[zorza]

Contradiction there, Zorza.

I don't know if that is a big contradiction. I believe that even the 24-105f4 lens on the 6D is not the fastest lens, but it will hold up better than the 18-135 that goes super fast to 4.5 or 5.6 as the mm increase.. And the ability to have bigger ISO at the 6d might make a diference. Not ot mention the 24mm vs the 28mm (18 converted to ff) on the K3.

Still, one 50mm 2.0 or 1.8 lens canon is a LOT cheaper than one from pentax, and for the same lenght, I would have to buy the 35mm from sigma...


Will have toi hold both in my hands to get a feel..

I do agree with 2 or 3 things the PENTAX is WAY ahead:
1) wheather sealed. Holidays at the beach where never that good without worries
2)size and weight are a lot better. I don't know if I want to carry a big and bulky camera with me all the time
3) no flash - As weak as a internal flash is, it is a big diference when you just want it to fill in the shades...

Zorza

[clackers]

I don't know if that is a big contradiction. I believe that even the 24-105f4 lens on the 6D is not the fastest lens, but it will hold up better than the 18-135 that goes super fast to 4.5 or 5.6 as the mm increase..

But Zorza, if we are to believe what you said, you also chose incorrectly with the 18-135.

Will you now repeat your mistake? :what:

[johnmflores]

I remember when I got my Nikkor 50/1.4 several years ago (for my aging D70.) So enamored with the fast glass, I shot nearly all indoor candids wide open and ended up with a pile of out of focus photos. Since then, I've tried to shoot at F2.8 minimum and have also learned to drag the flash to get nice, natural lighting without resorting to crazy high ISOs.

DOF is even thinner for the 6D, so the challenge will be even greater is you get a fast lens. The F4 Canon zoom you are considering will all but negate any ISO advantages that FF has over APS-C.

For your situation, I might look at the K-3 plus DA*16-50 F2.8 or the K-3 plus 18-135 plus flash.

Best of luck

[kenyee]

The reasons for a K-3 are, better magnification for distance shots. The resolution in the test shots at Imaging resources are almost identical. If you're been shooting with an 18-135, you're going to need smoothing like a 70-200 to give you the same reach as you'd get with a K-3. IN low light, don't forget the K-3 has built in shake reduction. That could give you up to a 2 stop advantage in low light, you're losing 1 due to a smaller sensor, that still puts you a stop ahead. I recently shot Christmas with the K-3 and 18-135 combo mostly without flash, at our family christmas party... I shot hand held in burst mode, and got some great images. Sure a few were blurry, but shooting burst, I always got a keeper in each scene.

Hate to say it, but that photo has craploads of noise
I'd hope the K-3 can do better than that...

[normhead]

Hate to say it, but that photo has craploads of noise
I'd hope the K-3 can do better than that...

And for some odd reason, no one in my family cares, because family gathering pictures for the most part, people look at once, and never look at again. There is one from this series that people may print, that has a much more even exposure and no boosted shadows. So, yes, it has craploads of noise, and yes, no one gives a crap. Except apparently you. That gives me cause for concern. In my world, if the quality of the pictures meets the criteria for which it was taken, then it's met it's objectives. Comments like this suggest that every picture need to meet some outside objective defined by people like yourself. I call it the "trademan's attitude".

I once , when I was working as a cabinet maker, had another tradesman who was visiting me tell me my coffee table needed refinishing. Now when I went to his house, I found his furniture was all way over done and and for the most part, too big for the rooms he had them in. But of course I said nothing. And in the real world, I knew from experience there were people who would go for that look, which to me was overcrowded.

So your comment ,to me is the competitive tradesman kind of thing. And there are a lot of guys who make a living criticizing others work, and then producing a product that for one reason or another can be defined as "better". And in most cases, those reasons are spurious at best.

As in the case of this picture. Not because the criticism is technically wrong, it isn't, but because the criticism is ignorant of the context. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just being you. I'm saying most people won't give a crap.

The important things about this photo are.
1. No one was interrupted from the conversations etc. that make holiday times important.
2. No one was blinded by an elaborate flash set up.
3. There was no equipment scattered around the room that people had to be careful of.
4. Nothing was done to interfere with the relaxed atmosphere of the gathering.

