[crazy4oldcars]

If you really want to shoot FF, you'll find a way. What you're describing doesn't sound like the optimum way to go about it, but you do what you gotta do. I'd save up and do it the right way, but that's me.

Kirk B.

[gatorguy]

See post 1 for possible budget



I do have Pentax film bodies (see post 6). A perfectly working P30T that is actually a pleasure to use, and an LX that needs CLA before it can be used.
I like film, I just don't like having to go to the post office to drop off film to the developer along with the work that this requires... and film is a bit expensive these days if you count all the costs (good film+postal costs+development+prints/scans).
But I might get back to it... it's an option.

If you want to experience what a very good FF camera offers you rent a K1 from someplace like LensRentals for a few days. That's what I did and what I still do before making a major financial investment on camera or lens: Rent one. Outside of finding someone who will loan you one for more than a day this is the best advice you will get. No one can tell you, it's something you need to check for yourself.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/pentax-k-1

If that very good K-1 FF camera doesn't seem to be "all that" then the $200 one absolutely won't be.
I was convinced a FF was in my future too, but there's not one in my signature.

[dms]

I have several prized lenses for Nikon from my older Nikon film cameras, so I spent about $400 for FF, the Nikon D700. My advice to anyone contemplating this is take care, you may think about dumping most of your cameras for FF. I am.

Perhaps I should add that I shot 35mm film SLRs (exclusively) from late 1950's till about 2009. So there is likely a lot of muscle memory/conditioned reflex and nostalgia, and if you are a relative newcomer w/o this legacy maybe you will be safe, but I would not bet on it.

[UncleVanya]

Develop and scan your own. Shoot and see if the eye loves the experience of FF or not.

[Imp]

The viewfinder makes the whole shooting experience so much more pleasurable than my APS-C cameras.

Then certainly don't go for the Sony! It sounds to me like it could be a fun experience for you, and if it's more appealing than a limited, go for it! However, if you think the 5d might just end up on your shelf after a bit of shooting... maybe go for that limited

I'm not recommending film just because I've never got it together enough to try it myself

[pepperberry farm]

you're crazy, but it probably has nothing to do with your cameras...


(:

[robgski]

I rented a K-1 several times before I was able To afford the cost of a used K-1. I am glad I did, I was sure I that I wanted to move to FF after a few rentals.
On the other hand I wish I did not have to resort to crop mode to use my DA 21

[ChristianRock]

You guys are an awesome and helpful bunch You're giving me things to think about.

Well, you sound pretty convicted to do this, so a couple of things to consider.

I'm actually not... and being a bit away from being able to do it, it gives me enough time to talk myself out of it

As already pointed out, with the age of the 5D, you could be sitting on a time bomb, but it could last forever. I think you will be very disappointed in the performance, it is older than your K10D. I'm not saying your K10D is bad, but compare it to your K-S1. The Sony is half the age, but is has no OVF. Even with that I think it makes more sense than the Canon. At least you can use it on a tripod and use liveview.

I'm not all that interested about what's new or what's old, or what is supposed to be more "advanced" technologically. I'm after the experience and the final result... film technology is about 150 years old if not more, but if I had unlimited budget I would buy me a 4x5, a 6x7 system and maybe even that Fuji 6x17 - gorgeous thing that it is. But I understand I might be in the minority, most people seem to care a lot about the technological aspect of photography these days...

If you really want to shoot FF, you'll find a way. What you're describing doesn't sound like the optimum way to go about it, but you do what you gotta do. I'd save up and do it the right way, but that's me.

Kirk B.

I know, the right thing is the K-1, and I've started saving a few times, but then something happens and we end having to spend the money on something else.
We'll see. Maybe if I sell the K-S1 on top of what I'm already planning to sell, and also my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, I might end up having enough for the K-1. We'll see. I plan on starting to sell stuff after the New Year.

you're crazy, but it probably has nothing to do with your cameras...

