[c.a.m]

My FF lenses that have been missing in action are of course use-able, but not nearly as use-ful for me on APS-C as they've been for decades on my 35mm film bodies, or as are APS-C lenses I have that offer a comparable FOV on APS-C bodies. Of course, the issue has to do with FL and FOV.

Thanks, @mikesbike, for your comments. It's always a pleasure to read your thoughtful insights. I understand where you're coming from wrt FLs, apertures, and versatility.

I find that my DA 20-40mm Limited and DA* 50-135 give me a fairly versatile range in APS-C, while adding my DA 15mm Ltd provides some wide-angle coverage. Not quite as wide as might be attained on the K-1, but not overly limiting.

I think you'll really enjoy the new kit.

- Craig

[DWS1]

I am following the same thought process as the OP. Just haven't reached the point to pull the trigger on the K1, and I already have the 28-105.

[mikesbike]

Congratulations, not only are you happy, but Ricoh would be entirely happy to upgrade to a K-1 instead of another APS-C camera. There is more potential to make money out of you in the future with lenses, for instance!

The kit lens is great, hope to see some pics when you can, Mike.

Thanks so much! I am sure they are happy with my choice. But with the potency of the lenses I already have, they might be a little disappointed as to making a whole lot more from me. (famous last words)

I have an "ok" FF lens for more reach that I could have on hand if needed for good lighting use, the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO which is decent between 70-200mm, especially if stopped down a little. Light in weight also for a tele zoom lens and build is pretty good. But for higher quality, and for lower light, since I would be mostly using FF when working out of my car and not for carrying over too much distance, I could just as easily have my KP along also, and with the DA* 50-135mm, which will do just fine for sure! Also, for yet further high-quality reach, I have the fine DA* 200mm f/2.8 and FA* 300mm f/4.5 and Tamron 1.4x TC for top quality FF tele if I ever entertain such thoughts.

There is, however, a logical possible addition in the wide-angle realm that I still might consider, but that is up in the air for now. I'll just wait and see if I have any actual need beyond my now substantial FF capability!

The kit lens is of surprising quality. It's been giving me very fine results, is of modest size and weight for a FF all-purpose zoom lens, and also affords WR for versatile FF use as well. As to posting pics, I can't get to 1st base with this darned mac "pro" laptop. Good for internet look-ups, not much else. Nothing is laid out in plain English, when it does communicate, it is in gibberish unlike my old nearly 20 year-old Dell desktop, which was so easy and I still use for working on images, but it is no longer on line. As to making a folder, naming it, downloading images into it instead of "my photos" where I have to scroll back through dates to find anything- too much trouble to play with. Can't even email images anymore. I've got some new editing software that might help when I get around to installing it. At my age I don't spend days playing around to make a computer work, as now my days are fewer. What works works what doesn't doesn't. But I am having fun. It is exciting, once again enjoying what I used to enjoy, and without the hassle of film!

[Des]

A particular conundrum for APS-C is in the realm of a fast wide angle, which is already answered in FF lenses.

Yes, but a particular conundrum for FF is in the realm of current (relatively) portable affordable wide angle lenses, which is answered in APS-C by the DA*11-18, DA 12-24, and the jewel that is the DA 15 Ltd (not to mention third party options). Personally, slow apertures don't bother me in wide and ultrawide lenses, because I am mostly stopping down anyway. I'm sure the DFA 21 will provide a partial answer but it won't be as cheap or pocketable as the 15.

Interested to hear your thoughts, but like @luftluss my thinking seems to go around the loop and end up roughly where I am now (maybe the 11-18 will replace the 12-24 eventually).

[mikesbike]

Yes, but a particular conundrum for FF is in the realm of current (relatively) portable affordable wide angle lenses, which is answered in APS-C by the DA*11-18, DA 12-24, and the jewel that is the DA 15 Ltd (not to mention third party options). Personally, slow apertures don't bother me in wide and ultrawide lenses, because I am mostly stopping down anyway. I'm sure the DFA 21 will provide a partial answer but it won't be as cheap or pocketable as the 15.