Check out the list. DO you see anything about low noise photos on that list? For your future reference, it's called a candid shot. The rules used for determining good technical photographs, often don't apply.

[Ray Cox]

And for some odd reason, no one in my family cares, because family gathering pictures for the most part, people look at once, and never look at again. There is one from this series that people may print, that has a much more even exposure and no boosted shadows. So, yes, it has craploads of noise, and yes, no one gives a crap. Except apparently you. That gives me cause for concern. In my world, if the quality of the pictures meets the criteria for which it was taken, then it's met it's objectives. Comments like this suggest that every picture need to meet some outside objective defined by people like yourself. I call it the "trademan's attitude".

I once , when I was working as a cabinet maker, had another tradesman who was visiting me tell me my coffee table needed refinishing. Now when I went to his house, I found his furniture was all way over done and and for the most part, too big for the rooms he had them in. But of course I said nothing. And in the real world, I knew from experience there were people who would go for that look, which to me was overcrowded.

So your comment ,to me is the competitive tradesman kind of thing. And there are a lot of guys who make a living criticizing others work, and then producing a product that for one reason or another can be defined as "better". And in most cases, those reasons are spurious at best.

As in the case of this picture. Not because the criticism is technically wrong, it isn't, but because the criticism is ignorant of the context. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just being you. I'm saying most people won't give a crap.

The important things about this photo are.
1. No one was interrupted from the conversations etc. that make holiday times important.
2. No one was blinded by an elaborate flash set up.
3. There was no equipment scattered around the room that people had to be careful of.
4. Nothing was done to interfere with the relaxed atmosphere of the gathering.

Check out the list. DO you see anything about low noise photos on that list? For your future reference, it's called a candid shot. The rules used for determining good technical photographs, often don't apply.

Thanks, normhead. It seems that there is just bucket loads of "experts" out there that should be designing cameras instead of anal izing them. But then again they probably don't have thick enough skins to take the criticism of "experts"

[lister6520]

There seems to be this idea that even the most basic FF camera is automatically better than a top of the range APS-C camera.

If the only things that are important to you are having a shallow depth of field and slightly lower noise and nothing else matters then I suppose that would be correct. However even so I doubt a Canon would be the right choice. As far as I can tell (but I could be wrong) the noise performance of the 6D is actually slightly behind the K-3. True they have a bigger sensor with approximately double the area but it is a somewhat outdated technology that offsets that advantage. If high ISO/low noise is the absolute priority then Nikon do have the solution as they have the size of the 6D sensor combined with the (more or less) same Sony technology of the K-3.

[Driline]

If the 6D quality and feel is any indication like the 60D .......while testing it out at the camera store it felt "toy" like and plasticky compared to the K5 series of pentax cameras. The zoom lens was even worse. No thanks.....

[zorza]

I do agree that some grain in an image, is not the biggest problem. For all of you to understand, i atach this photo wich I find to show the type of shooting I try to get.

I agree that the picture taht was shown was not the best regarding the noise, and I guess some of us where talking about it.. But pease don't get mad at anyone. Some people expect something from their photos and some other choose some other things..

It's the same with cameras. Some people want a trully fast AF, others prefer good lens and others 380panorama

What I am trying to understand, is if the global quality of the camere is more or less the same, or if the Pentax is way ahead!
I must say at this point, I am trully very inclined to the Pentax K3. I have a chance of getting a 16-35 f2.8 lens at a nice price, and maybe will go for it with the K3, althoug it will be kind of very similar to the 18-135wr, and make my da*55 1.4 a bit put on the side!

I know there is no perfect camera, and I can not have both worlds, but right now, I am just trying to get the most bang for the buck!!!

Zorza

[kenyee]

So, yes, it has craploads of noise, and yes, no one gives a crap. Except apparently you.

Wow. That seems to have struck a nerve. And it was not my intention, so apologies for your misconstruing it as such.

We're talking about K-3 vs. 6D (FF) according to the topic. The comment was that the 6D would have had much less noise at similar ISOs.

[johnmflores]

I do agree that some grain in an image, is not the biggest problem. For all of you to understand, i atach this photo wich I find to show the type of shooting I try to get.

