[normhead]

... and then, if cropping more with the K-3 (which is how I interpreted the original post), the benefits will be even less... possibly swinging in the other direction if the cropping is really significant...

The thing is, using the same lens and position, the K-3 will lawyers provide more resolution on the subject. The magnification factor from the smaller pixel sites never goes away. The only way to come out on top with the K-1 is to use the whole from, or at least more pixels than the K-3 can put on the subject.

[Doundounba]

A 16MP m4/3 sensor and a 24MP APS-C sensor have roughly the same pixel density - it's just slightly higher on the m4/3 sensor. So sensor-wise, results should be pretty much comparable for macro, at least in terms of resolution. As others have mentioned, it's impossible to troubleshoot your situation without any concrete examples. (In fact, without any examples, it's impossible to distinguish you from a troll, but you have so far been, reasonably, given the benefit of the doubt.)

We don't even know which lens you're shooting with on Olympus - possibly it's the 60mm macro, which is an excellent lens, by all accounts. And you seem to want to get "further away from the subject" using the K-3, compared to the Olympus. If that's your goal, you probably should be shooting with any of the excellent 90mm-105mm (or even longer) macro lenses that are available in K-mount rather than a 50mm, which is a much wider lens on K-mount (75mm FOV equiv.) than the Olympus 60mm is on m4/3 (120mm FOV equiv). The current D-FA 100mm F/2.8 WR is a top choice, but it's only one of many. Choice in superlative native macro lenses is a strength of the K-mount.

Personally, I find the K-3 an excellent platform for macro. It's main weakness for me is the fixed rear screen, which makes it awkward to shoot at odd angles using magnified liveview to focus.

Note that I shoot bugs rather than flowers, but here are a couple of samples from this summer. (Click over to Flickr for higher res.)

[UncleVanya]

A few observations from a dabbler in m43 and a long time Pentax user.

1) using non macro lenses the m4/3 tends to have closer focusing (leading to greater subject magnification) for all of their lenses but particularly for similar fov.

2) using the Olympus 60mm macro and an Olympus body you can initiate focus stacking without any additional hardware (save for a stable tripod).

3) the crop factor doesn't apply to magnification but it does impact subject distances using similar focal length (not field of view) lenses.

---------- Post added 10-31-16 at 07:34 PM ----------

Hello ,
I have just joined the forum hope I can get some help with my new Pentax K3 Camera .
I purchased it because of the larger sensor , 24MP and have the option of getting further away from the subject and being able to crop , I do realize that it is best to compose the image in the first place , but I take mainly macros of wild flowers so it is not always able to fill the frame for all sorts of reasons .
regrettably have found that the image quality is not as good as I get on my Olympus OMD1 having a smaller sensor of 16MP .
I am using a DFA 2:8 50mm Macro lens , not a cheap lens by any means .
What am I doing wrong ? Or is 16 MP the optimum sensor size ?
Any help is welcome .

Switch to 100mm version and add a high quality teleconverter. To do macro at a distance you need higher focal length. Do not expect a crop of a wider shot to yield the detail of a closer frame filling shot.

Or stop eating and save up for the rare 200mm f4 macro.

---------- Post added 10-31-16 at 07:36 PM ----------

It would be most helpful to know the subject size and distance you want to shoot at. You may be able to just use a close focus telephoto depending on what you are after.

[Scorpio71GR]

The K-3 will amplify any errors in your shooting technique. I had a bit of a tough time with the K-3 in the beginning as well. Start with the tips @Adam gave you and see how that goes. Welcome!

I had exactly the same problem coming from the 10mp K10D to the 24mp K3. Lots and lots of pratice and patience. I'm still practicing at it.

FA 50 macro on the K3 wide open at f2.8 handheld.

[Renato]

I thank all who responded to may post .
Using a tripod is impractical with most wildflower shots , i have posted some shots using , Olympus , Nikon DF . Pentax K10d and lastly the K3 I have just purchased .
I try to get 2 types of shots , black background and blue background , all shots are hand held ,
The NIkon not being stabilized is what made me think of in body stabilization , I also use Live view to eliminate mirror slap .
Yes I understand the depth of field with Micro 4/3 and Pentax sensor size , the same goes for the Nikon DF that is full frame with a shallower depth of field .
The last shot is with a K# and acceptable , but must say it took me several hours before I was able to get it right .
all the shots are in JPEG , have used RAW with the K3 that of course will not change the IQ any the colour , contrast , exposure etc.
With the Oly and the DF it much easier and quicker to obtain acceptable images .
It may be that I may have to come to grips with my setting to make life easier for me .
Being new here I am not certain what one gentleman means by his comment "it's impossible to distinguish you from a troll" if he could explain if that is a complement or insult please , if an insult I did not join this forum for insults
Hope my images do not bore you all ,
Renato

[BigMackCam]

Hi again, Renato - thanks for posting the examples.

Admittedly, I'm somewhat confused. The shot from the Olympus is (with all due respect) worst of the four by far, being defocused or possibly suffering from slight shake, such that the centre of the flower lacks any definition. The shot from the K10D is nice enough, but at f/2.8 the plane of sharp focus is very shallow indeed, so only small parts of the image are sharp. The Nikon Df and Pentax K-3 shots look about equal to me... perhaps a very slight edge to the Nikon, but it's a little difficult to tell as they're different subjects with different backgrounds. Still, I see equally good definition and sharpness in both within the plane of focus. On the K-3 shot, for example, I can see individual hairs on the buds (easier to see if I bump up the brightness on my monitor ). The fact that these last two shots were at f/8 and f/11 has resulted in greater depth of field, so more of the subjects are in focus.

