[normhead]

You'd have to spend a lot more than 3k to get a full frame camera that keeps up, in FPS, with the K-3.

And that really is the value of a lot of these posts. You can read what some guy says, and if it's a Full Frame guy, you might think, well, I'm like him.. maybe I should be shooting FF. Or you can be reading a 4/3 guys, and think "hey, I think like him, I should investigate 4/3. " It's all information.

So I'd say, "If you shoot a lot out doors and you value lightweight equipment with distinctive results and a smaller footprint than FF, and gets you the best possible crop images, you should be shooting APS-c. Now if you look at that and say, " I like having a big camera that makes an impression on people and the highest possible resolution in a portable a package to keep my images relevant as improving technology becomes more demanding" you can easily look at what I'm selling and say "that's not for me". That's not a comment on what I'm doing. It's a comment on his style. What is really irritating is that because it's better for one person, people extrapolate and think "it's better for everyone."

You can define systems comparatively by understanding what they do and where they excel. But don't believe anyone who starts talking one system to the exclusion of others. There is no perfect system. But there are systems that are better suited to your style, and that depends on your style, not the numerical evaluations of the system. The only expert on what your style is, is you.

[Joel B]

What passions! First I think both sides of the discussion are correct, you need technical numbers and real in the field experience! Some people, like one of my sons will only accept pure data and lots of numbers. On the other hand I have a daughter who is all about the visual! She's the photographer(imagine that) and numbers would just make her go to sleep. Now put it all together and I think you then get a complete picture!(pardon the pun) Now the test in question here is only a small glimpse of the total, and will mean nothing if all the other reviews to come Ginsoo it up. BUT if reviews start flooding in with the same positive feedback then by golly Pentax will have the best Digital camera they have ever produced!!! And next year when they launch that elusive FF, all anybody will have left to fight over is what name is on the back!!!
P.S I don't know why I'm in on this I will not be able to afford the K-3, but that's ok my camera can beat a D-40!!!
Joel

[awaldram]

They expect it, because it happens all the time. They aren't delusional.
And the reason for that is not the science.

Performance isn't measured in numbers, it's measured in how good an image looks. WHen Ilook at my pictures, I can't look at them and say, "this one is 400 ISO, this one is an 800." I have to look at the EXIF.

Years ago, there was the stupid Coke , Pepsi challenge on TV. 50% of coke drinkers prefer Pepsi. You might think that was impressive. Not if you know anything about statistics. 50% of coke drinkers drinking Pepsi means, you can't tell the difference. Now was there a measurable difference. of course there was, scientists could measure it , quantify it, tell you how much more of one substance, how much less than another. That didn't matter, because the people tasting the drinks couldn't tell the difference. They would declare up and down that they were a Coke drinker or Pepsi drinker, but in a blind taste test they couldn't tell the difference.

At this point I can take the images posted on the blog, and show you exactly how that is happening here with these numerical debates. First off, the image are labelled. You know, if you poor Coke into a Pepsi can, Coke drinkers probably won't notice. You get the same effect with labelled images. When I go through the blog posted images I see a saw off. Some people see all the K-3 images being better, some see all the D600 images being better. I see the images being better or worse based on the focus point selected by the AF, not on which camera took the picture. My evaluation of which was better, and I'm saying they're about equal, is based on the whole system. My conclusion is whichever system is better depends on which system nailed the focus, not what sensor was used etc. And the K-3 did quite well at nailing focus, as good as the D600.

So having established that one camera is one stop better at ISO and whatever... what you have to do next is prove that what you have there is a meaningful statistic. Do 1000 humans looking at one picture or another, notice a one stop difference in ISO or whatever. I know I notice the difference between 3 stops difference 100 to 800, maybe 25% of the time.

On some images a 3 stop difference is noticeable, but I'm guessing it's not noticeable ( if you are not comparing the images side by side) in every picture until you get to 4 or 5 stops if you start at base ISO.


So before you can say the one stop difference is meaningful, you have to prove that it's noticeable, and what the conditions are around that. YOU have to prove you have a meaningful difference.



Think of this a taste testing a cup of coffee. A guy says he like two teaspoons of sugar in his coffeee. But you (knowinf sugar is poison) start give him an 8th of a teaspoon less every day, until he says there's not enough sugar in his coffee. So you go back up and ad another 8th, and it turns out I likes his coffee with 1 5/8 cups of coffee. You can say that with this person, one half teaspoon of sugar is a significant difference. That is the level of difference that he can perceptive.

Now think of a quarter cup of coffee as one stop.

