[wahid_satu]

Pentax seems to like 1/6 less stop than Nikon which some prefer, some not

Which is probably caused due to the D600's 1/6 less sensitive sensor at ISO6400 (as reported by DXOmark, compared to the K-5. Since Pentax historically has more accurately measured ISO i don't see why this should change in the K-3.)

The ISO 6400 samples clearly show the expected 1 stop difference

Which means the K-3 will have Low light ISO score of 1490 plus minus 100 (in acordance to DXOmark measurements method.) Good Job, Ri-.... Pentax!

[Barry Pearson]

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.

I understood you, and I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing with you.

[BrianR]

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.t.

Or the k3 tends to under expose a little. They're close enough that which one you consider 'correct' is really a matter of taste. And whatever your preference or camera, you're an exposure compensation setting away from getting it how you like. Similar for the warmer rendering of the k3, we can adjust the white balance of these cameras to our preferences can't we?

Even for a subjective test, it seems rather funny to me to take out cameras this advanced and essentially use them as point and shoots. It would have seemed more sensible if they had set up preferences for each camera to get the output as best they could (under their own subjective view) and then perform the side by side comparison. This would mean different conversion profiles for the cameras in lightroom, and of course a much bigger time commitment.


I haven't shown this comparison to my k100d. The high ISO shots might make it sad. With each new generation of cameras, I try to comfort it by saying "More megapixels means more noise" but the sensor tech in the Pentaxes always seems to keep up to or surpass the problems with smaller pixels. I must say I'm pretty impressed with the ISO 12800 crops (for both cameras).

[JinDesu]

So basically, we can choose a budget full frame, or the top of the line APS-C.

Hooray.

[Rorschach]

So basically, we can choose a budget full frame, or the top of the line APS-C.

Hooray.

Not quite. You're implying they're on the same line. Think again. Image quality is more or less the same. However, one of them is significantly more expensive and one of them has significantly less features. I wonder which one should I choose...

[bwDraco]

On the final shot, the K-3 does show an extremely subtle loss of detail relative to the D600. However, the noise on the K-3 is finer-grained and less destructive on the image.

The fact that it's this hard to find any disadvantage compared to a full-frame camera is itself praiseworthy, and it's clear that the sensor on the K-3 is going to be one of the best, if not the best, APS-C sensor out there.

--DragonLord

[derekkite]

So basically, we can choose a budget full frame, or the top of the line APS-C.

Hooray.

What did folks do in the film days when you could put the same film in almost any camera body?

[JinDesu]

Not quite. You're implying they're on the same line. Think again. Image quality is more or less the same. However, one of them is significantly more expensive and one of them has significantly less features. I wonder which one should I choose...

Yes, hence the budget full frame vs the top of the line APS-C with regards to the features list. For the expensive - I've seen a few D600s on fire sale for $1500. Admittedly the normal cost is $1900, so if we were to fully compare at normal price vs normal price of the newly announced k-3, it's about $600 difference. But there were a few sales at $1500.

For me, I'd pick the k-3 as far as features and cost goes, especially since I already have Pentax lenses. If I were new into either system, maybe the fire sale of a D600 would prompt me that way, if I didn't need all the features.

What did folks do in the film days when you could put the same film in almost any camera body?

I shot less, film is expensive!

[Dan]

While I agree with those who say that this test is not very rigorous, I find the results impressive nonetheless. Because of the limitiations of the test we cannot tell which camera would produce the best results in a carefully controlled setting. But even this flawed test tells me that the image quality of the two cameras is very close. Perhaps this shows the benefits of a modern 24mp APS-C sensor without the standard AA filter. The fact that AA functionality can be "turned on"--and with different anti-aliasing strengths--is a huge advantage as it allows for superior sharpness in some settings without the usual drawbacks in situations where moire is likely to arise. I think that the K-3 will prove to be a superb camera.

