[Class A]

I sold my K-3 II because I didn't like it as much as I liked K-5 II...

What is it that you liked less about the K-3 II?

I can only think of the battery grip that doesn't match the button layout on the camera, but then I haven't used a K-3 II yet.

Regarding skin tones, the choice of RAW converter and/or camera profile is much more important than the camera brand. As a matter of fact, Canon colour filters used to be less discriminating compared to others and more than one professional mentioned to me that getting good color from a Canon means more mucking around.

[Dan Rentea]

What is it that you liked less about the K-3 II?

I can only think of the battery grip that doesn't match the button layout on the camera, but then I haven't used a K-3 II yet.

Regarding skin tones, the choice of RAW converter and/or camera profile is much more important than the camera brand. As a matter of fact, Canon colour filters used to be less discriminating compared to others and more than one professional mentioned to me that getting good color from a Canon means more mucking around.

Well, look for yourself at the skin tones Pentax K-3 II on the right and Canon 6D on the left

It's true that I took those pictures to see how both cameras will handle at high ISO. To be more specific, EXIF on both cameras was: ISO 8.000, 1/50, f5. I used Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM on Canon 6D and 50mm f1.4 on Pentax K-3 II.
On K-3 II image I applied Noise reduction in Lightroom (up to 20) because it had a little more noise, but except noise reduction, same adjustment were applied on both pictures.


Battery life on K-3 II was not that good. I only took 250 long exposure shots with a full charge battery and the battery was empty after that (the settings were 30 sec. exposure, with intervalometer). Pixel shift is useless even at the slightest movement and high ISO was about the same as on K-5 II. The af on K-3 II was better than K-5 II's, especially on moving subjects.

[Class A]

Well, look for yourself at the skin tones

The images are not comparable for two reasons:

First, the lighting is different. The K-3 II shot features (more?) artificial lighting (definitely from a different angle).

Second, the FF shot has shallower DOF. You cannot use the same f-stop (and ISO) setting, if you want to compare images; image noise in particular.

Again, the main factor for skin tones is (apart from lighting) the camera profile used. My experience with standard Lightroom profiles for Pentax cameras, for instance, has not been good. I suspect that Adobe put in a lot more effort to get the Canon profiles right.

N.B., in comparison to the K-5 II, the K-3 II apparently only has worse battery life (but better AF). If I had to choose, I'd take the better AF performance, as using a battery grip and/or a spare battery wouldn't be an issue for me.

[Dan Rentea]

The images are not comparable for two reasons:

First, the lighting is different. The K-3 II shot features (more?) artificial lighting (definitely from a different angle).

Second, the FF shot has shallower DOF. You cannot use the same f-stop (and ISO) setting, if you want to compare images; image noise in particular.

Again, the main factor for skin tones is (apart from lighting) the camera profile used. My experience with standard Lightroom profiles for Pentax cameras, for instance, has not been good. I suspect that Adobe put in a lot more effort to get the Canon profiles right.

N.B., in comparison to the K-5 II, the K-3 II apparently only has worse battery life (but better AF). If I had to choose, I'd take the better AF performance, as using a battery grip and/or a spare battery wouldn't be an issue for me.

Yes, it's true that when I took the K-3 II image I was 2 feet on the left (that is why the background is a little different), but I have a lot more images taken from tripod with both cameras and you can see very clear the difference in noise and skin tones (I put those two images for you to see because they are the only ones I have on this computer). Despite the fact that I stood 2 feet on the left when I took the image with K-3 II, look at the color from my T-shirt. The colors match almost perfectly (with more details on 6D image), but the skin tones are ruined on K-3 II. I don't know if the problem is with Adobe profile regarding skin tones and general editing, but it was a pain to edit K-3 II files in Lightroom.

What settings do I have to use in order to compare high ISO capabilities on those two cameras? Let's say for example that I'm shooting a sport event and I have mounted on both cameras a 50mm f1.8 lens. If the Canon 6D settings are ISO 6400, f2.8, 1/320, which are the settings that I have to use on K-3 II to compare the high ISO capabilities? I'm not interested in the shallow DOF.

Af on K-3 II was better than the one from K-5 II, but only when it wanted. I have a lot of pictures ruined because of the Af from K-3 II (click on the images below to see the examples, where the EXIF was ISO 200, f8, 1/20) . There were times when the Af was unreliable, although the camera was on tripod for those particularly shots. When it happened I had to shut down the camera and turn it on and the problem was gone.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 10-14-2015 at 06:02 AM.

[repaap]

Well, look for yourself at the skin tones Pentax K-3 II on the right and Canon 6D on the left

It's true that I took those pictures to see how both cameras will handle at high ISO. To be more specific, EXIF on both cameras was: ISO 8.000, 1/50, f5. I used Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM on Canon 6D and 50mm f1.4 on Pentax K-3 II.
On K-3 II image I applied Noise reduction in Lightroom (up to 20) because it had a little more noise, but except noise reduction, same adjustment were applied on both pictures.