Until you establish that one stop of DoF, or one stop of noise, or one stop of anything is a meaningful statistic, all you've established is that there is a difference.

And that's why all these numerical analysis about a stop of noise, or a stop of whatever are voodoo science. You never established in blind tests with a large population sample, what a significant difference is. ANd while it's possible each of us has a pretty good idea for ourselves what a significant distance is for ourselves, that has no place in a public forum accept as anecdotal information. It could happen that your perception isn't shared by anyone else on the forum, or by everyone else on the forum. You just don't know.

So, for those who persist in this absolutely childish game of numerical differentiation, I can say absolutely, you can talk all you want about numerical differences, but until you've figured out what they mean, you're talking hot air.

The absolute bozo's who started this discussion by posting this comparison actually did a great service, they showed that other factors beside which is an FF and which is APS-c determine how good the picture is, and that case by case, the APS-c holds it's own, in every day shooting circumstances.

I know the lab rats are going to come in here and totally put this down, because the lab rats understand a different language that excludes human differences and perception and focuses on absolutes. And that's valuable stuff... but never depend on them to interpret what their numbers mean to a human being. They are often really bad at that.

So what would I like out of this. I'd like people to stop talking about numerical diffences unless they can show they are meaningful. Useing the coffee thing, are you talking about an 8th of a teaspoon or a 5/8ths of a teaspoon? A difference that's noticeable, or a difference so fine most people can't see any difference. Until you can make that kind of call, you've got nothing.

Oh, and good morning everyone.

Interesting perspective Norm and I tend to agree.
But it doesn't tell the whole story.
I looked at those examples and wasn't really interested in which was nosier etc but the difference in exposure was astounding.
Neither was wrong as such but the Nikon more like I'm used to and the K3 under by about 1/3-2/3 of stop (here we go)
But then I noticed the shutter speeds and it didn't make sense both cameras were happy with their respective exposure solution so what gives.?

The answer involved trawling figures number and data to come to the conclusion the at some point in time someone in Pentax had decided that slightly underexposed look was the 'right' look, I'd never noticed before as I shoot raw I 'correct' in post. (not that its wrong as such).

I was then intrigued where this gain was derived as it couldn't be sensor based due to shutter speeds in the image, Which brought me to REI ISO standards Vs DxOMarks clipping point.
I won't bore you with the numbers but the whole exercise for me was purely self knowledge and the ISO/FF firefights that sprang up merely a diversion to the truth I was seeking.
For the record I think as presented the d600 images are marginally better then the k3's , But that's my preference and not about numbers

Never the less my next camera will be a k3 as many more things make a great camera than a sensor shooting jpegs.

[D4rknezz]

They expect it, because it happens all the time. They aren't delusional.
And the reason for that is not the science.

Performance isn't measured in numbers, it's measured in how good an image looks. WHen Ilook at my pictures, I can't look at them and say, "this one is 400 ISO, this one is an 800." I have to look at the EXIF.

Years ago, there was the stupid Coke , Pepsi challenge on TV. 50% of coke drinkers prefer Pepsi. You might think that was impressive. Not if you know anything about statistics. 50% of coke drinkers drinking Pepsi means, you can't tell the difference. Now was there a measurable difference. of course there was, scientists could measure it , quantify it, tell you how much more of one substance, how much less than another. That didn't matter, because the people tasting the drinks couldn't tell the difference. They would declare up and down that they were a Coke drinker or Pepsi drinker, but in a blind taste test they couldn't tell the difference.

At this point I can take the images posted on the blog, and show you exactly how that is happening here with these numerical debates. First off, the image are labelled. You know, if you poor Coke into a Pepsi can, Coke drinkers probably won't notice. You get the same effect with labelled images. When I go through the blog posted images I see a saw off. Some people see all the K-3 images being better, some see all the D600 images being better. I see the images being better or worse based on the focus point selected by the AF, not on which camera took the picture. My evaluation of which was better, and I'm saying they're about equal, is based on the whole system. My conclusion is whichever system is better depends on which system nailed the focus, not what sensor was used etc. And the K-3 did quite well at nailing focus, as good as the D600.

So having established that one camera is one stop better at ISO and whatever... what you have to do next is prove that what you have there is a meaningful statistic. Do 1000 humans looking at one picture or another, notice a one stop difference in ISO or whatever. I know I notice the difference between 3 stops difference 100 to 800, maybe 25% of the time.

On some images a 3 stop difference is noticeable, but I'm guessing it's not noticeable ( if you are not comparing the images side by side) in every picture until you get to 4 or 5 stops if you start at base ISO.


