[Nicolas06]

Noting, of course, that the Nikon element of the testing involved a D810. (!)

D4S, D810, D7100 all share the same Nikon Multi-CAM 3500 AF module. The only diffierence being that the FF module has the FX designation and the APSC module has the DX designation. To me this is only to match the spread of AF point that is not the same as the camera format is not the same neither.

The D7200 and D750 have the next version Nikon Multi-CAM 3500 II...

I don't think D7200 would be much more favorable to K3-II in term of AF performance than a D810. From return of experience between D7100 and K3 I read here and here, D7100 has significantly better AF on actions shoots... Well this is maybe the only area where the Nikon is better, but that's an important one.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-21-2015 at 04:24 AM.

[Matthew Saville]

D4S, D810, D7100 all share the same Nikon Multi-CAM 3500 AF module. The only diffierence being that the FF module has the FX designation and the APSC module has the DX designation. To me this is only to match the spread of AF point that is not the same as the camera format is not the same neither.

The D7200 and D750 have the next version Nikon Multi-CAM 3500 II...

I don't think D7200 would be much more favorable to K3-II in term of AF performance than a D810. From return of experience between D7100 and K3 I read here and here, D7100 has significantly better AF on actions shoots... Well this is maybe the only area where the Nikon is better, but that's an important one.

The DX / FX "CAM" system may or may not have different physical parts or processing power, however the AF point spread is actually roughly the same physical size. Meaning, it is clustered in the center of the viewfinder on an FX body, and spread out all over the viewfinder on a DX body. This has been one of the big reasons why I still enjoy shooting with a Nikon DX camera, even though I own both Nikon DX and FX...

The difference in AF performance and reliability is something I'll be testing very heavily when I get my hands on the K-3 II. I'll definitely try and compare it to the D7200. We'll see! I will say this though: I've reviewed the D800, the D810 and the D750, and there is a definite improvement in low-light AF performance from each one to the next. Then again, the D750 barely matches the low-light reliability of the original D700, LOL. What can I say, the insane 12->36 megapixel jump was not kind to Nikon's AF precision...

[Dan Rentea]

Then again, the D750 barely matches the low-light reliability of the original D700, LOL. What can I say, the insane 12->36 megapixel jump was not kind to Nikon's AF precision...

Actually, Nikon D750 has 24 megapixel

I know a guy who will contradict you when comes to Af from D800 or D810. He is a very well regarded wildlife&landscape photographer from Romania and he put the D800 to test. I don't think that with K-3 II we can track birds like with D800.

Use google translate if you are interested in his opinion on D800, or just take a look on the photos (especially the ones with birds flying).

În Tufi?uri - cu Mircea Bezergheanu: Review Nikon D800 - Începe o nou? er?!

[Matthew Saville]

Actually, Nikon D750 has 24 megapixel

I know a guy who will contradict you when comes to Af from D800 or D810. He is a very well regarded wildlife photographer from Romania and he put the D800 to test. I don't think that with K-3 II we can track birds like with D800.

Use google translate if you are interested in his opinion on D800, or just take a look on the photos (especially the ones with birds flying).

În Tufi?uri - cu Mircea Bezergheanu: Review Nikon D800 - Începe o nou? er?!

Yes, the D750's lower resolution is half the reason I "downgraded" from the D800e / D810, it is both practical for high-volume events, and more forgiving of AF precision.

I'm sure the D800 is great for many things, but for anyone who shoots at f/1.4 or f/1.8 almost all day long, it was problematic at best. The D810 was an improvement, and the D750 was even better.

[Nicolas06]

Yes, the D750's lower resolution is half the reason I "downgraded" from the D800e / D810, it is both practical for high-volume events, and more forgiving of AF precision.

More forgiving or not, there no reason that with the same AF an higher resolution sensor would make the picture look less good at the same printing or viewing size.

I agree that the D750 doesn't have the same AF module and that overall if you don't print huge you don't really need more than 24MP and that it can come in the way for storage and speed. So that make sense, yes.

As for high iso performance D700 is significantly inferior to D800/D810/D600/D610 and D750 camera... Again the comparison should be made at similar viewing/printing sier, not staring at 100%...

The 100% setting is very misleading it's magnification level is greatly affected by screen pixel density and sensor resolution so somebody on a apple retina laptop will find 100% shoot off the crappiest lense to be extremely sharp , even more so if the sensor has a low resolution while somebody staring at a old 30" screen with only full HD resolution will think the best macro with pentax pixel shift to be a bit blurry and lacking details.

