[LostViking]

Probably whichever way you go here, you will probably end up owning both cameras in the long run.

Ah yes, I have almost already figured that out.

Just trying to decide how far down the rabbit hole I wish to go.
We've come a long way for 36 hand cranked exposures

[zapp]

f/2.8 lenses: go apsc for primes
Wider f-stop is where FF starts. 77/85 live on FF…

In the end you need apsc and FF.

[robgski]

Ah yes, I have almost already figured that out.

Just trying to decide how far down the rabbit hole I wish to go.

We'll be here to enable your addiction, co-dependency is a feature of PF membership

We've come a long way for 36 hand cranked exposures

I have not done so in a long time, but there is value in going out to take images, but limiting oneself to 12,24 or 36 images, just as in film days. It often causes me to really think about compositions, settings, etc, before I open the shutter.

[LostViking]

We'll be here to enable your addiction, co-dependency is a feature of PF membership


I have not done so in a long time, but there is value in going out to take images, but limiting oneself to 12,24 or 36 images, just as in film days. It often causes me to really think about compositions, settings, etc, before I open the shutter.

Sort of like a Ruger #1,

I agree.

[Jonathan Mac]

I've yet to see a "shutter shock" issue. I'm leaning towards a issue with certain specific cameras, and IMO a very small number of them. I do a LOT of portraiture and gig shoots and if it were something consistent across the model line it would almost certainly have presented itself by now.



I've had far more issue with lenses needing fine focus adjustment for the K3III when it was never needed on my other camera bodies. I had a significant number of shots at a recent session oh-so-slightly out of focus and largely unacceptable since I erred in not thoroughly testing a new lens before putting it to work for a live shoot.



I've learned my lesson. I just fine-tuned every lens I'm taking with me tomorrow, even those I've used successfully before "just in case".

It may well be a QC issue and only on some units but from what I've read so far, that's yet to be demonstrated, hence advising caution.

[texandrews]

I think you need to look at the kit as a whole. Here's an example.

K-1ii with WR/AW:
f2.8 trinity (15-30, 24-70 and 70-200). Superb optical quality, but very heavy and expensive.
Primes to taste: DFA*50 f1.4, DFA*85 f1.4, DFA 100 f2.8 macro WR. DA*200 f2.8 is FF compatible. (Lots of non-WR options.)
Add either DA*300 f4 and DA 1.4 TC or DFA 150-450 for wildlife, but would have less effective reach than on APS-C.
Lighter weight kit: DFA 28-105 and DFA 70-210 f4. Maybe a DFA 70-300 coming.

K-3iii with WR/AW:
f2.8 star kit: DA 11-18 (includes front element heater capacity), 16-50 mark ii, 50-135. Much lighter and more affordable, very good IQ.
Primes to taste: DA*55 f1.4, DA*200 f2.8 + DFA options. DFA 100 macro would have more effective reach on APS-C. (Lots of non-WR options.)
Add either DA*300 f4 and DA 1.4 TC or DFA 150-450 for wildlife. More effective reach, faster frame rate and better AF.
Lighter weight kit: DA 16-85 (or DA 15 Ltd - not WR but easily pocketable + DA 20-40 Ltd) and DA 55-300 f4.5-6.3 PLM. These are all excellent lenses and very portable.

The way I see it, there wouldn't be much you could do with the first kit that you couldn't do with the second (wide aperture, small DOF, lower ISO would be the main thing - but how often do you do that?), but there would be more things you could do with the second that you couldn't do with the first (e.g. wildlife with less cropping and more pixels), with lower weight and cost and more lens options. Unless you are shooting for wall size prints or magazines, the advantages of APS-C are obvious.

If you need to be convinced about the images that can be obtained with an APS-C kit, look at some of the camera-specific image threads (not only K-3iii but also K-3 and KP).

That is not to say that there no relevant differences. FF has a number of advantages. It's just a question whether, for you, they matter more than the disadvantages.

Tossing equivalence grenade....

[Des]

Tossing equivalence grenade....

Heaven forbid!

