[Nicolas06]

The problem is that there no such thing as pentax/Canon is better (or worse). This depend on the use case. For weddings as an example MF is more and more in fashion and Pentax is very well positionned with the 645Z, Canon can't compete. But if you are not willing to put 15000$ on a system you may still think Canon is a better compromize.

Each brand can do anything, each DSLR can also do almost anything. Depending on your usage, habits, budget and preferences, some models/brand can be better than the other. As for pro photographers, a great photographer will make great photos with any kind of gear, a mediocre photographer will make averages photos with any kind of gear.

There even more, Sony sensors for example tend to be better and Nikon DSLR that use them tend to perform better than their Canon equivalent. Still, many people continue to use Canon. Maybe they really have a reason, they think Canon lenses are better or they are already too invested, maybe it is just marketing, maybe they don't care and maybe they care more of FF because marketing department keep speaking of it everywhere.

To me if you make a living out of photography, you need the best you can afford for a reasonable price. For now that's likely an FF... Hence all the polemics around this format. If you make 50K$ or 100K$ a year out of photography, what is 2000$ more of of investement every 3 years? Almost nothing. If it can help you, even a bit to get more client that's worth it.

Going back to the thread subject, when you create a thread, you choose the subject. The subject was not 6D vs K3, but pixel shift K3-II test vs Canon 6D. That being said to me it clear of what is compared there. if pixel shift is irrelevant to you (it is irrelevant to me) then you don't care much.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-02-2015 at 05:39 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

I like this forum because there are lots of information usable. But I don't like when people defend Pentax at any cost (fortunately on this topic it is not that case).

Sure, I understand that this thread is about the image quality that I can benefit from pixel shift function, and I agree that with pixel shift activated an image looks impressive (in certain circumstances). No argue here.

But I dislike simple answers like "because I said so" and "because I'm a professional photographer". I don't have to agree with every gentleman which say that he is a professional photographer, or do I?

A person asked me recently if I can sell him 3 of my picture to put them in his local pub. Am I a professional photographer if I will sell to that man those 3 picture he wanted? Of course not.

For 200$ difference in price I went for Canon 6D. Some may say it wasn't a great choice, but for me was a better deal.

[stevebrot]

This gentleman named Ed said in his "movies" from Youtube that Pentax can keep up with any other brands in any aspect, but a few months ago he decided to start shooting weddings again and went to Canon because he has no confidence in Pentax gear in order to do weddings. But he is confident in Pentax gear to shot landscape where all you need is a tripod and a camera with good dynamic range and a lot of megapixels. So, Pentax is or is not up to competition?! Sorry, but this gentleman is not a reliable source of information in my opinion. But is the only one on Youtube with more than 2 "movies" on Pentax gear.

Ed is Ed and he has shifted his mix of cameras a couple of times over the years. He is known for his strong opinions.

Being mostly a landscape guy, I could comment about a few of your assertions regarding choice of camera and "all that it takes", but who am I? Nobody buys my photos and I don't have a YouTube channel. I do have 40+ years of FF experience however and the difference in format is not measured in megapixels. I currently shoot the full range from APS-C through 4x5.


Steve

[biz-engineer]

To me if you make a living out of photography, you need the best you can afford for a reasonable price. For now that's likely an FF... Hence all the polemics around this format. If you make 50K$ or 100K$ a year out of photography, what is 2000$ more of of investement every 3 years? Almost nothing. If it can help you, even a bit to get more client that's worth it.

There are three possibilities:
1) you argue pixel shift and apsc is better than full frame for the same depth of field on Pentax forums, but in reality spend more time arguing than actually taking photos
2) for zero euros, you download hugin and take multiple shots with your existing gear, even if it is a K10D it is good enough, you take 60 bracketed shots, stack them, fuse expose and stitching , you can print 5 meters wide
3) you have money and you don't bother with image processing technique, buy yourself a 645z and don't have to discuss formats anymore

Just for fun: frozen rotating motion (handheld, 1/500th) of a ice skating contest, and the pixels like it :-).

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 11-02-2015 at 04:06 PM.

[stevebrot]

Just for fun: frozen rotating motion (handheld, 1/500th) of a ice skating contest, and the pixels like it :-).

