KF v Full Frame

As a hobby photographer, what real benefit of buying a DSLR Full Frame Pentax over KF, K20D & Film MZ50 ME Super which are display only, all of which i have.

For me the 2 big benefits are firstly that you can use Full Frame lenses in the way they were intended (great if you have a large selection of lenses from film days) and secondly the ability to crop significant portions of the image without notable loss of quality.

Their are of course downsides, the slightly increased weight and size (which may be noticeable as you age).

Thanks for your view, Yes i have a number of lenses from my film days , the reason i got the kf for less weight and bulk to carry around,

As an addendum to LennyBloke's info....

Full frame DSLR's are usually at the higher end of model ranges. Thus they tend to produce much better images. With better noise control, better metering, better colour rendition, and better definition. Drawback is cost, not just interns of body price, but also lens cost. This is especially so, if most of your lenses are for a cropped sensor.

I have recently got a full frame DSLR, from another manufacturer, and it has thrown me back 30 years to my 35mm film days. I am loving it!

I now want a Pentax K1, and by the gods, I will get one!!! (Luckily I have plenty of full frame lenses)

It's a question I've asked myself once or twice since the K1 came out. I've stayed with APS-C for several reasons, which might or might not be relevant to you, for example:
- Weight and size. I'm not getting any younger or fitter...
- Type of photography. I've increasingly been wanting more and more magnification, both for close-up/macro and things at long distance. The crop factor of an APS-C sensor helps here. If you tend to go for the wider view then full frame might be more attractive.
- How the photograph will be viewed. A full frame camera might well give better image quality, more accurate colours etc. , but as I was mainly going to view photos as images on a screen then would I really see a noticeable difference? I decided that the answer was no. However, if I were wanting A3 prints for hanging on a wall...

In the end, though, as a hobby photographer the real benefit you'd get from a full frame camera is that you'd no longer have to live with a nagging doubt that you might be missing out on something really good. After all, a hobby is mainly about being happy .

Steve

Steve,

The crop on FF will still give you the same image as a cropped sensor.



But....

Can understand the weight thing. It's like having a bolder hanging off your shoulder

K3 next to a 5D MkII

Yes, but not as many pixels for sensors of the same technology and generation. Crop the K1 ii sensor to APS-C leaves about 16 Mpx, the K3 line has about 25 Mpx. It's a trade-off between number and size of pixels, with implications for resulution, noise, colour accuracy etc. My simple view of life is to make a choice, stop worrying about whether you've chosen the best, take photographs and enjoy yourself .

Steve

I disagree entirely with the 'downside' of FF lenses costing a lot of money - OK brand new ones, perhaps but there is a huge collection of (for example) Soviet glass out there that is very affordable and very very good. AND you can use them to advantage on your crop frame cameras. Some classics like Flektogons, Trioplans, 85mm and 20mm offerings do cost a bomb (but so does a Pentax DA*300, which will halve its value the second the postman delivers it !).

Just to follow up dadidwozhere's point about cost of FF lenses. The prices of new, latest generation, Pentax FF and APS-C lenses with similar fields of view are much the same. Examples (full prices): DA 11-18mm f2.8 (APS-C) £1,199, D-FA 15-30mm f2.8 (FF) £1,629 so APS-C is a bit cheaper; DA 16-50mm f2.8 (APS-C) £1,349, D-FA 24-70mm f2.8 £1,179 so FF is a bit cheaper. So if you prefer buying new (and can afford it!), lens price shouldn't be a factor in whether to go FF or APS-C. Used prices are, of course, a completely different matter, being determined by demand, supply, desirability, latest fad etc.

I'll also second the point about using old glass to advantage on crop frame cameras. A couple of my old film-era zooms that weren't exactly brilliant with film turned out to be better than expected on APS-C because the sensor was only using the centre of the image circle where IQ was best. Looked at the other way round, though, an old lens which you like on APS-C might disappoint on FF.

Steve

It's an interesting debate and one that will continue for as long as there are different sensor sizes.
My take.....
All my digital cameras are APS-C. I mainly shoot with the compact KP which I really enjoy, a pleasure to have with me, over my shoulder all day.
As others here are I'm sure, I was a member of a very active camera club with approx. 60 members shooting all sorts of cameras from 4/3, APS-C, FF? and medium format. Looking at hundreds, probably thousands of images both printed at A3 and projected with a high quality high definition projector my take away was, as long as the author had captured an image well and processed the image with skill and knowledge never ever, ever could you tell what size sensor was used to capture the image, it just was never a deciding factor it what where the best images and what were the also rans. Far more important was the skill of the photographer, the light, the scene captured, the mood, the very essence of the image are far, far more important factors.
Now, I'm not denying that there are in certain circumstances technical image quality advantages to using larger sensor sizes in cameras. What I am saying is within most normal photography your unlikely to hit that buffer where the larger sensor would have saved an image or made it significantly better when viewed within normal parameters.
Me, I'm very happy staying smaller and lighter with great image quality, that for me is APS-C.
PS. Lens choice and settings make a bigger difference

Thanks for all your contributions, Nigel k analogy is what my mind was telling me , very interesting from all comments thank you