[causey]

It seems the reviewer was a bit too enthusiastic, especially in formulating the title--but his enthusiasm is very understandable. Even if the D600's IQ is in some ways better than K-3's IQ, the differences are minor relative to the needs of the vast majority of potential buyers. If you factor in the price and the fact that in some respects K-3's smaller sensor might be preferable for some (for more DOF), the K-3 looks like a winner.

I for one am very happy a reviewer showed such enthusiasm for a Pentax camera. I am not going to object to his conclusions, because I get their meaning, which isn't exactly that K-3 sweeps D600, but that K-3 sweeps D600 all things considered. It might also be right to recall that generally reviewers have not expressed much positive bias towards Pentax.

[kenafein]

It seems the reviewer was a bit too enthusiastic, especially in formulating the title--but his enthusiasm is very understandable. Even if the D600's IQ is in some ways better than K-3's IQ, the differences are minor relative to the needs of the vast majority of potential buyers. If you factor in the price and the fact that in some respects K-3's smaller sensor might be preferable for some (for more DOF), the K-3 looks like a winner.

I for one am very happy a reviewer showed such enthusiasm for a Pentax camera. I am not going to object to his conclusions, because I get their meaning, which isn't exactly that K-3 sweeps D600, but that K-3 sweeps D600 all things considered. It might also be right to recall that generally reviewers have not expressed much positive bias towards Pentax.

This is the camera you've been waiting for, right Stefan. Even if the IQ were identical, it won't stop many people from wanting a FF, but the gap in IQ shrinking is wonderful for all of us, I agree.

[awaldram]

I know about the problem of true iso vs. camera setting.

Testers could have shot manual and equalized brightness in post. Note that I criticized the test, not the K-3. It is the testers who claim to see equal noise ...

BTW, the K-3 made a 1/3 stop shorter exposure but the final image is darker too. Both effects should about cancel out when doing a visual inspection of noise in darker areas.

I now looked at the other example too, ISO 6400 with the red fruit (whetever it is called in English ). Here, both cameras used the same exposure, i.e., are not affected by the difference in camera iso. And the diference in noise is at least as large (unfortunately, the K-3 image wasn't focused exactly enough to have any detail in exact focus -- maybe, easiest is to compare the out-of-focus brick wall).


I looked in particular at the center of the tree leaf image. Just below the brown tips. IMHO, the difference in noise is obvious and looks like a one stop difference to me personally.

Any difference in detail would be due to focus and DoF, as there are no noise reduction differences involved here.

I think too that our little conversation shows how subjective and emotional such discussions quickly become if no rigorous standard for testing has been established. DxO is really to praise for their achievements. I don't see them overrated at all. Not everybody interprets results correctly though.

Whilst I see the same difference as you I seem to interpret it differently.

Given @6400 the d600 only has visible advantage in shadow (oof) niose this is porbably why many don't see any difference.
Also shadow niose varience is IMO .5-1 stop different yet dropp the k3 by 1400iso woudl recover more than that.
Therfore from these test I see the d600 in a rather poor light rather than wetting myself over the K3 being able to beat the FF sensor

Just as the D4 IMO is underwhelming in true SNR at correct ISO's considering it price .5-.7 db gain over a 3 year old aps-c sensor is not good in my books, There is more marketing forces at play driving FF than any clear SNR advantage.

[jsherman999]

The dog was watching a horse. Did you read the writer's comment at the bottom?

The horse also was apparently absolutely motionless, or the dog's head would have turned. Perhaps Professor Xavier did the test and utilized his 'freeze time' trick

[jsherman999]

Jay, you are biased as well.

Truth and accuracy are good things to be biased toward.
.

You walk into a room assuming that any full frame camera is going to trump any APS-C camera and any data that even shows them to be close, you discount. I said before that I think the D600 will be better with regard to sensor, but certainly the photos do not show it blowing the K3 out of the water in any respect. There are many reasons to want full frame -- wide angles, faster lenses, and better viewfinder, but you are biased as they come Jay and you really do not need to ride to the rescue of any full frame cameras.

In much the same way, as Falk suggested, no-one needs to ride to the rescue of the K-3 by jumping to conclusions. It's going to be a good camera, don't worry. I remember some of the same talk when the K-5 came out, that some preliminary images 'proved' that there was no need for Pentax to consider FF, aps-c was able to being indistinguishable images and performance, when really it always came down to something no-one can argue with - that the K-5 images are good enough for me. Nothing wrong with that. Similar thing is happening here.

Look - I value it when people point out fallacies for me, when people shine a light on hyperbole, and this review contained some of each. Just trying to keep things real.

