[UncleVanya]

This isn't really a proper comparison. You shouldn't compensate for the crop factor by adjusting the zoom. You should have taken each image at the same focal length but moved closer with the K-1 to compensate for the crop factor. This is a better real world comparison of the benefits of one over the other.

I have to ask - why is that a better representation? Zooming in or changing lenses is as accurate to the real world. At least some of the time we have a shot distance dictated by nature or comfort - we are able to zoom with our feet some but not always. I fail to see how one is more valid than the other when comparing noise levels. I guess you may be concerned with the zoom lens having different performance at various focal lengths - which is not unheard of - but I doubt it fully invalidates the noise comparison.

[Rico]

I have to ask - why is that a better representation? Zooming in or changing lenses is as accurate to the real world. At least some of the time we have a shot distance dictated by nature or comfort - we are able to zoom with our feet some but not always. I fail to see how one is more valid than the other when comparing noise levels. I guess you may be concerned with the zoom lens having different performance at various focal lengths - which is not unheard of - but I doubt it fully invalidates the noise comparison.

Try shooting an object from across the room with a telephoto lens filling the frame with the image. Then take a picture of the same object filling the frame but much closer up with a 50mm Macro lenses. Then compare which image is sharper with more detail and less noise.

[sibyrnes]

Try shooting an object from across the room with a telephoto lens filling the frame with the image. Then take a picture of the same object filling the frame but much closer up with a 50mm Macro lenses. Then compare which image is sharper with more detail and less noise.

Really? You want to compare a telephoto lens with a 50mm Macro? Did you notice there is a difference of focal length of about 25 mm between my two shots. Which one do you think gets the unfair advantage showing the noise produced?

I never claimed my comparison was a scientific test - make of it what you will.

[UncleVanya]

Try shooting an object from across the room with a telephoto lens filling the frame with the image. Then take a picture of the same object filling the frame but much closer up with a 50mm Macro lenses. Then compare which image is sharper with more detail and less noise.

I fear this is likely to veer off into a distraction from the topic at hand. I would rather see this as a separate thread with examples from you posted to support your contention.

Sharper and more detail does not really translate into less "noise" but I can see people confounding the two in a comparison like this. The MTF of the 50mm Macro may well be better than the 75mm lens (say an FA 77?) but the difference is unlikely to be seen as noise in most situations. Also I doubt that within the zoom range of this zoom that the lines per millimeter are so drastically different as to be a confounding factor. However there could be some bias due to the slight change in lines per millimeter resolved. Moving closer does have the advantage of keeping the optical path performance the same, so it might be an interesting exercise but I doubt the results will be drastically different.

[Storm Chaser]

On UncleVanya's recommendation on a previous post, I purchased DXO noise reduction and is amazing. I also shoot wildlife in low light, dusk and dawn using K5IIs and Sigma 150-500 with great results, money well spent! Thanks UV

[UncleVanya]

On UncleVanya's recommendation on a previous post, I purchased DXO noise reduction and is amazing. I also shoot wildlife in low light, dusk and dawn using K5IIs and Sigma 150-500 with great results, money well spent! Thanks UV

You are Welcome! I was amazed myself how powerful it can be.

[VitaliyPotapchikov]

Do the camera K1 matrix production Nikon?
If this is the case, then it is better to buy K3 II