[normhead]

Just out of curiosity, shooting the same lens, from the same blind, even with the same chair.... all shots uncropped, taken within the amount of time it takes to change a lens, after checking to make sure the animal hadn't moved much.
I took both bodies out and used them both for the same shot a few times...
Really, it's the same as the difference between using a 500mm lens or a 750mm lens

K-1


K-3


K-1


K-3


K-1


K-3

[HarisF1]

Great comparisons. Are there many reasons to use a K-1 for wildlife photography over a K-3?

[pres589]

Awesome post; thanks for doing this and sharing with us.

This kind of why I think Ricoh will get another top-tier APS-C body out there after the K-3 II.

[stevebrot]

Yep, the angle of view is definitely different and is traceable to the so-called crop factor. Despite that, the magnification (reproduction ratio at the sensor) is the same for both formats. What changes is that half again greater enlargement is needed post-capture to get equivalent print size from the smaller format.* This is readily apparent when comparing FF vs. crop images from the K-1 at full resolution on screen. Normalizing to the same pixel dimensions (same display size) involves upsampling of the APS-C crop (i.e. making bigger with no increase in capture data).

The advantage that the K-3 brings to your examples is that its pixel density is significantly higher than the K-1. That difference translates to "greater reach" with equivalent quality for the K-3. (Assuming, of course, that the lens is non-limiting and that capture quality pixel-wise is equivalent between the two cameras.)

Edit: It was pointed out by Norm in posts below, that the first paragraph above along with the note below is confusing. The second paragraph is close to the point he intended to make.

Steve

* The best way to think about it is to simply consider how it is done old-school in the darkroom making an 9x6 from a 35mm negative and then 6x4 from an APS negative. The head stays at the same height despite both printing the full frame.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 02-26-2017 at 04:15 PM.

[KiloHotelphoto]

Great comparisons. Are there many reasons to use a K-1 for wildlife photography over a K-3?

I guess it depends on what lens you have and what size wildlife. I love the K-1 and DA560 combo for setting up on a tripod and staying in the same spot for awhile but I just got the DA*300 and that on the K-3 is a great walk around combo.

Great comparison Norm, what lens did you use?

[normhead]

I guess it depends on what lens you have and what size wildlife. I love the K-1 and DA560 combo for setting up on a tripod and staying in the same spot for awhile but I just got the DA*300 and that on the K-3 is a great walk around combo.

Great comparison Norm, what lens did you use?

Tamron SP AF 2.8 LF [IF] with the F 1.7 AF adapter ( 510mm ƒ4.5).

---------- Post added 02-26-17 at 02:29 PM ----------

Yep, the angle of view is definitely different and is traceable to the so-called crop factor. Despite that, the magnification (reproduction ratio at the sensor) is the same for both formats. What changes is that half again greater enlargement is needed post-capture to get equivalent print size from the smaller format.* This is readily apparent when comparing FF vs. crop images from the K-1 at full resolution on screen. Normalizing to the same pixel dimensions (same display size) involves upsampling of the APS-C crop (i.e. making bigger with no increase in capture data).

The advantage that the K-3 brings to your examples is that its pixel density is significantly higher than the K-1. That difference translates to "greater reach" with equivalent quality for the K-3. (Assuming, of course, that the lens is non-limiting and that capture quality pixel-wise is equivalent between the two cameras.)


Steve

* The best way to think about it is to simply consider how it is done old-school in the darkroom making an 9x6 from a 35mm negative and then 6x4 from an APS negative. The head stays at the same height despite both printing the full frame.

There are a couple of things confusing about this.... the first assumption is that I don't have to crop the K-1 image, once I do that, the whole enlarger height issue becomes moot.

The actual fact of the matter is that taken right down to DNG pixel size, the Digital negative of the K-3 on the bird itself , the subject is bigger, therefore the K-1 image would need to be enlarged to produce the same size image.

K-3 1180 pixels wide


K-1 1180 pixels wide crop


So practically it's the opposite of what you seem to be saying. To match the K-3 subject, assuming the K-1 image would have to be cropped, it's the FF image that would have to be enlarged to produce the same size subject, with the associated loss of detail. Within the area of the crop, the K-3 provides more detail.

When the K-1 image doesn't have to be cropped, I just use the K-1 and achieve more resolution. It's when it would have to be cropped that's when the K-3 advantage becomes apparent.

You seem to have missed the fact that the actual subject is lmore pixels on the K-3 image. The K-1 just adds more area around the subject, that you may or may not want in your photo.

If you want the subject to be the same size in both cases you are going to have to magnify the K-1 image, i.e. raise your imaginary enlarger head. The exact opposite of what you seem to have suggested.

Or to go completely digital (which is much less confusing) the K-3 will pack 2700 lw/ph into an area that the K-1 can't exceed 2100 lw/ph/ There i more subject resolution in the K-3 image.

[HarisF1]

I agree with Normhead on this one. I would think that this increased detail (due to the smaller pixels on the K-3 sensor) would be worth sticking with the K-3 unless light levels were lower.

