[MJSfoto1956]

I'm not as enamored of crop sensor for wide angle, but for telephoto work, crop sensor is where it is at. CaNikon are missing the boat by not offering any DX pro-level telephoto lenses. Currently only Sigma and Pentax offer such lenses, but I also think the K-3 seriously outperforms the D7100 in everything except for sensor IQ where the D7100 sensor is slightly better. However, given that Nikon is likely to never deliver a pro-level lens like the 60-250mm, and that size and weight are very important to me, I think it is inevitable that this lens will eventually be added to my travel bag.

[monochrome]

If you like the music of Led Zeppelin, I think you'll appreciate this female Led Zeppelin cover band, Zepparella.

How ironic that the next thread is "K3 Noise."

Not that I would think so, but some here might believe you should have made this Post there.

[bossa]

I'm a musician (was a professional for 35 years up until recently) and, as much as I love Zeppelin, I have to ask what are those video posts doing on here? Are they shot with a Pentax camera?

[MJSfoto1956]

I'm a musician (was a professional for 35 years up until recently) and, as much as I love Zeppelin, if have to ask what are those video posts doing on here? Are they shot with a Pentax camera?

I was gonna ask the same thing...

[bossa]

I'm not as enamored of crop sensor for wide angle, but for telephoto work, crop sensor is where it is at. CaNikon are missing the boat by not offering any DX pro-level telephoto lenses. Currently only Sigma and Pentax offer such lenses, but I also think the K-3 seriously outperforms the D7100 in everything except for sensor IQ where the D7100 sensor is slightly better. However, given that Nikon is likely to never deliver a pro-level lens like the 60-250mm, and that size and weight are very important to me, I think it is inevitable that this lens will eventually be added to my travel bag.

I'm not sure the D7100 sensor is better at all considering that Nikon's ISO numbers are arbitrary to a degree. ISO 800 on a K-3 has been tested at 799 (if I remember correctly) whereas the same ISO setting on a D7100 was tested as between 500 and 600. I'll have to hunt down those tests to back up my statement though.

I had a great copy of the 60-250... what a shame the K-3 wasn't around when I sold everything.

[dtmateojr]

In response to the original post, there is a bit of flaw in the test. The K3 is diffraction limited at f8. That image is effectively 12Mp blown up to 24Mp. It should have been shot at f5.6.

[MJSfoto1956]

I'm not sure the D7100 sensor is better at all considering that Nikon's ISO numbers are arbitrary to a degree. ISO 800 on a K-3 has been tested at 799 (if I remember correctly) whereas the same ISO setting on a D7100 was tested as between 500 and 600.

I've shot both D7100 and K-3 and I'll tip the hat *SLIGHTLY* to the D7100's sensor. But it is a camera I don't like shooting with. Slow, tiny buffer, not weather-proof, and little in the way of available pro-level DX lenses, so by the time you add an FX lens to a Nikon D7100 any weight or size advantage disappears. And while you may or may not like DxOmark rating, they too rate the D7100 sensor slightly better than the K-3 sensor. As a "system" though, the combination of the K-3 + 60-250mm was able to keep up with Nikon D800 full frame so in the end, it hardly matter is a sensor is 10% better or worse -- it is the total system that determines the image IQ.

J Michael

[bossa]

Has anyone tested the K-3 for AMP GLOW? My D800E's are shocking for AMP GLOW on long exposures.

[MJSfoto1956]

In response to the original post, there is a bit of flaw in the test. The K3 is diffraction limited at f8. That image is effectively 12Mp blown up to 24Mp. It should have been shot at f5.6.

LOL! First of all not all images posted were at f/8 so your global contention is flawed from the get go. Secondly, one could infer from your contention that since the two test images are essentially similar in quality @ f/8 then it stands to reason that if the Pentax were shot at a f/5.6 it would somehow be superior to the D800?, something I find preposterous. I think you have missed a key point of this test and have become blinded by photographic "theory" vs. photographic "reality": that overall the tests I have conducted comparing the K-3 + 60-250mm with a D800 + AF-S 80-400mm in real-world situations demonstrate pretty conclusively that it "competes very well" -- it would be a stretch to imply or suggest that the K-3 is superior. And I might add that "real-world" for a true professional would include occasionally (and judiciously) making a deliberate choice of f/8 or even f/11 if the image warranted it. In the case of landscape, often it is a better choice for more depth of field over "sharpness" -- your global statement about the behavior of photographic systems buffalo's me for its sheer audaciousness. I couldn't disagree with you more. </end_rant>

J Michael Sullivan

[MJSfoto1956]

Has anyone tested the K-3 for AMP GLOW? My D800E's are shocking for AMP GLOW on long exposures.

ditto my D800 -- best to shoot on a cold night.

