Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-05-2015, 07:12 AM   #151
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
2. At low ISO Canon images are a little better than K-3 II images, but at high ISO the difference is quite big (this is my personal opinion)
An interesting point.... the thing being, seeing as it's based on your experience. Others I've talked to have switched from Canon to Nikon, because of the huge differences in Dynamic Range. Pentax is similar to Nikon in that regard. I'd be interested in some comparison images.

QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
1. If I stack 4 images the result will be pretty much the same as a pixel shift image.
And if I stack four pixel shifted images... this can go on for ever. Just call pixel shift in-camera stacking... Pentax has it, no one else does.
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
4. The 200$ difference in price worth the upgrade
Canon 6D $1699 on sale $200 off on sale.
Pentax K3II $1,034 115 open box.

That's almost $700 difference in my country, the cost of a very good lens. Your Pentax dealer is ripping you off.

In any case, enjoy your camera, looking at the curves, sometimes I think I should really try a camera that's better in low light, I can see for some people that is going to make almost every picture they take better. I shoot mostly outdoors, in daylight so it wouldn't be any good at all for me.

11-05-2015, 07:39 AM   #152
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
An interesting point.... the thing being, seeing as it's based on your experience. Others I've talked to have switched from Canon to Nikon, because of the huge differences in Dynamic Range. Pentax is similar to Nikon in that regard. I'd be interested in some comparison images.
I will probably do some comparison test this weekend, if my friend which has K-3 II is available for a half an hour.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And if I stack four pixel shifted images... this can go on for ever. Just call pixel shift in-camera stacking... Pentax has it, no one else do83es.
True, but pixel shift is not a game changer.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Canon 6D $1699 on sale $200 off on sale.
Pentax K3II $1,034 115 open box.

That's almost $700 difference in my country, the cost of a very good lens. Your Pentax dealer is ripping you off.
Not quite. I paid for my K-3 II only 813 euro (889$) and it came with 2 year guarantee. I paid for Canon 6D only 1046 euro (1.121$) due to a discount from the seller (also it came with 2 year guarantee).

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
In any case, enjoy your camera, looking at the curves, sometimes I think I should really try a camera that's better in low light, I can see for some people that is going to make almost every picture they take better. I shoot mostly outdoors, in daylight so it wouldn't be any good at all for me.
Thank you! I didn't leave Pentax because I don't like the image quality. I mentioned the reasons above, in my other comments.

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 11-05-2015 at 08:32 AM.
11-05-2015, 02:15 PM   #153
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,529
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
I'm not sure I understand correctly what you're saying. If you say that an APS-C can match an full frame camera in real conditions (forget for a second pixel shift)...then why Ricoh even bother to come up with a full frame camera?

Later edit: When I said that I can tap 4 times my phone screen I was referring to the possibility to wirelessly control my 6D in order to not touch the shutter button or use the delay shutter. And like I said before, in theory you may be right, but do some comparison test between 4 stack images and one pixel shift image and then we can talk based on facts.
What I'am saying is that we are comparing 2 camera. Both are able to make photographs, so we are really comparing Oranges to Oranges. So comparing them is legitimate and the comparison criteria can be on resolution, deph of field control, low light performance, weight, price...

This is legitimate and people are doing that all the time.

As for why Ricoh does bother is that they think there a market for it. They also bother with Pentax Q, 645Z, compact camera. All in all this is market segmentation.

The goal for Ricoh, as for any company is to gain the most money out of their client from a product. The product is the camera system (incl. lenses) that allow you to take photos.

It is admited that FF is highend product that you can sell for a high price and sell corresping expensive FF lenses. That's perfect because when you have an APSC body, you can continue to buy innexpensives APSC lenses and even discover some are great and innexpensive. But once you are in the FF thing, you'll want FF lenses in all cases and then there a very expensive line up of FF lenses just for that.

All manufacturers take care to have only expensive FF bodies. The small difference between high end APSC and entry level FF, show that basically you can sell an FF for 300$ and so you could sell an FF body for 600$ on sale, 800$ normal price. They could ask even less because it would basically say 9 time more (90% of the market instead of 10% of the market) so you could basically sell this 6D or D610 for 600$ and have a couple of great but innexpensive lenses with them. But they avoid that: they would simply make less money out of it from enthousiasts and entry level consumers would complain the camera/lenses are too big. Better to ask sell the guy an APSC body for 600$ and 1600$ for the FF.

