[normhead]

It's about some guys who got their hands on a K-3 and posted come comparison images. They said "K-3 sweeps D600" The problem is, it wasn't a sweep. It did inspire me to go through the Pentax D600 compare-o-meter to check out the specs, and low and behold, you could almost say the K-3 is a copycat D600 only APS-c. So many of the specs are very close or identical it's hard to believe. But it was a great headline. The rest of the time is spent debating the images, whether or not a dog could hold still long enough to take the images (no one thought of it being a stuffed dog) and what it all means. Basically it means some guys wrote a really enthusiastic review of a K-3. Any other information gleaned from the article is open to debate, and any opinion trying to draw definite conclusions will be challenged. Sometimes brilliantly and sometimes not. Somethings never change.

[Rorschach]

The high ISO shots on that blog had a clear advantage to the D600 and if you fail to see that then there's nothing to discuss.

The high ISO shots on that blog did not have a clear advantage to the D600 and if you fail to see that then there's nothing to discuss.

[bossa]

The ISO 400 & 12800 shots show a clear difference. Whilst the ISO 400 shot doesn't show much difference it would become very important where extra PP was applied

ISO 400


ISO 12800


ISO 6400 is inconclusive due to contrast and focus differences.

[rawr]

As someone who hasn't studied all the samples in depth, of the three examples above - could someone pls tell me which one belongs to which camera?

Also: Windows Photo Viewer? Ewwww. Is it even properly colour managed?

[awaldram]

The ones with natural WB are k3 as per Pentax rendering intent
The blue ( ) ones are Nikon as per their intent

You can easiy see which is the FF by comparing DoF. IMO the Pixel view given here the k3 is better in the full images the D600 has an edge which is what I'd expect.

I sometime wonder if some folks monitors are capable of showing the images correctly given the weird interpretations on "massive difference" which is just not there.

I suspect Bossa must be confused and think the K3 is on the left! Because the righthand (K3) images presented as his proof "At the highest ISO setting the D600 bests the Pentax (as you would expect)" has done the opposite.

The K3 images have more detail, Better Colour and the same noise footprint you can argue the reasons (I would put it down mainly to focus and DoF) but the images don't lie.

Personally I think Pentax's clear advantage against Nikon and Canon in Noise handling with the same tech sensors is because Pentax Ettr on the sensor then apply less gain in system to reach ther correct ISO wereas both Nikon and Canon apply less gain on sensor and more in body to reach the same ISO.

This means Penatax has more bits to play with and a better SNR before the data has even left the sensor.

[bossa]

The ones with natural WB are k3 as per Pentax rendering intent
The blue ( ) ones are Nikon as per their intent

You can easiy see which is the FF by comparing DoF. IMO the Pixel view given here the k3 is better in the full images the D600 has an edge which is what I'd expect.

I sometime wonder if some folks monitors are capable of showing the images correctly given the weird interpretations on "massive difference" which is just not there.

I suspect Bossa must be confused and think the K3 is on the left! Because the righthand (K3) images presented as his proof "At the highest ISO setting the D600 bests the Pentax (as you would expect)" has done the opposite.

The K3 images have more detail, Better Colour and the same noise footprint you can argue the reasons (I would put it down mainly to focus and DoF) but the images don't lie.

Personally I think Pentax's clear advantage against Nikon and Canon in Noise handling with the same tech sensors is because Pentax Ettr on the sensor then apply less gain in system to reach ther correct ISO wereas both Nikon and Canon apply less gain on sensor and more in body to reach the same ISO.

This means Penatax has more bits to play with and a better SNR before the data has even left the sensor.

I'm sitting in front of two colour calibrated 27" monitors kicking out 2560x1440 pixels and I can see perfectly well what you are referring to. I was actually referring to the noise in the shots above. It's quite obvious that the focus and DOF is set better for the K3 (on the right) and so I am not even considering that or the colour.

I'm sure that the K-3 will be a much better photographic experience than the D600 anyway, and for a number of reasons, but I really would prefer for people to stop telling me what they think I'm actually saying or doing when I've already been clear enough about that myself.

This conversation is like a revolving door and I give up.

[rawr]

Well, if the K-3 is on the right, I'm quite impressed, esp with the 12800 ISO shot. With that shot, there's good clean grain, no chroma noise, excellent fine detail and decent tonal range, even though colours should theoretically be pretty washed out by ISO 12k. Looks better than the K-5 at ISO 12k, in fact.

The D600 and K-3 both seem very comparable, and if you printed those images at 8x10 no one would ever know the difference. So why is everyone arguing again?

[awaldram]

Well, if the K-3 is on the right, I'm quite impressed, esp with the 12800 ISO shot. With that shot, there's good clean grain, no chroma noise, excellent fine detail and decent tonal range, even though colours should theoretically be pretty washed out by ISO 12k. Looks better than the K-5, in fact.

The D600 and K-3 both seem very comparable, and if you printed then at 8x10 no one would ever know the difference. So why is everyone arguing again?