(:

Truer words might never have been spoken and that is probably the truth of the matter right there

[Aaron28]

but if I had unlimited budget I would buy me a 4x5, a 6x7 system and maybe even

now that's the ticket!! on the lookout for a graflex speed graphic or press camera of that sort but more likely is a pentax 645, mamiya, bronica system.....

in the meantime a few Yashica TLRs (yashicaflex & C) is my current ticket to ride with MF......

[BigMackCam]

Whilst there are all sorts of benefits folks will legitimately (or otherwise) claim for shooting full frame, there are two that I find particularly relevant to my own use cases.

Firstly, there's the opportunity to use older manual glass designed for 35mm film SLRs on the format for which it was originally intended. Using vintage SLR glass on an APS-C body is all well and good, but you don't get to experience it in the same way, since so much of the image circle is cropped away. With a full frame camera, you'll experience every part of the projected image that the manufacturer intended, warts and all. It's not necessarily better, but it is certainly very different, being nearly identical to what you'd see on 35mm film. As such, it also provides a greater number of lens choices for wide-to-moderately-wide-angle photography.

Secondly, there's the opportunity to shoot with shallower depth of field for any given field of view than is typically practical with APS-C. When you shoot, say, a 50mm lens on full frame at a reasonably modest aperture of f/2 for the first time, you might be amazed at the sense of "space" and "separation" in your images (not a great way to describe my point, but I can't think of better... hopefully you get the idea). I don't want to turn this into yet another so-called "equivalence" debate, but with APS-C you'd need something like a 35mm f/1.4 lens to achieve a similar look... and if you should shoot that same 50mm lens at f/1.4 on full frame, well... there simply isn't a lens around that will give you a similar field of view / depth of field combination on your Pentax APS-C camera.

When I first got my full frame gear - after years of shooting APS-C and smaller formats - I was briefly obsessed with the ability to achieve shallow(er) depth of field at wider fields of view. I was using a 24-70 f/2.8, and pretty much kept the darned thing wide open for the first few weeks, marvelling at that sense of space and separation in my images But here's the thing - after a short while, that novelty wore off. Shallow depth of field is fun and can be creatively useful, no doubt, but it's not the "be all and end all" of photography and is over-used, IMHO. So, in time, I found that I'd started to shoot "normally" again. Now, are there still occasions where I leverage that DoF capability? Sure... but really not that many. Most of the time, the stuff I shoot on full frame with my 24-70 f/2.8 is the same as I'd produce with my 17-50 f/2.8 on APS-C.

Which brings me to my recommendations...

If you have a full frame itch that you simply want to scratch, and if you can get away with using the EVF, the old A7 is still a decent little camera - showing its age now, for sure, and the lack of image stabilisation might be limiting... but plenty of folks still get excellent results from it. The A7 MkII, if you can stretch to it, is considerably better in numerous respects - EVF, image stabilisation, controls, lossless raw, etc. Either one, though, will get the job done - and if you use it for six months or so and decide you no longer wish to continue down that road, or you want to upgrade to something better instead, you could probably get back close to what you paid. It's a low risk option if you choose wisely and pay at or below typical market price. Do remember, though, you'll find yourself buying adapters, accessories, additional batteries, etc. - all for a different system than your Pentax gear. The cost can mount up pretty fast.

All that said...

Based on my own experiences, unless you have a specific need for full frame (as I did and do for my Soviet lens collection), I truly think you'd be better off investing your money in additional glass for your APS-C platform. The DA21 you mention is a very fine lens - one of my favourites, actually. For that matter, any of the DA Limited primes is a joy. And the FA Limiteds... well, I'm not fortunate enough to own any, but it's quite clear that they're all fabulous for different reasons, and any one of them could provide a real creative boost

[.a.t.]