Interested to hear your thoughts, but like @luftluss my thinking seems to go around the loop and end up roughly where I am now (maybe the 11-18 will replace the 12-24 eventually).

i agree with you 100%. There is a real need for a moderate-speed WA zoom lens, now in both the FF and the APS-C formats. Too bad about the loss of the DA 12-24mm- not of the same capability as the DA* 11-18mm, but a fine performer. Pentax used to make an FA 20-35mm f/4 for FF so I cannot see why this could not be redone for a FF DSLR as an alternative for the very sizable and expensive 15-30mm f/2.8, as there should also be a replacement for the DA 12-24mm. For APS-C, I remain very satisfied with my Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 but even that has disappeared for the Pentax mount. It can deliver the widest angle in my entire repertoire, and do so with still modest size and weight.

Another advantage I thought about, since I already have such good FF lenses, is the fact of some having a parallel FOV to APS-C counterparts, so when getting extra-picky, I can get the same framed photo with either system, shot at the same distance, but the FF shot will be with 36mp while the APS-C shot will be with 24mp (or would be 26mp with the K-3 III). Even though not usually being visible via normal viewing, it is still there and might be noticeable at viewing extremes. I've seen some indication of this. I have liked handling my old Tokina AF 20-35mm once again, remembering all the fine results from years back. I could hardly wait to see an ultra-wide view through my K-1 II's VF.

One shot I took was of a statue a short distance in front of me, and "framed" by the graceful overhead arch of a bridge in the background- over a rather busy border bridge between the US and Canada. The nearest bridge supports were I'd say about 80 yards away. Not a very long bridge, so I could get nearly the entirety of it in the frame. Way up on the bridge, some semi-trucks were coming over at a fairly slow speed. They were up at the closer side of the bridge way above my subject, but not right over, instead near the closer end of the bridge while the subject is framed at the bridge's center. The shot was at 20mm, f/7.1 in good afternoon lighting, clear sky and 1/200 sec, ISO 200. No flash. (I neglected to bring my little hot shoe flash). Later, I looked over the photo on the camera's rear screen. I zoomed in. Statue- sharp as a tack. Then I zoomed along the bridge well beyond and way above. All was very sharp. Even the buildings in the distance across the river were quite crisp. Then I examined this end of the bridge. There were the trucks way above, and only when zooming in could I see the lettering on the side on one of the truck's trailers- and it too was quite sharp! And this was getting close to the edges of the frame! I could not have read it standing there with the naked eye, nor make it out without zooming the photo. Amazing. Everything quite sharp, detailed and and crisp over such an expanse! This was not a cheap lens, but not real expensive either. It is very well-built, but not large or very heavy. There was a similar lens also with a 77mm filter thread, but in a plastic body that Tokina offered for far less money after this lens, and it was quite good also.

[Breakfastographer]

By now enough info has come through to basically know what to expect when the K-3 III appears- an outstanding APS-C performer. Its expanded VF magnification almost as large as the K-1 II, fast-firing and AF performance probably the best Pentax ever, low light/high ISO perhaps fairly near what the K-1 II is capable of, in a body just under 30 oz.

When all is said and done about what is lacking and what is beneficial, what is coming will be one fine-performing APS-C model. But as I have said, I am overjoyed with what my KP brings me, including what the K-3 III lacks.

Just to clarify, is that about display articulation, or something else?

So what should my next step logically be? What makes the most sense for me? Then I looked again at my old, but top-notch favorite FF AF lenses just sitting there next to my fine Pentax AF film bodies, not all that useful to me on DSLRs for some years now, and I arrived at a conclusion that became clear at this point, yet surprising even to myself!

The K-1 II is only a couple of years old, it has been and still is very successful and competitive, so I would not expect a successor to be in development for at least another 2 years, and then I don't know If it it will be minus a useful feature the current model now has. And the price point is now down near what is expected for the K-3 III! So logic finally kicked in, and I ordered the K-1II with the 28-105 WR kit lens special! I've now reawakened my fine FF lenses, have been enjoying the experience for some 2 weeks, and I am delighted!

I think the K-3 III, not least for its considerable wait and proud launch price, has had that effect on a lot of people, steering them either towards the KP, which isn't a bad camera by any stretch, or the K-1 II. As has been remarked, Ricoh is probably entirely happy with getting a boost in sales in any way, and there's no doubt in my mind that some fine photos will be taken and exhibited with the K-3 III given the engineering and extensive testing that have gone into it.

[BigMackCam]

the K-3 III, not least for its considerable wait and proud launch price, has had that effect on a lot of people

That's about the most diplomatic term I've heard for it

[RobSpain]

By now enough info has come through to basically know what to expect when the K-3 III appears- an outstanding APS-C performer. Its expanded VF magnification almost as large as the K-1 II, fast-firing and AF performance probably the best Pentax ever, low light/high ISO perhaps fairly near what the K-1 II is capable of, in a body just under 30 oz.

