[rawr]

While we APS-C users anguish about the mega impressive DxOMark's for the latest FF Nikon's, I got to thinking about all our 'poor' Micro 4/3 friends, who have cameras that rate nowhere near the D600, and never could.

But do they care that their cameras don't have a DxO Low-light score of anywhere near 1000, let alone 2800, for example? Probably not. They got their cameras for different reasons over why folks may choose a D600 or even K-5, but they still have access to good lenses and bodies and can usually still get quality results no matter what shooting style they prefer, even low-light (due to fast-glass, image stabilisation, good NR, lighter bodies etc).

And I don't think there are too many Panasonic m4/3 users thinking ' I wish Panasonic made a full-size FF like the D600'. A lot of camera use is horses for courses.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Laurentiu,

I following the link, but couldn't find the DXO document. The link took me to the top of your site.
Do you have a more direct link. Thank you for taking the time to educate me.

update: just found it using search

The link was for my explanations. The dxomark "about" section is easily found at the top of their site - you don't need to search for it.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

As I said somewhere else, it is worth noting that the D600's DxO numbers for dynamic range equal that of the K-5, the color-depth numbers are only 5% apart, and the low-light ISO numbers are only 1-1.5 stops different.

Before everyone slashes their wrists about the D600's DxO score, FF, Pentax, etc, while the D600 is an impressive beast, the DxOMark score reveals that the differences between it and a fine camera like the K-5 aren't exactly night-and-day.

You are missing a couple of points:

1. A 1 bit difference in color depth means that you can record twice the number of color hues. The difference between D600 and K-5 is 1.4 bits. You don't compare them in percentages.
2. The more than 1 stop difference is significant. For reference, consider that the K-5 provides less than 1 stop improvement compared to the K20D, but it is held as a phenomenal advance in APS-C technology. The K-7 was derided for a much smaller difference compared to the K20D.

[illdefined]

While we APS-C users anguish about the mega impressive DxOMark's for the latest FF Nikon's, I got to thinking about all our 'poor' Micro 4/3 friends, who have cameras that rate nowhere near the D600, and never could.

But do they care that their cameras don't have a DxO Low-light score of anywhere near 1000, let alone 2800, for example? Probably not. They got their cameras for different reasons over why folks may choose a D600 or even K-5, but they still have access to good lenses and bodies and can usually still get quality results no matter what shooting style they prefer, even low-light (due to fast-glass, image stabilisation, good NR, lighter bodies etc).

And I don't think there are too many Panasonic m4/3 users thinking ' I wish Panasonic made a full-size FF like the D600'. A lot of camera use is horses for courses.

Wait until DxO rates the sensor in the OM-D EM-5 and new PENs.. it's going to be close enough to make your K5 uncomfortable. it's also a Sony sensor, newer than the one in the K5...

That's why the K5II should've have gone 24mp (the K30 is already 16mp), the 24mp sensor is well rated and Pentax really needs to push whatever IQ advantage APS-C has left.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 09-20-2012 at 02:35 PM.

[TomTextura]

Those scores do look damn good. I hope we get to see either the D600 or D800 sensor in a Pentax camera after not too long.

[JinDesu]

Wait until DxO rates the sensor in the OM-D EM-5 and new PENs.. it's going to be close enough to make your K5 uncomfortable. it's also a Sony sensor, newer than the one in the K5...

That's why the K5II should've have gone 24mp (the K30 is already 16mp), the 24mp sensor is well rated and Pentax really needs to push whatever IQ advantage APS-C has left.

Except going to 24mp may likely weaken noise performance. The k-5 sensor, if extrapolated to full frame, is the D800 sensor. If the D800 is the pinnacle of FF right now, and the Sony 24mp hasn't beaten the k-5 sensor, I think the k-5 is pretty good for now.

[PPPPPP42]

Consider for a moment what Pentax has managed to do under the incompetent leadership and complete lack of budget Hoya gave them.

They only got the scraps from the sensor table after everyone else had eaten, and the entire 3rd party world barely considers them an after thought.