Beside, if you are really after high iso performance, that's RAWs and DxO Prime for me, no way arround this if you are really interrested in high iso performance.

[Matthew Saville]

More forgiving or not, there no reason that with the same AF an higher resolution sensor would make the picture look less good at the same printing or viewing size.

I agree that the D750 doesn't have the same AF module and that overall if you don't print huge you don't really need more than 24MP and that it can come in the way for storage and speed. So that make sense, yes.

As for high iso performance D700 is significantly inferior to D800/D810/D600/D610 and D750 camera... Again the comparison should be made at similar viewing/printing sier, not staring at 100%...

The 100% setting is very misleading it's magnification level is greatly affected by screen pixel density and sensor resolution so somebody on a apple retina laptop will find 100% shoot off the crappiest lense to be extremely sharp , even more so if the sensor has a low resolution while somebody staring at a old 30" screen with only full HD resolution will think the best macro with pentax pixel shift to be a bit blurry and lacking details.

Beside, if you are really after high iso performance, that's RAWs and DxO Prime for me, no way arround this if you are really interrested in high iso performance.

Yes, I've had this discussion many times, and have shot and/or post-produced hundreds of thousands of images on each of those cameras, probably.

The D800 and D700 did not have the same exact AF mechanics and/or software, whether or not they do on paper I don't recall. But as a full-time shooter and as a writer for a camera review site, I've dealt with inumerable full-time wedding shooters who expressed serious frustration with the D800 failing to nail the same % of shots as their D700's were. Whether it's the resolution's fault, or the AF sensors themselves, I don't know which is more to blame, but I think neither is guiltless.

BTW, I'm not talking about image quality at all, other than focusing. An in-focus D800 image, when normalized to 12 megapixels, will look much better than a D700 image. But image quality isn't a big deal for me either way as a wedding photographer, because I haven't really changed my standards at all since going full-frame. I still don't usually go any higher than ISO 3200, and I still print any image any size I want. The only requirement I've had in the past 5+ years is that my cameras nail focus for me.

Anywho, from what I'm hearing it sounds like the K-3 II will deliver that. I didn't have much trouble with the K-3, and if the K-3 II is any improvement, I'll be happy. The real crux will be, is ISO 3200 as good as my D700 was? I wish the K-3 II sensor could have gained the improvements that we've seen from Nikon's similar DX sensor between the D7100 and the D7200, but alas. Even if I can't use the K-3 II for low-light wedding work, I'll still use it for tons of other things.

[y0chang]

Anywho, from what I'm hearing it sounds like the K-3 II will deliver that. I didn't have much trouble with the K-3, and if the K-3 II is any improvement, I'll be happy. The real crux will be, is ISO 3200 as good as my D700 was? I wish the K-3 II sensor could have gained the improvements that we've seen from Nikon's similar DX sensor between the D7100 and the D7200, but alas. Even if I can't use the K-3 II for low-light wedding work, I'll still use it for tons of other things.

The reason why the 7200 has an improvement in High ISO is because Nikon switched from a Toshiba sensor to a Sony Sensor. The same Sony sensor that has been already been used in the K-3. Unfortunately that means because the K3ii has the same sensor as the K3, there should be no change in high ISO performance.

[Dan Rentea]

At f1.4 or f1.8 I think it is hard for any camera to lock focus Matthew, especially if you are talking about wedding photography, where people moves a lot. And you are the first person (and I don't want to get this in the wrong way) who shoots a lot at f1.4 and f1.8 at weddings. In a church, or in a restaurant if you take a few candid shots with a 85mm f1.8 lens or a Sigma f1.4 Art lens...maybe I understand why you are using this aperture.

But shooting almost all day at f1.4 and f1.8 and think that the resolution or Af is the problem...my opinion is that the people movement and the shallow depth of field at f1.4 is "the problem" and I don't think that K-3 II can help you in your shooting condition, when comes to nail the focus at f1.4 / f1.8 (again, don't get me wrong. I just try to understand why you had trouble to lock focus with D800 and why you think that K-3 II will be better).

[rawr]

I don't think D7200 would be much more favorable to K3-II in term of AF performance than a D810.

I had in mind this comment from Mr Lumo a while ago, in his technical paper on the true reasons for a full-frame camera (written in part to justify to himself his purchase of a D800) :

The impact of sensor size on focus accuracy is even stronger than with lens center resolution.

My personal opinion is that the accuracy of focus (both automatic and manual) is the strongest single argument in favour of full frame over APSC.