I think it's called protecting your assets

I think try and be objective when looking at examples like these and it seems so do you.
That is why I've made no conclusions on the original examples.

But seems others (on boths sides of the argument) keep a special pair of rose coloured spectacles just for such occasions

[awaldram]

I'm sitting in front of two colour calibrated 27" monitors kicking out 2560x1440 pixels and I can see perfectly well what you are referring to. I was actually referring to the noise in the shots above. It's quite obvious that the focus and DOF is set better for the K3 (on the right) and so I am not even considering that or the colour.

I'm sure that the K-3 will be a much better photographic experience than the D600 anyway, and for a number of reasons, but I really would prefer for people to stop telling me what they think I'm actually saying or doing when I've already been clear enough about that myself.

This conversation is like a revolving door and I give up.

I don't mean to upset you Bossa but you did say
"ISO 6400 is inconclusive due to contrast and focus differences."
That image as presented does not support your statement the image is 100% conclusive, You didn't like the answer so you made somthing up.!

Given that don't you think maybe your other 'conclusions' are equally suspect.?

Either all are 'inconclusive' or none are, Focus and contrast is as taken.!

Given your 27 inch monitors I'd have thought you woudl have used these 6400 image to support your D600 is best claims, there are striking detail advantages to the left hand cluster.!
But also given the rendering ther are serious concerns over the d600 colour handling that focus issue you refers to could just as easy be sensor blooming !

[MetteHHH]

I don't care, it's what I get out at the end that counts, I don't go for all the figures really it's what my eyes see, and to me it looks like I'll be buying a K3.

I was worried the 24mp would be a step backwards in high ISO IQ compared to my K5 which I am happy with, but looking at these comparisons I don't think I've got anything to worry about.

I feel EXACTLY the same.

I can see all the arguments about the formal flaws in this test, but when I look at it I think: "WOW! I will be able to take photos of my little owls in twilight conditions, with better AF, more room for cropping AND improved noise levels at high ISO!"

It means next to nothing to me how those improved noise levels are achieved: As it is I already spend a while tweaking the parameters in LR to get the most out of suboptimal conditions. Now I have a fair reason to expect better results.

In 90% of my photos, a larger sensor would just give me larger files and more surroundings to crop.

Tests are fine, and this wasn't a proper test, but it was a hugely reassuring demonstration of the image quality I can expect when I get my K3. Which hopefully won't be long - I plan to buy at the first significant special offer / price drop after release. (Black monday? Pleeease?)

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

After reading the test, looking at the photos and perusing all the knowledgeable comments in this thread, I still don't know which camera is "better", however that is defined. But I do come away with the strong impression that I'm not going to be disappointed with my K-3, when it arrives.

[Barry Pearson]

After reading the test, looking at the photos and perusing all the knowledgeable comments in this thread, I still don't know which camera is "better", however that is defined. But I do come away with the strong impression that I'm not going to be disappointed with my K-3, when it arrives.

Yes! (Could it be in my hands this time next week? My K-3, I mean, not yours!)

I'm already planning my K-3 day-1 testing. There will be no "benign" photos - obviously the K-3 will handle those well! I want to know how it behaves in extreme conditions: AF-C with fast objects heading towards me shot at f/4; hand-holding a 500mm lenses at lowish shutter speeds; low light conditions pushing ISO to high levels; extreme test subjects to induce moire in order to test the AA-effect at high shutter speeds and flash.

I want to know what the "envelop" is, then if any aspects are disappointing I'll compare them with my K-5IIs to see if the K-3 has regressed, or whether I just have unreasonable expectations.

[Rondec]

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?



.

The blogger obviously wanted attention and therefore chose a somewhat inflammatory title for their post. However, this sentiment was not echoed by many of the posters in this thread. What I read were people saying: "Wow, the K3 sure performs well. It looks like it will out perform the K5, which is great." I have said a couple of times that I don't believe that the K3 will measure up in high iso performance to the D600 -- shadow detail is sure to be less in it and noise more.

There will be more comparisons as time goes by -- to K5, to D7100, maybe to Canon full frame cameras. But the biggest thing to me is just finding out how the K3 actually performs. Is iso 12800 going to be usable and for what size print? How will auto focus perform in practice? How good will auto white balance be? Obviously none of these things matter to you, because you aren't interested in any camera that isn't full frame.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I'm already planning my K-3 day-1 testing. There will be no "benign" photos - obviously the K-3 will handle those well! I want to know how it behaves in extreme conditions: AF-C with fast objects heading towards me shot at f/4; hand-holding a 500mm lenses at lowish shutter speeds; low light conditions pushing ISO to high levels; extreme test subjects to induce moire in order to test the AA-effect at high shutter speeds and flash.
I want to know what the "envelop" is, then if any aspects are disappointing I'll compare them with my K-5IIs to see if the K-3 has regressed, or whether I just have unreasonable expectations.

I hope you post your findings here - I will look forward to that. Sadly, as I've ordered the silver one, I don't think I shall get it until early December. But it will be worth waiting for.

[Bolt]

I will definitely be putting my K3 up against my 1D X when I get it.