Since the announcement of the forthcoming K-3III, I've read suggestions that its rather high pricing is difficult to justify
for an APS-C camera, and confusion as to why someone would choose to buy it when they could equally afford a "full frame" model such as the K-1 or K-1II for similar or even less money - thus implying that a crop sensor camera is, by default,
inferior. I'm paraphrasing and interpreting, of course, but these are the broad thrusts in the posts I've read.
As someone who shoots both APS-C and full frame (albeit from different brands) as well as small sensor models like the Pentax Q series, bridge and compact cameras, I believe it's misguided and erroneous to claim one format is better than another
without context. Each format has benefits over the others depending on the situation, use case, individual preferences, priorities and tolerances. We'd do well to think in terms of which format is "
most appropriate to our needs", rather than which is "
better" or "
best".
In addition to format specific properties and behaviours related to the combination of sensor dimensions, pixel density and lenses, we also need to consider the state of development for sensors under comparison. For example, a larger sensor camera developed five years ago will likely outperform a smaller sensor camera of the
same generation in terms of general image quality, but a much newer smaller sensor camera may narrow the gap considerably or even overtake the larger sensor model in some respects. Compare the higher ISO image quality from a full frame 2012 Sony SLT-A99 with that of the APS-C Pentax KP released five years later, and the KP wins (by a
large margin).
This short article gives a basic but reasonable comparison of APS-C versus full frame with some benefits and pitfalls therein - but it doesn't take the state of sensor and imaging engine development into account.
We, however,
must.
With respect to pricing, the same level, complexities and costs of development apply to cameras of equivalent functionality, regardless of sensor size. Yes, the larger sensor component in isolation may cost a little more, perhaps the viewfinder prism and mirror too, but everything else stays largely the same. Why, then, should a new APS-C camera cost less than an older full frame model, other than to satisfy an often misguided consumer notion that - without supporting context -
full frame is "better" than crop?
With Pentax, I shoot APS-C and long since decided to remain committed to the format, at least so far as this brand is concerned. My reasons are my own (I don't expect or require others to agree)... I find the size and weight of a complete Pentax APS-C system, using (mostly) dedicated APS-C format lenses, to be at the limit of what I'm happy to carry around for extended periods of time. I find that the fields of view and depth of field range I can achieve with such a system broadly meet my needs. The image quality from my setup is more than sufficient when balanced with the other benefits I perceive (though, like anyone, I'd always be happy with better IQ). Lastly, the entire system - not just cameras, but lenses and accessories too - suits my financial situation.
There are occasions when I choose to shoot my full frame gear because the
use case dictates and the
situation allows. There are
many occasions when I shoot my small sensor cameras - such as the Q or Q7 - because, conversely, the
situation dictates and the
use case allows... or, sometimes, because I simply don't want to carry bigger, heavier gear. Whatever format I choose to shoot for a specific use case and situation, it is generally "better" - i.e. "more appropriate" - than the other formats
on that particular occasion.
Which system and format is best for each of us is going to be different, and each will be a compromise in some way. Hopefully, most of us enthusiasts here - not to mention the few professionals in our community - already know this, and consider all relevant factors when investing in, extending or switching between systems or formats. For those who are less considered in their decisions - or perhaps less experienced - I urge you not to assume that a bigger sensor is always better, because that's simply not the case... It depends on many factors. Having considered your use cases, personal preferences, tolerances etc. and decided upon the ideal (or best compromise) system, budget is the final consideration... and for many of us it may be a deciding factor that
might lead to a compromise on format; but as we've seen with the K-3III (and, for example, Olympus' recent micro-four-thirds flagship OM-D E-M1X), a smaller sensor doesn't necessarily equate to a less capable, cheaper camera.
All information thus far suggests the K-3III is going to be expensive compared to previous crop sensor models, and it's highly unlikely I'll buy it in the near future - but that's not because it's priced so close to the full frame K-1II... Frankly, that isn't even a consideration, because I've already established why APS-C is more appropriate for my needs. I won't be buying it immediately because I simply can't justify that expenditure when I continue to get such great service from my daily-driver K-3 and backup K-3II. Still, I find myself considering which items of my rather "extensive" ("bloated"?
) kit I might sell to fund a new or used K-3III sooner than I originally anticipated. I've little doubt that I'll be picking one up eventually
Last edited by BigMackCam; 11-23-2020 at 10:07 AM.