There is no perfect camera out there, every one of them is a compromise in one way or another. I don't really want to bring equivalency into it, but there isn't anything like a 15-30 f2.8 for APS-C. The closest is the 12-24 f4. Same with the 31 f1.8 or 35 f1.4 (I think there is a Sigma 20mm f1.8). These are faster lenses than are available for APS-C and one of the side effects of them being faster is that you can shoot with shallower depth of field, if you want to. Regardless, the OP is weighing the option of spending more money on a full frame camera over what he shoots with currently and there are certainly arguments on both sides, but if you want a K-1 and have the funds for it, it is reasonable to get one.

07-25-2017, 03:06 AM	#81
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,582	It should go without saying that " . . . if you want a K-1 and have the funds for it, it is reasonable to get one. . . . " no one should be judging what photographic equipment another chooses ( or has to ) use

07-25-2017, 03:35 AM - 1 Like	#82
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	APS-C is more than enough for most of us. Frankly, I don't need a full frame camera. My wife does shoot weddings and so she probably does (and she paid for it with those funds). Give me a nice APS-C camera and a DA 15 limited and I will be pretty happy. But if you own full frame compatible lenses there is often a feeling in the back of your mind that you would like to try them out the "way they were originally intended to be shot."

12-09-2018, 02:36 PM - 1 Like	#84
shootraw New Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 22	I know this is an old thread but I was recently in the same boat. I have a k70, ks1, k01 and k7 which I really like, but due to the price drops I also have a K1 now. Damn this thing is amazing, yea it's a bit heavy but what a beauty and joy to use !!!! and this sensor is magic ! And no I don't want to invest in heavy or expensive glass ! I'm using some cheap FA zoom lenses , 50mm 1.4 , 55mm and 100mm macro and all looks amazing ! I'll be selling most of my aps c stuff now to fund a second K1 (ii) Pentax already brough my love for photography back,and this camera goes a step further still.