This would also seem to indicate that the FF Pentax will need to include the 36mp sensor (with the same AA tricks) if it is to have significantly better image quality than the K-3. This would help to justify a significantly higher price than the K-3. I can't see Ricoh/Pentax releasing a low-end FF camera that has similar image quality to the K-3 and sells for a few hundred dollars more.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the K-3 is in all likelihood a great camera that will only be beat by a high-end full frame incorporating the latest technology.

Dan

[normhead]

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".

This is such a typical "academic" type response. pointing out everything that might be wrong..... think court of law here... this is evidence. You may
have issues with the evidence, but, it's still evidence.

What I have always said is, you go to places like DxO and you see the numbers, but you don't know how to translate that information into what you're going to see in your pictures. You may have 1 stop more this or that, more noise or less noise or whatever, but what photographers are interested in would be producing images, not numerical analysis. I've been asking for over two years for someone with an FF to do an analysis like this. I don't want a bunch of mumbo jumbo. The fact is one stop difference is very small, and can usually be overcome. People say "one stop difference" as if that is some kind big deal. But you look at pictures like this, and you end up thinking, people have been wetting their pants over nothing.

And that's the thing here. What these images show more than anything else, is that under normal shooting conditions, there just isn't that mcuh difference. It explains to me why decent comparative images have never been offered, in support of theis imagined huge advantage FF is supposed to confer on it's users. The actual differences from FF to APS-c are only dramatic with numerical exaggeration. IN real life, they are pretty much insignificant. The whole FF thing that has gone on is based on hype , not images.

So, these guys have done a perfunctory investigation... I'd say, fine, I totally understand that, SO, show me something better. And please don't say wait for DxO. DxO don't make their images, on which they base their statistics available. In 60% of scientific studies the conclusions are not supported by the data. Without the data, you really can't check on the validity of the conclusions. When you deal with a site like DxO you have to have blind trust, that they got it right. Personally, I'd dismiss any site that says "trust me". On Imaging Resource, you can look and see for yourself, using the same images they used. And what they show is what these images show, not a lot of difference. SO based on previous experience, I'd put more stock in these images than whatever DxO publishes, and I'd put what IR publishes ahead of both of them, because they are shooting in a more controlled environment, and they share their data.

People who don't share their data, often have something to hide. IN DXO's case, what they seem to behiding is that they are not accounting for sample variation.

In the absence of evidence, one should be cautious, but one also has to evaluate what the evidence means. And this evidence means the average guy going out and taking the average images in an average uncontrolled environment can probably do well with either system. And I'm not seeing the FF advantage. That may not mean anything to the technically inclined, but criticism from the technically/academicly inclined can be petty, obscure and pretty much meaningless in the real world. And IMHO, often the technically inclined way over state miniscule differences in the interest of academic discussion.

So I'd say calling this a joke is a bit harsh. It's less than thorough, but in the two years I've been asking folks to come up with something, to which I've been referred to 5 year old articles using cameras that are no longer available, I'd say the evidence supporting the greater utility of FF cameras is more than a joke. I don't have an FF or I'd do it myself. I can not understand why, when we've had posts comparing prints made with D800, and saying the K-01 images are in some ways better, and so many other bits of non-numerically analyses images.

I'd say the actual photos, the empirical evidence including those shot in test conditions at IR, shows there is very little if any difference between FF and APS-c images at this point in time. Perhaps as pixels get smaller and APS-c approaches it's diffraction limit that may change, but to date, the theoretical claims make APS-c sound much worse than FF, and in these images, the pictures look very much the same.

The differences between APS-c and FF are greatly exaggerated and always have been. IMHO. And recently, comparing K5IIs images to Olympus E-M5 images, I'd say the same for 4/3 and APS-c. My guess is still, that doubling anything, be it aperture , sensor size, whatever, is relatively meaningless. I like to think you could notice the difference between 4/3 and FF, but I have no conclusive evidence that's true. It's a hunch. One that from my perspective has just as much merit as the pointless parade or numerical evaluations using artificial standards like ƒ-stops as applied to DoF.

