Nice D600 vs K-3 Comparison Gallery

Na Horuk · 10-26-2013, 02:19 PM - **1 Like**

I dont believe the test.. I mean.. its a Nikon! And FF!! It is the very definition of perfection.. no, it must be the light.. or the lenses.. or some other trickery... An APS-C Pentax could never make a good photo.. much less one indistinguishable from, or even better than, an FF Nikon [/sarcasm]

carrrlangas · 10-26-2013, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by normhead

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.

Well, in this case, a larger format will help (keeping the same number of pixels as in the K-3 and D600, for example) providing larger pixels, avoiding diffraction effect further. f/22 probably gives some visible degradation* on APS-C, while not so much on 24x36mm

*relative to printing size, viewing distance... see the advanced "diffraction limit calculator" Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

civiletti · 10-26-2013, 02:25 PM

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.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-26-2013, 02:30 PM

Well the DA*55mm is an excellent lens, so that gives you all you can want from the sensor inside the K-3. Good competition in all cases I guess.

JJJPhoto · 10-26-2013, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

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.

I don't know about faulty eyes, but you must prefer the less contrast and softer color rendering in the Nikon.

As far as detail in the fence post shots, I'd say it's on par.

lister6520 · 10-26-2013, 02:38 PM

This shallow DOF gets me also. One of the recurring reasons I always come across for wanting FF is the shallower DOF, which sounds kind of upside down to me. I often have an issue with not having enough DOF and always end up compromising between high F-stop resulting in poor resolution (diffraction) or poor depth of field because of putting a wide enough aperture to avoid diffraction. With FF the problem will only be bigger.

Granted, there is the occasional situation where a photo needs a very shallow DOF, and a larger sensor always helps there, but I find that to be by far the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps for others it is the converse.

Poor DOF was one of the things I had to get used to when changing back to SLR and I still occasionally use a compact camera for certain shots (and recently ordered a Q10 to replace that), but overall APS-C seems to be the best balance for me between image quality + sensitivity and depth of field.

normhead · 10-26-2013, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by JJJPhoto

I don't know about faulty eyes, but you must prefer the less contrast and softer color rendering in the Nikon.

As far as detail in the fence post shots, I'd say it's on par.

Too me, it's a saw off, some K-3 images are better, some D600 images are better, I assume that's because of focusing issues etc. I won't be feeling at all bad I bought a K-3 instead of a D600.

**jatrax** · 10-26-2013, 02:39 PM

You can argue the results, but to my eye the k-3 at the very least holds it's own against the D600, some images I think the D600 is better some the other way. Might depend on what you are looking for.
I think the noteworthy thing with this review is that it happened. After years of no one daring to hint a Pentax could compete on a level playing field in magazine or online reviews we suddenly have a review saying things like "Our testing shows that the Pentax K-3 swept the Nikon D600 in almost every image we took"

That might be hyperbole but the mere fact they dared publish it is significant.

normhead · 10-26-2013, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

You can argue the results, but to my eye the k-3 at the very least holds it's own against the D600, some images I think the D600 is better some the other way. Might depend on what you are looking for.
I think the noteworthy thing with this review is that it happened. After years of no one daring to hint a Pentax could compete on a level playing field in magazine or online reviews we suddenly have a review saying things like "Our testing shows that the Pentax K-3 swept the Nikon D600 in almost every image we took"

That might be hyperbole but the mere fact they dared publish it is significant.

And the fact that they didn't feel compelled to quote even one set of tables proving which images had better DoF etc. and just put out some images so people could just compare and make up there own minds is (sarcasticly) astounding. What a novel concept.

bossa · 10-26-2013, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by normhead

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.

My comment was regarding ISO noise, not DOF, and at any rate these test pictures have nothing to do with shooting at f/22. They are meant to show how well the K-3 matches a FF camera or bests it. Each format has it's obvious strengths but the starting point for any comparison is where they overlap when trying to take the exact same picture.

The D600 clearly beats the K-3 at ISO 12800 where the same aperture settings were used and my comment was meant to read that if the K-3 lens was set to f/2.8 (to match DOF of the 85mm @f/4) in ALL relevant pictures then the K-3's ISO could have been set one stop slower and the K-3 would have then matched the IQ (DOF, FOV and noise) with the D600 still set to the higher ISO and smaller aperture. Perhaps interchanging a stop of the lens with one stop ISO could be the subject of another comparison run?

Judging these pictures as if they are the same is faulty methodology as they are clearly NOT the same where DOF is concerned.

IMO the idea should have been to see how THE SAME PICTURE turns out in each format (i.e. alter ISO to compensate for 1 stop faster lens setting).

