[marmaduke]

You Tube

You Tube

[biz-engineer]

No doubt. I print the same size , 125dpi, from my K-3 (shot in good light, handheld ! and ISO100, f5.6, no pixel shift indeed), and even looking very close, I can't see any lack of sharpness.

[civiletti]

One pair of prints can suggest a relationship, but it hardly proves it. How do we know the Canon shot is well-focused, without movement, and optimally processed?

[Steve.Ledger]

One pair of prints can suggest a relationship, but it hardly proves it. How do we know the Canon shot is well-focused, without movement, and optimally processed?

You listen to the man. Ed is a long time pro who does a lots of research and testing so that we don't have to (follow his YT Channel, it's worthwhile).
He's a genuine guy so if he's impressed with something you can bet it's impressive.

[Qwntm]

One pair of prints can suggest a relationship, but it hardly proves it. How do we know the Canon shot is well-focused, without movement, and optimally processed?

Because I say so? With 30 years of professional experience to back up what I say? But you make up your own mind.


Don't worry, there won't be any more Canon 6D shots to compare to, but I'm making A LOT more BIG K3II pixel shift prints for next year. If it's not up to it, I'll be the first to tell you...


And of course, can you point us to anyone else who has spent the money to make the prints to compare these? It may be a test of one, but it's still s decisive WIN for Pentax K3II and pixel shift. It's not that the 6D print is THAT bad, it's just that the K3II PS print is THAT much better.




---------- Post added 10-09-15 at 09:55 PM ----------

You listen to the man. Ed is a long time pro who does a lots of research and testing so that we don't have to (follow his YT Channel, it's worthwhile).
He's a genuine guy so if he's impressed with something you can bet it's impressive.

Why thank you Steve. I always though I'd get on well in Australia, you guys all seem to be pretty genuine yourselves and I do appreciate that!

Yea, I'll put it to you this way: I got the 6D shot back and said to myself, there no way I'm selling THAT at an art show for $600 quid, it's not that bad but it's not $600 good either. That's why I thought I'd give the K3II with pixel shift a 2nd chance. And the result is, anyone want to buy a 16x48 fine art print? $600.00 includes shipping and they are numbered limited editions of 300 total. It's that good.


It is impressive!

[biz-engineer]

$600.00 includes shipping and they are numbered limited editions of 300 total. It's that good.

For $600, I don't buy your print, I buy a K-3II instead.

[civiletti]

Because I say so? With 30 years of professional experience to back up what I say?

That is not a very good answer. There is nothing personal in this. We make images with cameras and lenses and then compare them. It is a fine thing to do, but many factors can influence the end product. Making everything equal is not so simple. If we want to declare a particular camera outperforms another camera, we should explain how we tried to keep everything equal. If we skip that part, serious readers will discount our judgment.

[biz-engineer]

That is not a very good answer. There is nothing personal in this. We make images with cameras and lenses and then compare them. It is a fine thing to do, but many factors can influence the end product. Making everything equal is not so simple. If we want to declare a particular camera outperforms another camera, we should explain how we tried to keep everything equal. If we skip that part, serious readers will discount our judgment.

Well, pixel shift require the same (limited) conditions as panorama stitching. There are gigapixels panorama out there: http://www.in2white.com/ . Nobody need a demonstration to prove that the gigapixels images have more resolution than any camera whatever format it is. K-3II pixel shift may provide a tiny bit more sharpness and less noise compared to a single 24Mp FF shot , but the usage conditions are so restrictive that full frame is still the way to go. That being said, Ricoh needs to achieve some sales, especially since the Pentax full frame was delayed, and for some Pentaxians, the K3-II may be an option to play around with pixel shift before upgrading to a full frame camera.

[Rondec]

I thought some of the point of pixel shift was that it was supposed to improve color depth, dynamic range -- not just increase sharpness and resolution. You can see this with DXO Mark's camera, where they tested the "Super RAW" and color depth increased from 23 bits to 24.4 bits and the dynamic range increased from 12.6 EV to 13.3 EVs (DXO Mark doesn't test pixel shift on any camera but their own). Considering that the 6D isn't the best at low iso anyway, it wouldn't be suprising for the K3 II with pixel shift to be quite a bit better than it is.

