[David&karen]

I used to shoot with the Canon 5DII, then Nikon D3X and here are views from both Karen and I: The Canon was sold off because of the AF in the 1.xx firmwares that were out in the first 12-18 months the camera was out. I could not AF in good light, bad light, no light. It missed 1/3 of all shots on stationary objects, even when it said it was locked. I went through 2 bodies and the same thing with both. It is FF and had really bad color noise in the shadows and banding at iso's over 800 or so. It did have a very quiet shutter in some modes, but not all. Now to the D3X: that think would probably survive falling off a cliff, but it had quirks. No cleaning of the sensor unless you opened it and did it yourself. Dust was always a factor. Huge size and weight, Karen could not use it because of that, and the size of the lenses. NOISY shutter(and the D600 we tried is like that too), I had to use a noise blimp in many cases - churches, weddings, memorials. Not an option - use the blimp or go home. It had a highest iso of 6400 and while grainy there it was like film. But, IMO, the K5/K5IIs is less grainy at all comparable iso's. And the K5/IIs is very comparable in sharpness, esp. the IIs. And also IMO the K7/K5 series is built on par with the D3X, very tough. The K7-K5-K3 is built much stronger than the Nikon D600, not even a comparison(assumption on my part about the K3, but I have used the D600 and the K's a lot). Even in Quiet mode the D600 is noisy(shutter sound), I can only assume the 610 will be the same. Now to image quality: I find the D600 and K5IIs very comparable, will have to find out about the K3 next month but I think it will be nearly as good as the D600 as far as noise and it has the potential to be much better in white balance because of the Ricoh technology and the fact that the D600 many times has terrible white balance. AF on the D600 seems to be about the same as the D3X, which is strange in that the D3X is nearly 5 year old technology. Saying that, The K5 always felt faster to AF with a good screwdrive or HSM type lens that the Nikon with the 24-70 AFS 2.8, one of the fastest to focus lenses for the Nikon. But the Nikon did better in really low light until the K5II. The K5II is much better than the Nikon in low light. The Nikons still wipe the floor with 3D focus that nails faces(like the eye of a bride) nearly every time. I hope that comes out with the K3 as a feature. But in both our opinions the K5 AF is plenty fast if it can lock(and the II locks really well), and the image of the K5IIs is less noisy than the D3X and nearly as detailed. Compared to the D600 the Nikon is a bit less noisy than the K5IIs but the detail is still nearly the same. Bottom line? Until the K3 can be fully tested I assume that it will be a bit better than the D600 in many ways(much quieter shutter, better build, lighter lenses, comparable AF if Ricoh kept it's promise to deliver there(BTW the 51 points on the Nikon AF of the D3X were not all that and a bag of chips many times...), and an incredible new sensor technology to combat moire, faster FPS, etc. Now compared to the D7100, the K3 plainly has many more features, with the possible exception of the AF points, and we shall see on that issue. Anyway I know this is a ramble, but I have used most of the cameras discussed and I stuck with the Pentax. IF I was just shooting weddings I would of had to use the Nikon for the face recognition of the PDAF, so I hope the K3 brings that.

David and Karen

[redrockcoulee]

I'm am still very skeptical. One dog may be memorized but not two.

My late dogs could be that memorized by a bird or a treat , so much so I most likely could have taken a shot with the Hasselblad and then the 4X5 without them moving. But at other times I would have needed a high speed camera like a Phantom to get tWo identical postures from them. The dog does seem extremely focused.

[normhead]

My late dogs could be that memorized by a bird or a treat , so much so I most likely could have taken a shot with the Hasselblad and then the 4X5 without them moving. But at other times I would have needed a high speed camera like a Phantom to get tWo identical postures from them. The dog does seem extremely focused.

We mesmerize our dogs with tennis balls.

Looking at a ball..



looking at a ball...


Guarding a ball.


Only dreamer won't hold still for a ball, and we have hardly any pictures of him. Our best picture of Dreamer would be a throw away for the other dogs.



Damn, I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved in this whole dog thing. You guys wore me down.

[traderdrew]

I obviously have faulty eyes. When I look at the 100% crops of the fence post, I see considerable more detail in the Nikon image. The K-3 did very well for APS-C, but the FF is better.

When I look at the close-ups of the dog's face particularly the eyes where the focus should be, I see more detail with the Pentax. Remember autofocus is inexact and I heard that exact quote from a Nikon user.

Actually, I made a mistake. I see more detail with the Nikon image on the eyes of the dog. Still autofocus is inexact and lenses are not created equal.

---

Last edited by traderdrew; 10-28-2013 at 12:37 PM.

