Nice D600 vs K-3 Comparison Gallery

JJJPhoto · 10-26-2013, 01:25 PM - **1 Like**

I just found this:

Nikon D600 vs. Pentax K-3 Image Comparison: Pentax Sweeps Nikon

alcstudios · 10-26-2013, 01:31 PM

WOW, I'm sold

goubejp · 10-26-2013, 01:41 PM

I was already sold

alcstudios · 10-26-2013, 01:46 PM

I've been debating buying for a week or so, decided about an hour ago to pull the trigger only to find out B&H's "checkout" is down..... waiting patiently

carrrlangas · 10-26-2013, 01:48 PM

I am guessing the f/1.4 version of the nikkor 85mm would give better results than the f/1.8 version used? And would be on par with the DA55?

Col · 10-26-2013, 01:51 PM

I've no idea how they/he managed to make the two dog shots that similar. But, boy that camera looks like its going to be fun. Sorry... serious face... a substantial upgrade.

**boriscleto** · 10-26-2013, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I am guessing the f/1.4 version of the nikkor 85mm would give better results than the f/1.8 version used? And would be on par with the DA55?

No. The 1.8G is considered sharper than the 1.4G.

Adam · 10-26-2013, 01:54 PM - **1 Like**

You can always get one camera to get a photo that looks better than from the other, and vice versa. It just depends on the shooting conditions, lens, and settings. I'm sure that most users won't be able to tell the two cameras apart, but now that the d600 is just $250 more than the k-3, are people going to be able to resist the ff urge?

JJJPhoto · 10-26-2013, 01:57 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I am guessing the f/1.4 version of the nikkor 85mm would give better results than the f/1.8 version used? And would be on par with the DA55?

"Possibly" ... but I doubt it would make a significant difference (if any) at the apertures used in those shots. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S FX is an amazing lens and some Nikon shooters actually prefer it over the 1.4 version because of the lighter weight, snappier AF and still very impressive image quality. (I was a Nikon shooter for a while.)

However, the bigger question is, "If your choice of lens can make THAT much of a impact to image quality then is the price premium for full frame worth it?"

I mean, if all you need is a nicer lens to make an APS-C camera kick the @$$ of a full frame camera then is full frame really the advantage that camera advertising makes it out to be?

normhead · 10-26-2013, 02:02 PM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by Adam

You can always get one camera to get a photo that looks better than from the other, and vice versa. It just depends on the shooting conditions, lens, and settings. I'm sure that most users won't be able to tell the two cameras apart, but now that the d600 is just $250 more than the k-3, are people going to be able to resist the ff urge?

Only people who are so fixated on the pro - FF arguements that they can't see the forest for the trees. For the most part the K-3 images are sharper, better contrast, and more DoF. SO what's not to like?

It's fine to say, well this is only one comparison... but this is when the lawyer puts down his folder, turns to the other lawyer and says, your witness. SO where is the compelling competing evidence? They didn't even mention things like the a faster frame rate etc.

The astounding thing to me is that a person could look at those images and think, "I have to have a full frame." Looking at those images why wouldn't you say "I have to have a K-3." What's not to like?

bossa · 10-26-2013, 02:02 PM

It's unfortunate that they used the same f/stop per camera. The K-3 needed to be one stop faster to be fair (DOF mainly)

PS:

At the highest ISO setting the D600 bests the Pentax (as you would expect)

*but*

had the Pentax lens been used one stop faster (for equivalent DOF) the ISO on the K-3 would NOT have had to be the same anyway and

so

the Pentax would have matched the FF with IQ.

**StigVidar** · 10-26-2013, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Adam

You can always get one camera to get a photo that looks better than from the other, and vice versa. It just depends on the shooting conditions, lens, and settings. I'm sure that most users won't be able to tell the two cameras apart, but now that the d600 is just $250 more than the k-3, are people going to be able to resist the ff urge?

Well, I am going for aps-c. It gives me 24MP on a smaller area and that counts a lot for me as I want the most out of my tele lenses.

carrrlangas · 10-26-2013, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by JJJPhoto

However, the bigger question is, "If your choice of lens can make THAT much of a impact to image quality then is the price premium for full frame worth it?"

I mean, if all you need is a nicer lens to make an APS-C camera kick the @$$ of a full frame camera then is full frame really the advantage that camera advertising makes it out to be?

Thanks for the info about the lens. Regarding sensor formats, I don´t really care as long as I can get good value lens and that means k mount to me. I don´t think that test proves anything. And, it could be the other way arround, with marketing telling you APS-C is good enough and much cheaper? I am not for or against any of these formats. Don´t even think there´s a point comparing them.

JJJPhoto · 10-26-2013, 02:15 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by bossa

It's unfortunate that they used the same f/stop per camera. The K-3 needed to be one stop faster to be fair (DOF mainly)

Yes, F/4 with a 85mm lens is shallower than F/4 on a 55mm lens (which is why the Nikon has smoother bokeh/background blur) ... but I'm sure more people would cry foul if the author used different apertures on the different cameras.

