[Rees]

Pentax, of course.

[ChristianRock]

So we're basically comparing a 780 dollar camera (K-3 II) that is actually the exact same image quality as its older 600 dollar incarnation (K-3). And the 6D is a 1400 dollar camera.

I would sure hope that the 6D is at least a little bit better when you consider 1400 vs 600 dollars for the body.

The fact is, until Pentax enters the FF arena, it does not have anything to compete in the 6D/D610/A7II price range. And the D750 can be had for just a bit more, so I would throw that in there as well as options for the OP. So, if the OP has at least over $1K to spend on lenses and about 1400-1700 to spend on a body, of course full frame should be considered. But I personally would probably go with a Nikon (D750 probably) over the Canon for sure. And I would have to be prepared to shell out some money for glass but the kit with the 24-120 would be a good place to start - though that lens distortion would probably drive me crazy. The 24-85 3.5-4.5 might be a better option - sharp and less distortion that is also easily fixed. Plus a 50 1.8 and 35 1.8. And then I know I'd want an 85 1.8 (need a portrait lens - 50 1.7 in APS-C is close enough and very cheap). And I would have to be prepared to carry around a bigger kit.

So, apples and oranges.

If I had around 1500 dollars total budget (for body + lenses) a K-3 (620) with DA 20-40 Limited (580) plus a DA 50 1.8 (93 dollars!) and 35 2.4 (110) would be really hard to beat and I'd still have money left for a bag and protective filters...

[normhead]

What, Dan? Are you just trying to shout every body down here.?

So we can listen to this guy, who actually went from Pentax to a 6D and then back to a K-3II, or we can listen to you. Notice he's owned both cameras, so don't try and play the "if you haven't tried it" schtick.)
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/305561-pixel-shift-k3-ii-t...-print-13.html

Since you own both cameras... are you going to post that quintessential comparison, K-3II vs 6D that is going to show use conclusively what you are talking about. You've actually done a lot less work than the guy above, he's actually printed, and compared results. What have you done? You've presented not a single comparison image to support your case.

Since we already have people who've gone from a 6D to a K-3II and I know landscape/wildlife photographers who've left Canon because of dynamic range, The fact that you discount the difference in DR at low ISO for landscape , makes me ask "what kind of photographer is that?" I'm just going to have to put this whole series of posts into the category of "this guy doesn't appreciate what I and pile of others appreciate." And given the lack of example photos showing the difference, I don't even know if you know what you think you know, or if the fact that you know which camera took which image means you are saying the 6D image is better, just to justify your purchase of a 6D.

You'd think a guy like you, if you had anything, would have a couple of images to prove your point. If I was going to make a series of posts like that, I would have done that before I launched into the rants.

This is what I tell everyone. Read everything you can find on a topic, evaluate the writer, go with the guy who is most like yourself. IN this case, two Pentaxians who have 6Ds, I'll go with Ed. He's more my kind of shooter and understands the kinds of values I understand. You, I have no idea what you're pimping. A picture is worth a thousand words. IN photography, where the same words can be used to describe different things, and different words can be used the same things, a picture isn't worth more than a thousand words, comparison pictures are the truth. Words are sad descriptions of the truth.

My conclusion after reading thorough this and looking at your sunlit valley, ya, you really don't appreciate DR. Your shadows are black and not very life like... since you seem to like that, you're a perfect candidate to be a Canon guy. Personally, I was taught and have followed the principal, go for maximum detail in landscapes, every where, highlights, shadows etc. that means maximum Dynamic Range, a 6D is pretty much irrelevant to my shooting, and many others as well. A 6D is just as good as a K-3 for landscape/wildlife.. in your opinion... and who are you that you think your opinion should matter to me?

If I'm going to switch camera systems, I want better for what I do, not the same, and I'm not even seeing "the same."

[boriscleto]

What, Dan? Are you just trying to shout every body down here.?

Who is Dan? Could you at least provide a quote so the conversation isn't so one sided?

