Originally posted by KiloHotelphoto I guess it depends on what lens you have and what size wildlife. I love the K-1 and DA560 combo for setting up on a tripod and staying in the same spot for awhile but I just got the DA*300 and that on the K-3 is a great walk around combo.
Great comparison Norm, what lens did you use?
Tamron SP AF 2.8 LF [IF] with the F 1.7 AF adapter ( 510mm ƒ4.5).
---------- Post added 02-26-17 at 02:29 PM ----------
Originally posted by stevebrot Yep, the angle of view is definitely different and is traceable to the so-called crop factor. Despite that, the magnification (reproduction ratio at the sensor) is the same for both formats. What changes is that half again greater enlargement is needed post-capture to get equivalent print size from the smaller format.* This is readily apparent when comparing FF vs. crop images from the K-1 at full resolution on screen. Normalizing to the same pixel dimensions (same display size) involves upsampling of the APS-C crop (i.e. making bigger with no increase in capture data).
The advantage that the K-3 brings to your examples is that its pixel density is significantly higher than the K-1. That difference translates to "greater reach" with equivalent quality for the K-3. (Assuming, of course, that the lens is non-limiting and that capture quality pixel-wise is equivalent between the two cameras.)
Steve
* The best way to think about it is to simply consider how it is done old-school in the darkroom making an 9x6 from a 35mm negative and then 6x4 from an APS negative. The head stays at the same height despite both printing the full frame.
There are a couple of things confusing about this.... the first assumption is that I don't have to crop the K-1 image, once I do that, the whole enlarger height issue becomes moot.
The actual fact of the matter is that taken right down to DNG pixel size, the Digital negative of the K-3 on the bird itself , the subject is bigger, therefore the K-1 image would need to be enlarged to produce the same size image.
K-3 1180 pixels wide
K-1 1180 pixels wide crop
So practically it's the opposite of what you seem to be saying. To match the K-3 subject, assuming the K-1 image would have to be cropped, it's the FF image that would have to be enlarged to produce the same size subject, with the associated loss of detail. Within the area of the crop, the K-3 provides more detail.
When the K-1 image doesn't have to be cropped, I just use the K-1 and achieve more resolution. It's when it would have to be cropped that's when the K-3 advantage becomes apparent.
You seem to have missed the fact that the actual subject is lmore pixels on the K-3 image. The K-1 just adds more area around the subject, that you may or may not want in your photo.
If you want the subject to be the same size in both cases you are going to have to magnify the K-1 image, i.e. raise your imaginary enlarger head. The exact opposite of what you seem to have suggested.
Or to go completely digital (which is much less confusing) the K-3 will pack 2700 lw/ph into an area that the K-1 can't exceed 2100 lw/ph/ There i more subject resolution in the K-3 image.