[normhead]

People forget, that because the APS_c image has more depth of field, often the whole image looks sharper, and I'm pretty sure the K-3 is on the right, but I think it has lower ISO. It was a while ago and the image isn't labelled clearly.

But the point is, if there's a difference , it doesn't matter in most situations.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-01-2015 at 06:21 PM.

[mgoblue]

I just compared on imagining resources -- at ISO 200 the K3 is "better" in some parts of the image, and the 750 in others. It's splitting hairs. And I can't imagine it ever mattering even at 100% crop. So I'm definitely with normhead here.

Above ISO 800, the 750 pulls ahead in noise. It looks like even more than a stop in noise by 3200 vs 1600. Though at smaller image sizes the difference quickly disappears.

And the 750 is almost 3X as much money on B&H! Not the same price class at all.

[Flugelbinder]

High ISO tests should be in low light situations, not a well lit scene. That's where one sees the true camera's/sensor's performance...

[Vihmameister]

High ISO tests should be in low light situations, not a well lit scene. That's where one sees the true camera's/sensor's performance...

That is exactly what i did in store -made shots with low and different lights (K3, Canon 6D and Nikon D750) - just to get knowledge, that labs test were quite correct.
As said: pentax k3 go well till ISO 800. Up from 1250 ISO in low light it starts making pictures for people who: "do not see difference" or just don't care, or to justify beliefs for keeping religions safety-sake.
Nikon starts noise from 1600, more prominent 3200 and gets quite bad at 6400. (indoors, led lights)
ISO can be corrected with various software, (but whats the point if it is possible to live without that noise at all) and that correction procedure takes some time.
Additionally - but when there is thunderstorm, rain, fog, mist and similar conditions, with high ISO will mostly suck because of ISO grain noise, because there is always difficult and mostly low in some areas light, were most cameras also struggle to focus. And here some cameras behave better than others.

For those who still consider that good equipment with proper handling can make difference - this guy here looks like long time Nikon user: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tiziano56/
He uses both - Nikon D610 and D750 and does that in skilled way. Looks like specialist for portraits but has some very good landscapes too.

As my self, i stopped today my plans for immediate movement to nikon or canon. I will wait. Not exactly for Pentax FF but just right time. First, i still can learn with K3 for while. One new 70-200 @ 2.8 tamron does not hurt. D750 gets mature and issues with it will be resolved. Last but least there Canon must respond some way to Nikon too - lagging some 2 years like they usually do. It may be 5D mark4, but can be 6D version II.
I will wait till those suggested FF-s are out. And make my move then, if i still feel limited with K3.

And the 750 is almost 3X as much money on B&H! Not the same price class at all.

And what must people expect? FF on price of APS-ć? Canon 6D is 1600 EUR and Nikon 2000 body only. So what? Or do some hope that Ricoh will announce FF much under 2K?

[aurele]

High ISO tests should be in low light situations, not a well lit scene. That's where one sees the true camera's/sensor's performance...

and for that, "clubs" are the perfect place for this kind of test, specialy when it's dark !

Like Iso 12800, f1.4 and 1/50 with a 55mm lens*


Or like Iso 6400 f1.4, 1/50 and a 55mm lens


You know, this is the kind of test i would like to see with any DSLR ! You know, the real life kind of test, not the brick wall, or the 12 EV lit scene with 2 sec timer to test out the iso 6400 ...

--
* It may not be obvious, but i can tell you that if i print this in A4 format, there will be grain like sand on the beach : a boatload of it !

[FantasticMrFox]

But, look then Sony sensor perfomance against Canon and Nikon. Sony have FF sensor available. Same or similar behavior and flaws as K3 have. And if only that matters, 645z should do extremely well, but this is not case- not in ISO, not in details clarity -same test charts. I mean - 645 has noise a lot of it on higher iso.

I am seriously baffled as to why you are complaining about Sony sensors - they are generally considered to be far superior to anything Canon produces. That Canon is lagging behind in sensor development has pretty much been the consensus for years.