. . .
1. Get a Canon 5D for 200 bucks. Totally doable. I can add a 50mm f/1.4 and get the full Canon experience that a lot of people are in love with.
12MP is plenty, I left the megapixel race a long time ago. And I know the ISO performance of the 5D is going to be worse than my K-S1 and no SR. But hey at least I'd get to shoot FF when I want to...

About six years ago I bought a 5D because I seriously wanted a 36x24 DSLR - primarily to use with my M42 and T mount lenses. I paid around $500 and have never regretted it.

. . .
My desire is not technical. It has to do with the shooting experience . . .

Same here. Many people don't understand the subjective appeal of full frame. Especially if the technology is many years old. But I knew what I wanted then, and I think you know what you want now. Your feelings don't have to be rational or make sense to others! (Unless your significant other says otherwise, perhaps?)

If there's an affordable choice for you, whichever camera it may be, I say absolutely you should give it a try. Full frame digital may not be what you hoped or expected (it might be even better! ), but you'll have gained some knowledge and a new experience.

. . .
The viewfinder makes the whole shooting experience so much more pleasurable than my APS-C cameras.
. . .

Indeed. My 5D's viewfinder isn't nearly as big or bright as a film SLR's VF, but it's much better than my Pentax APS-C.
For manual focusing, an EVF is really helpful. But I find OVFs more enjoyable to use and much easier on my eyes.

If you decide to go for a 5D, look for one that's had the mirror fixed since I believe Canon no longer supports or repairs the 5D: Canon Knowledge Base - Refer to service notice regarding the EOS 5D Main Mirror Detachment Issue

And when I was shopping for my 5D, I believe there was no way (for consumers) to verify the 5D's shutter count. If that's still the case, look for a forthright, original owner who can give you a good estimate of shutter clicks.

Or you could just take a chance on an ebay cheapie.
My 5D was low miles when I bought it, but it's been reliable and resilient for me. Build quality is very good and my camera has survived more than one (moderate) drop and continues to work as it should.

As I mentioned, my 5D is almost exclusively a manual focus camera. But I do own one EOS autofocus lens. It's the STM 50mm f/1.8.
The STM cost me $100 a couple years ago and I was able to buy it new from a shop about two miles from my home.
There are benefits to hitching your wagon to a behemoth!

For my snapshooting, the STM 50 is more than good enough: nice sharpness, colors, contrast and a short, .35m MFD. Alas, I've been un-pleasantly surprised at the lazy autofocus speed. And manual focusing the STM is possible, but difficult.

[ChristianRock]

All that said...

Based on my own experiences, unless you have a specific need for full frame (as I did and do for my Soviet lens collection), I truly think you'd be better off investing your money in additional glass for your APS-C platform. The DA21 you mention is a very fine lens - one of my favourites, actually. For that matter, any of the DA Limited primes is a joy. And the FA Limiteds... well, I'm not fortunate enough to own any, but it's quite clear that they're all fabulous for different reasons, and any one of them could provide a real creative boost

You make way too much sense, as always
I'm realizing I *do* have an itch for FF, but it's nothing urgent, really.
I'm thinking if I wait another year or two, prices are going to come down a lot now that Canon and Nikon are investing primarily in their new mirrorless mounts.
Who knows, Pentax might even release another full frame camera and K-1 used prices might go down to 500-600 dollars? One can but hope...

About six years ago I bought a 5D because I seriously wanted a 36x24 DSLR - primarily to use with my M42 and T mount lenses. I paid around $500 and have never regretted it.

I think they were around 300 dollars for as far back as I can remember... now in the last couple years they went down - but that might be some cameras that are at the end of their life...

Same here. Many people don't understand the subjective appeal of full frame. Especially if the technology is many years old. But I knew what I wanted then, and I think you know what you want now. Your feelings don't have to be rational or make sense to others! (Unless your significant other says otherwise, perhaps?)