Hey there even a 120-300 f/2.8 to shut up theses APSC shooter that say that with they 70-200 f/2.8 they brought for $600 they match the low light capabilities of your FF with a 100-300 f/4... You may never buy the 100-300 f/2.8, in particular in Pentax mount you may get a 150-450 f/4-5.6 instead and get actually worse low light capabilities than a 100-300 f/4 on APSC, but that doesn't count because with the proper lenses (and shitload of money) the camera could do it.

As for the test of stacked image it has been done for K3-II pixel shift and seen as improving things significantly vs the 6D that doesn't have it. If you want to save the honor of the 6D, that's your turn man. Like in poker you can't ask a guy to rise on himself, you need to rise on top on him first.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-05-2015 at 02:43 PM.
11-06-2015, 01:09 AM   #154
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
What I'am saying is that we are comparing 2 camera. Both are able to make photographs, so we are really comparing Oranges to Oranges. So comparing them is legitimate and the comparison criteria can be on resolution, deph of field control, low light performance, weight, price...

This is legitimate and people are doing that all the time.
Try comparing an orange called Nikon D7200 with an orange called Nikon D750. This discussion is for children. Sure we can compare it, other have done it to, but in the end all of them say the same thing: different sensor format, different image quality. So it's like comparing oranges to apples, not oranges to oranges.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
As for the test of stacked image it has been done for K3-II pixel shift and seen as improving things significantly vs the 6D that doesn't have it. If you want to save the honor of the 6D, that's your turn man. Like in poker you can't ask a guy to rise on himself, you need to rise on top on him first.
I want to save the honor of the 6D? You make my day with this statement. Who are you, a five year old child?

Pixel shift function is like wireless control. Canon 6D have it built in, Pentax K-3 II doesn't, but it does have a wireless memory card. It takes a little longer to wirelessly transfer images from K-3 II via wireless memory card, but in the end it does pretty much the same thing. Same thing with pixel shift vs stacking images.

Have you touched a 6D, or you just read the reviews online about it? I actually said that I loved the image quality from K-5 II and K-3 II (I owned both cameras), but there were other reasons than image quality that made me leave Pentax. Forget for a second this debate that you seems to have with me and read from the beginning all I wrote.

You came with this theory that if I shoot at ISO 1600 and f4 on full frame I will get the same image quality if I use ISO 800 and f2.8 on APS-C. But no, actually I can not get the same image quality. Why? Let me put you this way. Let's say we have an APS-C with 24mp and a full frame with 24mp (Nikon D7200 and Nikon D750). If I take 240 people and put them in a handbal court they will probably fit, but they will not have verry much space to move. But if I take those 240 people and put them in a fotball court, they will have more space to move. It's the same thing with megapixels. A larger pixels crowd per square centimeter mean high image noise at high ISO values, it means a weaker final resolution. And this is one of the reasons why D750 is way better in low light than D7200.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 11-06-2015 at 01:34 AM.
11-06-2015, 02:11 AM   #155
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Berlin
Posts: 104
Please, let Dan be lucky with his switch/buy. He explained over and over again why he bought a Canon, that he liked Pentax etc. etc. That's his decision so why do you care? If this thread is menat to make any sence compare images not words, even though this would mean a pixel peeping tournament which is getting soon as well.
11-06-2015, 02:48 AM   #156
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,529
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Try comparing an orange called Nikon D7200 with an orange called Nikon D750. This discussion is for children. Sure we can compare it, other have done it to, but in the end all of them say the same thing: different sensor format, different image quality. So it's like comparing oranges to apples, not oranges to oranges.


I want to save the honor of the 6D? You make my day with this statement. Who are you, a five year old child?

Pixel shift function is like wireless control. Canon 6D have it built in, Pentax K-3 II doesn't, but it does have a wireless memory card. It takes a little longer to wirelessly transfer images from K-3 II via wireless memory card, but in the end it does pretty much the same thing. Same thing with pixel shift vs stacking images.