Battery life on K-3 II was not that good. I only took 250 long exposure shots with a full charge battery and the battery was empty after that (the settings were 30 sec. exposure, with intervalometer). Pixel shift is useless even at the slightest movement and high ISO was about the same as on K-5 II. The af on K-3 II was better than K-5 II's, especially on moving subjects.

Perhaps I should step in too, just to say that If you are happy with your D6, it is great.

But also not just skin tone is different and your shadow under jaw is stronger with Pentax image, which would make light also stronger, light on face is same as behind you(warmth) or not. It affects on colors in general also. This sounds like not a big deal, but it also makes a differense.

[rullrich]

Perhaps I should step in too, just to say that If you are happy with your D6, it is great.

Exactly, that's what I would say too: if you're happy there is nothing more to say. This user (also on PF) seems to get quite good skin-tones from Pentax-bodies though: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertodq/. I guess in these cases it's the post-processing that counts.

[patarok]

Well, look for yourself at the skin tones

trolling trolling trolling, all the trees are falling?


but hey, YES ! LOOK for YOURSELF!

FTF...
Better: no.
Different: yes.

I throw in my 2 cents and say you never really read the manual like the most people... There are so many options to calibrate WB or BaseColor Profile.... man...


I also tried both 6d and 5d and i would go so far and say the K-3 is en par with the 5DII . so man, really ?

if you play unfair and compare different shots and go blabbering in our FF thread how good your Canon is... I just cant resist to show you how good our beloved K-3 is.... I took this shot near the golden hour. So here is my green, but where is your yellow?



THE GIRL ON THE LEFT: A CORRECT CALIBRATED AND BALANCED K-3

THE GUY ON THE RIGHT: TAKE A GUESS!

Take this:

Attached Images

   

[patarok]

Because normally i am not a bighead:
Yes the pic above is edited.. i even had to add yellow per WB settings.. but take a look at this. this is straight out of the camera with incy wincy exposure corrections in LR... so what? I think this is quite good for an APS-C DSLR. show me a shot like this you have done with your 6D and we can talk.

We are awaiting your results with "baited" breath....

You are in PENTAX-land here...(spare us the modern mind marketing. for what else reason should one put the effort and time in posting things like you did, if he aint gets a dime for i?. Do you want to tell us, that you want to lead us to a new light, and better photography oh prophet? Holy Planet Canon! We are coming! Send us a spaceship! or what else is the essence of all you are writing here?)

[Dan Rentea]

Because normally i am not a bighead:
Yes the pic above is edited.. but take a look at this. this is straight out of the camera with incy wincy exposure corrections in LR... so what? I think this is quite good for an APS-C DSLR. show me a shot like this you have done with your 6D and we can talk.

We are awaiting your results with "baited" breath....

You are in PENTAX-land here...

Chill man! I'm not trolling, far by me this idea. I loved very much K-5 II, but not as much K-3 II.
I used K-5 II for 2 years and for 3 month K-3 II and I'm pretty sure that I read the manual.

I do have a lot of good images with good skin tones from my K-5 II and K-3 II (click on the 2 images below), but when I have to raise the ISO and if I don't have a flash, is a bit difficult to get good skin tones from Pentax. Anyway, it's only my opinion. You don't have to agree with it.





This image was taken with Canon 6D, at ISO2500, with no flash.

[Class A]

I don't know if the problem is with Adobe profile regarding skin tones and general editing, but it was a pain to edit K-3 II files in Lightroom.

I'm pretty sure Lightroom is to blame as I'm having the same issues and OOC JPGs look better.

I'll try Capture One soon. Its default profile is supposed to be very goof and it has much better adjustment tools as well.

What settings do I have to use in order to compare high ISO capabilities on those two cameras?

You need to multiply the f-ratio by the crop factor to get the setting for the FF camera (e.g. f/2.8 becomes f/4), and the ISO value by the square of the crop factor (e.g. ISO 6400 on the K-3 II becomes ISO 14400 on the 6D). This is assuming you are using equivalent focal lenghts, e.g. 50mm becomes 75mm on the FF.

You may think that these settings are not fair, but you can search the internet for "equivalence" to read more about the subject. Provided the sensor performance is identical then the above mentioned settings will produce identical images.

BTW, I didn't think you were trolling and I'm sorry that you received a bit of heat.

[patarok]

do we play cards here? subtitle: "you brought 3 girls to a knives fight"

Officer: Do you sell drugs?
Dealer: Yes officer, please arrest me!

wait. is that a child in your cars trunk?


ha. lol. sure... BTW: nice editing.

