APSc or 35mm full frame??

I was referring more to its physical size.

The facility to use the K1 in crop mode for aps-c lenses is attractive, as at 15mp it is close to the 16 mp of my K50 so assuming the pixel sensitivity is better I shouldn't see a loss of IQ with those lenses. The K50 with its polycarbonate shell is considerably lighter and more compact than the K3 & K5 and with its lightweight 18-55 lens will be worth retaining for when that matters. The K1 will be good for optimum shots and low light so a good partnership I'm looking forward to.

Assuming that you see a cropped frame in the viewfinder...... Why would that be attractive? The K-3 is 0.95x magnification so 0.70x will be really tiny. 26% smaller,

It might be that they somehow change viewfinders?

--

The crop for APS-C is shown near the end of this video.
Good Luck using it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb2muPC8ZFE

--

I want one because "it's there"

My view is that the k1 is fantastic, not perfect for some but maybe for others, its a personal requirement thing

I will stick with apsc but give it a year or so maybe I will change mind.

My boy is 12, so my priorities are different to others but times and priorities will change so all I can say is right now apsc suits me but I am open to change

I love the idea of the k1 and may alter what I do to suit if I bought one

A few good videos on YouTube have addressed this issue. The key question being whether you need or just want a full-frame over an APS-C camera.

1) "Crop Sensors vs Full Frame: Crop Or Crap?" by Zack Arias; duration 14 min.. Zack asks the question and shows the relative size of sensors / film. Not Pentax specific.

2) "Pentax Full-frame Deep Thoughts" by Photo Universe; duration 15 min.. Some pre-release thoughts.

3) "Pentax Full Frame Reality Check" by Photo Universe; duration 20 min.. Another pre-release video which questioned whether Pentax should be making an FF camera since, to get any meaningful improvement in quality over APS-C (including in proportion to the weight gain), the 645Z is a better bet. Relevant points from about 7 mins. in.

HTH

Wouldn't call them 'good'.

I'd love a shiny new K1......and a new set of fully compatible lenses. And if I win the Lottery or Premium Bonds I'll get one along with a posher car and whatever my wife would like too. A world cruise perhaps?
But do I need one? Will my photography grind to halt without one? Will my pictures decline if I go on using the boring old K3, K5 and K30?
Nope.
It will no doubt have better image quality but then I'm happy with the IQ that my three regularly used cameras also give.
I can do A3 sized exhibition prints with the equipment I already own. Some have actually had the occasional award in international salons. My first digital camera was a Pentax IstDS, only 6mp, and I could manage acceptable A3 prints from that too.
So will I ever have a K1 or its updated successor. Not in the foreseeable future . But never say never.
David

Interesting, David.
I went to an exhibition of garden photographs this afternoon some of which were enlarged to poster size, other to A3ish. Details of equipment were usefully included. Most cameras were Canons and Nikons with 35mm sized sensors but there was a smattering of APSC Canon and Nikon shots and one taken with a Pentax K5ll. Without looking at the notes, you really couldn't tell which camera/sensor size was responsible for each picture. Yes, I know, if the pictures were identical, then you probably could tell, side by side. But even so...

I'd still like a K1, though.

I saw the photo set from Yosemite that David Eustace shot with a Lumix G3, totally awesome, I think if you give a great photographer a fair tool & your average amateur like me the most expensive camera you`d be buying the Eustace prints and not mine...

I find it difficult to watch Zack and suspect that he is merely plugging Fuji. His manner is just so juvenile, his level of debate facile.
I find Ed of photo universe confused, and since noticing the Trump poster on his wall I have lost faith in his judgement. He is not redeemed by either the Saltire or Rugby shirt.

For a more informed discussion on the K-1 and APS-C vs FF debate, I prefer to listen to Tony Northrup. Some may find his presentation too slick or commercial, but I prefer that to the alternatives above. He has also done a nice preview of the 645Z and reviewed K-S2.

