[totsmuyco]

That's about it. As I have stated, it's the same experience that we have reported and all who reported it said it never happened again. If I'm the third person to report that same experience then, you're the fourth. So far the census is small. I hope this ain't serious. Fingers crossed

[manacho2005]

Absolutely love this camera. I've abused my K5 classic for 5 years, and now it's the K3ii's turn.
The only issue I've found is battery life when GPS is enabled before shutdown. While shooting, battery life with GPS on seems the same as my K5. However, if the GPS isn't disabled before I switch the camera off, my battery dies within a day or two.
I experimented a couple times to confirm; GPS disabled= battery lasts indefinitely / no drop...GPS enabled= average 1.5 days to complete drain.

Hoping a firmware update fixes, but until then, I can manage.

[jatrax]

I don't think a firmware update will change that. It is designed that way to minimize gps startup time.
I use the camera just about every day so I never noticed the battery drain. I can see it would be an issue for infrequent users.

Make sure you do not have gps logging turned on that will definitely use battery.

[totsmuyco]

I would have fewer shots using the camera with the GPS on. However, I've never had experienced battery drain when storing the camera even if the GPS is on as long as the camera switch is turned off. But it's best to turn it off if you're not using it.

[manacho2005]

I keep the GPS lamp enabled to remind me to shut off now. I haven't used logging yet, but the geotagging is useful on the scenic shots.

[digitalox]

I've had the camera ( K-3 II ) lock up completely on me two or three times while using the live view. I think the mirror was flapping. Pressed every button on it to no avail, the only way to stop it is to pull the battery.

[normhead]

I was just pointing out the incongruity of comparing the Canon 6D to the Nikon D7200 and K3II. A full frame DSLR will always have a one stop SNR advantage over APS-C.

But not if you take the same picture, i.e. same depth of field, where the ƒ-stop of ISO you have to add to the FF to create the same DoF means your 1200 K-3 is exactly the same as your 2400 ISO 6D. I see people are still drinking the FF cool aid.

People always allow the FF to have a stop less Dof in this type of comparison, and the funny thing about that is, if you allow the APS-c camera to have a stop less DoF, it actually is one stop better than an FF camera in low light. Yet, I have never once heard anyone claim that.

But exactly the same as FF, if you allow the APS-c camera to have narrower one stop narrower DoF , APS-c has one stop better noise reduction than an FF sensor. You read it here first. Equivalence is a bitch.

[totsmuyco]

I've had the camera ( K-3 II ) lock up completely on me two or three times while using the live view. I think the mirror was flapping. Pressed every button on it to no avail, the only way to stop it is to pull the battery.

That's definitely a first. Did you hear the mirror flapping? I think you'd better send it in for servicing. Man. you guys are scaring me.

[Digitalis]

Equivalence is a bitch.

Equivalence is an intellectual attempt to level the playing field - however, in the real world it has little relevance. I'm familiar with the fundamental similarities in sensor performance across formats. But I think it is unrealistic to expect someone to shackle 35mm format with the limitations of APC-C. Yes, a 300mm lens on 8X10 format will produce a very different image than when the same lens is used on an APS-C sensor - but that look may very well be what the artist is going for. The big advantage larger formats have is the ability to stop the lenses down to the point where aberrations are minimized while still having shallower DOF* - with smaller formats, lenses will be compromised due to the need for wider apertures in order to create DOF effects that rival that of larger formats.

*this is especially true for large format and current digital medium format lenses, some of which are diffraction limited. there are few lenses that are truly diffraction limited for 35mm.

[normhead]

Equivalence is an intellectual attempt to level the playing field - however, in the real world it has little relevance. I'm familiar with the fundamental similarities in sensor performance across formats. But I think it is unrealistic to expect someone to shackle 35mm format with the limitations of APC-C.

Shackle? It's one stop.

Diffraction sets in on both APS-c and FF somewhere between ƒ5.6 and ƒ8.

An optical system with the ability to produce images with angular resolution as good as the instrument's theoretical limit is said to be diffraction limited.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system

Equivalence is an intellectual attempt to level the playing field - however, in the real world it has little relevance.

In my real world it has practically no relevance. My philosophy has always been "look through the lens, see what you have, know which format you need to use, if you don't like what you see." Equivalence never became an issue until I start arguing with FF proponents who thought they could use it to prove full frame was "better".

But...