[biz-engineer]

I thought some of the point of pixel shift was that it was supposed to improve color depth, dynamic range -- not just increase sharpness and resolution. You can see this with DXO Mark's camera, where they tested the "Super RAW" and color depth increased from 23 bits to 24.4 bits and the dynamic range increased from 12.6 EV to 13.3 EVs (DXO Mark doesn't test pixel shift on any camera but their own). Considering that the 6D isn't the best at low iso anyway, it wouldn't be suprising for the K3 II with pixel shift to be quite a bit better than it is.

Yes, pixel shift should also improve color depth and dynamic range. That can also be achieved by the stitching of stacked images. I tried a couple of times, and yeah, it delivers slick images, and it is cumbersome, so I seldom do it again. Pixel shift would be easier because the camera does everything for you.

[normhead]

One pair of prints can suggest a relationship, but it hardly proves it. How do we know the Canon shot is well-focused, without movement, and optimally processed?

Using every metric i can find, I've been saying the K-3 without pixel shift is better than the 6D since the K-3 came out. Imaging Resources images, MTF charts, comparisons of charts done with similar lenses on both cameras. Everything I could find has said the 6D can't keep up, except at perhaps a high enough ISO to make both images un-acceptable. So it isn't one pair of prints. There is a huge body of evidence suggesting this should be true. SO thank you to Ed for another nail in the coffin.

The only people upset by this are those full frame enthusiasts who have always said, any Full Frame image is better than any APS_c image. That was true when there were no high res APS_c images. now that some APS-c is higher res than some FF, it's pile of garbage, and technically it was obvious it was a pile of garbage right from the start. It was just a matter of time until APS_c went from 10 MP to 24 MP, and the FF advantage was gone.

So while I understand the reluctance to give Ed any credit here, personally I'm grateful. I knew this was the case, but I don't have an FF so i couldn't prove it. The guys who have FFs have been unwilling to provide samples, I suspect because they ran some simple tests and found things weren't as the thought and refused to man up. They do tend to be a bit cowardly in what they choose to present as fact.

SO Ed has actually taken the time to do side by side comparisons. My hat's off to you dude, I would have done it, but you did. Thanks man. Now bring on the statements like...

One pair of prints can suggest a relationship, but it hardly proves it. How do we know the Canon shot is well-focused, without movement, and optimally processed?

Cause hell produces no amount of spin like an FF enthusiast defending his choice. IN this case, the images produced exactly reproduce what you'd expect based on all the metrics out there, with the possible exception of DxO who shoot their test images under a single light bulb in their mom's windowless basement.

[rullrich]

Well, pixel shift require the same (limited) conditions as panorama stitching. There are gigapixels panorama out there: In2White . Nobody need a demonstration to prove that the gigapixels images have more resolution than any camera whatever format it is. K-3II pixel shift may provide a tiny bit more sharpness and less noise compared to a single 24Mp FF shot , but the usage conditions are so restrictive that full frame is still the way to go. That being said, Ricoh needs to achieve some sales, especially since the Pentax full frame was delayed, and for some Pentaxians, the K3-II may be an option to play around with pixel shift before upgrading to a full frame camera.

For whom is this the way to go? Really dislike such apodictic statements.

[biz-engineer]

For whom is this the way to go? Really dislike such apodictic statements.

I dislike looking at one feature of the camera and making conclusions by ignoring everything else. Since I'm not paid by Ricoh or whoever is in the camera business, I have no interest not to state the obvious. Perhaps dpreview is a better community for me, more open to any brand of camera. What I really dislike on PF is members who defends things to death and then sell their Pentax camera and buy a Nikon or Canon... does it make sense ?

[rullrich]

I dislike looking at one feature of the camera and making conclusions by ignoring everything else. Since I'm not paid by Ricoh or whoever is in the camera business, I have no interest not to state the obvious. Perhaps dpreview is a better community for me, more open to any brand of camera. What I really dislike on PF is members who defends things to death and then sell their Pentax camera and buy a Nikon or Canon... does it make sense ?