Have you touched a 6D, or you just read the reviews online about it? I actually said that I loved the image quality from K-5 II and K-3 II (I owned both cameras), but there were other reasons than image quality that made me leave Pentax. Forget for a second this debate that you seems to have with me and read from the beginning all I wrote.

You came with this theory that if I shoot at ISO 1600 and f4 on full frame I will get the same image quality if I use ISO 800 and f2.8 on APS-C. But no, actually I can not get the same image quality. Why? Let me put you this way. Let's say we have an APS-C with 24mp and a full frame with 24mp (Nikon D7200 and Nikon D750). If I take 240 people and put them in a handbal court they will probably fit, but they will not have verry much space to move. But if I take those 240 people and put them in a fotball court, they will have more space to move. It's the same thing with megapixels. A larger pixels crowd per square centimeter mean high image noise at high ISO values, it means a weaker final resolution. And this is one of the reasons why D750 is way better in low light than D7200.
And so where do you put the limit of your therory? the D750 is better at 12800 isos than the D7200 at 100 isos? And what if I take a very old FF and quite new APSC body?

Let take a look of what DxO says of high iso performance of 6D vs K3:

iso 800 K3: 32 db of signal vs noise ratio, 10.69 EV of dynamic range, 7.49 bits of tonal range, 18.75 bit of color sensitivity
iso 1600 K3: 29 db of signal vs noise ration, 9.85EV of dynamic range, 7 bits of tonal range, 17.7 bit of color sensitivity
iso 1600 6D: 32 db of signal vs noise ratio, 10.7 EV of dynamic range, 7.5 bit of tonal range, 19.2 bit of color sensitivity.
iso 1600 D750: 32.5db of signa vs noise ratio, 10.8EV of dynamic range, 7.5 bit of tonal range, 19.5 of color sensitivity.


So sure 6D at iso 1600 is significantly better than 800 iso on K3, but when we compare iso 800 of K3 and iso 1600 of 6D, we get the same performance.

This is basically because an FF has approximately double the surface of sensitivite area, in this precise cases, each photosite surface is twice as big on the 6D. At the same exposure both camera get same light per surface area and so the whole 6D sensor and each individual pixel get the double of light.

Now if you move your apperture by one EV on the APSC, the light density double, and the whole sensor and also each photosite get rougly the same total amount of light on the K3 at f/2.8 as on the 6D at f/4.

So you can stretch the stadium analogy all you want, the key question for the stadium is the difference in size of both stadium and how much you get.

In APSC vs FF to be precise and exact there 2.33 the surface area on the FF than on APSC (a bit more difference on Canon APSC sensors as they are slightly smaller). This is 1.1 EV. So in theory you gain really 1.1EV of light... Basically 1.1EV or 1EV is the same so in most cases you can round it.

But sure, the Canon sensor is only getting 1EV difference and getting exaclty the performance of K3 at iso 800. It miss the 0.1EV because the Sony sensor is slightly better.

No the an FF at 12800 iso isn't looking better than an APSC at iso 100. There actually some correspondance, there mathetical formula for that... and funily the practical measurements match it.

Canon 6D at 1600 iso isn't doing any better than that K3 at 800 isos.

Another way to see it, is to compare the pictures for example at imaging resource.

On the left is the 6D at iso 1600 on the right is the K3 at iso 800... To me 6D picture look like a slightly blured and less sharp version of the K3 and I would have difficulties to say that the iso 1600 picture of the 6D look better... So yes I really think that an iso 800 f/2.8 shoot of K3 can give you as much quality as an iso1600 f/4 shoot of a 6D. No issue at all.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
11-06-2015, 04:42 AM   #157
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And if I stack four pixel shifted images... this can go on for ever. Just call pixel shift in-camera stacking... Pentax has it, no one else does.
pixel shift is fantastic for people who want to print large static scenes, but stacking pixel shifted images is extremely unfeasible in anything but a studio environment , you would need perfect stillness light control and low temperature

also the dxo one has super resolution mode that uses multiple exposures, and olympus has sensor shift (don't really care how they work but both would be excellent for static subjects in a studio environment)
11-06-2015, 04:44 AM   #158
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
And so where do you put the limit of your therory? the D750 is better at 12800 isos than the D7200 at 100 isos? And what if I take a very old FF and quite new APSC body?