[normhead]

I agree with Normhead on this one. I would think that this increased detail (due to the smaller pixels on the K-3 sensor) would be worth sticking with the K-3 unless light levels were lower.

Light levels are a consideration as well. you might not be able to get a K-1 shot with a K-3. That is actually the first consideration of what comes out of the camera bag. If light levels are low and I don't think I can get a decent exposure with the K-3, it doesn't matter if it would have been better. Today I had lots of light, and was able to shoot the K-3 at 400 ISO, so advantage K-3, but only because my subjects were so small in the K-1 frame. One more stop darker, and I probably would have shot with the K-1, just based on my experience of my probable success rates in different conditions.

In my experience, I use the K-1 whenever I can, but the K-3 gives me a little extra in some situations where it's needed. Especially when I need 800mm but only have 500.

[chuck_c]

Great illustration and explanation. Thank you!

[photoptimist]

Thanks doing this. I can see why APS-C is superior for these kinds of images.

As others have said, the optical magnification is the same for both K-3 and K-1 (with a given lens and subject distance) but the system magnification is 1.5X higher for the K-3 because the image from the smaller sensor is magnified more to fill the same amount of screen or print area compared to the K-1 image.

It's very clear that if one wants a images with a narrow field of view using a relatively compact gear, APS-C or M4/3 is better than FF or MF. A similar problem occurs in macro in which replicating a 1:1 magnification APS-C shot requires adding extension tubes or a teleconvertor on FF.


BTW, is it my imagination or do the K-3 images have a lot more purple artifacts? Given that it's the same lens, distance, and overall subject matter conditions, I have to wonder if there's some difference in the Bayer filter color spectra or a difference in the IR-cut filters between the two cameras.

[Rupert]

Very interesting. I am no technical person and can only reflect my personal experience. I have not owned a K3 so I can't make any comparison but accept yours as logically correct.
What I do know, my K5IIs shots with my Bigma were of better quality than those with my K1, either shooting in Crop Mode or in cropping in processing. I am keeping my eye open for another K5IIs for that reason. For my particular needs the K5IIs was adequate in all areas except low light shooting and in AF performance. In decent light it was otherwise superior....so it makes sense that for wildlife shooting the K3 would also be superior.

My dream camera would be a K5IIs with the same low light abilities of the K1 and the same AF abilities of the K1. Killer camera!

Regards!

[normhead]

Very interesting. I am no technical person and can only reflect my personal experience. I have not owned a K3 so I can't make any comparison but accept yours as logically correct.
What I do know, my K5IIs shots with my Bigma were of better quality than those with my K1, either shooting in Crop Mode or in cropping in processing. I am keeping my eye open for another K5IIs for that reason. For my particular needs the K5IIs was adequate in all areas except low light shooting and in <acronym title="Auto Focus">AF</acronym> performance. In decent light it was otherwise superior....so it makes sense that for wildlife shooting the K3 would also be superior.

My dream camera would be a K5IIs with the same low light abilities of the K1 and the same <acronym title="Auto Focus">AF</acronym> abilities of the K1. Killer camera!

Regards!

If the low light abilities of the KP are good you might like it.

[Rupert]

If the low light abilities of the KP are good you might like it.

I might....how about the <acronym title="Auto Focus">AF</acronym> compared to the K1? Any information on that?

Regards!

[stevebrot]

There are a couple of things confusing about this.... the first assumption is that I don't have to crop the K-1 image, once I do that, the whole enlarger height issue becomes moot.

The actual fact of the matter is that taken right down to DNG pixel size, the Digital negative of the K-3 on the bird itself , the subject is bigger, therefore the K-1 image would need to be enlarged to produce the same size image.

Don't confuse sampling frequency (pixel pitch) with magnification and enlargement. That is why I used the analog optical model. Your original set of examples show the so-called crop factor advantage of being able to fill the frame with a shorter focal length and nothing more. A crop is a crop is a crop and magnification is the same.

That being said, all things are NOT equal when considering the full work flow because of the finer pixel pitch on the K-3 relative to the K-1. Your second set of images demonstrates that nicely and while not the same as more magnification, the higher pixel density may well allow one to print/display larger. That is where my analog example breaks down. With a full digital work flow, the K-3 should be able to print/display about 20% larger by lineal dimension than a crop from the K-1, assuming low levels of both noise and artifact. (More data are only more data if in fact all the "data" are data.) Push the ISO envelope a little too hard and the advantage disappears.

FWIW, I generally recommend 24 Mpx APS-C over 36 Mpx FF for wildlife, sports, birds, and macro with the assumption that light is good. The promise of a little extra reach is worth it and is one reason why I don't see a time when an APS-C camera will not be part of my kit.


Steve

[tcwilson]

The other consideration is the quality of the lens when zooming in to compensate for using a FF versus crop. As the pixel pitch becomes smaller, optical flaws can become more apparent, and can be even more of a limiting factor in IQ than whether you are using a crop or FF camera. Just out of curiosity, what lens did you use for these pictures?