Nice D600 vs K-3 Comparison Gallery

DogLover · 10-29-2013, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?

Nope, 3200 is my ceiling. I might consider going to 6400 in a pinch.

normhead · 10-29-2013, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?

In the sample photos at high ISO the D600 images are awful, and the K-3 images are technically more awful, but the K-3 images are approaching funky awful, where as the D600 images are just awful awful... in my artistic opinion, but I wouldn't use either of them, because I don't care what kind of awful they are, good, bad or funky awful, I just don't want awful.

Awesome vs. awful

Really awful vs awful.. doesn't that really awful noise look funky? (at 25600 ISO)

bossa · 10-29-2013, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by normhead

In the sample photos at high ISO the D600 images are awful, and the K-3 images are technically more awful, but the K-3 images are approaching funky awful, where as the D600 images are just awful awful... in my artistic opinion, but I wouldn't use either of them, because I don't care what kind of awful they are, good, bad or funky awful, I just don't want awful.

Awesome vs. awful

Really awful vs awful.. doesn't that really awful noise look funky? (at 25600 ISO)

Top-Left image has been sharpened.

Top-Right image is OOF (probably based on a lousy lens or diffraction)

You just never give up and refuse to recognize any valid points other people make that brings your position into question. You even resort to name calling. Just look at how you spoke to Jay, "It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals." Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240721-nice-d600-vs-k-3-co...#ixzz2j9osZleI

It's a shame that you identify so deeply with your equipment as you always seem to be on the defensive when people make objective comments about it.

Wired · 10-29-2013, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Nope, 3200 is my ceiling. I might consider going to 6400 in a pinch.

1600 in a pinch for me

Sandy Hancock · 10-29-2013, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by tuco

I'm am still very skeptical. One dog may be memorized but not two.

Dogs can stay pretty still you know. This is a 15 second exposure.

Stay Sammy. Stay....

normhead · 10-29-2013, 06:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bossa

Top-Left image has been sharpened.

Top-Right image is OOF (probably based on a lousy lens or diffraction)

You just never give up and refuse to recognize any valid points other people make that brings your position into question. You even resort to name calling. Just look at how you spoke to Jay, "It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals." Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240721-nice-d600-vs-k-3-co...#ixzz2j9osZleI

It's a shame that you identify so deeply with your equipment as you always seem to be on the defensive when people make objective comments about it.

What you think I said is not what I meant to say. I'm not sure how else to respond to that.

**Eric Auer** · 10-29-2013, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by normhead

What you think I said is not what I meant to say. I'm not sure how else to respond to that.

I like you Bro, But the dude was right.

Viennese · 10-30-2013, 12:38 AM

The K-3 samples look blurred in comparison to the D7100.
Didn´t they turn the SR off?

Barry Pearson · 10-30-2013, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?

I've taken dozens at ISO 12,800 this year with my K-5IIs. Hand-held shots inside museums, inside aircraft, and a few (failed) birds in flight. (I haven't taken any at higher ISO than that).

Some of these are very acceptable. With care in Lightroom, they are sharp and with acceptable noise (rather than objectionable or intrusive noise). Typical Lightroom parameters might use: Noise reduction - Luminance 50, Color 25; and Sharpening with Masking 80 or more to avoid sharpening noise in smooth surfaces.

I mostly keep below ISO 6400, but it is useful to have higher ISOs available as an option. I would probably sometimes use higher ISOs than 12,800 if I were confident that I could keep noise under control in an A3+ print. But I probably need more practice first.

rawr · 10-30-2013, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

I've taken dozens at ISO 12,800 this year

So have I with my K-5. Dozens, maybe hundreds

ISO 12k can be workable, especially if the shot is basically sharp and in focus. I don't like going there but if I have to it isn't an automatic disaster. Careful post-processing, as Barry indicates, can help achieve decent output too.

rawr · 10-30-2013, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Viennese

The K-3 samples look blurred in comparison to the D7100.
Didn´t they turn the SR off?

I think you are in the wrong thread, no D7100 here ...

halfspin · 10-30-2013, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?

I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.

**boriscleto** · 10-30-2013, 06:24 AM

Since the K-5 is so worthless above ISO 6400 or whatever, I guess I should delete the ISO 20,000 photo that I have in the PPG.

normhead · 10-30-2013, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by halfspin

I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.

HIgh ISO can work, as long as, the scene doesn't have too much contrast. In a situation like this with low light and very little dynamic range, still get useable images at least at 3200 ISO, when necessary. You just have to remember, if the scene is demanding in terms of DR, it's probably not going to work out well for you. This day was over cast, late in the day and low light, perfect high ISO shooting conditions.

Pentax A-400 ƒ5.6 @ƒ11 ISO 3200 1/400 sec I can't see any problems with ISO 3200 in this picture, and I needed it to keep my shitter speed up to 1/400s.

Barry Pearson · 10-30-2013, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by halfspin

I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.

But it is when you are old that you need high ISOs! Your hands shake. Your eyes can't focus properly. You need fast shutter speeds and small apertures!

(I'm 66, by the way).

10-29-2013, 02:48 PM	#242
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one? In the sample photos at high ISO the D600 images are awful, and the K-3 images are technically more awful, but the K-3 images are approaching funky awful, where as the D600 images are just awful awful... in my artistic opinion, but I wouldn't use either of them, because I don't care what kind of awful they are, good, bad or funky awful, I just don't want awful. Awesome vs. awful Really awful vs awful.. doesn't that really awful noise look funky? (at 25600 ISO) Last edited by normhead; 10-29-2013 at 03:03 PM.

