I can only comment through my experience and what I found.
The K-1 was, better ......., and worse at the same time. It is for this reason that I kept both (the K1 and K3ii).
I use the K-1 for astro, landscape, macro and short tele (portrait).
I use the K3ii for wildlife/ sports and macro (when I take only one body and I am shooting wildlife)
My experience is that both formats compliment each other very well. So, if you can manage to buy the K-1 and keep the K3 then I think you will enjoy the benefits - if the photography interests above match yours.
---------- Post added 27-01-19 at 06:00 PM ----------
Originally posted by Sandy Hancock If you can't afford to keep the K-3, you certainly won't be able to afford the full frame lenses you will soon be craving.
Stick with crop for now - that trio of zooms will serve you very well. Or find a way to afford to keep both bodies.
P.S. the jump in size is not as big a deal as you might think.
I tend to agree with this thinking. As both systems compliment each other, you really only see a little more benefit (although the benefit is there and it is real). The upgrade does come at a cost so this is worthy consideration.
I do note, however, that you have the DFA 50mm ...... that lens is really designed for the FF, so, if that lens is what you shoot with a lot then perhaps you are already slowly stepping up to a FF???