Originally posted by biz-engineer I've sold all of my K3 kit including all my DA lenses, done so to buy a Pentax K1 and good set of DFA lenses. After printing images, I realized that full frame is great for having a single system , but not as good as having both apsc and medium format. And here are the reasons for coming to such conclusion:
- Enlargement: full frame deliver more resolution than apsc but extraodinary quality for large professional grade prints, medium format does a better job. For A4 and A3 type prints, full frame is an overkill and apsc is plenty good enough.
- Full frame is slow in burst mode. No matter what, full frame cameras are generally all slower than apsc counterparts. AF coverage of full frame DSLR is not as good as AF coverage on apsc.
All that mean is FF is a compromise that is never the best. The old Pentax models of offering apsc K mount and 645 was the best.
The optimum solution is very individual. I have had the k-3 for a number of years now and like its comparatively compact size and the overall size with current DA lenses. I also shoot medium format film, e.g. the Pentax 645 N and have many fine lenses for this format. Over time I have acquired a broad range of older Pentax K/M and A lenses and also have a good collection of Takumar M42 lenses and would like to use them on the intended format when I shoot digital.
So my choice stands between buying a used 645Z or D - both have come substantially down in price in the used market - or buying a new, but heavily rebated K-1, and I am inclined to do the latter. I shoot landscape and portraits more than sports or action, so K-1 would suit me very well. As the sensor size on the 645 D or Z is heavily cropped compared to the original film size, the K-1 compares very well, especially when pixel shift comes into play.
I plan to keep my K-3 either way as a smaller and lighter option.