Just hop over to DXOMark and compare the K3 (Sony sensor) and 70D (Canon sensor), the Sony sensor absolutely trashes the Canon one. 1.2 bit more colour depth, 1.8 EV higher dynamic range, ISO 1216 low light performance vs. ISO 926. Then take a look at the Nikon D810 (Sony sensor) and Canon 5D Mk III (Canon sensor), the gap even widens here. A 3.1 EV (!) advantage in dynamic range for the Nikon, ISO 2853 vs. ISO 2293. The Nikon (36 MP) even has a higher pixel density than the Canon (22 MP) which usually means worse high ISO performance.

So what makes you think Canon's sensors are better than Sony's?

[normhead]

I am seriously baffled as to why you are complaining about Sony sensors - they are generally considered to be far superior to anything Canon produces. That Canon is lagging behind in sensor development has pretty much been the consensus for years.

Just hop over to DXOMark and compare the K3 (Sony sensor) and 70D (Canon sensor), the Sony sensor absolutely trashes the Canon one. 1.2 bit more colour depth, 1.8 EV higher dynamic range, ISO 1216 low light performance vs. ISO 926. Then take a look at the Nikon D810 (Sony sensor) and Canon 5D Mk III (Canon sensor), the gap even widens here. A 3.1 EV (!) advantage in dynamic range for the Nikon, ISO 2853 vs. ISO 2293. The Nikon (36 MP) even has a higher pixel density than the Canon (22 MP) which usually means worse high ISO performance.

So what makes you think Canon's sensors are better than Sony's?

Having had a long discussion about this a few weeks ago, with a fellow park shooter and his wife, they both ditched their Canon systems earlier this year, because there was so much advantage in dynamic range switching to Nikon, they felt they had no choice. Asked of they would switch back for any reason they looked at me like I was bonkers. Of course many look at me like I'm bonkers, but this look was in reference to the specific question.

That's a combined 20 years of shooting Canon speaking.

[Flugelbinder]

ISO 5000, K-5 II

[Rondec]

There is a stop difference between the 6D and the K3 in dynamic range and SNR in RAW at high iso. I have a hard time saying much about jpegs because (a) I don't shoot jepg and (b) there are so many settings that have a bearing on how much noise you have in your final jpeg. Too much sharpening, in particular, will result in noise entering image at lower isos. And in the end, DXO Mark gave the K3 and 6D equivalent scores of 80 and 82 respectively. The K3 is actually a better camera for low iso situations and the 6D better in high iso.

I guess it probably bears mentioning Canon's typical iso inflation. So at iso 1600 the 6D is measured at 1200, while the K3 is measured at 1500 by DXO Mark. And the SNR curves aren't nearly as separated between the K3 and the 6D as they are from the Nikon full frame cameras. And the D7200 matches its dynamic range up to iso 6400. Not a very good full frame sensor in the whole scheme of things.

[Vihmameister]

It may not be obvious, but i can tell you that if i print this in A4 format, there will be grain like sand on the beach : a boatload of it !

This is very obvious. For local pioneers "red coner" those party shots are guite good, but not for any sized print.
K3 actually can do much better in such light, even K30 can in candle light with some small halogens in big room better. And people tend to move. But this kind shots are very possible without flash. Question is not -can we have a picture, but can we have good picture.

Flugelbinders 5000 ISO shot is not in low light, it is around half of normal environmental lightening indoors, easy cake for any decent camera.

I am seriously baffled as to why you are complaining about Sony sensors - they are generally considered to be far superior to anything Canon produces. That Canon is lagging behind in sensor development has pretty much been the consensus for years. Just hop over to DXOMark and compare the K3 (Sony sensor) and 70D (Canon sensor), the Sony sensor absolutely trashes the Canon one. 1.2 bit more colour depth, 1.8 EV higher dynamic range, ISO 1216 low light performance vs. ISO 926. Then take a look at the Nikon D810 (Sony sensor) and Canon 5D Mk III (Canon sensor), the gap even widens here. A 3.1 EV (!) advantage in dynamic range for the Nikon, ISO 2853 vs. ISO 2293. The Nikon (36 MP) even has a higher pixel density than the Canon (22 MP) which usually means worse high ISO performance. So what makes you think Canon's sensors are better than Sony's?

