[Pentax Syntax]

You have some of the most compelling reasons to get the K-1......nice FF lenses. My FA* lenses were basically collecting dust until the K-1 came out. Then wow! Those FF lenses shine on the K-1. No reason you can’t keep your crop body and use both. In some ways having two primes and a crop and full frame can give you great flexibility. YMMV 😊.

[Alex645]

I am a happy man with my K-3,
I don't currently find APSC limiting

If YOU are happy with your K3, and don't find it limiting, then why worry about FF?
For ME, I prefer FF, so I didn't need convincing. If you need convincing of anything, it's probably not for you.

And in terms of your lenses, you can always shoot in crop mode for the crop lenses and FF for the others.

I am very picky, so I have three primes that I use religiously for FF, two primes for 645, and pretty much just one zoom for APS-C. I do have more lenses than that, but it's rare that I can't get what I prefer from just my favorite optics.

[str8talk83]

3. think about if shallow DoF or the new dynamic pixel shift would add new avenues of expression to your photography.

I don't shoot the K1, but I do shoot both APS-C and FF. The main reason I shoot full frame is for the ability of more depth of field control. Almost every lens is able to achieve more of this "look," even slower lenses, much easier than on smaller sensor cameras. This is my personal preference for just about everything, but others may disagree.

Another advantage I've experienced that I don't see often, is that you can stop down a lens on full frame a couple of stops and still have decent depth of field. This means that you are likely shooting at a more optimum f/stop to achieve better image quality since almost all lenses are better stopped down. When you do that on the smaller sensor, you lose some of your depth of field control. I forget the actual equation for depth of field difference between the formats, but it's more than a stop difference if I'm not mistaken.

[mattb123]

Focus peaking helps with manual focus as long as you can see the screen well.

I'm using the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Tamron 70-200/2.8 zooms with my K-1. One reason is I already had the 28-75 but the others are cost and size/weight. I wouldn't say I'd never get the bigger Pentax ones but don't feel like I need to currently.

[LensBeginner]

I wouldn't do it.

To get same framing/perspective you'll need different FLs.
At the same aperture, you'll get less DoF on the FF camera (85 mm, f/2.8, 10 ft = 0.7 ft) than on the APS-C camera (58mm, f/2.8, 10 ft = 1.01 ft) and better ISO performance for the same shutter speed.
So FF has not better ISO performance per se, just better ISO performance linked to reduced DoF.

I'm stating the obvious, but what I want to highlight is that every single sensor size covers an area in the "tradeoffs graph", there's no "better" sensor size, as many would like to make you believe, just different tradeoffs WRT weight, low-light capabilities, (related to) DoF etc.

Since your lens selection for APS-C is already quite extensive, the only area where you could get "new" tradeoffs would be the shallow DoF/low noise one, for instance by using the 50/1.7 wide open on FF.

Question: how many times do you actually shoot the 50/1.7 w.o. on APS-C? I know what's my answer to this one, and that's why I'm not buying FF...

[btnapa]

I shoot zooms and primes.

You have enough lenses to start a camera store!

Kidding aside, I went from a K3 to K1. Aside from it being full frame and higher res, the high ISO is what I like a lot. I shot plenty of paid gigs with the K3 and I have used the images for large poster prints for clients. I also have shot with the K1 for similar projects. I now know why they say a good lens is a must. As much as the K1 is a marked improvement, my K3 images are no slouches either. I have the three Amigos and a few other lenses that are as good as they get both on the K3 and K1.

Long story short, if you want (need) more resolution and better high ISO performance then K1 is a no brainer. All the other goodies the K1 offers are added bonuses.

[AggieDad]

Do you want your tombstone to read "I'm glad I didn't do it" for whatever your particular "it" may be? That is my criterion in these, my waning years.

[clickclick]

Beyond all the technical arguments you already know, just get it because it's enjoyable and you will derive a tactile satisfaction from it. Remember, adding a K-1 doesn't mean you can't/won't use your other camera. You'll find you will grab the body/lens combo that fits your mood and needs. You can add lenses as permits, and it opens up another need to help keep the LBA alive and well and avoid withdrawal. Also, while the K3 (assuming it handles like my K3II) feels great, the K-1 is different, and if you enjoy the feel of high quality tools, precision instruments, etc., you'll just find it a rewarding experience. And then there are those little things that are easy to overlook but do come in handy, like the nifty articulating screen and the ability to put a little light on your lens mount when changing them in low light environments, which you will find you shoot with ease.

Besides, it's fun to spend someone else's money.

