[kenafein]

I can't really tell the difference in a well taken picture from my NEX6, K5 or D600. I even think that, for many shots, the thin DOF of FF gets in the way. My friend shoots at 1.4 on his m4/3 camera and it's actually usable. On the D600 is is much more situational. So 1 stop more of light vs one stop more of clean ISO is what it comes down to. I don't see anyone running out and saying we should all buy m4/3 cameras instead of APS-C however. APS-C isn't the magical optimal sensor size(not saying FF is). A bigger sensor does have some advantages. We all know that Pentax can tune the heck out of a sensor, imagine if they'd tuned the D600 sensor. FF has its advantages in wide angle and less extreme lens design(thin DOF when you want it). Nikon has system advantages(Flash, AF, accessories) and Pentax has its advantages(smaller lenses, AA option, IS). Pentax is not a bargain system. Nikon's 85/1.8g has no equivalent on the Pentax system, for the price, nothing comes close. The DA*55/1.4 is much more expensive. To get the same DOF you'd need to have a 58/1.2 lens. How expensive would that be? Not that most people need that or care, but the classic prime lengths, under 100, seems to be cheaper on full frame. If you don't like Nikon's rendering, many don't, that's easy to change also.

---

Last edited by kenafein; 10-26-2013 at 11:37 PM.

[Rorschach]

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

But, but...that can't be so...it is the invincible Nikon after all! And the glorious full frame. It can not be so!







/sarcasm

[Viennese]

It´s totally unfair. The testers forgot to turn the D600´s adjustable AA-filter off

[civiletti]

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.

Contrast and color density can be increased easily. Resolution, not so much.

[Barry Pearson]

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.

If I have too much depth of field, I typically select the background in Photoshop and use Lens Blur (as a smart filter). I might use a gradient layer mask to vary the effect with distance.

It is harder to increase the depth of field after taking the photo!

[Barry Pearson]

Well, you can pencil me in as impressed. I am sure in low light situations, the D600 still bests the K3 in high iso situations, but that is to be expected. I was concerned that the K3 was not going to measure up to the K5s performance with regard to dynamic range or, even high iso performance, but I would say that this looks like a half stop better and the high iso files look like they would clean up pretty well.

Yes. My concern with the K-3 (which I have pre-ordered) is (hypothetical) high ISO noise in comparison with my K-5IIs. It is about the one case where the K-3 might not have a clear advantage over what I already have. But I am getting more confident that it will be consistently better, or at least as good, as the K-5IIs, in all important features.

I'm less concerned about comparison with any other brand, because I have too much investment in Pentax to switch.

[Franc]

just read the story again folks. He explained the dog photo. The dog was looking at the horse on the field next to the fence.

[jrcastillo]

I really like Pentax brand, and the more I learn about cameras, the more I actually like the ideology behind the brand.

I know professional photographers are crying out loud for a FF camera from Pentax... However, it seems that the K-3 is not "that much" behind either.

Personally, I think where the K-3 shines (will shine) is for results like this one. Is not for how much "better" it is when compared to FF offerings from other manufacturers (we KNOW is not going to be better in low light/high ISO, etc). instead, is going to shine for how CLOSE/COMPARABLE it is to those. Yes, you can micro-analyze the picture, you can pixel peep at 200% zoom, but that is the point.. you have to look too closely to tell the K-3 apart from the d600. In some things like contrast/color I take the Pentax's results any day (in most of the pictures shown).

For other cameras, however, the results are not like these. For example, I have seen reviews of the d600 vs the d7100 and there you can SEE the differences from these cameras really quickly after getting to 800 ISO in the d7100 (at least I did and the reviewer did too :P). The d600 is quickly out of the league of the d7100 in ISO noise management (2 stops better if I recall?). I dont think the K-3 is that far behind even in the 6400 shots from the review!

I think what the K-3 needs is more trusty lenses. I think i will never get tired to say that SDM motor should be thrown out of the window by pentax engineers and start with clean slate.

[falconeye]

Sorry, but as much as I would like the K-3 to swipe Nikon, we by now we should have learned to tell serious and unserious tests apart. As all too often, they are the other way round

This "test" is a joke. Just look closer, look at the images. The ISO 6400 samples clearly show the expected 1 stop difference, the K-3 shows more depth of field 'cause they dialed in the same F-stop, and the exposure preference of both cameras is a bit different (Pentax seems to like 1/6 less stop than Nikon which some prefer, some not). Resolution can't be told apart and shouldn't under such ideal conditions. If at all, K-3 should look a hair sharper because DoF and possible AA setting. But of course, they missed to assure equal focus, look at the fence image.

That's all ok, the K-3 does remarkably well. But IMHO the text is so foolish that the article is to be dismissed.