What's the point of making a comparison if you aren't trying to take the same photograph? And by that I mean DOF, FOV and lighting.

PS> @ Norm: I don't know where you get the idea that I'm after the most shallow DOF possible. I wasn't remotely discussing that at all in my original post. And BTW, I quite often use my AF-S 300 F4 Nikon lens for close-up stuff.. it can go down to f/32 but I doubt I'd ever use it seriously in that capacity.

OldNoob · 10-26-2013, 03:20 PM

I'm with Col,, how in the world did he manage to keep both dogs still in the same position as he mounted the other camera?????

Ivor K Ecks · 10-26-2013, 03:23 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?

In Australia it seems that the D600 is $600au more expensive still.
If I remember correctly it was stated that Pentax asked that photos taken with the pre-production models were not to be published.Do these samples mean that production models are now available for review?. And if so where is your one?

crussellsprout · 10-26-2013, 03:27 PM

@civiletti Actually the D600 is not capturing more detail, the two shots were just focused on different parts of the wire. You can notice that the K-3 has more detail where it was focused, just to the right of the wire knot, while the D600 has more detail on the wire knot where IT was focused (but less detail to the right of that knot).

bossa · 10-26-2013, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Ivor K Ecks

In Australia it seems that the D600 is $600au more expensive still.
If I remember correctly it was stated that Pentax asked that photos taken with the pre-production models were not to be published.Do these samples mean that production models are now available for review?. And if so where is your one?

We pay an extra 10% GST and anything Nikon Australia adds on that they think they can get away with.

crussellsprout · 10-26-2013, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by crussellsprout

@civiletti Actually the D600 is not capturing more detail, the two shots were just focused on different parts of the wire. You can notice that the K-3 has more detail where it was focused, just to the right of the wire knot, while the D600 has more detail on the wire knot where IT was focused (but less detail to the right of that knot).

Hmm, not sure where that href text came from, and I can't seem to edit my message to remove it...

Anyways, more sample images like this are very reassuring as to the K-3 IQ and solid high ISO performance

I'm hoping the K-3 will be in stock at a local London Drugs so I can snag one before going on vacation Nov. 8th to Thailand, Cambodia and Japan. Going to be a very welcome upgrade to my trusty K10D!!

10-26-2013, 03:00 PM	#25
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by normhead 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. My comment was regarding ISO noise, not DOF, and at any rate these test pictures have nothing to do with shooting at f/22. They are meant to show how well the K-3 matches a FF camera or bests it. Each format has it's obvious strengths but the starting point for any comparison is where they overlap when trying to take the exact same picture. The D600 clearly beats the K-3 at ISO 12800 where the same aperture settings were used and my comment was meant to read that if the K-3 lens was set to f/2.8 (to match DOF of the 85mm @f/4) in ALL relevant pictures then the K-3's ISO could have been set one stop slower and the K-3 would have then matched the IQ (DOF, FOV and noise) with the D600 still set to the higher ISO and smaller aperture. Perhaps interchanging a stop of the lens with one stop ISO could be the subject of another comparison run? Judging these pictures as if they are the same is faulty methodology as they are clearly NOT the same where DOF is concerned. IMO the idea should have been to see how THE SAME PICTURE turns out in each format (i.e. alter ISO to compensate for 1 stop faster lens setting). What's the point of making a comparison if you aren't trying to take the same photograph? And by that I mean DOF, FOV and lighting. PS> @ Norm: I don't know where you get the idea that I'm after the most shallow DOF possible. I wasn't remotely discussing that at all in my original post. And BTW, I quite often use my AF-S 300 F4 Nikon lens for close-up stuff.. it can go down to f/32 but I doubt I'd ever use it seriously in that capacity. Last edited by bossa; 10-26-2013 at 03:26 PM.

10-26-2013, 03:20 PM	#26
OldNoob Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 402	I'm with Col,, how in the world did he manage to keep both dogs still in the same position as he mounted the other camera????? Last edited by OldNoob; 10-26-2013 at 03:27 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, 02:19 PM - 1 Like	#16
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I dont believe the test.. I mean.. its a Nikon! And FF!! It is the very definition of perfection.. no, it must be the light.. or the lenses.. or some other trickery... An APS-C Pentax could never make a good photo.. much less one indistinguishable from, or even better than, an FF Nikon [/sarcasm]

10-26-2013, 02:24 PM	#17
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by normhead 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. Well, in this case, a larger format will help (keeping the same number of pixels as in the K-3 and D600, for example) providing larger pixels, avoiding diffraction effect further. f/22 probably gives some visible degradation* on APS-C, while not so much on 24x36mm *relative to printing size, viewing distance... see the advanced "diffraction limit calculator" Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

10-26-2013, 02:25 PM	#18
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	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.