So before you can say the one stop difference is meaningful, you have to prove that it's noticeable, and what the conditions are around that. YOU have to prove you have a meaningful difference.



Think of this a taste testing a cup of coffee. A guy says he like two teaspoons of sugar in his coffeee. But you (knowinf sugar is poison) start give him an 8th of a teaspoon less every day, until he says there's not enough sugar in his coffee. So you go back up and ad another 8th, and it turns out I likes his coffee with 1 5/8 cups of coffee. You can say that with this person, one half teaspoon of sugar is a significant difference. That is the level of difference that he can perceptive.

Now think of a quarter cup of coffee as one stop.

Until you establish that one stop of DoF, or one stop of noise, or one stop of anything is a meaningful statistic, all you've established is that there is a difference.

And that's why all these numerical analysis about a stop of noise, or a stop of whatever are voodoo science. You never established in blind tests with a large population sample, what a significant difference is. ANd while it's possible each of us has a pretty good idea for ourselves what a significant distance is for ourselves, that has no place in a public forum accept as anecdotal information. It could happen that your perception isn't shared by anyone else on the forum, or by everyone else on the forum. You just don't know.

So, for those who persist in this absolutely childish game of numerical differentiation, I can say absolutely, you can talk all you want about numerical differences, but until you've figured out what they mean, you're talking hot air.

The absolute bozo's who started this discussion by posting this comparison actually did a great service, they showed that other factors beside which is an FF and which is APS-c determine how good the picture is, and that case by case, the APS-c holds it's own, in every day shooting circumstances.

I know the lab rats are going to come in here and totally put this down, because the lab rats understand a different language that excludes human differences and perception and focuses on absolutes. And that's valuable stuff... but never depend on them to interpret what their numbers mean to a human being. They are often really bad at that.

So what would I like out of this. I'd like people to stop talking about numerical diffences unless they can show they are meaningful. Useing the coffee thing, are you talking about an 8th of a teaspoon or a 5/8ths of a teaspoon? A difference that's noticeable, or a difference so fine most people can't see any difference. Until you can make that kind of call, you've got nothing.

Oh, and good morning everyone.

I agree norm. But, here is the joke in my area : no one cared that pepsi was going to sign a deal in my university for the next 10 years. Some students were going against it, but I , can't tell the difference either.
Boy...can I tell the difference now.
Once you take away the one brand, ...
Pepsi is sweeter, and taste more like medicine.

I dont like these kind of tests myself - they led me astray multiple times. I have a local photography club thing where I bring my pentax all the time, because its light, and i get the quality i need from it.
Every single weddings and engagement I do though, I bring my d800. Why? Well...as much as I like pentax's treatment of the raw files, i have to admit - my rate of keeper from a wedding shot up by about 300%. (a year back i was giving my clients 2-400 pictures. Now i am giving them 1000).
You can say that I have a terrible focusing method, or all that - but as long as i use the same focusing method with both cameras - then it doesnt matter. My real life experience says that a gazillion focus point is better than 11, or 16, or whatever Pentax currently has for k5. If i only care about images - then i need cameras that can do keepers in real life situations. So i rather see pentax figuring out their focus precision than their burst mode. I am glad they are doubling their focus points, its about time. Going through 60 jpegs that are all out of focus is going to be a hassle. Any of you wanting to argue this should go to the camera store, grab a nikon FF and put a 70-200 VR2 on it. It will blow your mind. I seldom do half press focusing when i am in a hurry. Because when i was pressing full press, halfway through it already focused anyway.

I am looking really intently at the Sony a7 right now, because of the two gazillion focus points it claims it has.

Going back to the specific argument between k3 and d600 in the original news....well, i dont see much difference here in quality. However, since i have posted comparison glamour pictures from k200d, k5 and d800, image quality has never been an issue for me. I am interested to know how accurate the cameras are.

[Barry Pearson]

Until you establish that one stop of DoF, or one stop of noise, or one stop of anything is a meaningful statistic, all you've established is that there is a difference.

And that's why all these numerical analysis about a stop of noise, or a stop of whatever are voodoo science. You never established in blind tests with a large population sample, what a significant difference is. ANd while it's possible each of us has a pretty good idea for ourselves what a significant distance is for ourselves, that has no place in a public forum accept as anecdotal information. It could happen that your perception isn't shared by anyone else on the forum, or by everyone else on the forum. You just don't know.

So, for those who persist in this absolutely childish game of numerical differentiation, I can say absolutely, you can talk all you want about numerical differences, but until you've figured out what they mean, you're talking hot air.

.........