Points to observe for a serious comparison K-3 vs. D600 (and there are true experts out there now because it is just D7100 vs. D610 reiterated):
- Under ideal conditions (daylight, F/4-F/5.6, low iso), resolution is the same, except for effect of missing AA filter and defocus.
- 1 stop difference for noise and DR is inevitable for cameras with same sensor tech. Confirmed with D7100/D610. K-3 sensor is Sony and therefore, is same sensor tech too. Wait for DxO result.
- Under non ideal conditions, speed and accuracy of operation as well as availability of fast and sharp glass is key. None of which has been addressed in the "test".

[awaldram]

Sorry, but as much as I would like the K-3 to swipe Nikon, we by now we should have learned to tell serious and unserious tests apart. As all too often, they are the other way round

This "test" is a joke. Just look closer, look at the images. The ISO 6400 samples clearly show the expected 1 stop difference, the K-3 shows more depth of field 'cause they dialed in the same F-stop, and the exposure preference of both cameras is a bit different (Pentax seems to like 1/6 less stop than Nikon which some prefer, some not). Resolution can't be told apart and shouldn't under such ideal conditions. If at all, K-3 should look a hair sharper because DoF and possible AA setting. But of course, they missed to assure equal focus, look at the fence image.

That's all ok, the K-3 does remarkably well. But IMHO the text is so foolish that the article is to be dismissed.

Points to observe for a serious comparison K-3 vs. D600 (and there are true experts out there now because it is just D7100 vs. D610 reiterated):
- Under ideal conditions (daylight, F/4-F/5.6, low iso), resolution is the same, except for effect of missing AA filter and defocus.
- 1 stop difference for noise and DR is inevitable for cameras with same sensor tech. Confirmed with D7100/D610. K-3 sensor is Sony and therefore, is same sensor tech too. Wait for DxO result.
- Under non ideal conditions, speed and accuracy of operation as well as availability of fast and sharp glass is key. None of which has been addressed in the "test".

Why do you assume there the same tech?
The d600;is over a year old and discontinued
When he the Sony Apsc 24 mp sensor was known as to noisey Nikon selected the Toshiba unit.
Therefore logically the K3 sports a new sensor with at least 12 months dev lead over the d600
You conclusion is therefore illogical given what we all ready know
Additionally given the exposure solutions both camera's are selecting there is strong indication the d600bis egging the Iso reported so you would need to check dxo iso deviation tables before pronouncing any clear advantage to D600 at its reported 12800 iso

[lightbulb]

Now I see the reason why pentax is slow with rolling out a full frame; it has to perform the Kings of apsc to make sense lol!

[Rondec]

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

But I think the D610 is the same camera, just hopefully minus the sensor stain issues that plagued the D600.

[Rondec]

Sorry, but as much as I would like the K-3 to swipe Nikon, we by now we should have learned to tell serious and unserious tests apart. As all too often, they are the other way round

This "test" is a joke. Just look closer, look at the images. The ISO 6400 samples clearly show the expected 1 stop difference, the K-3 shows more depth of field 'cause they dialed in the same F-stop, and the exposure preference of both cameras is a bit different (Pentax seems to like 1/6 less stop than Nikon which some prefer, some not). Resolution can't be told apart and shouldn't under such ideal conditions. If at all, K-3 should look a hair sharper because DoF and possible AA setting. But of course, they missed to assure equal focus, look at the fence image.

That's all ok, the K-3 does remarkably well. But IMHO the text is so foolish that the article is to be dismissed.

Points to observe for a serious comparison K-3 vs. D600 (and there are true experts out there now because it is just D7100 vs. D610 reiterated):
- Under ideal conditions (daylight, F/4-F/5.6, low iso), resolution is the same, except for effect of missing AA filter and defocus.
- 1 stop difference for noise and DR is inevitable for cameras with same sensor tech. Confirmed with D7100/D610. K-3 sensor is Sony and therefore, is same sensor tech too. Wait for DxO result.
- Under non ideal conditions, speed and accuracy of operation as well as availability of fast and sharp glass is key. None of which has been addressed in the "test".

I just find the test interesting as it is the first time that I have seen actual photos taken with the K3 with a decent lens. I hope no one is going crazy and saying that it really outperforms a D600 sensor. That said, the biggest thing I got of the article was that the writer really felt like the K3 was a better camera with regards to the camera choosing the appropriate exposure. My guess would be that the D600 tends to over expose a little, but they didn't say that. Anyway, the biggest thing you can tell from the article is that the author really liked the K3, which is good. This is not to denigrate the D600, which is a fine camera, but I am glad that the K3 is a nice option, since I can actually mount my k mount lenses on it.

[lightbulb]

He should also use 35mm equivalent dof for both to make the comparison convincing. A shallow dof will look less sharp.

[lister6520]

If I have too much depth of field, I typically select the background in Photoshop and use Lens Blur (as a smart filter). I might use a gradient layer mask to vary the effect with distance.

It is harder to increase the depth of field after taking the photo!

It is actually what I was saying, though perhaps my poor use of the language might have made it seem opposite to some.

My problem is that I have too little depth of field - I almost always want more, not less.

As you rightly say it is very difficult to add depth of field - in fact the only way I know of is by stacking a succession of images taken with slightly different focus.