|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-25-2017, 03:35 AM
|
| |
APS-C is more than enough for most of us. Frankly, I don't need a full frame camera. My wife does shoot weddings and so she probably does (and she paid for it with those funds). Give me a nice APS-C camera and a DA 15 limited and I will be pretty happy. But if you own full frame compatible lenses there is often a feeling in the back of your mind that you would like to try them out the "way they were originally intended to be shot."
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-25-2017, 02:51 AM
|
| |
I shoot with a K3 and K-1 both and the K-1 feels like an upgrade over the K3 for what I shoot (landscapes mostly). There is no perfect camera out there, every one of them is a compromise in one way or another.
I don't really want to bring equivalency into it, but there isn't anything like a 15-30 f2.8 for APS-C. The closest is the 12-24 f4. Same with the 31 f1.8 or 35 f1.4 (I think there is a Sigma 20mm f1.8). These are faster lenses than are available for APS-C and one of the side effects of them being faster is that you can shoot with shallower depth of field, if you want to.
Regardless, the OP is weighing the option of spending more money on a full frame camera over what he shoots with currently and there are certainly arguments on both sides, but if you want a K-1 and have the funds for it, it is reasonable to get one.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-24-2017, 02:01 PM
|
| |
It is an upgrade if you shoot with wider angles a lot and/or like narrow depth of field photography.
I seldom shoot longer than my FA 77 limited on the K-1, although I do own a 70-200 for those occasions I want to use it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-24-2017, 03:01 AM
|
| |
The OP owns a FA 31, 50mm full frame lens and 100 macro full frame lens. He doesn't shoot a lot of telephoto (I'm putting words in his mouth). I could easily shoot with that lens line up, assuming I got a normal zoom (like the 28-105) and not really need a whole lot else. I really don't think the lens costs of going full frame would have to be really high (although I don't know what the 28-105 or Tamron 28-75 cost in Sweden).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-23-2017, 03:54 AM
|
| |
It is awfully easy to spend someone else's money. I guess I would lean towards telling you to get a K-1. It is a little bigger, but not a huge amount and I lug mine everywhere I would have taken a K3/K5 II.
For me, the pros are (in no particular order) better viewfinder, more resolution, more dynamic range, better high iso, better wide angles (there is nothing close to the 15-30 zoom or the 12/14 mm primes available from 3rd parties for APS-C), and ability to shoot shallower depth of field. Cons are slower burst rate, telephoto is not as available, and buffer that fills up really quickly.
I do think you would eventually need a normal zoom for walk around stuff. The 28-105 or the Tamron 28-78 f2.8 both would be reasonably priced options that would do pretty well, but I just think planning to shoot long term with the 16-85 in crop mode probably isn't a good plan.
Full frame isn't a panacea. For the most part, you will end up with similar photos to those you take now, albeit with more resolution and maybe a little more sharpness. Depth of field is something you watch. I shot f8 for landscapes on APS-C and I am usually at f11 or f14 on a K-1 or I don't have adequate depth of field. But that is something you learn.
Good luck!
|