I agree that the picture taht was shown was not the best regarding the noise, and I guess some of us where talking about it.. But pease don't get mad at anyone. Some people expect something from their photos and some other choose some other things..

It's the same with cameras. Some people want a trully fast AF, others prefer good lens and others 380panorama

What I am trying to understand, is if the global quality of the camere is more or less the same, or if the Pentax is way ahead!
I must say at this point, I am trully very inclined to the Pentax K3. I have a chance of getting a 16-35 f2.8 lens at a nice price, and maybe will go for it with the K3, althoug it will be kind of very similar to the 18-135wr, and make my da*55 1.4 a bit put on the side!

I know there is no perfect camera, and I can not have both worlds, but right now, I am just trying to get the most bang for the buck!!!

Zorza

That's a lovely shot. Perfect timing. I especially love the two women dancing in the background and having the time of their lives. It's a great example of how context can really help a photo. Well done!

[Ex Finn.]

I do agree that some grain in an image, is not the biggest problem. For all of you to understand, i atach this photo wich I find to show the type of shooting I try to get.

I agree that the picture taht was shown was not the best regarding the noise, and I guess some of us where talking about it.. But pease don't get mad at anyone. Some people expect something from their photos and some other choose some other things..

It's the same with cameras. Some people want a trully fast AF, others prefer good lens and others 380panorama

What I am trying to understand, is if the global quality of the camere is more or less the same, or if the Pentax is way ahead!
I must say at this point, I am trully very inclined to the Pentax K3. I have a chance of getting a 16-35 f2.8 lens at a nice price, and maybe will go for it with the K3, althoug it will be kind of very similar to the 18-135wr, and make my da*55 1.4 a bit put on the side!

I know there is no perfect camera, and I can not have both worlds, but right now, I am just trying to get the most bang for the buck!!!

Zorza

If you take shots like this on constant bases, then you need to be a wedding photog. and invest in Nikon high end gear.

[tittermary]

I have shot with a 6d, doubtful you will see much of a difference and if you print you wont.

[normhead]

Wow. That seems to have struck a nerve. And it was not my intention, so apologies for your misconstruing it as such.

We're talking about K-3 vs. 6D (FF) according to the topic. The comment was that the 6D would have had much less noise at similar ISOs.

And my comment to that would be, both cameras would have displayed noise, the noise could probably have been largely eliminated on both a K-3 image and the 6D if someone cared. No one cared. And saying the 6D would have less noise, is speculation. The K-3 image is real. The 6D image doesn't exist. That one camera may have done better than the other is an untestable theory, so you're safe making it right or wrong. So why make it in the first place? If you're going to say such things, surely you owe it to your audience to actually know it's true, not just speculate that it might be true.

It's quite possible that a 6D image taken with a lens without SR lens would have been motion blurred and unusable. In fact I have images taken from this sequence where the shutter speed was 1/6 of a second and the image would almost certainly have been unusable taken with 6D. This is what happens with idle speculation. You imagine situations that don't exist, because there are other considerations you didn't even imagine. You remember that the 6D "should " have a 1 stop advantage in noise reduction, without remembering you could shoot at 1/6th second instead of 1/30 on the 6D, giving you a two stop lower ISO advantage, and a one stop overall advantage to the K-3.

A perfect example of what happens when you try and tease one function out of a system without optimizing both systems to take advantage of their strengths. Yes the K-3 at 1/30 second, is probably one stop worse than the 6D. But with the K-3, I can take the picture art 1/6 second two stops of ISO slower. With the 6D I cannot. Actaully taking the pictures is the only way you can actually even understand what you're talking about. It's not that you don't know what you're talking about. It's that what you are thinking about is not all the relevant information.

[kenyee]

The comment was more of shock that it was that noisy at screen res...out of a K-3 which should be decent after you scale the image down. It looked more like my K20D when I push to ISO1600 or higher in dim light :-(
I have seen FF images at higher ISOs in dim light w/o that much noise...friends have D700/D800's so it's not pure speculation that FF has less noise.

And no, the comment had nothing to do w/ subject matter. It really was a reaction of "wow...that's a lot of noise"....nothing more...nothing less and definitely not meant to offend :-P