10-30-2013, 12:38 AM	#248
Viennese Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 39	Looks like motion blur The K-3 samples look blurred in comparison to the D7100. Didn´t they turn the SR off?

10-30-2013, 06:25 AM	#254
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by halfspin I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho. HIgh ISO can work, as long as, the scene doesn't have too much contrast. In a situation like this with low light and very little dynamic range, still get useable images at least at 3200 ISO, when necessary. You just have to remember, if the scene is demanding in terms of DR, it's probably not going to work out well for you. This day was over cast, late in the day and low light, perfect high ISO shooting conditions. Pentax A-400 ƒ5.6 @ƒ11 ISO 3200 1/400 sec I can't see any problems with ISO 3200 in this picture, and I needed it to keep my shitter speed up to 1/400s. Last edited by normhead; 10-30-2013 at 06:31 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 vs K-r vs K-7 - DSLR Comparison	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	40	09-30-2013 06:22 PM
Current K-5 vs. K-30 autofocus comparison?	Newtophotos	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	08-27-2013 10:31 AM
k-30 vs Nikon D600	zorza	Pentax K-30 & K-50	31	01-02-2013 04:30 PM
Unscientific Comparison: K5 vs. 5DII vs. D600	sb in ak	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	36	12-27-2012 01:13 PM
Camera comparison: One X vs Galaxy S II vs Nexus vs N8 vs iPhone 4S	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	04-12-2012 07:41 AM

10-29-2013, 02:40 PM	#241
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one? Nope, 3200 is my ceiling. I might consider going to 6400 in a pinch.

10-29-2013, 04:42 PM	#243
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by normhead In the sample photos at high ISO the D600 images are awful, and the K-3 images are technically more awful, but the K-3 images are approaching funky awful, where as the D600 images are just awful awful... in my artistic opinion, but I wouldn't use either of them, because I don't care what kind of awful they are, good, bad or funky awful, I just don't want awful. Awesome vs. awful Really awful vs awful.. doesn't that really awful noise look funky? (at 25600 ISO) Top-Left image has been sharpened. Top-Right image is OOF (probably based on a lousy lens or diffraction) You just never give up and refuse to recognize any valid points other people make that brings your position into question. You even resort to name calling. Just look at how you spoke to Jay, "It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals." Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240721-nice-d600-vs-k-3-co...#ixzz2j9osZleI It's a shame that you identify so deeply with your equipment as you always seem to be on the defensive when people make objective comments about it.

10-29-2013, 05:02 PM	#244
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by DogLover Nope, 3200 is my ceiling. I might consider going to 6400 in a pinch. 1600 in a pinch for me

10-29-2013, 06:01 PM	#245
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by tuco I'm am still very skeptical. One dog may be memorized but not two. Dogs can stay pretty still you know. This is a 15 second exposure. Stay Sammy. Stay....

10-29-2013, 06:14 PM - 1 Like	#246
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bossa Top-Left image has been sharpened. Top-Right image is OOF (probably based on a lousy lens or diffraction) You just never give up and refuse to recognize any valid points other people make that brings your position into question. You even resort to name calling. Just look at how you spoke to Jay, "It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals." Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240721-nice-d600-vs-k-3-co...#ixzz2j9osZleI It's a shame that you identify so deeply with your equipment as you always seem to be on the defensive when people make objective comments about it. What you think I said is not what I meant to say. I'm not sure how else to respond to that.

10-29-2013, 07:49 PM	#247
Eric Auer Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	Originally posted by normhead What you think I said is not what I meant to say. I'm not sure how else to respond to that. I like you Bro, But the dude was right.

10-30-2013, 03:07 AM	#249
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one? I've taken dozens at ISO 12,800 this year with my K-5IIs. Hand-held shots inside museums, inside aircraft, and a few (failed) birds in flight. (I haven't taken any at higher ISO than that). Some of these are very acceptable. With care in Lightroom, they are sharp and with acceptable noise (rather than objectionable or intrusive noise). Typical Lightroom parameters might use: Noise reduction - Luminance 50, Color 25; and Sharpening with Masking 80 or more to avoid sharpening noise in smooth surfaces. I mostly keep below ISO 6400, but it is useful to have higher ISOs available as an option. I would probably sometimes use higher ISOs than 12,800 if I were confident that I could keep noise under control in an A3+ print. But I probably need more practice first.

10-30-2013, 03:52 AM	#250
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Barry Pearson I've taken dozens at ISO 12,800 this year So have I with my K-5. Dozens, maybe hundreds ISO 12k can be workable, especially if the shot is basically sharp and in focus. I don't like going there but if I have to it isn't an automatic disaster. Careful post-processing, as Barry indicates, can help achieve decent output too.

10-30-2013, 04:03 AM	#251
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Viennese The K-3 samples look blurred in comparison to the D7100. Didn´t they turn the SR off? I think you are in the wrong thread, no D7100 here ...

10-30-2013, 06:07 AM	#252
halfspin Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one? I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.

10-30-2013, 06:24 AM	#253
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Since the K-5 is so worthless above ISO 6400 or whatever, I guess I should delete the ISO 20,000 photo that I have in the PPG.

10-30-2013, 06:31 AM	#255
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by halfspin I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho. But it is when you are old that you need high ISOs! Your hands shake. Your eyes can't focus properly. You need fast shutter speeds and small apertures! (I'm 66, by the way).