When all is said and done about what is lacking and what is beneficial, what is coming will be one fine-performing APS-C model. But as I have said, I am overjoyed with what my KP brings me, including what the K-3 III lacks. So what should my next step logically be? What makes the most sense for me? Then I looked again at my old, but top-notch favorite FF AF lenses just sitting there next to my fine Pentax AF film bodies, not all that useful to me on DSLRs for some years now, and I arrived at a conclusion that became clear at this point, yet surprising even to myself!

The K-1 II is only a couple of years old, it has been and still is very successful and competitive, so I would not expect a successor to be in development for at least another 2 years, and then I don't know If it it will be minus a useful feature the current model now has. And the price point is now down near what is expected for the K-3 III! So logic finally kicked in, and I ordered the K-1II with the 28-105 WR kit lens special! I've now reawakened my fine FF lenses, have been enjoying the experience for some 2 weeks, and I am delighted!

You echo my thoughts entirely. Why should I spend as much on a new APS-C when I can obtain a FF camera for a similar price enabling me to use all of my legacy FF lenses. And furthermore, the articulated screen is a MUST for me, which the new K-3 III does not have, and the K-1 II has a fantastic one!

By now enough info has come through to basically know what to expect when the K-3 III appears- an outstanding APS-C performer. Its expanded VF magnification almost as large as the K-1 II, fast-firing and AF performance probably the best Pentax ever, low light/high ISO perhaps fairly near what the K-1 II is capable of, in a body just under 30 oz.

When all is said and done about what is lacking and what is beneficial, what is coming will be one fine-performing APS-C model. But as I have said, I am overjoyed with what my KP brings me, including what the K-3 III lacks. So what should my next step logically be? What makes the most sense for me? Then I looked again at my old, but top-notch favorite FF AF lenses just sitting there next to my fine Pentax AF film bodies, not all that useful to me on DSLRs for some years now, and I arrived at a conclusion that became clear at this point, yet surprising even to myself!

The K-1 II is only a couple of years old, it has been and still is very successful and competitive, so I would not expect a successor to be in development for at least another 2 years, and then I don't know If it it will be minus a useful feature the current model now has. And the price point is now down near what is expected for the K-3 III! So logic finally kicked in, and I ordered the K-1II with the 28-105 WR kit lens special! I've now reawakened my fine FF lenses, have been enjoying the experience for some 2 weeks, and I am delighted!

I almost came to the same conclusion, but in the end decided to keep on using my K-3 II with all the lenses I have, APS-C and FF. It does not matter whether I attach an APS-C or FF to it. After all it is all about what you see in the viewfinder and if you are able to catch the scene that is displayed before you. Sometimes I have to step backward or forward, but I have never been limited by the lenses focal length and the FOV. My thought is that if you have a problem because there are not APS-C lenses that equal the FOV of the FF lenses, you are limiting yourself. The problem lies not in the availability of lenses, but in the thought that somehow APS-C should equal FF. I was spoonfed with FF camera's and the change to digital, Samsung GX-10, never caused the problem not enabling me to take the picture I wanted to make. When I am walking with my old filmcamera MZ-5 or *ist and the K-3 II I sometimes have the feeling that what you see in the viewfinder of the K-3 II looks a lot more pleasant than the FF view of the filmcamera's

[noelpolar]

About the only thing I find surprising about this..... is how long some have managed to go without getting a K1 ...... such restraint is so amazing...... other than the fiscal challendged... every long term pentaxian should have had a K5 and K1 at some stage I reckon....

[MossyRocks]

For the sake of balance, I think it's worth pointing out that - price aside - APS-C and full frame offer different benefits and limitations, and one is not better than the other in every use case.

I agree with this belief system as well. I do a lot of astro shooting going after deep sky objects so if I were to compare my K-3 to the K-1ii for deep sky objects the K-3 becomes a very good camera. This is because I would have to run the K-1ii in crop mode or run longer slower glass. Going from my 400/2.8 up to a 600/4 I lose a stop of already sparse light to maintain the same field of view which eats up basically all of the benefit of running a full frame camera. If I run the full frame in crop mode to give the same framing I give up a bunch of pixels again almost eating up any benefit of running full frame. Add in that while the SMC A* 400mm f/2.8 ED [IF] is a really expensive lens used the F or FA * 600mm F/4 ED [IF] is even more expensive. With the long glass this is very much true in that everything technically ends up being at best a wash but costing a lot more with full frame. Now if I did more astro shooting using normals or wides the balance tips heavily in favor of full frame so it would be a clear choice.