[traderdrew]

D600 is discontinued!
Probably.
Nikon D600 marked as discontinued | Nikon Rumors

Replaced by the 610 and it isn't that big of an upgrade.

[Rondec]

I used to shoot with the Canon 5DII, then Nikon D3X and here are views from both Karen and I: The Canon was sold off because of the AF in the 1.xx firmwares that were out in the first 12-18 months the camera was out. I could not AF in good light, bad light, no light. It missed 1/3 of all shots on stationary objects, even when it said it was locked. I went through 2 bodies and the same thing with both. It is FF and had really bad color noise in the shadows and banding at iso's over 800 or so. It did have a very quiet shutter in some modes, but not all. Now to the D3X: that think would probably survive falling off a cliff, but it had quirks. No cleaning of the sensor unless you opened it and did it yourself. Dust was always a factor. Huge size and weight, Karen could not use it because of that, and the size of the lenses. NOISY shutter(and the D600 we tried is like that too), I had to use a noise blimp in many cases - churches, weddings, memorials. Not an option - use the blimp or go home. It had a highest iso of 6400 and while grainy there it was like film. But, IMO, the K5/K5IIs is less grainy at all comparable iso's. And the K5/IIs is very comparable in sharpness, esp. the IIs. And also IMO the K7/K5 series is built on par with the D3X, very tough. The K7-K5-K3 is built much stronger than the Nikon D600, not even a comparison(assumption on my part about the K3, but I have used the D600 and the K's a lot). Even in Quiet mode the D600 is noisy(shutter sound), I can only assume the 610 will be the same. Now to image quality: I find the D600 and K5IIs very comparable, will have to find out about the K3 next month but I think it will be nearly as good as the D600 as far as noise and it has the potential to be much better in white balance because of the Ricoh technology and the fact that the D600 many times has terrible white balance. AF on the D600 seems to be about the same as the D3X, which is strange in that the D3X is nearly 5 year old technology. Saying that, The K5 always felt faster to AF with a good screwdrive or HSM type lens that the Nikon with the 24-70 AFS 2.8, one of the fastest to focus lenses for the Nikon. But the Nikon did better in really low light until the K5II. The K5II is much better than the Nikon in low light. The Nikons still wipe the floor with 3D focus that nails faces(like the eye of a bride) nearly every time. I hope that comes out with the K3 as a feature. But in both our opinions the K5 AF is plenty fast if it can lock(and the II locks really well), and the image of the K5IIs is less noisy than the D3X and nearly as detailed. Compared to the D600 the Nikon is a bit less noisy than the K5IIs but the detail is still nearly the same. Bottom line? Until the K3 can be fully tested I assume that it will be a bit better than the D600 in many ways(much quieter shutter, better build, lighter lenses, comparable AF if Ricoh kept it's promise to deliver there(BTW the 51 points on the Nikon AF of the D3X were not all that and a bag of chips many times...), and an incredible new sensor technology to combat moire, faster FPS, etc. Now compared to the D7100, the K3 plainly has many more features, with the possible exception of the AF points, and we shall see on that issue. Anyway I know this is a ramble, but I have used most of the cameras discussed and I stuck with the Pentax. IF I was just shooting weddings I would of had to use the Nikon for the face recognition of the PDAF, so I hope the K3 brings that.

David and Karen

Thank you for sharing. Your experience with K5 and D600 cameras is useful. Hopefully we all get to see more real world photos from the K3 so that we can make informed decisions (although I plan to pre order one). I do like the ergonomics/build/shutter of the K5 II -- hopefully the K3 just fixes some of its quirks.

[Joel B]

To all the people who don't think a dog can focus on something for more than a second: SQUIRREL!!!

[Col]

To all the people who don't think a dog can focus on something for more than a second: SQUIRREL!!!

So what go the squirrel to stay in the same place? Especially with you shouting at it like that! Was that one the stuffed animal involved with the shot?

PS. I'm not bothered with the comparison with the Nikon (never going to shoot it) Just happy for more K3 examples.

[Rondec]

So what go the squirrel to stay in the same place? Especially with you shouting at it like that! Was that one the stuffed animal involved with the shot?

PS. I'm not bothered with the comparison with the Nikon (never going to shoot it) Just happy for more K3 examples.

I believe that would be an "Up" reference.

(I hate squirrels)....

[Joel B]

I believe that would be an "Up" reference.

(I hate squirrels)....

"grey leader checking in"
Sorry couldn't resist

[bossa]

They aren't delusional. And the reason for that is not the science.

Still trying to appreciate the depth of this comment but I'm certain it has to do with the arcane art of taking Dogs Watching Horses pictures.