I'm more impressed with the way the color and contrast are rendered in the areas of the images that are in focus ... and how the K-3 handles ISO noise.

If you want more background blur on the K-3 you can shoot at F2 or 2.8 (or go crazy and shoot wide open at F1.4 if shallow DOF is really your thing).

In my mind the argument for full frame comes down to DOF/crop factor and whether that's a problem for you. Trying to argue in favor of full frame because of "image quality" is becoming less and less of a real issue ... camera manufacturers just want you to think it matters more so they can sell full frame cameras. Sort of the same conclusion I came to earlier this year after shooting with the Sony A99 and NEX-6 side by side for a while:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/216935-why-i-dont-...ull-frame.html

normhead · 10-26-2013, 02:16 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by bossa

It's unfortunate that they used the same f/stop per camera. The K-3 needed to be one stop faster to be fair (DOF mainly)

Well actually, no, for those of us for whom wider DoF is critical, straight up comparisons are what we want. We want to know, ƒ5.6 on APS-c compared to ƒ5.6 on FF, because ƒ5.6 is usually the sweet spot for lw/ph, we want to know which gives us more DoF at that point, this crazy notion of less DoF at a given Aperture is better, 95% of the time is total hogwash.

My last series of mushroom shots, I didn't have the DoF I wanted at ƒ22. How would having a full frame have helped me? I took 4 photos each at ƒ stops 2.8, 5.6, 11, and 22. 10 shots, The keepers, 5 @ƒ22, 4 @ ƒ 11, 1 @ ƒ 5.6. You have to get this narrower DoF is good thing out of your head. 95% of the time it's not. Next some clown will come on here and say "well you could always have gone to ƒ32 on FF. Well, the lens, which is an FF lens, doesn't go to ƒ 32, so no, I couldn't have done the same thing by going to ƒ32 on FF.

10-26-2013, 01:25 PM - 1 Like	#1
JJJPhoto Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 419	Nice D600 vs K-3 Comparison Gallery I just found this: Nikon D600 vs. Pentax K-3 Image Comparison: Pentax Sweeps Nikon

10-26-2013, 01:54 PM - 1 Like	#8
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	You can always get one camera to get a photo that looks better than from the other, and vice versa. It just depends on the shooting conditions, lens, and settings. I'm sure that most users won't be able to tell the two cameras apart, but now that the d600 is just $250 more than the k-3, are people going to be able to resist the ff urge? Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-26-2013, 02:02 PM	#11
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	It's unfortunate that they used the same f/stop per camera. The K-3 needed to be one stop faster to be fair (DOF mainly) PS: At the highest ISO setting the D600 bests the Pentax (as you would expect) but had the Pentax lens been used one stop faster (for equivalent DOF) the ISO on the K-3 would NOT have had to be the same anyway and so the Pentax would have matched the FF with IQ. Last edited by bossa; 10-26-2013 at 02:10 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 vs K-r vs K-7 - DSLR Comparison	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	40	09-30-2013 06:22 PM
Current K-5 vs. K-30 autofocus comparison?	Newtophotos	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	08-27-2013 10:31 AM
k-30 vs Nikon D600	zorza	Pentax K-30 & K-50	31	01-02-2013 04:30 PM
Unscientific Comparison: K5 vs. 5DII vs. D600	sb in ak	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	36	12-27-2012 01:13 PM
Camera comparison: One X vs Galaxy S II vs Nexus vs N8 vs iPhone 4S	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	04-12-2012 07:41 AM

10-26-2013, 01:31 PM	#2
alcstudios Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 146	WOW, I'm sold

10-26-2013, 01:41 PM	#3
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	I was already sold

10-26-2013, 01:46 PM	#4
alcstudios Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 146	I've been debating buying for a week or so, decided about an hour ago to pull the trigger only to find out B&H's "checkout" is down..... waiting patiently

10-26-2013, 01:48 PM	#5
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	I am guessing the f/1.4 version of the nikkor 85mm would give better results than the f/1.8 version used? And would be on par with the DA55?

10-26-2013, 01:51 PM	#6
Col Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Stansted Essex Photos: Gallery Posts: 614	I've no idea how they/he managed to make the two dog shots that similar. But, boy that camera looks like its going to be fun. Sorry... serious face... a substantial upgrade.

10-26-2013, 01:52 PM	#7
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by carrrlangas I am guessing the f/1.4 version of the nikkor 85mm would give better results than the f/1.8 version used? And would be on par with the DA55? No. The 1.8G is considered sharper than the 1.4G.