So given that I am really excited by what the raw sensor specs of the K-3iii which for what I would be doing with it would push it way ahead technically, especially when including glass, than the K-1ii. At this point for me it is more of a when I get one rather than if I get one. Once I have it I can really confuse the canon, nikon, and sony shooters who already can't believe the single shot astro images I get that don't use an equatorial. In looking at this comparison between the KP and K-1ii the KP has more dynamic range at the ISO settings I use for astro shooting (typically ISO 1600 to 6400). Since the K-3iii will have a newer generation BSI sensor with newer likely lower noise supporting electronics I would expect another large jump in dynamic range like what has been seen with other iterations.

[normhead]

Whenever I "re-examine" my gear, I wind up mostly sticking with what I've already got.

I'm thinking of selling some stuff. But since the acquisition of the Rokinon 14.28 and a Sigma 24 macro....I can't really think of anything I need. I'm not convinced that you can tell the difference between modern lenses of the same focal length unless pixel peeping side by side. Definitely not at all at 3840x2160 on my HD TV, which is my usual viewing platform these days.

I like my DA*55 1.4, but only because I dropped my FA 50 1.7. The DA*55 1.4 is better, but I wouldn't have bought it if the 1.7 was still working. You can like these things, but you don't have to have these things.

[mikesbike]

Just to clarify, is that about display articulation, or something else?

Well, as in other discussions, no built-in flash also, which can be quite handy for on-demand fill, and can act as a control trigger for an outboard flash setup. The KP still has a lot going for it, including its lighter weight and versatile adaptability.

---------- Post added 11-23-20 at 10:58 AM ----------

For the sake of balance, I think it's worth pointing out that - price aside - APS-C and full frame offer different benefits and limitations, and one is not better than the other in every use case

Absolutely. I am very aware of this and view my APS-C and now FF outfits as complementary to one another. I have understood this and am now am finding out first hand that each does have advantages for certain situations and applications.

---------- Post added 11-23-20 at 11:03 AM ----------

I find that my DA 20-40mm Limited and DA* 50-135 give me a fairly versatile range in APS-C, while adding my DA 15mm Ltd provides some wide-angle coverage. Not quite as wide as might be attained on the K-1, but not overly limiting.

This is a wonderful combo! I use it with my KP quite often, and will continue to do so! My DA 15mm Ltd lives unnoticeably in the front accessory zipper pouch of my holster-style camera case having both shoulder strap and belt loops, while the DA* 50-135mm rides along in a separate belt holster on my other side.

[Mooncatt]

For the sake of balance, I think it's worth pointing out that - price aside - APS-C and full frame offer different benefits and limitations, and one is not better than the other in every use case. The K-1II is undoubtedly superb... but it's bigger, heavier and - so far as continuous shooting is concerned - slower than the K-3III, not to mention that when used in APS-C crop mode it offers a smaller viewfinder area and lower resolution. There are many reasons to choose one format over the other, and price (or price difference) is arguably the least of them. I think the OP has made a very fine and appropriate choice, but there will be numerous folks whose preferences and use cases favour the smaller format, regardless of price...

I don't disagree at all, but perhaps I should've been more clear. I like to shoot in challenging lighting situations, where a full frame with lower ISO noise would be quite handy.

So I would've made the same decision between the two based on my particular needs, not that it was inherently better.

[BigMackCam]

I don't disagree at all, but perhaps I should've been more clear. I like to shoot in challenging lighting situations, where a full frame with lower ISO noise would be quite handy.

So I would've made the same decision between the two based on my particular needs, not that it was inherently better.

... without seeing the high ISO performance of the K-3III, with its new sensor and imaging engine? Would the K-1II better (or equally) fit your needs in other ways too when considered as part of an entire full frame system?

If it seems like I'm trying to be difficult, I promise I'm not I'm just challenging the assumption that the K-1II is better than the K-3III in any way until we've seen what the K-3III is and isn't capable of, and considered how that applies to various use cases. When all's said and done, they're different cameras and each will be better for different scenarios.

I don't want to take the discussion even further away from the OP's intended topic, as that would be rude in the circumstances - and I've already opened a thread on the subject generally.

Again, congratulations to @mikesbike on what I think is a fantastic choice - and my apologies for the slight OT detour