For some reason, i think you are awaiting that I now pull out some photos of naked women and men in the style of Andreas M. Bitesich... But instead.......*drums* ha. chew on this:
(and FYI -just in case you are playing with the thought that we will go on with this: i am AFK now. A man's gotta eat.) LMFAO

[Dan Rentea]

Exactly, that's what I would say too: if you're happy there is nothing more to say. This user (also on PF) seems to get quite good skin-tones from Pentax-bodies though: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertodq/. I guess in these cases it's the post-processing that counts.

I love the mood on this shot taken by Robert Duran, but click on the image and look at the noise at ISO 400. On K-5 II the file would have been much more cleaner, in my opinion. There were a certain things that I didn't liked on K-3 II, and the noise in some situation at low ISO was to pronounced for my taste.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertodq/19143703404/

And again, I'm not trolling. I love Pentax very much, and K-5 II was by far my favorite camera when I was shooting with Pentax, but from my point of view, an APS-C camera can't compete with a full frame when comes to shallow DOF and high ISO images.

---------- Post added 10-14-15 at 02:07 PM ----------

You need to multiply the f-ratio by the crop factor to get the setting for the FF camera (e.g. f/2.8 becomes f/4), and the ISO value by the square of the crop factor (e.g. ISO 6400 on the K-3 II becomes ISO 14400 on the 6D). This is assuming you are using equivalent focal lenghts, e.g. 50mm becomes 75mm on the FF.

You may think that these settings are not fair, but you can search the internet for "equivalence" to read more about the subject. Provided the sensor performance is identical then the above mentioned settings will produce identical images.

I think you are talking about shallow DOF. Take a look at the image below. Same settings were used, only the shallow DOF is different. And I mentioned that shallow DOF was not taken into account.



---------- Post added 10-14-15 at 02:13 PM ----------

do we play cards here? subtitle: "you brought 3 girls to a knives fight"

Officer: Do you sell drugs?
Dealer: Yes officer, please arrest me!

wait. is that a child in your cars trunk?


ha. lol. sure... BTW: nice editing.

For some reason, i think you are awaiting that I now pull out some photos of naked women and men in the style of Andreas M. Bitesich... But instead.......*drums* ha. chew on this:
(and FYI -just in case you are playing with the thought that we will go on with this: i am AFK now. A man's gotta eat.) LMFAO

Again, you have to chill a bit and read from the beginning. As I said, I loved very much K-5 II and I had very good results with that camera. Look for yourself, maybe you will not confuse me again with a person that doesn't know the capabilities from his camera.

Both of the images from below were taken with K-5 II. I think a know my cameras pretty well.

[rullrich]

And again, I'm not trolling. I love Pentax very much, and K-5 II was by far my favorite camera when I was shooting with Pentax, but from my point of view, an APS-C camera can't compete with a full frame when comes to shallow DOF and high ISO images.

Never thought you were trolling, as I said: if the Canon is right for you than there is nothing wrong with it. Flame Wars are stupid and for little boys. Concerning the mood of pictures we enter a debate that has IMO not much to do with camera capabilitites but with art, an aspect that's not quite corresponding with the threads title. By the way: like Your shots!

[Class A]

I think you are talking about shallow DOF.

No, I'm not.

I'm talking about using the correct settings so that you can compare (e.g. with respect to image noise) in a fair manner.

Consider two audio amplifiers, one having twice the power of the other. You cannot simply set both to volume "10" and then compare, as a fair comparison of sound quality requires the same output volume, not the same number on the volume comtrol.

BTW, many people think there is an f-ratio for exposure (affecting noise) and an f-ratio for DOF (affecting background blur). They are wrong. There is only one aperture diameter and the focal length divided by it yields the f-ratio. Shallower DOF hence means less noise (everything else being equal).

[Dan Rentea]

No, I'm not.

I'm talking about using the correct settings so that you can compare (e.g. with respect to image noise) in a fair manner.

Consider two audio amplifiers, one having twice the power of the other. You cannot simply set both to volume "10" and then compare, as a fair comparison of sound quality requires the same output volume, not the same number on the volume comtrol.

BTW, many people think there is an f-ratio for exposure (affecting noise) and an f-ratio for DOF (affecting background blur). They are wrong. There is only one aperture diameter and the focal length divided by it yields the f-ratio. Shallower DOF hence means less noise (everything else being equal).

Oh, now I see what you mean. There are always some interpretations, especially when english is not the first language for everybody.

---------- Post added 10-14-15 at 02:31 PM ----------

Never thought you were trolling, as I said: if the Canon is right for you than there is nothing wrong with it. Flame Wars are stupid and for little boys. Concerning the mood of pictures we enter a debate that has IMO not much to do with camera capabilitites but with art, an aspect that's not quite corresponding with the threads title. By the way: like Your shots!

Glad we solved quickly "our communications problem". Let's just hope that Pentax will do some damage in Canon/Nikon/Sony sales with the upcoming full frame.

Later edit. Sorry rullrich, being in hurry to respond I confused you with the user called patarok. He thought that I was trolling. My mistake and I apologize to you.