Performance isn't measured in numbers, it's measured in how good an image looks.

Yes, that's one way of looking at things. How good something looks depends on what you are asking of it within yourself. Subjectivity is not just an emotional response to a visual stimuli but is based on the totality of the persons persona and all that has gone into creating it. That would mean what values you have, based on your education for one thing, and what emotional needs you have as well. It depends on what you are looking for and that's a decision not dependent on the work.

Some people see all the K-3 images being better, some see all the D600 images being better. I see the images being better or worse based on the focus point selected by the AF, not on which camera took the picture.

I'm pretty sure the blog was trying to establish more than AF as the determining factor in any judgement as to which camera was "best" - the AF point has nothing to do with the image quality per se.

So having established that one camera is one stop better at ISO and whatever... what you have to do next is prove that what you have there is a meaningful statistic.

I was offering the opinion that using the faster f/stop of f/2.8 on the DA*55 and the slower f/4 on the 85mm would have allowed DOF to match up. You could compensate via the shutter speed or ISO, but I chose ISO so as to try and match IQ, where noise was the determining factor. As you know, taking pictures of fast moving objects requires the fastest shutter speed if you want to freeze the action, and so, whether you think it's pointless of not, people do consider the affect of ISO on their images, especially if they are going to crop aggressively.

So before you can say the one stop difference is meaningful, you have to prove that it's noticeable, and what the conditions are around that. YOU have to prove you have a meaningful difference.

I don't have to prove anything. I saw the pictures had the same f/stop and different DOF and saw an opportunity to match the image quality by lowering the noise of the APS-C camera that way. When I take a picture I obviously don't say to myself, "How would this look on a FF or APS-C?" I take the picture according to what camera I am using (not the one I am not using), what I am trying to achieve and what the conditions will allow.

Until you establish that one stop of DoF, or one stop of noise, or one stop of anything is a meaningful statistic, all you've established is that there is a difference.

There IS one stop difference in the DOF of the lenses due to focal length. I don't regard DOF as some meaningless statistic, that I have to prove every day, but something to use creatively. For the sake of the test, the DOF should have been constant and the cameras should have been used in an equivalent way in order to make the actual photographer the consistent element in the mix. When comparing the way two different things work there are obviously many ways to approach that and one of them is to see how well they do the exact same thing. That would mean trying to take the same picture with the same DOF. After that decision, you would then probably attempt to optimize the IQ - a balance between the required shutter speed and ISO. Obviously with dogs watching horses (or tennis balls) one can get away with a slower ISO and keep the shutter speed constant.

....all these numerical analysis about a stop of noise, or a stop of whatever are voodoo science.

The high ISO shots on that blog had a clear advantage to the D600 and if you fail to see that then there's nothing to discuss. And again, you attempt to discredit other people's opinions calling them voodoo quacks.

So, for those who persist in this absolutely childish game of numerical differentiation, I can say absolutely, you can talk all you want about numerical differences, but until you've figured out what they mean, you're talking hot air.

Now we are childish? Telling me that I haven't figured out what "they mean" is not an argument - it's incorrect because I do understand.

The absolute bozo's who started this discussion by posting this comparison actually did a great service

Bozo's? Putting people down in a rather smug manner doesn't constitute an argument.

I know the lab rats are going to come in here and totally put this down, because the lab rats understand a different language that excludes human differences and perception and focuses on absolutes. And that's valuable stuff... but never depend on them to interpret what their numbers mean to a human being. They are often really bad at that.

People trying to discuss the parameters the camera uses, to refine their understanding of the technical limitations and potential of the digital medium, are not "Lab Rats" who are bad at being human. Yet again you are putting down other people who you happen to disagree with.

Ad Hominen attacks are not arguments and changing the basis for comparison of the original images is also disingenuous.

This thread became weird some time ago and so I'll be saying ciao at this point.

[civiletti]

You mean they never quit? As james Brown would say.. "Hep me, Hep me, please."

Not until you die - or sometime soon after that.

[normhead]

Not until you die - or sometime soon after that.

Thank goodness there's love to make it all work.

Do not buy D600, D7100, D610, and D7000. Those Cameras have problem in shutter panel that scratch each shutter panel which make dusty sensor. Nikon never said that this is not a problem but just clean it. but Korean nikon users already discovered that those camera have serious shutter scratch problem and try to sue Nikon. They lost their credit.

[jatrax]

I was doing OK until page 9 or so, now I've completely lost track of what this thread is about. Maybe I dozed off while reading. I'm thinking tennis ball mesmerized full frame cameras with soda on them..... Or something like that..........................