10-26-2013, 02:30 PM	#19
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well the DA*55mm is an excellent lens, so that gives you all you can want from the sensor inside the K-3. Good competition in all cases I guess.

10-26-2013, 02:33 PM	#20
JJJPhoto Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 419 Original Poster	Originally posted by civiletti 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. I don't know about faulty eyes, but you must prefer the less contrast and softer color rendering in the Nikon. As far as detail in the fence post shots, I'd say it's on par.

10-26-2013, 02:38 PM	#21
lister6520 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 733	This shallow DOF gets me also. One of the recurring reasons I always come across for wanting FF is the shallower DOF, which sounds kind of upside down to me. I often have an issue with not having enough DOF and always end up compromising between high F-stop resulting in poor resolution (diffraction) or poor depth of field because of putting a wide enough aperture to avoid diffraction. With FF the problem will only be bigger. Granted, there is the occasional situation where a photo needs a very shallow DOF, and a larger sensor always helps there, but I find that to be by far the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps for others it is the converse. Poor DOF was one of the things I had to get used to when changing back to SLR and I still occasionally use a compact camera for certain shots (and recently ordered a Q10 to replace that), but overall APS-C seems to be the best balance for me between image quality + sensitivity and depth of field.

10-26-2013, 02:38 PM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by JJJPhoto I don't know about faulty eyes, but you must prefer the less contrast and softer color rendering in the Nikon. As far as detail in the fence post shots, I'd say it's on par. Too me, it's a saw off, some K-3 images are better, some D600 images are better, I assume that's because of focusing issues etc. I won't be feeling at all bad I bought a K-3 instead of a D600.

10-26-2013, 02:39 PM	#23
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	You can argue the results, but to my eye the k-3 at the very least holds it's own against the D600, some images I think the D600 is better some the other way. Might depend on what you are looking for. I think the noteworthy thing with this review is that it happened. After years of no one daring to hint a Pentax could compete on a level playing field in magazine or online reviews we suddenly have a review saying things like "Our testing shows that the Pentax K-3 swept the Nikon D600 in almost every image we took" That might be hyperbole but the mere fact they dared publish it is significant.

10-26-2013, 02:43 PM	#24
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by jatrax You can argue the results, but to my eye the k-3 at the very least holds it's own against the D600, some images I think the D600 is better some the other way. Might depend on what you are looking for. I think the noteworthy thing with this review is that it happened. After years of no one daring to hint a Pentax could compete on a level playing field in magazine or online reviews we suddenly have a review saying things like "Our testing shows that the Pentax K-3 swept the Nikon D600 in almost every image we took" That might be hyperbole but the mere fact they dared publish it is significant. And the fact that they didn't feel compelled to quote even one set of tables proving which images had better DoF etc. and just put out some images so people could just compare and make up there own minds is (sarcasticly) astounding. What a novel concept.

10-26-2013, 03:23 PM	#27
Ivor K Ecks Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 294	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? In Australia it seems that the D600 is $600au more expensive still. If I remember correctly it was stated that Pentax asked that photos taken with the pre-production models were not to be published.Do these samples mean that production models are now available for review?. And if so where is your one?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2013, 03:27 PM	#28
crussellsprout Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 60	@civiletti Actually the D600 is not capturing more detail, the two shots were just focused on different parts of the wire. You can notice that the K-3 has more detail where it was focused, just to the right of the wire knot, while the D600 has more detail on the wire knot where IT was focused (but less detail to the right of that knot).

10-26-2013, 03:29 PM	#29
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Ivor K Ecks In Australia it seems that the D600 is $600au more expensive still. If I remember correctly it was stated that Pentax asked that photos taken with the pre-production models were not to be published.Do these samples mean that production models are now available for review?. And if so where is your one? We pay an extra 10% GST and anything Nikon Australia adds on that they think they can get away with.

10-26-2013, 03:31 PM	#30
crussellsprout Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 60	Originally posted by crussellsprout @civiletti Actually the D600 is not capturing more detail, the two shots were just focused on different parts of the wire. You can notice that the K-3 has more detail where it was focused, just to the right of the wire knot, while the D600 has more detail on the wire knot where IT was focused (but less detail to the right of that knot). Hmm, not sure where that href text came from, and I can't seem to edit my message to remove it... Anyways, more sample images like this are very reassuring as to the K-3 IQ and solid high ISO performance I'm hoping the K-3 will be in stock at a local London Drugs so I can snag one before going on vacation Nov. 8th to Thailand, Cambodia and Japan. Going to be a very welcome upgrade to my trusty K10D!!