Let take a look of what DxO says of high iso performance of 6D vs K3:

iso 800 K3: 32 db of signal vs noise ratio, 10.69 EV of dynamic range, 7.49 bits of tonal range, 18.75 bit of color sensitivity
iso 1600 K3: 29 db of signal vs noise ration, 9.85EV of dynamic range, 7 bits of tonal range, 17.7 bit of color sensitivity
iso 1600 6D: 32 db of signal vs noise ratio, 10.7 EV of dynamic range, 7.5 bit of tonal range, 19.2 bit of color sensitivity.
iso 1600 D750: 32.5db of signa vs noise ratio, 10.8EV of dynamic range, 7.5 bit of tonal range, 19.5 of color sensitivity.


So sure 6D at iso 1600 is significantly better than 800 iso on K3, but when we compare iso 800 of K3 and iso 1600 of 6D, we get the same performance.

This is basically because an FF has approximately double the surface of sensitivite area, in this precise cases, each photosite surface is twice as big on the 6D. At the same exposure both camera get same light per surface area and so the whole 6D sensor and each individual pixel get the double of light.

Now if you move your apperture by one EV on the APSC, the light density double, and the whole sensor and also each photosite get rougly the same total amount of light on the K3 at f/2.8 as on the 6D at f/4.

So you can stretch the stadium analogy all you want, the key question for the stadium is the difference in size of both stadium and how much you get.

In APSC vs FF to be precise and exact there 2.33 the surface area on the FF than on APSC (a bit more difference on Canon APSC sensors as they are slightly smaller). This is 1.1 EV. So in theory you gain really 1.1EV of light... Basically 1.1EV or 1EV is the same so in most cases you can round it.

But sure, the Canon sensor is only getting 1EV difference and getting exaclty the performance of K3 at iso 800. It miss the 0.1EV because the Sony sensor is slightly better.

No the an FF at 12800 iso isn't looking better than an APSC at iso 100. There actually some correspondance, there mathetical formula for that... and funily the practical measurements match it.

Canon 6D at 1600 iso isn't doing any better than that K3 at 800 isos.

Another way to see it, is to compare the pictures for example at imaging resource.

On the left is the 6D at iso 1600 on the right is the K3 at iso 800... To me 6D picture look like a slightly blured and less sharp version of the K3 and I would have difficulties to say that the iso 1600 picture of the 6D look better... So yes I really think that an iso 800 f/2.8 shoot of K3 can give you as much quality as an iso1600 f/4 shoot of a 6D. No issue at all.
You do seem to really love theories and lab tests. I actually prefer practical tests in uncontrolled environments.
I will show you just an example from a recent conference, where I had the opportunity to shoot with both cameras. Canon 6D was in tests back then.

As I said, I love the image quality from K-3 II (and this is the last time I will explain myself again and say that the image quality from Pentax wasn't the reason I left Pentax), but I think the image quality from 6D is much better at high ISO and just by a little at low ISO.

Look at this images for example. They were taken at a distance of 10 minutes of each other. The file from 6D is as clean as Pentax K-3 II image, but keep in mind that on Pentax image I used a flash that was mounted on a stand 6-8 meters away and slightly on the right of the subject and that helps to. For me those images (and other images that I took with both cameras) are more than enough to prove that high ISO images from 6D are very good.

I went for f5 with Canon because the lens used was 70-200mm f4 L IS USM.




Last edited by Dan Rentea; 11-06-2015 at 05:24 AM.
11-06-2015, 04:50 AM - 1 Like   #159
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,932
I always find it intriguing when folks show up in a thread determined to set things straight. It works both ways. Sometimes it is someone who has purchased an APS-C camera and is pleased with the results and full frame proponents show up to tell them that their photos would have been better with full frame (or just that full frame is better in general). It also happens when someone buys a new full frame camera and shows photos from it, at which point folks show up to say "I could have taken all of those photos with my crop camera." I guess it is the internet and we need to set the record straight.

