[Nicolas06]

I did some testing today... tripods set up maybe 2 feet apart both in the blind, taken at approximately the same time.....

One taken with the K-3 and DA*200 ƒ2.8
One taken with the K-1 and Tamron SP AF 300 f2.8

To normalize DoF, the K-3 was shot at ƒ5.6 and 400 ISO
The K-1 was shot at ƒ8 and 800 ISO

The surprise from that was the K-3 had better noise and contrast.+

I don't get what photo is supposed to be what camera, but for both, I prefer the firt one. There a bit more dof (or maybe different focus???) on the second one, particularly visible on the crop and there seems to be more sharpening too. I think overall the exposure is slightly different and that may explain a good part of the difference. The second set is darker.


Other than that, FF vs APSC is 1.3 stop difference comming from the sensor size looking at full photos. That's what theory says.

But you closed down one stop more for the FF so in the end, there only 0.3 stop difference, theoretically. Noise is still much lower on the first set, I don't know if that supposed to be K1 or K3 but the most obvious difference is the overall exposure and constrast is lower on the second one.

For the 100% crop, there no longer as much difference because you look pixel per pixel, so that come only from photosite size. K3 one are a bit smaller so there basically 0.2 stop difference in favor or K1. But because you used 800 iso vs 400 iso, the FF get penalized by 0.8 stop on a 100% crop so in theory it should look worse.

The FF gain for high iso is made at the expense of smaller dof. This is just how it is.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-12-2016 at 01:21 PM.

[biz-engineer]

I only wish my photo of the real wood duck, came out as great as the photo of the decoy!

Do you use a wood dUck for training?

---------- Post added 12-10-16 at 21:22 ----------

To normalize DoF, the K-3 was shot at ƒ5.6 and 400 ISO The K-1 was shot at ƒ8 and 800 ISO

Yes that's a norm - alized comparison. Usually, I don't push the ISO for the purpose of norm-alizing. Practically, I set my camera at the setting it delivers the best image quality, and if the background is blurred and my lens allows f5.6, I use F5.6 and not F8. When seeing a photo, did anyone first question was "did you normalized it?".

---------- Post added 12-10-16 at 21:27 ----------

DA55-300 @ 300mm, K3

On those uniform color photos, you can boost the contrast a bit more (also, I believe the 55-300 contrast is a bit low relative to more expensive glass). That would render better.

---------- Post added 12-10-16 at 21:29 ----------

The K-3 produced more subject magnification and a cleaner image and more vibrant colour. Not what I expected.

I can see which one has more contrast and is sharper, it's the one from the K3 over-sharpened in post.

[Nicolas06]

DA55-300, @300mm, K3

[Nicolas06]

On those uniform color photos, you can boost the contrast a bit more (also, I believe the 55-300 contrast is a bit low relative to more expensive glass). That would render better.

Thanks for the tip !

[normhead]

But you closed down one stop more for the FF so in the end, there only 0.3 stop difference, theoretically. Noise is still much lower on the first set, I don't know if that supposed to be K1 or K3 but the most obvious difference is the overall exposure and constrast is lower on the second one.

There is about one stop more DOF on APS-c, you need to stop down one stop to normalize the DoF. The top images is the K-3, which you will notice, the subject is bigger than the k-1 images and hence more detail. Also the colour is better on the K-3 image. And for some reason, the noise is worse on the K-1 image, even though I have shot good images up to 3200 in the K-1, in this test, something else is happening. Something un-anticipated by all the theoretical hot shots on the forum.

[onlineflyer]

OK, so it's only one test... but, so far in my testing.... 1 for the K-3 as a birding camera, 0 for the K-1.

That's good to see since I just picked up a K-3 from the marketplace. Now awaiting delivery. I might add, regardless of what camera I use, I'll never be as good as the folks who post on this thread.

[Driline]

That's good to see since I just picked up a K-3 from the marketplace. Now awaiting delivery. I might add, regardless of what camera I use, I'll never be as good as the folks who post on this thread.

You haven't seen Drilines pictures then. Could have been taken by a 6 year old.

[onlineflyer]

You haven't seen Drilines pictures then. Could have been taken by a 6 year old.

I'll see you and raise you!

[gifthorse]

Wouldn't you love to get your hands on the person who put the "i" right next to the "u" on the keyboard? Anyway....
Sigma 150-500 on a K5ii

And I suppose this is as good a time as any to ask ....This is a 300mm-plus club and the lens is a 150mm to 500mm. Is anyone particularly offended that the lens was actually at 230mm?

[normhead]

I don't think anyone is ever offended by anything in here, except for maybe loud farts. Technically, it's a 300 plus club, so even 300mm lenses shouldn't qualify, but part of the discussion is how we handle long heavy glass, so your 150-500 fits right in. I have often posted images with my 60-250, some as low as 180.

I notice when the K-1 came out no one thought to change it to "300 on APS-c or 450 plus K-1." After all, 300 on an FF is what? Maybe 200 APS_c? That would mean on APS-c anything over 200 should qualify...

[BrianR]

"300mm plus" under common use I've seen would include 300mm, at least that's how it's used for age groups (55+ includes 55 year olds, etc). Also, Google has a page in Google+, it's not just entities strictly better than Google.

Although, there would be something special about the original post being off-topic, so I'd agree it should be strictly greater than 300mm to enable that conundrum. Not that the OP probably cares, having been gone for 5+ years (it's interesting how long this thread has been running without the OP!).

Also, I should include a photo to stay on topic, or off topic, or whatever a DA*300mm on APS-C will get me:



I can say the DA*300+k5iis handles nicely when up to my armpits in water.

[rkappleby]

If you go right back to the start of this club it was originally the F/FA 300mm club and it was then expanded to the 300+ so I think it really would be pretty tough to say that 300mm lenses don't conform. And who cares about a few millimetres here and there among friends

[derekkite]

Norm, why do you normalize the fstop for DOF? The physical measure of the depth of field is the same on both sensors, what changes is the relative DOF in the field of view. If your bird is in focus, the depth of the subject, no need to close the aperture.

[biz-engineer]

you need to stop down one stop to normalize the DoF.

The GH4 with 100-400 would be perfect for you.

To make sure you have the same noise on the K1 as on K3, just increase the ISO 2 stop on the K1.

[Nicolas06]

I guess it is best to stick to 300mm and more. So yeah FF picture this is really 200mm minimum. Not a big deal. But I avoid myself to post here photos from my 55-300 that are not 300mm. This way if we have only signifcantl telephoto lenses this really a category and is informative.

What is nice also is in particular if you are not fully in the subject, is that you write it explicitely like "150-500, @200mm on K3" or something like that. Not only it give information of the lens/body and what fantastic pictures you can get with it, but it help understand the type of picture too.