My pixels are not happy...jealous...


Steve

[normhead]

A person asked me recently if I can sell him 3 of my picture to put them in his local pub. Am I a professional photographer if I will sell to that man those 3 picture he wanted? Of course not.

For 200$ difference in price I went for Canon 6D. Some may say it wasn't a great choice, but for me was a better deal.

If you're starting from scratch I'm sure it's a good choice. If you have a few Pentax lenses, not so good.

[Dan Rentea]

If you're starting from scratch I'm sure it's a good choice. If you have a few Pentax lenses, not so good.

True. Pentax is very difficult to sell in Romania because it is not a known brand. I was lucky to sell all I had from Pentax pretty fast and without losing much money.

I'm going to look very closely to what Pentax will do in the next few years because I think that in 5-6 years Pentax will be close to competition regarding lenses, a few full frame bodies to chose from and maybe they will have support from third party companies, like Sigma and Tamron when comes to lenses, and support from Nissin, Godox, Yongnuo, Phottix, etc. when comes to flashes and triggers.

[Dan Rentea]

Ed is Ed and he has shifted his mix of cameras a couple of times over the years. He is known for his strong opinions.

Being mostly a landscape guy, I could comment about a few of your assertions regarding choice of camera and "all that it takes", but who am I? Nobody buys my photos and I don't have a YouTube channel. I do have 40+ years of FF experience however and the difference in format is not measured in megapixels. I currently shoot the full range from APS-C through 4x5.


Steve

It is not about the camera brand, or about the eternal debate between full frame vs APS-C. Is about the people behind the camera. I don't need you to have a Youtube channel or people buying your photos in order to value your opinion, as long as it is argued. For me this gentleman called Ed is just a guy which talk to much and say nothing in the end.

I would love to see Pentax photographers doing some really heavy tests on Pentax cameras, and present us their thoughts and their arguments based on real field tests. As an example, there is a romanian wildlife and landscape photographer which shoots with Nikon and if you look on his reviews you would understand what I'm talking about. His name is Mircea Bezergheanu (http://www.intufisuri.ro/ click on the link if you want to see his review on Nikon D7200). He refused to work for DXO when they offered him a job because he loves too much spending time in the woods.

I had Pentax K-5 II for almost 2 years and I was more than happy with that camera. I took a lot of good pictures at my weddings friends, I took a lot of good pictures to my nephews, etc. I didn't thought for a second that K-5 II will not be good for what tipe of shooting I had. That is why I bought Pentax K-3 II as an upgrade.

My problems with Pentax were different:
- no possibilities to test Pentax lenses (if I spend 1400$ or 2000$ on a lens, I want to be able to test it before I buy it)
- no third party flashes with P-TTL (like Yongnuo, Nissin, Godox, etc.)
- no smart triggers
- no service (my K-3 II was in the serial range with problems, and our official dealer told me that it will take up to one month until my camera will be fixed and shipped back to me).

That is why I left Pentax and went to Canon. But before buying Canon 6D I spent between 6 to 8 month testing that camera and I decided that the 200$ price difference is worth the investment.

So yes, pixel shift images are better than 6D images, but normal images (without pixel shift) are no better than 6D images. And I'm talking about low ISO images, taken with tripod.

Ed has a different opinion, but I'm going to ask a Pentax friend to borrow me a K-3 II and I will upload 2 RAW files and see for yourself.

Later edit: actually, I'm going to upload also 2 JPEG images, one from Pentax (with pixel shift activated) and one stack image from Canon (4 images combined) and you tell me which is which.

[Nicolas06]

It is not about the camera brand, or about the eternal debate between full frame vs APS-C. Is about the people behind that camera. I don't need you to have a Youtube channel or people buying your photos in order to value your opinion, as long as it is argued. For me this gentleman called Ed is just a guy which talk to much and say nothing in the end.

I would love to see Pentax photographers doing some really heavy tests on Pentax cameras, and present us their thoughts and their arguments based on real field tests. As an example, there is a romanian wildlife and landscape photographer which shoots with Nikon and if you look on his reviews you would understand what I'm talking about. His name is Mircea Bezergheanu (În Tufi?uri - cu Mircea Bezergheanu click on the link if you want to see his review on Nikon D7200). He refused to work for DXO when they offered him a job because he loves too much spending time in the woods.