I.e., the required engineering precision of a 36 MP full frame AF is not more than that of an equivalent 7 MP APSC camera.

So even if Nikon installed the same AF assembly into the D810 and D7100, the D810 would be likely to work better.

Leaving aside any issues of AF and equivalency, comparing the D810 to the K-3 also fails the 'price equivalency' test too, of course.

[Matthew Saville]

The reason why the 7200 has an improvement in High ISO is because Nikon switched from a Toshiba sensor to a Sony Sensor. The same Sony sensor that has been already been used in the K-3. Unfortunately that means because the K3ii has the same sensor as the K3, there should be no change in high ISO performance.

You know what you're totally right, I keep forgetting that Toshiba is making *some* of those 24 MP chips. Either way, I've tested almost all of them and I found the D7100 and K-3 to be quite similar with regards to high ISO performance, (as well as the D5200, and ironically, the Sony A6000) ...while the newest sensors, including the D5300, D3300, and D7200 seem to show a slight bump in both high ISO performance and dynamic range.

It seems to me that generational improvements have proven bigger than where the sensor factory is, possibly due to the fact that the high ISO improvements from a physical, photons-in-buckets standpoint are approaching a diminishing return, and software is where the magic is for now.

Having said that, the K-3 was no slouch at high ISO. I just wish it was a tad better. I've successfully used both a Nikon D5300 and a Nikon D750 on my adventures and work for the past year or so, and while I don't always demand the performance the full-frame sensor offers, it is nice to have for certain shots.

Needless to say, I'm clearly in the camp of folks who will gladly use a K-3 II in tandem with whatever full-frame sensor Pentax decides to use in their upcoming camera. :-)

---------- Post added 06-21-15 at 04:55 PM ----------

At f1.4 or f1.8 I think it is hard for any camera to lock focus Matthew, especially if you are talking about wedding photography, where people moves a lot. And you are the first person (and I don't want to get this in the wrong way) who shoots a lot at f1.4 and f1.8 at weddings. In a church, or in a restaurant if you take a few candid shots with a 85mm f1.8 lens or a Sigma f1.4 Art lens...maybe I understand why you are using this aperture.

But shooting almost all day at f1.4 and f1.8 and think that the resolution or Af is the problem...my opinion is that the people movement and the shallow depth of field at f1.4 is "the problem" and I don't think that K-3 II can help you in your shooting condition, when comes to nail the focus at f1.4 / f1.8 (again, don't get me wrong. I just try to understand why you had trouble to lock focus with D800 and why you think that K-3 II will be better).

No offense taken, or anything the wrong way etc, I totally understand where you're coming from. But, as a full-time photographer I have indeed invested many, many hours into perfecting AF techniques in low-light, and getting my lenses and bodies to truly sing together some of the time. In both continuous and single focusing, I can get an f/2.8 zoom to nail focus wide open perfectly 90-99% of the time, even in the worst light, and on my trusty D700's I could get any prime (that was properly calibrated and serviced) to nail focus wide open 75-90% of the time.

I wrote an article on the subject if anybody is interested: Six Tips For Better DSLR Autofocus And Sharper Images - Q&A I used to also teach a workshop on AF techniques and general camera mastery, but it's been a few years since I do that.

And, if I'm the first person you've heard of who shoots wide open almost all the time, you can add the rest of the 15-20 folks at my studio to that list, as well. Although most of them don't use fast primes as frequently as I do, but still we're almost 100% f/2.8 zooms at a minimum... You can see the resulting "look" on our blog here: Orange County Wedding Photographer | Lin and Jirsa

If I use the K-3 II in a wedding situation during my full review, I'll certainly be using the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for much of that, so we'll see how it goes. Considering that in my opinion (and the opinion of most Nikon wedding shooters I know) the D800's AF issues were a fluke, I suspect that the K-3 II will be at least on par, if not better. But again, I have no real quantifiable measurement like the other reviewers may have, just a gut feeling or a hope.

---------- Post added 06-21-15 at 04:58 PM ----------

I had in mind this comment from Mr Lumo a while ago, in his technical paper on the true reasons for a full-frame camera (written in part to justify to himself his purchase of a D800) :



So even if Nikon installed the same AF assembly into the D810 and D7100, the D810 would be likely to work better.

Leaving aside any issues of AF and equivalency, comparing the D810 to the K-3 also fails the 'price equivalency' test too, of course.