In a digital camera, diffraction effects interact with the effects of the regular pixel grid. The combined effect of the different parts of an optical system is determined by the convolution of the point spread functions (PSF). The point spread function of a diffraction limited lens is simply the Airy disk. The point spread function of the camera, otherwise called the instrument response function (IRF) can be approximated by a rectangle function, with a width equivalent to the pixel pitch. A more complete derivation of the modulation transfer function (derived from the PSF) of image sensors is given by Fliegel.[3] Whatever the exact instrument response function we may note that it is largely independent of the f-number of the lens. Thus at different f-numbers a camera may operate in three different regimes, as follows:

in the case where the spread of the IRF is small with respect to the spread of the diffraction PSF, in which case the system may be said to be essentially diffraction limited (so long as the lens itself is diffraction limited).
in the case where the spread of the diffraction PSF is small with respect to the IRF, in which case the system is instrument limited.
in the case where the spread of the PSF and IRF are of the same order of magnitude, in which case both impact the available resolution of the system.
The spread of the diffraction-limited PSF is approximated by the diameter of the first null of the Airy disk,

d
2
1.22
λ
N
d/2=1.22\lambda N,\,
where λ is the wavelength of the light and N is the f-number of the imaging optics. For f/8 and green (0.5 μm wavelength) light, d = 9.76 μm. This is of the same order of magnitude as the pixel size for the majority of commercially available 'full frame' (43mm sensor diagonal) cameras and so these will operate in regime 3 for f-numbers around 8 (few lenses are close to diffraction limited at f-numbers smaller than 8). Cameras with smaller sensors will tend to have smaller pixels, but their lenses will be designed for use at smaller f-numbers and it is likely that they will also operate in regime 3 for those f-numbers for which their lenses are diffraction limited.

Clearly when looks at a lens chart.....

Nikon AF-5 ƒ1.4


The lens peaks at 3846 and ƒ5.6 in terms of resolution. By f 11 it's lost roughly 20% of it;s resolution.

Look at the AF-S 35 1.4 on APS_c and its peaks at 2838 and ƒ4 and by ƒ11 about 16% of it's resolution.

IN a practical sense, I don't care much about theoretical limits, I like looking at practical results. Where is the lens sharpest, how much DoF can be achieved before the loss of resolution starts to affect print quality.

SO from my perspective equivalence is irrelevant. Both APS-c and FF start to lose resolution after ƒ5.6, and in that sense they are pretty much identical systems. Further in my own tests, it's very rare that I come upon a situation where the stop blurrier background of FF makes much difference at all. Unless you're shooting with 1 stop of wide open, you can achieve the same with both. That's all we are saying here.

Theoretically, were it not for diffraction, the smallest aperture should be the sharpest and have the most DoF. My one and only concern is that point at which my image starts to be degraded by diffraction, when my over all sharpness will start to be impacted by diffraction.

In both APS-c and FF, it's pretty much the same point, a little bit of difference, not enough to really care about.

That's my beef with equivalence, people discuss it as if it means something it doesn't. As a theory I could care less about it. Ditto with diffraction limits. I don't give a give any credence to all the theory around diffraction limits, only about how the lenses perform.

Just through looking at a lot of charts, you see certain characteristics and theoretical similarities.

I've been using equivalence because it clarifies what I see, both in limited testing and from the theoretical charts.

SO I would argue talking about what lens is diffraction limited and when is irrelevant. You can find all the information you need looking at test charts and by taking a few images. The whole concept and discussion around it has been completely framed by those thinking they can prove some kind of decisive difference exists between APS-c and FF using these theories.

Me, I stick to what I see. All such discussion is pointless. A lens on a camera system does what it does.

A person can like a system because it's large format, another person might like another system because it's small format. That decision can be made without the gobbledygook. If someone wants to use a few formulas etc. to try and explain physical phenom a, i.e.. testing results, go nuts. Thinking it has anything to do with the practice of photography is nonsense. A photographer needs knowledge of the tools he works with. He needs the knowledge of the physic behind it as much as framing carpenter need to theoretically know the laws that govern the efficiency of a framing hammer.

The carpenter just has to swing the hammer, see the effect it has on the nail, and say "that really sucks" or "sweet'.
The photographer with different formats and all this theory is no different. All this theoretical gobbledygook can help you explain what you see, but as a photographer, can't help you change what you see, so in that sense it's meaningless.

The only time theoretical science becomes meaningful to the artisan is when it can be used to change outcomes. A lens it a finished product. There are simply no outcomes that can be changed. Your choice is learn it's characteristics and use it as it is, or don't. The theory is meaningless to the photographer.

There is nothing more irritating than these armchair scientists without a shred of training posting not he internet as if the gobbledygook means some thing.

The gobbledygook is used to explain demonstrable phenomenon. If you don't have the phenomenon that the theory is supposed to describe, you have nothing. I cannot stress enough, or often enough, how pointless it is to discuss theory, as if it means something on its own. Theory describes reality, not the other way around. Theory alters itself to more adequately describe reality all the time. Reality itself doesn't give a flying **** about theory.

One of the most frustrating things on this site is the theoretical nonsense where people delude themselves into thinking they are actually discussing lenses and camera systems by discussing airy discs, diffraction lists and on and on. The scientific properties are one way of describing camera system, but the way least relevant to the photographer. Which approx. 30mm lens gives you the smoothest bokeh? That's what the photographer needs to know. And not one of the geniuses with their knowledge of optical physics has ever worked through a set of equations to that figure that out for me. Talk about useless.

