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?
The D600 is not $250 apart here in Singapore.
Add to that, I would not buy one here even if its was $250 cheaper because of the stain issues (and 2nd hand prices are falling fast for this camera here w/ few ppl picking it up).
It can be cleaned of course, but the hassle and its just wrong to give Nikon the money for their poor handling of the issue.
Its also not as 'complete' a camera compared to K3 (SR; -3evAF, 24 cross points, etc)
I think I see better color+contrast on the K3 shots.
Looking at the fence post, the D600 still has better fine details (slight).
It also has at least 1 stain spot
The K3 certainly has better colors and contrast which can also add to apparent sharpness.
The way both cameras handle high ISO to me is a wash.
The 12800 shots, the K3 is certainly more defined (or is it just more contrast??) than the D600, but its grainier but thats not a bother to me at all.
What surprised me was that DOF was similar enough in the samples not to give the D600 an advantage in giving a shallow DOF 'look' often associated with FF.
I attribute this to the fact that they were all samples of small stuff where the k3 can get closer in focus.
Overall, very impressive for the K3 and we are not even talking about the SR, -3v AF, etc..
To me the conclusion is
"If you already have a Pentax, buy a K3, and don't think about all the big theories and doom and gloom"
"If you do not, consider the K3 unless sensor size is the dominant feature you are looking for in a camera at this price point"