This was allegedly the case in the Nikon D300 versus the D700, both which shared the number 12 (megapixels) but not a sensor format, and both which shared (on paper, at least) AF parts. However, that was hotly debated back in the day. Oddly enough, they opted to put a lesser AF system in the D610 compared to the D7100, so the comparison hasn't been repeated yet, since the D750's AF system is supposed to be new. When I get my hands on a D7200 for review, I'll definitely pit it against my D750 and my K-3 II!

[Nicolas06]

Anywho, from what I'm hearing it sounds like the K-3 II will deliver that. I didn't have much trouble with the K-3, and if the K-3 II is any improvement, I'll be happy. The real crux will be, is ISO 3200 as good as my D700 was? I wish the K-3 II sensor could have gained the improvements that we've seen from Nikon's similar DX sensor between the D7100 and the D7200, but alas. Even if I can't use the K-3 II for low-light wedding work, I'll still use it for tons of other things.

K3/K5 etc familly are getting arround 1200 score on high iso on DxO. D700 is getting 2300, D800/D810/D750 get just a bit under 3000.

Except when you already shoot wide open on your FF, the actual performance is similar through if you want to keep the same deph of field on both APSC and FF... Because well you'll shoot for example the APSC at f/2 if you want to match the deph of field of the FF at f/2.8. IF there was a whole set of f/1.8 zoom for APSC this would not make much difference in the end vs f/2.8 zoom in term of high iso, you'll still get a bit less than half the performance at high iso on an APSC, but the wider apperture would keep you at half the isos too.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to you as you want to shoot wide open most of the time.

As for K3 and weddings:

FA77, f/1.8, 1/50, iso 100, flash



For sure this interior shoot is far from being in pure low light, but there more margin

FA77, f/1.8, 1/250, iso 2000 (was iso 800, but in post processing, I discovered it was severely under exposed, I pushed 1.2 EV) , no flash...



My biggest issues for both pictureq is to better nail the focus... Not the noise levels.

[Dan Rentea]

No offense taken, or anything the wrong way etc, I totally understand where you're coming from. But, as a full-time photographer I have indeed invested many, many hours into perfecting AF techniques in low-light, and getting my lenses and bodies to truly sing together some of the time. In both continuous and single focusing, I can get an f/2.8 zoom to nail focus wide open perfectly 90-99% of the time, even in the worst light, and on my trusty D700's I could get any prime (that was properly calibrated and serviced) to nail focus wide open 75-90% of the time.

I wrote an article on the subject if anybody is interested: Six Tips For Better DSLR Autofocus And Sharper Images - Q&A I used to also teach a workshop on AF techniques and general camera mastery, but it's been a few years since I do that.

And, if I'm the first person you've heard of who shoots wide open almost all the time, you can add the rest of the 15-20 folks at my studio to that list, as well. Although most of them don't use fast primes as frequently as I do, but still we're almost 100% f/2.8 zooms at a minimum... You can see the resulting "look" on our blog here: Orange County Wedding Photographer | Lin and Jirsa

If I use the K-3 II in a wedding situation during my full review, I'll certainly be using the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for much of that, so we'll see how it goes. Considering that in my opinion (and the opinion of most Nikon wedding shooters I know) the D800's AF issues were a fluke, I suspect that the K-3 II will be at least on par, if not better. But again, I have no real quantifiable measurement like the other reviewers may have, just a gut feeling or a hope.

f2.8 it's a different story than f1.4. And again, it's another story also if we are talking about still photos or details captured on a wedding (like a wedding ring on the bride's hand, etc.). With this kind of photos it's easier to nail the focus at f1.4 or f1.8. I thought that you shot people on the dance floor at f1.4 and f1.8.

Nice article and good photos! Congrats! At f2.8 I've seen very good photos, taken with 24-70mm and 70-200mm, but f1.4 or f1.8 has been use to capture details, or on "trash the dress" tipe of shooting (where people stay still). But when they shot action (on the dance floor for example), they use f2.8, f3.2, f4...

I use K-3 II for about 3 weeks (before I had K-5 II) and I still consider that Nikon (or Canon 7D which I had) is more accurate when comes to nail focus in tracking mode.

K-3 II is better in any way than K-5 II and I love it, but there are 3 things were Pentax in my opinion lack behind Canon/Nikon:

1. Autofocus performance when comes to tracking subject (especially if the subject moves towards the camera). Fortunately I don't do sports photography, or wildlife photography and af tracking is not that important to me.
2. Flash system
3. Service (there is no renting stores if you need a lens, or if your camera has problems it take to long until they repair it).

---------- Post added 06-22-15 at 07:12 AM ----------

My biggest issues for both pictureq is to better nail the focus... Not the noise levels.