What I have gleaned over time is that there is one stop difference between APS-C and full frame. This will allow you to shoot with less depth of field and less noise, if you desire or allow you to stop down for same depth of field and shoot with the same noise as a crop sensor. All cameras at this point are good enough that differences in images are more likely to come from differences in lenses and photographer's skill as from differences in sensor sizes. Sensor shift does allow for increased resolution, although it is a limited tool. Most cameras on the market today will look good at low iso. Most cameras on the market today will look bad at really high iso. The more money someone pays for their camera and lenses, the more they like them.

All of this comes far from the OP's intent, which was to show that in this particular instance, a crop photo measures up well against a full frame one.

Last edited by Rondec; 11-06-2015 at 06:52 AM.
11-06-2015, 05:23 AM - 1 Like   #160
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
I went for f5 with Canon because the lens used was 70-200mm f4 L IS USM
I had the non IS version, used it for 12 years and never let me down right upto the day someone stole it.
its one of the reasons why people choose canon, not for the camera's image quality but for the lens
11-06-2015, 05:59 AM   #161
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,529
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
You do seem to really love theories and lab tests. I actually prefer practical tests in uncontrolled environments.
I will show you just an example from a recent conference, where I had the opportunity to shoot with both cameras. Canon 6D was in tests back then.

As I said, I love the image quality from K-3 II (and this is the last time I will explain myself again and say that the image quality from Pentax wasn't the reason I left Pentax), but I think the image quality from 6D is much better at high ISO and just by a little at low ISO.

Look at this images for example. They were taken at a distance of 10 minutes of each other. The file from 6D is as clean as Pentax K-3 II image, but keep in mind that on Pentax image I used a flash that was mounted on a stand 6-8 meters away and slightly on the right of the subject and that helps to. For me those images (and other images that I took with both cameras) are more than enough to prove that high ISO images from 6D are very good.

I went for f5 with Canon because the lens used was 70-200mm f4 L IS USM.
Really I don't get your point, you say the 6D does better at 1600 than the K3 at 800 and I get 2 sharp images, 1 at 1600, one at 400 with flahs and very different white balance and colors. You should remove the flash from the equation and put only 1EV difference if you want to make the comparison.

Me I don't need more than the imaging resources tests, to be convinced, and they match what the theory says... if you really want to show how much better the 6D is at 1600 than the K3 at 800, remove your flash, set up the isos and compare and post if you wish.

Look here a iso 800 shoot from the K3... It doesn't look noisy and doesn't use a flash:



And another with flash, iso 100



And flash this time but 1600 isos:



I don't see what I could conclude from that except that none of the pictures look noisy and that I would need more deph of field in some cases. The last one is indeed noisy at 100% crop, sure; But basically my problem was more that I was too convervative with the iso settings at the expense of deph of field/flash support in general rather than having noise issue.

And it doesn't show how if the 6D would have done better each time at the double the iso or not... That's why the Imaging resources studio shoot are great, they taken care to handle the boring part themselves.
11-06-2015, 06:50 AM - 1 Like   #162
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
The big thing with the Imaging resources images is, the images are taken in the same setting. When I do my little lens tests etc outdoors, often I have changing light, because of cloud core, as the day goes on the light changes, things go from top lit to side lit to back lit. When I do a comparison, if it take me 3 hours to do, I should really be writing a 3 hour disclaimer explaining why it's just for fun. If I don't get everything right the first time I can't do a reshoot, because I'll never have that light again. IR gives you images in controlled circumstances. And in the IR images you can see all the describe theoretical trades offs. You can actually so that sometimes the APS_c image looks sharper than the FF, because the FF has less DoF. (IR shoot at the same ƒ-stop ) You can actually see those instances where APS-c is better at the same ƒ-stop. Not theoretically better, better by any measurement. The critical areas of the image in focus, instead of large critical areas being out of focus. You also see the problems of poor AF etc. and how it affect the images.

If you are a guy like me, and you've spent a lot of time at this, the question with moving on from APS-c is "will I be tempted to use less depth of field. Because if you view my images DoF is often the problem. Too narrow a DoF ruins an image.