I'm not saying that the K-1ii with DFA*70-200 f2.8 is the same as K-3iii with DA*50-135 f2.8 just because the field of view is similar or anything like that. I'm just trying to address a use case based on AW/WR lenses in harsh outdoor conditions, with an interest in wildlife (and where thin DOF is maybe not a big priority). You could do it with FF (and in the hands of a skilled user undoubtedly get some better images), but it would be a lot heavier and more expensive, and wildlife/macro shooting would be more compromised.

But if starting from scratch, I'd go for FF because of the latitude it allows in post-processing. ... There's just no question in my mind---from lots of experience now for 20 years---that the larger the file size from the larger sensor, the more malleable and forgiving those files are in post.Also, with respect to Pentax especially, FF gives you a door into a wonderland of legacy lenses, often at bargain prices. These are for the most part lenses designed for FF, so using them with an apsc body is a compromise.

There's the case for FF in a nutshell. But all those lovely legacy lenses won't be WR.

---

Last edited by Des; 06-26-2021 at 03:31 PM.

[mikesbike]

I agree with Des. Both systems have merit, but the top-level APS-C can do more in a practical, less expensive, and convenient setup.

That said, it is indeed a great thing to have both systems. If I had not already those fine old AF FF lenses from my film use, I probably would have passed up a FF body altogether, and would do fine without, as has been the case right along until late 2020 when I got the still current deal for a K-1 II. Now I am experiencing the high-level capabilities of both systems and their relative advantages, so I am glad I went for the K-1 II instead of the K-3 III, deciding to keep on with my KP for my APS-C needs. But I don't generally do burst shooting or need AF tracking.

My own lighter-carrying FF options with the K-1 II are the kit lens I got at special price, the DFA 28-105mm WR which is an amazingly fine lens, plus I have two old AF fast-aperture shorter zoom lenses, the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 which I bought new for film use but can be found used for not much- a good, sharp lens, and my excellent Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX PRO II bought new as the last batch made, which is now hard to find. I also have the inexpensive, very small but very good "F" 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 for extra-light walk around FF use, bought used and available for a low cost. Then the FA HD 35mm f/2 is a marvelous fast WA. Likewise the FA 31mm f/1.8 Ltd. I also have a Tokina AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 II (77mm filter size) which has been providing great results on the K-1 II. And for a fine prime WA lens, I really like my FA 28mm f/2.8- fine even wide open.

So perhaps at this point, with having both systems in mind, it might be wise to take advantage of the great price now available for the K-1 II, especially with the excellent kit lens. Then get the FA HD 35mm f/2 for a fast WA. There are also other great lenses that are not all that heavy to be added as the need indicates. There seems to be a DFA 70-300mm in the works. I also have the DA* 200mm f/2. and FA* 300mm f/4.5 which I have been using on my APS-C bodies, but are fully usable on my K-1 II, though with not as much reach.

If this is the decision, a lot of great shooting can be had right away, and just let the K-3 III simmer for a while, as firmware updates come about and the price comes down- as it will.

[dmach47]

If you were starting out with nothing, would you go APS-C or Full Frame.

If I were starting out with nothing, the APS system has many more lenses than the full-frame. The full frame does have more pixels, and there are some new lenses for the full-frame (and lots of lenses on eBay and such).
The thing to think about is how heavy those f2.8 lenses are. As much as I'd like the extra stop (or two) of a BIG lens, my arms tell me they like the lighter f4 lenses. Of course, if you like lifting weights, then those big lenses would be fine.

[Cerebum]

I didn't come from a film background so for me it all came down to money. Pentax gave me the biggest bang for my buck and still does. My budget if anything is even worse than it was when I started. So, assuming I have the same budget I would be looking at K5, K50, XT2, D3500. Ibis & WR would direct me to pentax. Full Frame would still be a pipe dream

[WideVistas490]

If you were starting out with nothing, would you go APS-C or Full Frame.

I am more than excited about the new K3 lll,
I have been away from DSLRs since the D was added.