[Dan Rentea]

So we're basically comparing a 780 dollar camera (K-3 II) that is actually the exact same image quality as its older 600 dollar incarnation (K-3). And the 6D is a 1400 dollar camera.

I would sure hope that the 6D is at least a little bit better when you consider 1400 vs 600 dollars for the body.

I paid 200$ more on Canon 6D due to a discount from my local dealer. Do you read all the comments, or just what you want to see?

And I would have to be prepared to shell out some money for glass but the kit with the 24-120 would be a good place to start - though that lens distortion would probably drive me crazy. The 24-85 3.5-4.5 might be a better option - sharp and less distortion that is also easily fixed. Plus a 50 1.8 and 35 1.8. And then I know I'd want an 85 1.8 (need a portrait lens - 50 1.7 in APS-C is close enough and very cheap). And I would have to be prepared to carry around a bigger kit.

Have you look on Pentax good lenses price? FA31mm, or DA*60-250mm costs as much as 35mm f1.4L lens (version 1) or Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM for example.

[osv]

Have you ever heard professionals photographers saying the magic words "ok, we saw the lab tests, now let's see how it handle in the real word"?

you are ignoring the lab tests.

real photographers don't do that.

So, basically we have DXO which say that OM-D has 73 points vs K-3 which has 80 points and we have DPreview were OM-D is in the same category as K-3 and has 84 points while K-3 has 83 points. But you don't have to trust what I'm saying, just read the reviews.

thanks for proving my point.

you clearly don't understand why those two things can't be compared to each other, it's apples and oranges, they don't belong in the same sentence.

Thanks for remind me about science courses, but I prefer real tests done in the field, by me.

you posted a random hdr photo?? how is that a "real test"

the fact that you brought an m4/3 camera into the conversation proves that you don't understand the basic concepts.

---------- Post added 11-16-15 at 10:35 AM ----------

Have you look on Pentax good lenses price? FA31mm, or DA*60-250mm costs as much as 35mm f1.4L lens (version 1) or Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM for example.

why do you keep posting false information?

fa31 is $862: Pentax smcP FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited Lens (Black) 20290 B&H Photo

35mm f1.4L is $1099: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Lens 2512A002 B&H Photo Video

[normhead]

Who is Dan? Could you at least provide a quote so the conversation isn't so one sided?

Dan Rentea
If I quote everything it will be over a page, just by itself.
The thread is only a couple pages long... you can't miss him.

[bertwert]

One thing I'd say guys. The OP never came back, he probably only read the first few posts. Then he might of bought a Canon or Pentax, one day he may return as an actual registered member of the forum. I wonder if the continuation of this discussion is doing anyone good.

[normhead]

you clearly don't understand why those two things can't be compared to each other, it's apples and oranges, they don't belong in the same sentence.

Or to state it a little more clearly....
Look into the data, the tests and the weighting used for the tests. If you don't understand why the test scores are different for different tests and weightings, you don't understand enough about the tests to use them. There is simply no test where you can bring up a single weighted score and say "this camera is better than that no one for what I do."

Even DxO who I rail against constantly, do good tests. I don't like the way they do their overall wighting, but if you look into their data, you find a pile of useful stuff there. None of these people are trying to deceive. They put the data out there, with their interpretation on it, but, that might not be the way you would interpret the data, it's up to you to understand what they said and put your own spin on it.

IN the case of DxO, what's different between me and DxO is I know people will tolerate a bit of noise in their photographs. DxO think a photo has to be pure noiseless colours like a painting. Thus their values of what is acceptable are way beneath mine. I'm just glad when I selling prints DxO isn't there telling folks how bad they are.

When I I compare any two cameras, I look for the things I do. High ISO performance? I don't care. High ISO shots are crap on every camera. I mean, what the heck are you supposed to say when someone says "look at this great high ISO image". I almost always think, "think how much better it would have been at low ISO." If I said that every time I thought it, I'd have said it a million times. K-3 images may be a little bit worse, but not much.

What I am waiting for is a camera with a base ISO, meaning, maximum dynamic range and resolution, at say 400 ISO. I'm interested in "where does the camera produce it's best image?", not where does it produce it's "good enough " image.