.

[DogLover]

The horse also was apparently absolutely motionless, or the dog's head would have turned. Perhaps Professor Xavier did the test and utilized his 'freeze time' trick

Any given distraction doesn't necessarily have to be moving to mesmerize a dog.

[Rondec]

Truth and accuracy are good things to be biased toward.
.



In much the same way, as Falk suggested, no-one needs to ride to the rescue of the K-3 by jumping to conclusions. It's going to be a good camera, don't worry. I remember some of the same talk when the K-5 came out, that some preliminary images 'proved' that there was no need for Pentax to consider FF, aps-c was able to being indistinguishable images and performance, when really it always came down to something no-one can argue with - that the K-5 images are good enough for me. Nothing wrong with that. Similar thing is happening here.

Look - I value it when people point out fallacies for me, when people shine a light on hyperbole, and this review contained some of each. Just trying to keep things real.

.

I just don't value your opinion as much, Jay, when I realize that your most recent Pentax camera is the K20 -- literally generations old compared to current cameras. I used a K20 and using any current generation Pentax camera is a completely different experience from that.

As to whether APS-C is "good enough" is a completely different question that can only be answered by the individual purchasing a camera. I don't see you shedding light on anything, just banging the full frame drum every chance you get. You have made decisions that work for you, but they certainly don't apply to everyone else out there.

[tuco]

Any given distraction doesn't necessarily have to be moving to mesmerize a dog.

Download the images. Bring them up in, say, Photoshop as layers. Auto align them. Turn one layer off/on. You will see one image is slightly rotated about the lens axis. The dog's ear and eyebrow move. The aperture is different too. However both images look to originate from the same spot in 3-D space. Almost like it came from the same camera and only the time to change aperture was the difference. For me, the question how probable is a handhold shot from two cameras so well aligned along the lens axis. And if a tripod, well, I guess I can do a test myself for that to see.

[DogLover]

Download the images. Bring them up in, say, Photoshop as layers. Auto align them. Turn one layer off/on. You will see one image is slightly rotated about the lens axis. The dog's ear and eyebrow move. The aperture is different too. However both images look to originate from the same spot in 3-D space. Almost like it came from the same camera and only the time to change aperture was the difference. For me, the question how probable is a handhold shot from two cameras so well aligned along the lens axis. And if a tripod, well, I guess I can do a test myself for that to see.

You're really grasping at straws here.

[BrianR]

Almost like it came from the same camera and only the time to change aperture was the difference. For me, the question how probable is a handhold shot from two cameras so well aligned along the lens axis.

The exif says they were 25 minutes apart, that's more than enough time to change the cameras and even have a quick bite to eat if you wanted.

While I'm certainly not in love with this 'review', I cannot fathom what motivation would be behind faking this. I've never had a burst from the same camera end up so closely aligned, I'd be willing to chalk it up to a magical, lucky framing coincidence (and obviously non-synchronized clocks). More-so since none of the other images are aligned quite so closely (why fake one and not the others?).

[Rondec]

The exif says they were 25 minutes apart, that's more than enough time to change the cameras and even have a quick bite to eat if you wanted.

While I'm certainly not in love with this 'review', I cannot fathom what motivation would be behind faking this. I've never had a burst from the same camera end up so closely aligned, I'd be willing to chalk it up to a magical, lucky framing coincidence (and obviously non-synchronized clocks). More-so since none of the other images are aligned quite so closely (why fake one and not the others?).

I suppose the reviewer looked for photos that were really similar between the two cameras and came up with this set. As you say, faking them makes no sense at all, as over time there will be more and more sites that have comparisons of these cameras (and others as well).

[tuco]

The exif says they were 25 minutes apart, that's more than enough time to change the cameras and even have a quick bite to eat if you wanted.

While I'm certainly not in love with this 'review', I cannot fathom what motivation would be behind faking this.

I agree. Perhaps I should take off my tin foil hat. However 25 minutes! I'm blow away now. It makes me put it back on again.

[Na Horuk]

Exif saying they were 25 minutes apart can also be because the two different cameras had different times input. But I wish the exif were more complete..
Its odd that people often whine about "laboratory tests" but then they complain about non-scientific tests, too..

[dngr]

I wonder if this discussion is also taking place between Nikon owners... That damn dog shot has got everybody all het up here. The way I see it, you take a tripod, put the same QR plate on both cameras, then all that leaves you to do is focus and press the shutter button, and bingo, the internet blows up

[NickLarsson]

I wonder if this discussion is also taking place between Nikon owners...

The funny thing is that people who dismiss the comparison in this thread are actual Nikon FF owners.