I was almost ready to pull the trigger on the K3 lll.
But I keep researching with the buy once, cry one, saying in mind.

I live in northern Michigan and my primary targets would be wildlife, streams, birds occasionally, some scenics, but no great expanses like Moab.

Normally I would say that would drive me towards the K3 lll. But this area is heavily canopied, and I will be out when the critters are out, early morning and near dusk. So light may be a factor. The image stabilization in the K3 lll is impressive.

I have no attachment to any gear at this point so it's a clean slate.
I will probably look to acquire two lenses, right away, both and good as fast as I can afford, probably 2.8 range.

I like the additional reach of the cropped sensor, but wonder if it my not pay to step up to Full Frame right off the bat,

I gave serious consideration to the Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark lll, but I keep coming back here.

I have turned out some reasonably decent results with an old point & shoot, but looking to up my game.

I had pro level Canon setup back in the film era, but sold it off.

This is about the best I can achieve with my 6 megapixel beater,


95% will be outdoors, little to no video. At least at this juncture.

Thanks,
LV

Do you have an opportunity to handle and test drive either camera body, perhaps at a camera store or via a rental service? It might help you compare the size and weight differences between the two formats.

I rented a K-1 II with an HD 24-70 f2.8 a number of years ago to compare it to my K-3 II kit and decided at the time I wasn't comfortable with the increase in size and weight of the FF body and potential additional lenses.
I took a fresh look at the K-1 II last year and bought one with a 28-105 after realizing it was a great value for a FF system, particularly since I can use some of my existing Pentax APS-C and film-era glass.
The utility of the K-mount across so many camera models is probably an understated strength of the brand.

As others have said, you may eventually invest in both systems.

Please keep us posted on your decision.

[gatorguy]

Do you have an opportunity to handle and test drive either camera body, perhaps at a camera store or via a rental service? It might help you compare the size and weight differences between the two formats.

I rented a K-1 II with an HD 24-70 f2.8 a number of years ago to compare it to my K-3 II kit and decided at the time I wasn't comfortable with the increase in size and weight of the FF body and potential additional lenses.
I took a fresh look at the K-1 II last year and bought one with a 28-105 after realizing it was a great value for a FF system, particularly since I can use some of my existing Pentax APS-C and film-era glass.
The utility of the K-mount across so many camera models is probably an understated strength of the brand.

As others have said, you may eventually invest in both systems.

Please keep us posted on your decision.

I rented the K1 not just once but twice. I thought perhaps I just wasn't giving it enough of a chance with all the praise it got from owners of it here. Like you I still thought it was too big and too heavy both times and decided it really wasn't a camera for me. I think I had a K-70 and a KP at the time.

I guess I still always had it in the back of my mind. Months later I came across a deal too good to pass up and figured at the worst I'd resell it after going it another go. Well you know the saying about third time being a charm. For whatever reason, it was no longer too big or too heavy. I love the camera! Great grip, wonderful ergonomics, beautiful viewfinder and magnificent imaging. It's not the one I pick up for hiking or doing a street shoot, but it always accompanies me on a pre-planned event whether it's music or portraits or a specific landscape image I have in mind, and usually with either the DFA50 or the 85 attached.

It may or may not seem odd but for almost every scheduled event I carry both a crop Pentax and that FF K-1. The two types actually make for a great pairing.

[aslyfox]

. . . It may or may not seem odd but for almost every scheduled event I carry both a crop Pentax and that FF K-1. The two types actually make for a great paring.

if you are able to own both, that is a great idea

each has its own strength and weaknesses

[WideVistas490]

yes and no...

if I were starting over today, I probably would not choose a DSLR at all...

as my current lens collection has a number of AF k-mount lenses, I still shoot with a number of Pentax DSLR's ...

If not a DSLR, what type and format would you consider?

[pepperberry farm]

If not a DSLR, what type and format would you consider?

the adaptability of almost any mirrorless system is pretty cool - and the biggest reason I have a couple of Fuji APS-C bodies...

as far as format - APS-C sensors are perfect for me; I don't need anything bigger for any reason....