[clackers]

Unless someone changes their photography style to suit new gear - if you're taking the same pictures as before just standing closer to get the same framing - it's not worth spending money to go bigger and heavier.

When Biz-engineer first bought his K-1 he took snaps with it and the 150-450 and compared them with the K-3 and DA*300 and they were pretty much indistinguishable.

[surfar]

Convince me to buy a K-1

From the perspective of a K-1 and M43 owner,Hi Unc,how ya doing?

Well, you have some options!

1/ buy the U$ 2000 K-1ii
2/Buy the U$1700 K-1
3/Buy a used K-1 and a new Oly omd10 mk iii(around U$2000)
4/wait for next Apsc dual card Pentax.

5/ none of the above,stay as you are.

Theres merit in all 5 options, 3 is best because the Oly is outstanding as is a used K-1 which can be upgraded.

You have enough glass for FF,once you work out what you like on it you can move some on and bring some in(28-105 is excellent).

---------- Post added 04-27-18 at 01:25 PM ----------

Just a bit more,

Weight...yes its a consideration and the direction you can go with FF,what glass does what.I waited around a year b4 i bought DFAzooms(28/105 & 70/200.)So tested my Film era stuff and DAs.If you go FF i'd suggest the walk around too(U$2400 with the K-1ii).Less if you pick up good used examples.

[micl161]

I am a happy man with my K-3, I have a large lens collection with some FF and some Crop only lenses. I shot film so I know the difference in field of view and understand the technical advantages of the larger pixel sites and newer processing engine.

HOWEVER...
I haven't really ever loved the size of FF fast zooms, I don't own any older series full frame zooms, I have some challenges with manual focus without a split prism, and I don't have a ton of money to sink into Full Frame. I don't currently find APSC limiting, and I suspect my technique is more of a barrier to me than equipment despite 40 years+ of photography as a hobby.

My Full Frame Lenses:
FA 31 ltd
F 50 f/1.7
FA 77 ltd
DFA 100 WR
FA* 300

Near Full Frame (or defacto full frame):
DA 40
DA* 200
DA* 60-250 (unmodified)

Not at all Full Frame:
Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
DA 15 ltd
DA 18-50
DA 18-135
DA 16-50
DA 50-135

Some use on Full Frame?:
DA 12-24 (20-24 from what I understand is usable)
DA 20-40 (I don't recall but I thought some of this range was usable)
DA 55-300 (as above)

I shoot zooms and primes. I have a Panasonic GX-7 as a second system (and a GX-1 backup to it.) with a good selection of lenses as well. (Primes 20, 30, 42.5) (fast zoom 12-35) (slower zooms 14-42, 35-100) so my "smaller system" could be filled by this rather than the K-3.

For sure you know much better than me on all the pros and cons if switch from APS-C to FF, all that I believe is no one can convince or stop you. It just matter to you and when its the time, you will do so.

[leekil]

My cons on the K-1 are 1) the size 2) the weight 3) no DA15.

My main pro is the image quality. I may have been unduly influenced by the talk about the K-3 (vs. the K5) when it was first introduced, but the K-3 always seems to have significantly noisier low-light images whenever I zoom in close. I have not done a direct comparison test, but this is a big pro for the K-1 in my mind. My K-1 currently needs a repair, and I really wish I had it when I'm using the K-3.

I mostly use primes on the K-1; I don't have any of the new large zooms for it, due to the expense and the size/weight, though recently I have been interested in the 24-70 and the 28-105, maybe I would look in to those someday. (And also the 15-30, but that would be less versatile and I would be unlikely to use it enough to get my money's worth.)

The K-1 has made my hands ache at times due to the weight, but it didn't seem to cause me to carry it less.


Suggestions for additional lenses if you get a K-1: FA35-80 (cheap & quite good); FA24-90 (wider & longer range); FA43 (which is my standard lens on it) (more money, but Limited quality).

---------- Post added 04-26-18 at 10:21 PM ----------

Or the FA 24-70 f/4, but it's highly prone to element separation so it is somewhat harder to come by.

[Eyewanders]

I am a happy man with my K-3.

I'll just summarize everything you wrote. It's right up above here.

[leekil]

Additionally, if you shoot K-mount film cameras as well, it makes it easier to pack for travel or outings if you don't have to worry about APS-C *and* FF kits, but can share lenses.

[Eyewanders]

Additionally, if you shoot K-mount film cameras as well, it makes it easier to pack for travel or outings if you don't have to worry about APS-C *and* FF kits, but can share lenses.

I personally like the difference in FOV between them and have only ever seen it as more options, not something to worry about.