10-26-2013, 01:57 PM - 1 Like	#9
JJJPhoto Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 419 Original Poster	Originally posted by carrrlangas I am guessing the f/1.4 version of the nikkor 85mm would give better results than the f/1.8 version used? And would be on par with the DA55? "Possibly" ... but I doubt it would make a significant difference (if any) at the apertures used in those shots. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S FX is an amazing lens and some Nikon shooters actually prefer it over the 1.4 version because of the lighter weight, snappier AF and still very impressive image quality. (I was a Nikon shooter for a while.) However, the bigger question is, "If your choice of lens can make THAT much of a impact to image quality then is the price premium for full frame worth it?" I mean, if all you need is a nicer lens to make an APS-C camera kick the @$$ of a full frame camera then is full frame really the advantage that camera advertising makes it out to be?

10-26-2013, 02:02 PM - 4 Likes	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Adam You can always get one camera to get a photo that looks better than from the other, and vice versa. It just depends on the shooting conditions, lens, and settings. I'm sure that most users won't be able to tell the two cameras apart, but now that the d600 is just $250 more than the k-3, are people going to be able to resist the ff urge? Only people who are so fixated on the pro - FF arguements that they can't see the forest for the trees. For the most part the K-3 images are sharper, better contrast, and more DoF. SO what's not to like? It's fine to say, well this is only one comparison... but this is when the lawyer puts down his folder, turns to the other lawyer and says, your witness. SO where is the compelling competing evidence? They didn't even mention things like the a faster frame rate etc. The astounding thing to me is that a person could look at those images and think, "I have to have a full frame." Looking at those images why wouldn't you say "I have to have a K-3." What's not to like?

10-26-2013, 02:05 PM	#12
StigVidar Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 705	Originally posted by Adam You can always get one camera to get a photo that looks better than from the other, and vice versa. It just depends on the shooting conditions, lens, and settings. I'm sure that most users won't be able to tell the two cameras apart, but now that the d600 is just $250 more than the k-3, are people going to be able to resist the ff urge? Well, I am going for aps-c. It gives me 24MP on a smaller area and that counts a lot for me as I want the most out of my tele lenses.

10-26-2013, 02:11 PM	#13
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by JJJPhoto However, the bigger question is, "If your choice of lens can make THAT much of a impact to image quality then is the price premium for full frame worth it?" I mean, if all you need is a nicer lens to make an APS-C camera kick the @$$ of a full frame camera then is full frame really the advantage that camera advertising makes it out to be? Thanks for the info about the lens. Regarding sensor formats, I don´t really care as long as I can get good value lens and that means k mount to me. I don´t think that test proves anything. And, it could be the other way arround, with marketing telling you APS-C is good enough and much cheaper? I am not for or against any of these formats. Don´t even think there´s a point comparing them.

10-26-2013, 02:15 PM - 2 Likes	#14
JJJPhoto Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 419 Original Poster	Originally posted by bossa It's unfortunate that they used the same f/stop per camera. The K-3 needed to be one stop faster to be fair (DOF mainly) Yes, F/4 with a 85mm lens is shallower than F/4 on a 55mm lens (which is why the Nikon has smoother bokeh/background blur) ... but I'm sure more people would cry foul if the author used different apertures on the different cameras. I'm more impressed with the way the color and contrast are rendered in the areas of the images that are in focus ... and how the K-3 handles ISO noise. If you want more background blur on the K-3 you can shoot at F2 or 2.8 (or go crazy and shoot wide open at F1.4 if shallow DOF is really your thing). In my mind the argument for full frame comes down to DOF/crop factor and whether that's a problem for you. Trying to argue in favor of full frame because of "image quality" is becoming less and less of a real issue ... camera manufacturers just want you to think it matters more so they can sell full frame cameras. Sort of the same conclusion I came to earlier this year after shooting with the Sony A99 and NEX-6 side by side for a while: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/216935-why-i-dont-...ull-frame.html

10-26-2013, 02:16 PM - 3 Likes	#15
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bossa It's unfortunate that they used the same f/stop per camera. The K-3 needed to be one stop faster to be fair (DOF mainly) Well actually, no, for those of us for whom wider DoF is critical, straight up comparisons are what we want. We want to know, ƒ5.6 on APS-c compared to ƒ5.6 on FF, because ƒ5.6 is usually the sweet spot for lw/ph, we want to know which gives us more DoF at that point, this crazy notion of less DoF at a given Aperture is better, 95% of the time is total hogwash. My last series of mushroom shots, I didn't have the DoF I wanted at ƒ22. How would having a full frame have helped me? I took 4 photos each at ƒ stops 2.8, 5.6, 11, and 22. 10 shots, The keepers, 5 @ƒ22, 4 @ ƒ 11, 1 @ ƒ 5.6. You have to get this narrower DoF is good thing out of your head. 95% of the time it's not. Next some clown will come on here and say "well you could always have gone to ƒ32 on FF. Well, the lens, which is an FF lens, doesn't go to ƒ 32, so no, I couldn't have done the same thing by going to ƒ32 on FF.