As for the arguments, well, I have drawn my own conclusions. There are distinct benefits to both sensor sizes so I will, when I can afford it, purchase a K-1 and retain K-3ii or K-S2 or if I am short of cash, then let these go and keep the K-5. Nice thing is that they K-1 and K-Others can share so many lenses.

I find this guy like an androgynous alien, so I'm mostly watching for his wife Chelsea.

Ed from photouniverse just reminds me of a paranoid conspiracy theory guy living in tin foil hats so the government and ufo's can't read his mind. Can't listen to his ramblings.

And agree on Zack for Fuji and there's another I'll think of in a moment from Sony too. Far to sponsored to be taken seriously in isolation from that fact.

My own thoughts are:

We haven't seen a dramatic development in CMOS sensor tech in the last 5 years or so. At this point all cameras are pretty good, and the tech has matured a lot to make the most of the sensors. To that end it's very difficult to find a bad camera these days. Seriously in good lighting levels most cameras are good enough for most purposes now, and that even includes cell phones really, given they're less phones and more multipurpose electronic devices now.

So to that end, you have to really look for a reason to pick a sensor over another, and this decision needs to be based on the image you're trying to achieve. There's a real 'real world' output vs tech pixel peeping debate here to some degree. Large sensors do have some benefits, but they may not suit your needs. Typically the biggest difference is that it's easier to do wide angled shooting on a FF and easier to do distant zoomage on APS-C. And by easier I probably mean costs less money.

You're talking really big lenses and money to do birding etc on a FF, and likewise to do real estate wide angled shots on an APS-C body.

There's the hope that low light performance is better, although in practise, pixel density wise, there's often not a lot in it in this respect. In general terms though, you'll find better low light ability in your APS-C DSLR than your phone sensor, and typically this continues up the sensor size train.

You've also go that narrower depth of field happening as you're closer to your subject for a given field of view. That look of subject to background separation may be just what you're after for portraits etc.

Sorry, bit of a rant here, but to pull it all back to a single thought: It's no longer a case of having to move up sensor size to become more pro etc. There are good cameras at each sensor size and it's a case of picking the tool for the job.

My main interest in the Pentax K-1 would be how the camera performs in northern lights photography and also landscape, thus the wide angle lens choices are important. Besides the very expensive D-FA 15-30/2.8, what wide angle options are there for Pentax fullframe? Well, there is the Samyang 14/2.8, the A20/2.8, the FA20/2.8 and FA*24/2.0 and also the FA20-35/2.8 zoom. Maybe the K18/3.5 could also be a viable candidate? I owned the K15/3.5 some years ago, and was not impressed with this lens' performance on aps-c, so I cannot imagine the K or A15/3.5 will be especially good performers on the K-1. Based on user experience with the Samyang 14/2.8 on Nikon and Canon fullframe, this is a brilliant lens for astro and northern lights, although I am uncertain how suitable it is as a dedicated landscape lens? This boils down to that there are not all that many viable wide angle options for the K-1, the most obvious candidate the D-FA 15-30/2.8. I am very interested in seeing a comparison between the K-1 + D-FA 15-30/2.8 and K-5iis (or K-3) + DA12-24/4. The fullframe combo needs to be much better in all respects to justify the high costs involved in upgrading.

The FA20-35 is f/4 not f/2.8 - for me this is a better range than 15-30. How well the 20, 24 & 20-35 perform will be interesting. I chose the 20-35 over the FA20 & FA24 as I couldn't decide which focal length to go for (they were both expensive and hard to find and I couldn't justify them both). 20mm is plenty wide enough for me. I do have a K 17mm Fish Eye and have tested the DA10-17 FE on film - it seems OK @17mm (not sure which apertures though).

For me, size/weight are less important (I also us a P67) - you can usually leave something out of the bag (battery grip, filters you won't use etc.) to reduce weight. As I wear glasses, a high finder magnification causes me problems seeing the corners of the frame.

Over the last year or so I've been building a collection of FA lenses, I want the K-1 to get my focal lengths back and to get shallower DoF but will be keeping the K-5, LX and P67s.

John.