I don't see anything here that suggests the K-3 isn't performing better than your Olympus. I don't think you have anything to worry about

I was a little confused by your following comment:

all the shots are in JPEG , have used RAW with the K3 that of course will not change the IQ any the colour , contrast , exposure etc.

When shooting JPEG, you are at the mercy of the camera's JPEG engine to turn RAW sensor data into a final image. In-camera JPEG engines are OK - some are better than others (Pentax isn't great in this area, in my opinion) - but all are inferior to shooting in RAW and doing the processing yourself in Lightroom, Camera Raw + Photoshop, or even Pentax DCU. The "IQ, colour, contrast, exposure etc." as well as sharpness and noise reduction can all be optimised when you shoot RAW, and you'll get way better quality output this way. If you prefer to shoot JPEG, that's fine - just know that you are missing out on much better IQ as a result.

[Nass]

it's impossible to distinguish you from a troll, but you have so far been, reasonably, given the benefit of the doubt.

Not sure if comments like this really help. Maybe we could just be a little nicer to new, unknown people moving forward. Not everyone is a troll

[Nass]

I'm vaguely competent at macro and have a site of my own at http://extreme-macro.co.uk (have a look, goes into focus stacking). I'd have to say I agree with BigMackCam - the top example clearly has blur. The next 3 are more interesting although again, focus is a bit off on some. In your boots I'd continue taking shots, but also test the lens for front or back focus, and also play with the different focusing modes to see if there's one that helps you more, and try going f/16 or f/22 (don't worry about diffraction softening at 1:2 it's hardly an issue). On the last shot for example I'd like to see the front flower in focus but unfortunately it's not.

Fwiw, I have a K3ii and I also find that focusing seems to be tougher on the K3 series. I suspect that it's because they're a bit better than what I'm used to and show up my own sloppy technique much clearer. so I found that just using the camera a lot and really getting used to it made a lot of difference.

Good luck, let us know how you get on!

[BigMackCam]

I'm vaguely competent at macro

LOL The master of understatement, Nass

[Alex645]

I agree with Mike and Nass on their recent responses #24-26 in terms of Olympus is the worst posted.

For my taste, the Df is showing all the superior dynamic range and resolution of the same sensor used in the $6000 D4s. The trade-off for macro work is the inherent loss of dof, but that 16MP sensor can really go high on the ISO, so Iʻd suggest smaller apertures with higher ISO. You may want to test, check, and calibrate you AF fine tune on both the K3 and Df as they seem a tad off (unless youʻre using Live View).

The K10D image with the low contrast lighting works well except at f/2.8 is missing a focal point (such as a bee or one open flower) and would benefit from greater dof (smaller aperture) which means increasing the ISO as I suspect 1/125" is about the threshold for avoiding blur handheld at that focal length plus macro.

Your K3 example looks fine in terms of detail and is benefitting from the f/11 dof, and post-processing techniques like focus stacking take a lot more time, but is the ultimate in avoiding diffraction at smaller apertures while giving greater dof with macro distances. I personally find the colors oversaturated. Shooting RAW would make the biggest difference in fine tuning and giving you control in post-processing that you are currently surrendering to the cameraʻs jpegging. (Hey...did I just invent a new word?)

You have quite a nice assortment of cameras and lenses but I think that may be confusing you and slowing your progress in learning what works and what doesnʻt. The most important factor is the photographer, and your shooting and post-processing technique. Second would be your choice of optics for macro. The various cameras are the least important variable. Instead of switching cameras to try to achieve the best macro, stick with one. You stated you wanted to ʻget further away from your subject and to be able to cropʻ, so that suggests either the Df or the K3.

I have used both the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro and the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED; they are both exceptional primes that will get you further away than a 40, 50, or 60mm macro. And then invest in time to learn and master post-processing of RAW images. Initially your jpegs will look better, but eventually youʻll be able to get so much more from a well edited RAW or DNG.

[Doundounba]

Being new here I am not certain what one gentleman means by his comment "it's impossible to distinguish you from a troll" if he could explain if that is a complement or insult please , if an insult I did not join this forum for insults

It was not meant as an insult, only an encouragement to post details of your issues. A troll is someone who's intentions are to cause a fight amongst other forum members. They often show up under a new account posting provocative or deliberately controversial statements. Some trolls are very crafty. Because of its lack of detail, your initial post made it difficult to be sure that you weren't doing just that. By providing more details, you have proven that you're not "trolling" the forum. So... Welcome aboard, and I hope you'll find a way to get satisfactory results from your K-3.

p.s.: Are you shooting with Bright color profile? I think Natural is better, IMHO, especially for red subjects (which can be problematic for metering sensors). Some people even go to Muted...

[TER-OR]

I moved from K5 to K3II this year. The difference is notable. The difference when adding a Sunpak DX-8R ring flash to the kit has been even greater.
If you view my Flickr stream bear in mind not all are masterpieces, but some are useful for species ID even if not perfect.

Detail with the K5 was good, but overall the K3II is better in most all respects. I liked the back-button position for the K5 better, though.

[BigMackCam]

I liked the back-button position for the K5 better, though.

It's interesting you say that... I'm the other way around. I like the way my thumb naturally falls to the AF button on the K-3, but not so much on the K-5. I still prefer back-button focusing, though

[normhead]

The Imaging Resources put a K-5ii at about 2200 lw/ph, and the K-3 at about 2700. IMHO anything over 200 lw/ph is easily observable pixel peeping. Simply stated , by the numbers, you'll get more resolution with the K-3.

[TER-OR]

It's interesting you say that... I'm the other way around. I like the way my thumb naturally falls to the AF button on the K-3, but not so much on the K-5. I still prefer back-button focusing, though

I keep hitting the Exposure Lock button. I'm sure it's just training. I also keep smudging my glasses.