Well, it's a forum called PentaxForums so I don't thinks it's wrong concentrate on that said brand. But still I find people quite openminded. Did you realize that the comparison was done by a pro with 30 years of experience? Was this comparison made to distract people from FF? Not, it wasn't, it was to show people what's possible with a specific camera from a specific brand. But what people do first is to critize the methodolgy of the comparison itself and second cry for FF, as if it was the holy grail for everything. So don't tell me you mean this by "open". And by the way: nobody in this thread defends something to death, but if someone feels that arguments are only arguments and nothing else, than please provide some evidence, and please do it as a photographer, so that dummy amateurs like can follow your experience.

[Qwntm]

Well, pixel shift require the same (limited) conditions as panorama stitching. There are gigapixels panorama out there: In2White . Nobody need a demonstration to prove that the gigapixels images have more resolution than any camera whatever format it is. K-3II pixel shift may provide a tiny bit more sharpness and less noise compared to a single 24Mp FF shot , but the usage conditions are so restrictive that full frame is still the way to go. That being said, Ricoh needs to achieve some sales, especially since the Pentax full frame was delayed, and for some Pentaxians, the K3-II may be an option to play around with pixel shift before upgrading to a full frame camera.

Have you shot Pixel Shift images? Panorama stitching is a MUCH MORE cumbersome shooting regime at the point of creation and adds tremendously to the limitations of capture. Pixel shift on the other hand is not much more limiting than taking a time exposure. I can tell you right now, Full Frame is definitely NOT "still the way to go." Believe that if you want, but my commercial work right now is done with APS-c as a choice over Full Frame. (Pending Pentax's FF release TBD, but no promises things have to be a big improvement over what I'm getting now. Size weight and cost are considerations.)


AND, "a tiny bit more sharpness?" Try about double the megapixels sharpness. Or to put it another way, K3II Pixel Shift images are about the equal of D810 shots. That's not a "tiny bit." (And I have shot both and know both and know what to expect from both.)

---------- Post added 10-10-15 at 10:10 PM ----------

I dislike looking at one feature of the camera and making conclusions by ignoring everything else. Since I'm not paid by Ricoh or whoever is in the camera business, I have no interest not to state the obvious. Perhaps dpreview is a better community for me, more open to any brand of camera. What I really dislike on PF is members who defends things to death and then sell their Pentax camera and buy a Nikon or Canon... does it make sense ?

You seem to also dislike people that shot the D810, Shot the 5DM3, 6D and then CHOSE the Pentax over those to best accomplish their photographic goals. What have you shot, what experience do you have so that we may qualify your generalizations re: full frame uber alles...

---------- Post added 10-10-15 at 10:17 PM ----------

Well, it's a forum called PentaxForums so I don't thinks it's wrong concentrate on that said brand. But still I find people quite openminded. Did you realize that the comparison was done by a pro with 30 years of experience? Was this comparison made to distract people from FF? Not, it wasn't, it was to show people what's possible with a specific camera from a specific brand. But what people do first is to critize the methodolgy of the comparison itself and second cry for FF, as if it was the holy grail for everything. So don't tell me you mean this by "open". And by the way: nobody in this thread defends something to death, but if someone feels that arguments are only arguments and nothing else, than please provide some evidence, and please do it as a photographer, so that dummy amateurs like can follow your experience.

Yea, I'd also add to that that these 16x48's are over $100.00 each. You best KNOW I sent THE BEST IMAGE my professional FINE ART photographic experience could produce to the lab for both the 6D and K3II. I concede it's still a one off. That's why I said that I will know soon enough if the K3II is up to it and follow up on this. It's going to cost me about $1000 bucks to print what I need to print in the next few months and if the K3II isn't delivering the goods, I will find out and let you all know. But the take away here is: I'm ready to move forward based upon these preliminary results...


SO, I'm betting $1000 the K3II is capable.


I'd say that's putting your money where your mouth is. Anyone want to pay me $1000 bucks that it is capable? I'll pay you $1000 if it can't do the job. I thought so...

---------- Post added 10-10-15 at 10:20 PM ----------

For $600, I don't buy your print, I buy a K-3II instead.

Fine, I look forward to seeing your work!


I will post a schedule of Art Shows I'll be at in 2016, and maybe I'll see you at one.