M

[dtmateojr]

LOL! First of all not all images posted were at f/8 so your global contention is flawed from the get go. Secondly, one could infer from your contention that since the two test images are essentially similar in quality @ f/8 then it stands to reason that if the Pentax were shot at a f/5.6 it would somehow be superior to the D800?, something I find preposterous. I think you have missed a key point of this test and have become blinded by photographic "theory" vs. photographic "reality": that overall the tests I have conducted comparing the K-3 + 60-250mm with a D800 + AF-S 80-400mm in real-world situations demonstrate pretty conclusively that it "competes very well" -- it would be a stretch to imply or suggest that the K-3 is superior. And I might add that "real-world" for a true professional would include occasionally (and judiciously) making a deliberate choice of f/8 or even f/11 if the image warranted it. In the case of landscape, often it is a better choice for more depth of field over "sharpness" -- your global statement about the behavior of photographic systems buffalo's me for its sheer audaciousness. I couldn't disagree with you more. </end_rant>



J Michael Sullivan

I'm just stating a fact that at f8, the D800 only loses 1/5 of its resolution but the K3 has lost half of its capability. The fact that you are noticing not much difference is testament to the fact that 12Mp is more than good enough for almost anything but the observation is hardly objective.

Shoot both of them at f5.6 with a good lens if you want a real comparison.

FYI I shoot at f22 if needed. Sharpness is overrated but a comparison needs to be factual.

[dosdan]

Has anyone tested the K-3 for AMP GLOW? My D800E's are shocking for AMP GLOW on long exposures.

Did a 612s Bulb exposure in raw in the K-3 with the lens cap on and Slow Shutter Speed NR set to Off (i.e. no DFS). No obvious amp glow regions. Is a 10 min exposure on the D800E enough to show amp glow?

Dan.

[MJSfoto1956]

Sharpness is overrated but a comparison needs to be factual.

"factual" turns out to be subjective -- especially when you present actual 6000x9000 pixel images for people to review: everybody sees whatever they want in the images. Why? because individuals cannot help but being subjective even when they cloak themselves in "facts". Which is why I never trust pixel peeping: in the end the only question that matters is do the 20"x30" prints look good or not? My eyes say yes to both, which makes the test valid and "factual".

M

[bossa]

Did a 612s Bulb exposure in raw in the K-3 with the lens cap on and Slow Shutter Speed NR set to Off (i.e. no DFS). No obvious amp glow regions. Is a 10 min exposure on the D800E enough to show amp glow?

Dan.

Just about any 30 second exposure on a D800E shows amp glow. It's horrendous.. even my K-01 is way better

[dosdan]

Just about any 30 second exposure on a D800E shows amp glow. It's horrendous.. even my K-01 is way better

I've had a closer look. There is a very small amount of amp glow, but it's not easy to see. Since RawDigger is no longer a free program, I've used the old Rawnalyze program which can handle DNGs. (Since I forget to change from PEF to DNG in the K-3, I've used the free Adobe DNG Converter.)

Here is the 612s cap-on K-3 raw exposure, without DFS. Since the amp glow is not normally visible, I've had to drop the WP to only 400 to get way down into the noise floor (for 14-bit raw the WP should be approx. 16,383), and ticked "raw clipping" which makes the very darkest pixels look white. These are extreme settings.




Unfortunately, Rawnalyze was not designed for today's high MP sizes, so it can only zoom out 1:2, which is not far enough to show the whole image.

Since the amp glow is so low in this 10 min exposure (hot pixels weren't too bad either), I doubt it will be a problem in a 30s shot. However, if you were doing a lot of 30s exposures for stacking, with DFS disabled in the camera, it would be worthwhile taking a reference dark frame (same duration) at the end of the session and using it to perform a DFS in PP. (RawTherapee offers this option.)

Dan.