Base ISO Dynamic Range and Resolution are pretty much all I look at. I know even point and shoots are going to be clean at 100-200 ISO where I like to shoot. And that's the issue. What gives you the best dynamic range and resolution. They can go on and on about AF , tracking and everything else, I don't care. I will switch cameras for better Dynamic range and\or resolution, and I'm hoping the Pentax FF gives me both. Cameras like the 6D that give me neither, I'll just stick with my K-3, thanks but no thanks.

[Dan Rentea]

What, Dan? Are you just trying to shout every body down here.?

No, but as a member of this forum I think I have the right to express my opinion, based on the fact that I owned both cameras and I expect from other members from this forum some recommendations for the OP, based on their experience with both cameras.
I know it's not easy to deal with people from a dedicated forum, but if you buy tomorrow a Nikon a Canon, a Sony or whatever camera and after spending some time with both cameras (Pentax vs other camera) you realise that the other camera is better than Pentax and someone ask for recommendation (other camera vs Pentax) what do you do? You hesitate to recommend the other camera?

So we can listen to this guy, who actually went from Pentax to a 6D and then back to a K-3II, or we can listen to you. Notice he's owned both cameras, so don't try and play the "if you haven't tried it" schtick.)

As I said, for me a camera can do everything that I need. I don't buy Pentax K-3 II for landscape, Canon 6D for weddings and Nikon D4s for sports. For me a camera is or is not reliable. I attended a few weddings with K-5 II and K-3 II and for me both cameras were reliable.

Since you own both cameras... are you going to post that quintessential comparison, K-3II vs 6D that is going to show use conclusively what you are talking about. You've actually done a lot less work than the guy above, he's actually printed, and compared results. What have you done? You've presented not a single comparison image to support your case.

I did present one image on another topic where I show the difference in high ISO and just a few people admitted that I'm right.

Since we already have people who've gone from a 6D to a K-3II and I know landscape/wildlife photographers who've left Canon because of dynamic range, The fact that you discount the difference in DR at low ISO for landscape , makes me ask "what kind of photographer is that?" I'm just going to have to put this whole series of posts into the category of "this guy doesn't appreciate what I and pile of others appreciate." And given the lack of example photos showing the difference, I don't even know if you know what you think you know, or if the fact that you know which camera took which image means you are saying the 6D image is better, just to justify your purchase of a 6D.

You'd think a guy like you, if you had anything, would have a couple of images to prove your point. If I was going to make a series of posts like that, I would have done that before I launched into the rants.

This is what I tell everyone. Read everything you can find on a topic, evaluate the writer, go with the guy who is most like yourself. IN this case, two Pentaxians who have 6Ds, I'll go with Ed. He's more my kind of shooter and understands the kinds of values I understand. You, I have no idea what you're pimping. A picture is worth a thousand words. IN photography, where the same words can be used to describe different things, and different words can be used the same things, a picture isn't worth more than a thousand words, comparison pictures are the truth. Words are sad descriptions of the truth.

My conclusion after reading thorough this and looking at your sunlit valley, ya, you really don't appreciate DR. Your shadows are black and not very life like... since you seem to like that, you're a perfect candidate to be a Canon guy. Personally, I was taught and have followed the principal, go for maximum detail in landscapes, every where, highlights, shadows etc. that means maximum Dynamic Range, a 6D is pretty much irrelevant to my shooting, and many others as well. A 6D is just as good as a K-3 for landscape/wildlife.. in your opinion... and who are you that you think your opinion should matter to me?

If I'm going to switch camera systems, I want better for what I do, not the same, and I'm not even seeing "the same."

Would you feel better if I'm going to sell some of my images in the next few months and in the meantime I will open a youtube channel and start talk about Pentax, about how much I like their cameras (but because of the lack of lenses, poor service, without third party companies to support them) it will take some time until Pentax can compete for real with other brands?

I can also start jumping from Canon to Nikon, and then to Sony, after that I can go with Fuji and back to Pentax and post some reviews if that will help you to take me in consideration.