I had Pentax K-5 II for almost 2 years and I was more than happy with that camera. I took a lot of good pictures at my weddings friends, I took a lot of good pictures to my nephews, etc. I didn't thought for a second that K-5 II will not be good for what tipe of shooting I had. That is why I bought Pentax K-3 II as an upgrade.

My problems with Pentax were different:
- no possibilities to test Pentax lenses (if I spend 1400$ or 2000$ on a lens, I want to be able to test it before I buy it)
- no third party flashes with P-TTL (like Yongnuo, Nissin, Godox, etc.)
- no smart triggers
- no service (my K-3 II was in the serial range with problems, and our official dealer told me that it will take up to one month until my camera will be fixed and shipped back to me).

That is why I left Pentax and went to Canon. But before buying Canon 6D I spent between 6 to 8 month testing that camera and I decided that the 200$ price difference is worth the investment.

So yes, pixel shift images are better than 6D images, but normal images (without pixel shift) are no better than 6D images. And I'm talking about low ISO images, taken with tripod.

Ed has a different opinion, but I'm going to ask a Pentax friend to borrow me a K-3 II and I will upload 2 RAW files and see for yourself.

Later edit: actually, I'm going to upload also 2 JPEG images, one from Pentax (with pixel shift activated) and one stack image from Canon (4 images combined) and you tell me which is which.

And why not then stack of 4 pixels shift vs one stack image from Canon with 4 images combined ?

[Dan Rentea]

And why not then stack of 4 pixels shift vs one stack image from Canon with 4 images combined ?

Why don't we all buy medium format and stack 2-3-4 photos from those camera? You missed my point. Pixel shift can be used in certain circumstances and if some artefacts occur, than you need to spent some time in photoshop to fix the final image. To stack 4 images from 6D takes just a few clicks and the result is pretty much the same.

[biz-engineer]

For once I try to say something useful: good enough effective resolution needed for print can already be fulfilled by an APSC camera at low ISO. Yes, if 12 good Mpixels deliver high quality prints are normal viewing distance, than a K5 at 100 ISO is enough, a K-5IIs at 100 ISO is enough, a K-3 / II at 100 ISO is enough. But, at more speed is needed (sports, and long lenses for wildlife etc) at higher ISO, the 12 good Mpixels are not there... sorry a K-3 image taken at 100 ISO and in focus deliver very good print quality, but at ISO1600, sorry, if you don't want to see crappy pixels and low definition colors, you can only print 4 times smaller than at ISO100. Pixel shift or stacking is getting deeper in the lower equivalent ISO but it does not help in all situations when higher ISO is needed. Honestly, the image I posted about taken at ISO 2000 with the K-3 could never ever be sold because as soon as it is enlarged to 8 inch it already looks ugly. Even a good full frame in the same conditions would barely make it (with a 100-300 f2.8). I guess some opinionated people are posting stuff here but actually don't have any real experience shooting in difficult conditions, when the K-3 has no change to match a 6D.

[Nicolas06]

Why don't we all buy medium format and stack 2-3-4 photos from those camera? You missed my point. Pixel shift can be used in certain circumstances and if some artefacts occur, than you need to spent some time in photoshop to fix the final image. To stack 4 images from 6D takes just a few clicks and the result is pretty much the same.

To me if you stack 4 images with a few clicks, then you can't have anything that move, then you are in pixel shift situation... Then you can stack 4 pixel shifts images with a few clicks.

As if the result would be the same anyway, I doubt it as the pixel don't get all colors components.