So what would I like out of this. I'd like people to stop talking about numerical diffences unless they can show they are meaningful. Useing the coffee thing, are you talking about an 8th of a teaspoon or a 5/8ths of a teaspoon? A difference that's noticeable, or a difference so fine most people can't see any difference. Until you can make that kind of call, you've got nothing.

Yes and no!

I care little whether there are smallish differences one way or the other between the K-3 and cameras from other makers. As long as Ricoh/Pentax launch a new top model, perhaps every year, with world-class performance, that is enough for me to stay with Pentax. The K-3 appears to fit that description.

What I care more about is the difference between my K-3 (when it comes, soon I hope) and my K-5IIs. Because I want to know whether my K-5IIs is truly being superseded, and becoming my back-up camera, or whether I will still want to use it in some extreme cases.

High ISO noise is the only thing that currently worries me. I use Lightroom and ACR, so can deal with a moderate amount of noise. (And I never had a real hang-up about film grain). But then there is a competition between noise reduction and sharpening. I sometimes use sharpening values that would make some people wince, and have to work to make sure I am not sharpening noise. (Yes, I use masks and thresholds, etc). In effect, I risk exaggerating noise, so slight differences start to matter. Sometimes I "push the envelop", and I would prefer that the K-5IIS envelop fits entirely within the K-3 envelop.

When talking about my number 1 and number 2 cameras, detailed differences between them can matter. The same will apply if/when Ricoh/Pentax launch an FF camera. If the envelops overlap, (and I suspect they will), I will have to know which to use in a given situation. (I already have similar problems with choosing between my lenses where they overlap).

[kenafein]

The only expert on what your style is, is you.

My wife is the expert on my style. That's why I have a Sony NEX. If I bring out the big camera, most times, she gives me the look. The Sony NEX slips under her radar.

[normhead]

My wife would probably like how you think, but I told her before we started dating, "I'm not trainable."

[kenafein]

I will never understand why people like Pepsi. It's horrid. To show how horrid I think it is, I will use this smiley face:

Oh, by the way, have you ever tried GuS cola? It stands for Grown up Soda. By itself, it's not better than coke, but with a twist of lime it's a refreshing cola beverage with 2/3 the sugar of Coke. They make a series of dry sodas with glass bottles, real sugar and their Meyer Lemon is amazing!

GuS Grown-up Soda

[kenafein]

My wife would probably like how you think, but I told her before we started dating, "I'm not trainable."

When you have two young kids, a frazzled mother is not to be crossed. I guess I shouldn't give her too much hope, however, she's been trying, for years, to curb many of my habits, to no avail.

[civiletti]

A minor gem

Agreed.

[civiletti]

My wife would probably like how you think, but I told her before we started dating, "I'm not trainable."

Neither am I, but that has not deterred my wife from trying for the last 34 years.

[normhead]

Neither am I, but that has not deterred my wife from trying for the last 34 years.

You mean they never quit? As james Brown would say.. "Hep me, Hep me, please."

[jsherman999]

The dogs were captivated by someone beating a dead horse.

You win.

[jsherman999]

And that really is the value of a lot of these posts. You can read what some guy says, and if it's a Full Frame guy, you might think, well, I'm like him.. maybe I should be shooting FF. Or you can be reading a 4/3 guys, and think "hey, I think like him, I should investigate 4/3. " It's all information.

So I'd say, "If you shoot a lot out doors and you value lightweight equipment with distinctive results and a smaller footprint than FF, and gets you the best possible crop images, you should be shooting APS-c. Now if you look at that and say, " I like having a big camera that makes an impression on people and the highest possible resolution in a portable a package to keep my images relevant as improving technology becomes more demanding" you can easily look at what I'm selling and say "that's not for me". That's not a comment on what I'm doing. It's a comment on his style. What is really irritating is that because it's better for one person, people extrapolate and think "it's better for everyone."

You can define systems comparatively by understanding what they do and where they excel. But don't believe anyone who starts talking one system to the exclusion of others. There is no perfect system. But there are systems that are better suited to your style, and that depends on your style, not the numerical evaluations of the system. The only expert on what your style is, is you.

Well said. "How will I use it" is a more important question to answer even than "How does sensor xx perform vs. sensor yy, or xx's AF vs. yy's AF", etc.

[jsherman999]

... But it is just odd to me that all the full frame folks have to show up to rain on the K3s parade. It's the best camera that Ricoh has ever made -- probably the best APS-C camera ever made in many respects and the full framers have to beat it up, purely because it is a crop camera.

To be fair... witness the title of the thread. The FF comparison was made by the OP by posting the link to the 'test/review' against a FF camera. How should the discussion have progressed?



.