Out of that we got the K5, which though it had several key flaws was able to keep up with just about anything out there. The K5II fixed as many of those flaws as was possible without redeveloping the whole system (flashes ect.) It was a cheap stop gap measure to be sure, because Hoya obviously didn't have anything worthwhile in the works for either full size APSC cameras or FF that Ricoh could use and they didn't want to just fling out some half assed upgrade until they get the major problems in the system worked out. Cramming a better sensor into the K5II would have fixed all the problems it didn't have while leaving all the ones it did.

What Pentax absolutely shouldn't do under any circumstances is attempt to compete with the top pro level Nikon and Canon offerings, there is simply no market for another player that doesn't have the system and 3rd party for it to back it up.
They may have a shot at taking on the D800 at the $3k mark if they get their AF points and flash sorted out.
What they really need is a FF that is priced at the level of the D600 with at least all the features and abilities of the K30 and K5II combined (which I think is what the D600 is anyways perhaps minus WR). At that price they will convince people like me who are sitting on a bunch of FF glass with a crappy APSC body to spend the extra cash. The difference between a $2000 FF and a $3000 FF is the difference between yes and no, no matter how great it is. I could be happy for 100 years with a K5II level image with the cropped part added back on so my lenses work right again. They have been building FF gear since about 6 BC so its no real stretch to update the FA line and simply make the K5II bigger to accommodate the larger sensor.

[twitch]

The D600 is actualy weather sealed

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Consider for a moment what Pentax has managed to do under the incompetent leadership and complete lack of budget Hoya gave them.

That is the most depressing part, because under Hoya, Pentax released the K-7 and the 645D, which are historical milestone products. The K-5 was a refinement, but it put them in the top of the APS-C dxomark ranking. And the Q was not well received on PF, but even today at photokina it draws attention. Now we're more than one year under Ricoh ownership and they only put out weird or mediocre products. I don't know what Ricoh had in mind, but I would have felt better if they would have picked their product releases more carefully rather than letting everything that Pentax had draft plans for go to market whether or not there is a point or future in it.

And why is Hoya called incompetent? They have done nothing wrong and given that they didn't even had an interest in the Pentax camera division to begin with, I would say that their management was considerate and effective. Ricoh has yet to make their influence seen in any positive way on any Pentax product and I feel that their lack of say in the products released this past year was a sign of bad management. Hoya has kept Pentax look interesting long enough to sell it to Ricoh, but what Ricoh intends to do with Pentax is still not clear.

[Rondec]

That is the most depressing part, because under Hoya, Pentax released the K-7 and the 645D, which are historical milestone products. The K-5 was a refinement, but it put them in the top of the APS-C dxomark ranking. And the Q was not well received on PF, but even today at photokina it draws attention. Now we're more than one year under Ricoh ownership and they only put out weird or mediocre products. I don't know what Ricoh had in mind, but I would have felt better if they would have picked their product releases more carefully rather than letting everything that Pentax had draft plans for go to market whether or not there is a point or future in it.

And why is Hoya called incompetent? They have done nothing wrong and given that they didn't even had an interest in the Pentax camera division to begin with, I would say that their management was considerate and effective. Ricoh has yet to make their influence seen in any positive way on any Pentax product and I feel that their lack of say in the products released this past year was a sign of bad management. Hoya has kept Pentax look interesting long enough to sell it to Ricoh, but what Ricoh intends to do with Pentax is still not clear.

Hoya did a number of things wrong. First of all, they all but stopped releasing new lenses. Most of the "new" lenses they did release were designed prior to Hoya taking over or, were actually just sealed versions of existing lenses. Second, they laid off a significant portion of their work force. This included legendary lens designer Jun Hirakawa. So, when it came time to design a lens like the 18-135, the resulting design did not impress much. Third, they cut back significantly on quality control. There just ended up being significantly higher rates of problems with cameras like the K5 than with preceding cameras. Finally, they didn't seem to invest in R and D. My K5 has the same basic auto focus system (with some tweaks) that was in my K100.

If Ricoh makes a wise investment, I think we will see new products coming down the road, but it is a testament to how bare Hoya left the cupboard that they haven't been able to green-light more things. There isn't even a sequel to the 645D yet...