[Nicolas06]

For once I try to say something useful: good enough effective resolution needed for print can already be fulfilled by an APSC camera at low ISO. Yes, if 12 good Mpixels deliver high quality prints are normal viewing distance, than a K5 at 100 ISO is enough, a K-5IIs at 100 ISO is enough, a K-3 / II at 100 ISO is enough. But, at more speed is needed (sports, and long lenses for wildlife etc) at higher ISO, the 12 good Mpixels are not there... sorry a K-3 image taken at 100 ISO and in focus deliver very good print quality, but at ISO1600, sorry, if you don't want to see crappy pixels and low definition colors, you can only print 4 times smaller than at ISO100. Pixel shift or stacking is getting deeper in the lower equivalent ISO but it does not help in all situations when higher ISO is needed. Honestly, the image I posted about taken at ISO 2000 with the K-3 could never ever be sold because as soon as it is enlarged to 8 inch it already looks ugly. Even a good full frame in the same conditions would barely make it (with a 100-300 f2.8). I guess some opinionated people are posting stuff here but actually don't have any real experience shooting in difficult conditions, when the K-3 has no change to match a 6D.

This printing quality in low light condition on FF vs APSC will not come from the sensor but from the lenses to me.

- Does the 18-35 f/1.8 @f/1.8 is good enough to match a 24-70 f/2.8 @f/2.8 ?
- Does the 50-135 f/2.8 @f/2.8 is good enough to match a 70-200 f/4 @f/4 ?
- Does a 50mm f/1.4 @f/2 + 85mm f/1.4 @f/2 + 135mm f/2 @f/2 can match a 70-200 f/2.8 @f/2.8 ?

It is sure that in many cases you'll want a zoom and until sigma give us a 50-100 f/2, you have a significant edge with an FF for keeping the conveniance of the zoom and still getting good low light performance. The zoom is key in many cases where you need reactivity, to ensure you get the shoot, even if you can't move where you want at all or as fast as you'd like...

Sure the FF 1600 iso is better than APSC 1600 iso but remember that many time the APSC shooter could be at iso 800 if he really wanted it and get similar noise levels.

[Dan Rentea]

To me if you stack 4 images with a few clicks, then you can't have anything that move, then you are in pixel shift situation.

Exactly. So why do I need pixel shift when I'm shooting landscape? All I have to do is to tap 4 times on my phone screen if I don't want to touch the shutter button from my camera and I will get pretty much the same thing. Yes, with Canon I will spent 4 minutes more on my computer to stack those images.

But you don't have to agree with me. Grab a Pentax K-3 II and a Canon 6D and make some tests on your own in the field.

On the other hand I have much better low light performance and better DOF for 200$ more than what I paid for K-3 II. And I can use all Sigma Art lenses or brand new Tamron lenses (35mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8).

Pentax K-3 II is a real competitor to Nikon D7200 or Canon 7D Mark II, but trying to compare it to full frame cameras...it's not right. But then again, pixel shift images looks impressive when all necessary conditions are fulfilled.

[biz-engineer]

- Does the 18-35 f/1.8 @f/1.8 is good enough to match a 24-70 f/2.8 @f/2.8 ? - Does the 50-135 f/2.8 @f/2.8 is good enough to match a 70-200 f/4 @f/4 ? - Does a 50mm f/1.4 @f/2 + 85mm f/1.4 @f/2 + 135mm f/2 @f/2 can match a 70-200 f/2.8 @f/2.8 ?

My faster lenses are designed for FF... so a faster lens on APSC is not a valid argument.

Sure the FF 1600 iso is better than APSC 1600 iso but remember that many time the APSC shooter could be at iso 800 if he really wanted it and get similar noise levels.

No, for freezing motion and handhelp tele lens, 1/500th shutter speed with indoors lighting = ISO1600 minimum @ f3.5 . Using ISO800 lead to more blurred photos. So, the best tradeoff lens sharpness + noise is around ISO1600 to ISO2000, it's a setting at a corner of the APSC perf, it is not possible to do better with having a larger sensor.

---------- Post added 03-11-15 at 22:23 ----------

But then again, pixel shift images looks impressive when all necessary conditions are fulfilled.

I want to believe that pixel shift is a benefit. Except that when you need a tripod, you can also use the best lower ISO of the camera and get a noise level so low that it is barrely noticeable without pixel shift, now add pixel shift and convert you raw into 8 bits JPEG and the lower than ISO100 noise and color coding is low in the compression (as Nicolas once mentioned , LCD display are RGB 8 bits and printers as well), so pixel shift give you and advantage when you don't need it. While a larger sensor also given you a high iso advantage when it is obvious to see and noise bit enough that is clearly encoded in JPEGs.