Agree. I don't mind either the noise level if the photo is telling a story. But at f1.4 or f1.8 if you focus and recompose and if you are in a hurry in order not to lose the moment...is pretty easy with any camera to lose focus because of the shallow depth of field.

I have an example from a wedding that I attended. This picture was shot with K-5 II at f5.6. I don't think that this kind of shots you can take at f1.4 or f1.8 because you will lose focus very easy because they are dancing.



But with this kind of photos (like the one from bellow, where is not movement)...you can use f1.8 without worries.

[Matthew Saville]

f2.8 it's a different story than f1.4. And again, it's another story also if we are talking about still photos or details captured on a wedding (like a wedding ring on the bride's hand, etc.). With this kind of photos it's easier to nail the focus at f1.4 or f1.8. I thought that you shot people on the dance floor at f1.4 and f1.8.

Nice article and good photos! Congrats! At f2.8 I've seen very good photos, taken with 24-70mm and 70-200mm, but f1.4 or f1.8 has been use to capture details, or on "trash the dress" tipe of shooting (where people stay still). But when they shot action (on the dance floor for example), they use f2.8, f3.2, f4...

I use K-3 II for about 3 weeks (before I had K-5 II) and I still consider that Nikon (or Canon 7D which I had) is more accurate when comes to nail focus in tracking mode.

K-3 II is better in any way than K-5 II and I love it, but there are 3 things were Pentax in my opinion lack behind Canon/Nikon:

1. Autofocus performance when comes to tracking subject (especially if the subject moves towards the camera). Fortunately I don't do sports photography, or wildlife photography and af tracking is not that important to me.
2. Flash sistem
3. Service (there is no renting stores if you need a lens, or if your camera has problems it take to long until they repair it).

I do shoot dance floors and other candids throughout the entire day wide open, and depending on the situation I get plenty of keepers. The action does dictate the aperture though, in a round-about way. Simply put, if it's something relatively static like a cake cutting or a bouquet toss, I have no problem shooting at f/1.4, but in other situations I do need to zoom, in which case a 24-70 2.8 or a 24-120 4.0 even might be the right tool for the job.

Here is one of the most recent weddings I've shot, for any who want to get an idea of what the results look like: http://www.linandjirsablog.com/associates/los-verdes-golf-course-wedding-kris-and-mary/

---------- Post added 06-22-15 at 12:19 AM ----------

K-3 II is better in any way than K-5 II and I love it, but there are 3 things were Pentax in my opinion lack behind Canon/Nikon:

1. Autofocus performance when comes to tracking subject (especially if the subject moves towards the camera). Fortunately I don't do sports photography, or wildlife photography and af tracking is not that important to me.

I've heard this too, and it has been a concern of mine. Although I'm head-over-heels for Pentax in my hobby of astro-landscape photography, I may have to stick with the Nikon D750 as my primary wedding camera, if the full-frame Pentax can't pull off focus tracking well enough.

No big deal, though; as a camera reviewer I'm very used to rocking completely different systems. We'll see what the future holds... Out of curiosity, which do you think would be more fair? Normalizing the comparison by using the "same" lens like a Sigma 18-35 1.8 on both a Nikon and a K-3 II, ...or simply comparing two of each systems's best performers respectively?

[Dan Rentea]

Out of curiosity, which do you think would be more fair? Normalizing the comparison by using the "same" lens like a Sigma 18-35 1.8 on both a Nikon and a K-3 II, ...or simply comparing two of each systems's best performers respectively?

Using the same lens on both cameras can be a plus for a review. But if it were me to do the review I will probably use also some Nikkor and Pentax primes with the same focal range along with Sigma 18-35mm lens.
But I can tell you already (and you can agree with me after you are going to do the review ) that Nikon is better than Pentax only when it comes to Af tracking performance and 1/250 synchronize flash system.

At high ISO they are the same, but Pentax is better in my opinion in build quality, colours, features...

[Nicolas06]

No big deal, though; as a camera reviewer I'm very used to rocking completely different systems. We'll see what the future holds... Out of curiosity, which do you think would be more fair? Normalizing the comparison by using the "same" lens like a Sigma 18-35 1.8 on both a Nikon and a K-3 II, ...or simply comparing two of each systems's best performers respectively?

What you can get out of the key lenses like 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 on both system to me look quite interresting. In the end that's what count for the choice. You don't care much if it is the body or the lense.

Then for sure a comparison between 2 body with the same lense would make sense to compare bodies.