Quite irrelevant. Some post above we already found out, that while sensors in Nikon and k3 are Sony, there are other differences.
Different versions of sensors, different picture processing engine. Also AA filter on sensor or absence of it. Don't bring here canon 70D or Nikon 7100, are contenders to K3 at best, not to any FF camera. Articles main direction was K3 or 6D, i was interested in direction to choose with lenses.
There is a lot of articles out - discussing -can one or other camera focus, can it do that fast or that canon 6D have only one cross type focus point.
Overall, in dynamic range Nikon do better than Canon 6D. Fast auto-focus, focus tracking and 3D tracking are were Nikon rocks. Canon same time does it on real ISO performance. 6 D still outperforms most other cameras on high ISO, with its "old" sensor. And do you know, anything still - landscapes this does not matter, how fast is thing at sports. For birding, yes it matters. most people do not choose 6D as primary camera for anything fast action.
I shoot in RAW+best JPG in camera available. Witch one i choose, depends - what camera was able to give out. Sometimes i manage much better in Darktable, sometimes camera job was excellent, no need to make similar copy manually

As i already told Nikon D810, D750 and even D610 are quite best options at the moment. For me Sony pentaprismless version is NOT an option as camera. Cameras have viewfinder pentaprisms. Robots can use whatever EV they wish. While 6D have exceptional high ISO processing it needs remake to be decent, but it still has very good ergonomics -much better than D750, and for some reason, its easier to hold with same sized and weight lens.

But to stop those "get over dxo" stories, i will show you what 3 cameras do in very same conditions. Yes, it was handhold, not all shots were on same focal length nor exact ISO sometimes and my sigma is half shorter from both F4 lens from canon and Nikon. My purpose was not to test what i all ready knew, but compare handling, focusing and how i manage to use one or other in comparison. I will not provide raw fails here - too small image space as non supporting user. But if you can not see differences in those very basic shots, probably nothing can help you too much.
.
First attachments are from Nikon D750 all crops and some show overall conditions, next i provide canon and K3 crops. Nikon was hardest for me to focus, I was in manual mode and did not get it exactly in 20 minutes. But that should not matter on looking for ISO noise too much. I did not bother to go up with ISO as noise were already there in capture.

[Vihmameister]

Canon 6D

---------- Post added 05-03-15 at 10:15 AM ----------

[Vihmameister]

here K3 and canon, i hope you now can see the difference. And try to get "over it".
Last picture is provided to show overall scene and lightening.
If you ask were are sharp shots- most them are made on different direction and targets, as i looked for lens separations also. (That would be different story)
In brief, all they can focus very well, lenses were very good, and it was subjectively easier with canon 6D for me. Nikon usage i must learn first.

[aurele]

Thank Vihmameister !!

The difference is quite obvious

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

here K3 and canon, i hope you now can see the difference. And try to get "over it".
Last picture is provided to show overall scene and lightening.
If you ask were are sharp shots- most them are made on different direction and targets, as i looked for lens separations also. (That would be different story)
In brief, all they can focus very well, lenses were very good, and it was subjectively easier with canon 6D for me. Nikon usage i must learn first.

With regard to noise most current generation cameras today baring the new sony FF 12mp sensor produce the same level of noise when you take photographs with the same DOF and shutter speed. Its only when one format gives you a shallow DOF will you see an advantage in noise performance. For instance the k3 with a F/1.8 lens and a FF with a F/1.8 lens but when you can use the same DOF between formats K3 with a F/2.8 and FF F/4.2 then that low light performance is evenly matched and both cameras would capture the same amount of noise. Now with the canon sensors you lose DR but as far as SNR they are even with just about everyone.

[Flugelbinder]

...Flugelbinders 5000 ISO shot is not in low light, it is around half of normal environmental lightening indoors, easy cake for any decent camera...

I know. That was the point I was trying to show, following my earlier post...