[newmikey]

Absolutely lovely piece of machinery. A pity it is full-frame and not APS-C (yes, I love to go against the running sentiments)

Some sidenotes on the precise measurements of DXO. One thing that jumped out at me was the fact that the advertised ISO of the D600 differs greatly from the ISO values actually measured.

Setting the K-5 to ISO3200 delivers an actual measured ISO of 2864. With the D600 you seem to only get 2355. At ISO12800 you'd get 11633 on a K-5 but only 9534 on the D600. I understand there can be differences but 25% and more under the required setting seems a bit hard to swallow. So where you'd think the D600 was that much better on noise than the K-5 at any specific ISO rating, you would actually have to compare the noise of the K-5 at a considerably lower setting in order for the comparison to remain true and actual.

Dynamic range at base ISO is actually almost equal between the two (14.12 for the K-5 vs. 14.24 for the D600) but there certainly IS a noticeable difference of ca. 7% at higher ISOs until ISO25600 (a measured 19015 - not often used I freely admit). The difference could be a whole lot more if you'd be comparing apples to apples. As things stand, the K-5 holds its own very well against the D600 considering the difference sensor size.

The D600 scores highly on tonal range against the K-5 which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. However, to put things into perspective, the difference seems to be around one full stop so some maneuvering with ISO and lower shutterspeeds on the K-5 is an effective way to cushion the difference. As an example: the tonal range of the D600 exceeds that of the K-5 at base ISO but bumping the K-5 to ISO160 and things are equal again. Same at ISO1600 against the K-5 at ISO3200. Considering the K-5 has effective stabilization on board where the Nikon has none and stabilization should count, even carefully estimated, for a 2-stops advantage, the differences between the 2 begin to get very fuzzy. At almost 3 times the price of the K-5 legacy or twice that of the new K-5 II, that doesn't actually blow my socks off.

Then on to actual usability specs. As a convicted bracketer and HDR addict, I find the 3-shot limit a bit, ahem, limiting against the 5 of the K-5 (what's in a name). I've also seen a few other bits and pieces that just seem more useful on the K-5 which after all was a top model as opposed to the D600 which is at the bottom of its foodchain.

Just looking at sheer numbers may be quite deceptive in this case. As an APS-C camera, the D600 would be nothing short of revolutionary, as a full frame camera it's pretty good but in- and by- itself not sufficient to bury the K-5 and start funeral services.

[TOUGEFC]

As a convicted bracketer and HDR addict, I find the 3-shot limit a bit, ahem, limiting against the 5 of the K-5 (what's in a name

FWIW, the D700 and D800 can do a 9-shot bracket (in 1/3,1/2, 2/3 or full stops)

The D600 is an awesome camera, but there is no denying that it does lack a few hardware and software features or the higher end models.

[PPPPPP42]

The fact that we are comparing Nikons bottom cheapie FF model with Pentax's top overall model (645D is off in its own place) and it holds up against the K5II with the exception of things that were deliberately left to the better Nikon FF's is the more troubling part.

Just more proof the the K5II is the worlds best camera of last year and is just keeping us fed until next year.

But I'm still convinced that Ricoh is holding off spitting out any more genuinely new bodies until they get the few fundamental problems sorted. We woulda seen a K5 level camera with full K30 technology at photokina if something better wasn't intended to replace the K5II that just isn't ready yet.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Hoya did a number of things wrong. First of all, they all but stopped releasing new lenses. Most of the "new" lenses they did release were designed prior to Hoya taking over or, were actually just sealed versions of existing lenses. Second, they laid off a significant portion of their work force. This included legendary lens designer Jun Hirakawa. So, when it came time to design a lens like the 18-135, the resulting design did not impress much. Third, they cut back significantly on quality control. There just ended up being significantly higher rates of problems with cameras like the K5 than with preceding cameras. Finally, they didn't seem to invest in R and D. My K5 has the same basic auto focus system (with some tweaks) that was in my K100.

Let's see what Ricoh does right.

[illdefined]

As things stand, the K-5 holds its own very well against the D600 considering the difference sensor size.

yes...considering the sensor size, [EDIT: 150%] more of that Sony FF sensor area will always compare favorably to less area.