If there's an affordable choice for you, whichever camera it may be, I say absolutely you should give it a try. Full frame digital may not be what you hoped or expected (it might be even better! ), but you'll have gained some knowledge and a new experience.

Ah, indeed... I do need to give it a try
I'm realizing it might not be in 2020 though... because I'm thinking I should probably do it properly and do it only when I can afford a K-1...

Indeed. My 5D's viewfinder isn't nearly as big or bright as a film SLR's VF, but it's much better than my Pentax APS-C.
For manual focusing, an EVF is really helpful. But I find OVFs more enjoyable to use and much easier on my eyes.

That brings an interesting question... what is the 5D viewfinder like compared to the K-1 viewfinder? Anyone know?

If you decide to go for a 5D, look for one that's had the mirror fixed since I believe Canon no longer supports or repairs the 5D: Canon Knowledge Base - Refer to service notice regarding the EOS 5D Main Mirror Detachment Issue

And when I was shopping for my 5D, I believe there was no way (for consumers) to verify the 5D's shutter count. If that's still the case, look for a forthright, original owner who can give you a good estimate of shutter clicks.

Or you could just take a chance on an ebay cheapie.
My 5D was low miles when I bought it, but it's been reliable and resilient for me. Build quality is very good and my camera has survived more than one (moderate) drop and continues to work as it should.

That is all great information, thanks a lot!

As I mentioned, my 5D is almost exclusively a manual focus camera. But I do own one EOS autofocus lens. It's the STM 50mm f/1.8.
The STM cost me $100 a couple years ago and I was able to buy it new from a shop about two miles from my home.
There are benefits to hitching your wagon to a behemoth!

For my snapshooting, the STM 50 is more than good enough: nice sharpness, colors, contrast and a short, .35m MFD. Alas, I've been un-pleasantly surprised at the lazy autofocus speed. And manual focusing the STM is possible, but difficult.

I looked into that lens. It can be had used for 50-60 dollars. I did think it was a bit generic, bland even,in its look... so I started looking at the EF 50 1.4. Much better.
But now I've been looking at the Sigma 50 1.4... even better! If I went the 5D route, I think I'd try go get this as my lens.

[BigDave]

What I like best about my K-1 over my K-7:

* Virtual anti-aliasing filter (to reduce/eliminate moire patterns in patterned sections of an image) like the K-3
* Long Exposure noise reduction routine (which you can turn OFF)
* Double Memory Card slots
* Lighted controls (great for low/no light photography)
* Articulated rear display (really, isn't this like a mirrorless then???)

Much of the rest I think is like the K-3, but not having a K-3 to compare it to, it is only a guess.

[reh321]

The reason why the Canon 5D is so cheap is that it's 15 years old. How much life does a 15 year old digital camera have before it gives up the ghost? Plus the Canon experience that a lot of people are in love with usually involves L lenses. The Canon 50/1.4 is not an L lens. It may be sharp, but in both rendering and colors, it's a bit on vanilla side of the spectrum. Any Pentax limited would cheerfully stomp all over it.

I love Canon EF lenses mainly for their mechanics - even as far back as 1995, when I switched from Pentax to Canon, they had their act together. In 2015 I switched back to Pentax because of my experiences with Canon bodies - in general I cannot imagine using a Canon with lenses from someone else ..... that seems backwards to me. Incidentally, the viewfinder on my {film} Pentax "Super Program", which I got in 1983, is still as good as the viewfinder on my {film} Canon "EOS Elan"; comparing two cameras of the same class, I believe the Pentax viewfinder is just as good as the Canon.

[ChristianRock]

So I think that at least for now, I've convinced myself that it would be silly to go FF with the older, cheaper body (5D) or the first-generation A7 (which would need adapted lenses, and the EVF that I'm not keen on).

I'll wait to go full frame when I can do it properly, meaning, when I can get a K-1. In the meantime, once I sell my lens surplus, I might try to upgrade the K-S1 to a KP. I think that would be the smart thing to do