Or as I used to say when I was teaching, if I wanted to devise a test so one student would pass and one would fail, I could do that. But what would that prove? Unfortunately many of the tests proving the advanced utility of FF fall into that category.

But IMHO the text is so foolish that the article is to be dismissed.

It's all part of reality. I guess when the IR results come out and show pretty much the same thing (as they did the with D7100 and D600), you'll find a reason to dismiss those too.

[Barry Pearson]

While I agree with those who say that this test is not very rigorous, I find the results impressive nonetheless. Because of the limitiations of the test we cannot tell which camera would produce the best results in a carefully controlled setting. But even this flawed test tells me that the image quality of the two cameras is very close. Perhaps this shows the benefits of a modern 24mp APS-C sensor without the standard AA filter. The fact that AA functionality can be "turned on"--and with different anti-aliasing strengths--is a huge advantage as it allows for superior sharpness in some settings without the usual drawbacks in situations where moire is likely to arise. I think that the K-3 will prove to be a superb camera.

This also would seem to indicate that the FF Pentax will need to include the 36mp sensor (with the same AA tricks) if it is to have significanlty better image quality than the K-3. This would also help to justify a significantly higher price than the K-3. I can't see Ricoh/Pentax releasing a low-end FF camera that has similar image quality to the K-3 and sells for a few hundred dollars more.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the K-3 is in all likelihood a great camera that will only be beat by a high-end full frame incorporating the latest technology.

Yes. If the K-3 is as good as we can realistically hope for, from the specifications and some tests trickling in, I won't have the slightest interest in a Ricoh/Pentax FF camera that isn't high-end. And I would expect to have to pay the price of such a camera.

I want Ricoh/Pentax to make their top-of-the-range cameras the best they can make them, and then charge the corresponding price for them. I don't want them to aim lower for price reasons. If they make a high end FF camera, at least I have the option to buy such a camera, however painful the price. But if they aim lower, I don't even have that option.

[falconeye]

This is such a typical "academic" type response. pointing out everything that might be wrong..... think court of law here... this is evidence. You may
have issues with the evidence, but, it's still evidence.

Sorry, I wanted to say it with polite words. But you challenge me.

So, here it is for you again:

Guy says "K-3 swipes D600", "also on par at high iso". I open the 6400 sample and NO WAY they can be regarded as on par. So, I really think guy is a lier, just preferred to use words joke, unserious and foolish.

Now, is it un-academic enough for you?

Jeeeezh

[monochrome]

Pixel Peeping aside, they're close enough that $1300 for the K3 trumps $2000 for the D610 (the D600 was rushed, flawed and is discontinued). That's my take, anyway.

[falconeye]

Why do you assume there the same tech?

You are technically correct, the tech could be substantially different.

However, there more recently was little difference between Toshiba and Sony sensors wrt high iso performance (aka quantum efficiency QE). And QE already crossed 50% and can only progress in ever so small steps towards the 100% barrier.

So, just using common sense, I wouldn't expect a vsible high iso noise improvement wrt e.g., D7100. And more importantly, the ISO 6400 samples provided on the very same test site do indeed show a well visble advantage for the D600.

I really feel sad about this test.

The K-3 is such a wonderful camera. But if a tester writes things which will challenge the majority of readers (Nikon), it will eventuelly turn back against Pentax.

Along the lines of "Well yes, there ARE positive reviews of the K-3 but oh boy, did you see how garbage those tests are?".

This is why I really feel sad about this test. And why I post here to make people wait for more useful positive rviews of the K-3. They will come, no question.

[JinDesu]

Sorry, I wanted to say it with polite words. But you challenge me.

So, here it is for you again:

Guy says "K-3 swipes D600", "also on par at high iso". I open the 6400 sample and NO WAY they can be regarded as on par. So, I really think guy is a lier, just preferred to use words joke, unserious and foolish.

Now, is it un-academic enough for you?

Jeeeezh

For the record, I agree with Falk's statements. However, I also think that seeing the pictures, I don't feel that the k-3 is terribly behind, and that my e-peen is not fearful of Nikon.