IN images like this, I would have preferred the whole bird to be in focus, as it is his tail is soft. I was at ƒ11, 1/100 hand held with the 400mm lens with the 1.7 on it for 680mm. And I still didn't get enough DoF. TO me this thing where you use a fast lens because of low light makes for really bad photography. Out of focus subjects make me crazy, unless done specifically for mood, as an artistic expression, and still, only occasionally. Many seem to make out like their narrow DoF images mean they are some kind of "artiste". I tend to think, they just don't understand how to use a camera.



You can see the DoF by looking at the grass, out of focus then in focus then out of focus. And you can clearly see the tail of the bird is in the OOF area. IN my mind a perfect image would have been even more DoF. Using less to cut down on noises you'd do with a larger format, would have made the image even less desirable.
11-06-2015, 07:07 AM   #163
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Really I don't get your point, you say the 6D does better at 1600 than the K3 at 800 and I get 2 sharp images, 1 at 1600, one at 400 with flahs and very different white balance and colors. You should remove the flash from the equation and put only 1EV difference if you want to make the comparison.

Me I don't need more than the imaging resources tests, to be convinced, and they match what the theory says... if you really want to show how much better the 6D is at 1600 than the K3 at 800, remove your flash, set up the isos and compare and post if you wish.
I did find an image from the same event if you want to see some differences. In my eyes 6D looks better, even if K-3 II is not far behind (even if on Pentax I used ISO800).

Pentax K-3 II (or Nikon D7100, or Canon 70D) tend to look noisier if the light is not that good, like in a conference room with no windows to help (or a flash to help). I think you should do your own tests, starting from what you are reading on DXO, DPReview, Image Resources, etc. I did that for 6-8 months with Canon 6D (borrowed from friends and rented from stores) and like I said, the small difference in price combined with other reasons mentioned earlier worth the switch for me.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 11-06-2015 at 07:13 AM.
11-06-2015, 07:32 AM   #164
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
Again, on my hi-rez calibrated monitor, the K-3II image appears more natural and more attractive ( ).

Just sayin'... M
Of course they do, we are on Pentax forum.
11-06-2015, 07:40 AM   #165
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
Whatever the advantage is I'm not seeing it. The K-3 image is a better image, but that's probably because of the difference in ISO.IN this case the SR of the K-3 and faster shutter speed used, definitely created a sharper looking image, especially noticeable in the hair of the two. But I suspect the APS_c image has a better hyperlocal point. The roll in front of the woman on the left is in sharp focus, and her hand is extended and soft. (that could be motion blur if she talks with her hands.). Th K-3 shot her hand is in clear focus, the sign is out of focus indicating a different hyperlocal point, and her hair just jumps off the page. SO, while this example shows an advantage for a K-3 image, at least for me, there are so many extenuating concerns, that it's hard to say we are comparing the cameras. We are evaluating technique cameras, focus and ISO all at the same time. It's hard to learn a thing from that. And it's quite possible that someone's technique favours one camera over another.

I think you had a difference in light, exposures would suggest better light for the K-3. That's always going to affect IQ, even if you have a good low light camera.

Thats one of those photographer mantras. An average camera in good light, is much better than a great low light camera, in low light. The amount of light available, affects IQ, in most instances more than any camera can make up for in low light situations. It's avery narrow window where the low light camera is good, and the average camera isn't Probably on a camera with a DR of 13 EV, the window where low light sensitivity helps a bit is 2 at best 2 EV.

Last edited by normhead; 11-06-2015 at 08:00 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
art, camera, canon, canon 6d, dslr, frame, images, k-3, k3, k3 ii test, k3ii, lens, panorama, pentax, pentax k-3, people, pixel, pixel shift, print, prints, resolution, shift, shift on k3, shot, test, test v canon
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K3II: Pixel Shift First Test DDoram Pentax K-3 168 11-24-2015 10:15 AM
Testing K3 II pixel shift with dcraw tduell Pentax K-3 5 08-31-2015 10:59 PM
K-3 II Pixel shift for Macro? Omestes Pentax K-3 6 06-12-2015 08:13 PM
K3 II pixel-shift samples on IR. I'm impressed jonby Pentax K-3 42 06-02-2015 12:28 AM
K3 or Canon 6d - That is the question zorza Pentax K-3 95 05-08-2015 12:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top