And pullease, don't write a fricken paper on it, just look at a few comparison images, and give us the answer. And if possible post the images. No one cares why.

[Qwntm]

Shackle? It's one stop.

Diffraction sets in on both APS-c and FF somewhere between ƒ5.6 and ƒ8.





In my real world it has practically no relevance. My philosophy has always been "look through the lens, see what you have, know which format you need to use, if you don't like what you see." Equivalence never became an issue until I start arguing with FF proponents who thought they could use it to prove full frame was "better".

But...


Clearly when looks at a lens chart.....

Nikon AF-5 ƒ1.4


The lens peaks at 3846 and ƒ5.6 in terms of resolution. By f 11 it's lost roughly 20% of it;s resolution.

Look at the AF-S 35 1.4 on APS_c and its peaks at 2838 and ƒ4 and by ƒ11 about 16% of it's resolution.

IN a practical sense, I don't care much about theoretical limits, I like looking at practical results. Where is the lens sharpest, how much DoF can be achieved before the loss of resolution starts to affect print quality.

SO from my perspective equivalence is irrelevant. Both APS-c and FF start to lose resolution after ƒ5.6, and in that sense they are pretty much identical systems. Further in my own tests, it's very rare that I come upon a situation where the stop blurrier background of FF makes much difference at all. Unless you're shooting with 1 stop of wide open, you can achieve the same with both. That's all we are saying here.

Theoretically, were it not for diffraction, the smallest aperture should be the sharpest and have the most DoF. My one and only concern is that point at which my image starts to be degraded by diffraction, when my over all sharpness will start to be impacted by diffraction.

In both APS-c and FF, it's pretty much the same point, a little bit of difference, not enough to really care about.

That's my beef with equivalence, people discuss it as if it means something it doesn't. As a theory I could care less about it. Ditto with diffraction limits. I don't give a give any credence to all the theory around diffraction limits, only about how the lenses perform.

Just through looking at a lot of charts, you see certain characteristics and theoretical similarities.

I've been using equivalence because it clarifies what I see, both in limited testing and from the theoretical charts.

SO I would argue talking about what lens is diffraction limited and when is irrelevant. You can find all the information you need looking at test charts and by taking a few images. The whole concept and discussion around it has been completely framed by those thinking they can prove some kind of decisive difference exists between APS-c and FF using these theories.

Me, I stick to what I see. All such discussion is pointless. A lens on a camera system does what it does.

A person can like a system because it's large format, another person might like another system because it's small format. That decision can be made without the gobbledygook. If someone wants to use a few formulas etc. to try and explain physical phenom a, i.e.. testing results, go nuts. Thinking it has anything to do with the practice of photography is nonsense. A photographer needs knowledge of the tools he works with. He needs the knowledge of the physic behind it as much as framing carpenter need to theoretically know the laws that govern the efficiency of a framing hammer.

The carpenter just has to swing the hammer, see the effect it has on the nail, and say "that really sucks" or "sweet'.
The photographer with different formats and all this theory is no different. All this theoretical gobbledygook can help you explain what you see, but as a photographer, can't help you change what you see, so in that sense it's meaningless.

The only time theoretical science becomes meaningful to the artisan is when it can be used to change outcomes. A lens it a finished product. There are simply no outcomes that can be changed. Your choice is learn it's characteristics and use it as it is, or don't. The theory is meaningless to the photographer.

There is nothing more irritating than these armchair scientists without a shred of training posting not he internet as if the gobbledygook means some thing.

The gobbledygook is used to explain demonstrable phenomenon. If you don't have the phenomenon that the theory is supposed to describe, you have nothing. I cannot stress enough, or often enough, how pointless it is to discuss theory, as if it means something on its own. Theory describes reality, not the other way around. Theory alters itself to more adequately describe reality all the time. Reality itself doesn't give a flying **** about theory.

One of the most frustrating things on this site is the theoretical nonsense where people delude themselves into thinking they are actually discussing lenses and camera systems by discussing airy discs, diffraction lists and on and on. The scientific properties are one way of describing camera system, but the way least relevant to the photographer. Which approx. 30mm lens gives you the smoothest bokeh? That's what the photographer needs to know. And not one of the geniuses with their knowledge of optical physics has ever worked through a set of equations to that figure that out for me. Talk about useless.

And pullease, don't write a fricken paper on it, just look at a few comparison images, and give us the answer. And if possible post the images. No one cares why.

So you are saying go shoot a FF and APS-c side by side and see if you can see a difference? THAT'S BLASPHEMY!!!!


I did that with a K5IIs and a Canon 5DIII years ago and after half an hour staring at 100% screens I could maybe see a difference. More recently I made 30x40 prints from k3II (non PS) and D810 shots and I actually liked the K3II shot better. They were equally sharp but the color was better on the Pentax shot. The Nikon shot was a little "smoother." Either was sellable for $1000.


And that's why I shoot K3II for my Fine Art Landscape work now. That's what works for me. YMMV.