You don't have to like my photos, that's fine. I don't like Zack Arias photos despite he is a worldwide known photographer. We all have preferences. But I think you're confusing the words "amateur photographer" with "beginner photographer".

My father was quite a good photographer back on the film days and just because I'm not living from photography doesn't mean that I don't know anything about photography. I might surpise you...

An like I said, K-3 II can be reliable for weedings considering that there are a few photographers from this forum which shoots weedings with their Pentax cameras and are pleased with the results. But Ed said is not reliable and no one contradicts him. I did that and everybody puts me facing a wall and executes me.

Ok than, case closed from my point of view. If the OP wants to take into consideration my opinion, that's fine. He's the one who has to choose a camera.

[normhead]

Ok than, case closed from my point of view. If the OP wants to take into consideration my opinion, that's fine. He's the one who has to choose a camera.

Finally

---------- Post added 11-16-15 at 02:06 PM ----------

One thing I'd say guys. The OP never came back, he probably only read the first few posts. Then he might of bought a Canon or Pentax, one day he may return as an actual registered member of the forum. I wonder if the continuation of this discussion is doing anyone good.

People say what they think, other people say what they think about what they think.... that's just forum life.

[Dan Rentea]

why do you keep posting false information?

fa31 is $862: Pentax smcP FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited Lens (Black) 20290 B&H Photo

35mm f1.4L is $1099: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Lens 2512A002 B&H Photo Video

Is the OP live in USA?

Take a look at those images, from one of the largest store in south eastern Europe. Canon costs 80$ more.





---------- Post added 11-16-15 at 07:24 PM ----------

thanks for proving my point.

you clearly don't understand why those two things can't be compared to each other, it's apples and oranges, they don't belong in the same sentence.

Extras from DPreview on OM-D E-M1 camera. Based on what DPreview say and if I were you I might think that you are misleading the audience. It's easier to accuse me than read the reviews. But it's ok, I don't mind.

[ChristianRock]

I paid 200$ more on Canon 6D due to a discount from my local dealer. Do you read all the comments, or just what you want to see?

That was then, and 1. the OP doesn't have access to your local dealer, I assume, and 2. The OP will pay current prices, not the price you pay. Stop trolling.

Have you look on Pentax good lenses price? FA31mm, or DA*60-250mm costs as much as 35mm f1.4L lens (version 1) or Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM for example.

That has ZERO to do with what the OP has said - he wants one camera and one general use zoom.

Also, you are comparing apples with oranges in both lens comparisons.

[Dan Rentea]

That was then, and 1. the OP doesn't have access to your local dealer, I assume, and 2. The OP will pay current prices, not the price you pay. Stop trolling.

I may also assume that the OP doesn't have access to your local dealer. Fair enough?

And the extras from what the OP said in the first place "Economically speaking they are similar enough for me to go either way (although the Pentax would leave marginally more room for filters etc.)".


Like I said, just read all the comments, not just the ones you like.

[ChristianRock]

I may also assume that the OP doesn't have access to your local dealer. Fair enough?

I was quoting online prices. Everybody has access to that.

And I repeat. There's an apples and oranges comparison here because the prices are substantially different for the two setups.

And the extras from what the OP said in the first place "Economically speaking they are similar enough for me to go either way (although the Pentax would leave marginally more room for filters etc.)".

Like I said, just read all the comments, not just the ones you like.

I did read all the comments. And I was replying to the OP - not to you. But you took it personally like I was replying to your comments. I was not.

Finally, the 6D+24-105 is $2K. K-3II+16-85 is just over 1300 dollars at current Amazon prices. I don't find that to be "similar enough" but if the OP thinks 700 dollars is nothing, then he should just go and get the more expensive camera and be happy with it! Obviously the setup that costs over 50% more should have some sort of performance advantage. You would at least hope so...

Now IF the OP lives in a country where they cost basically the same, then obviously he should go for the Canon setup, because that means the Pentax is just way overpriced in that market and has no reason to even be there at those prices...