[Rondec]

You can see it on DP reviews compare tool. The D750 has less noise especially in JPEG. Same for D750 vs D810. Go look for yourself. It's not a huge difference but it's real.

Bigger pixels and all that.

Are you talking re-sized or compared at one hundred percent? Because the "fair" way is to compare them at the same viewing size -- aka what the print button does on DXO Mark. The whole point is that if you have to upsize your D750 file to get K-1 resolution then the D750 is at a disadvantage and a lot of the apparent noise advantage of the D750 goes away when you down size K-1 files to 24 megapixels.

And furthermore, all of that goes out the window when you use pixel-shift which really does kill the D750 and even the D850 in terms of resolution and color depth.

[normhead]

For a field camera, used to it's strength, the K-1 gives you better images than a D750... live with it. A D750 has lower frame rate, slightly better resolution K-3 that needs really expensive lenses to achieve the same field of view. It's a type of camera I've never completely understood what the use for it would be. It doesn't have the resolution of a proper full frame, it doesn't have the lens selection and flexibility of APS-c.

It's a head scratcher for me... what is the actual use this camera is intended for? Bottom line, if you have a K-1, you don't need a D750. It doesn't even line up all that well a a K-3 replacement.

[Sofaking]

For a field camera, used to it's strength, the K-1 gives you better images than a D750... live with it. A D750 has lower frame rate, slightly better resolution K-3 that needs really expensive lenses to achieve the same field of view. It's a type of camera I've never completely understood what the use for it would be. It doesn't have the resolution of a proper full frame, it doesn't have the lens selection and flexibility of APS-c.

It's a head scratcher for me... what is the actual use this camera is intended for? Bottom line, if you have a K-1, you don't need a D750. It doesn't even line up all that well a a K-3 replacement.

If you shoot young children who are hyperactive and won't stay still, the superior autofocus makes a difference.
And for portraiture - access to better, more modern primes.
My favourites are the 58/1.4G and the 85/1.4G.
Low light performance too, where image stabilisation will not make a difference (because you need a fast shutter speed, i.e. kids).

I love my K1 for landscapes and general walkabout shooting. The controls are better designed and the IBIS is very handy.
But for portraits with specialised portrait lenses, and in low light (where you need a fast shutter speed) - the Nikon D750 is my preferred choice.

And for portability (with image quality compromises), I take my Sony RX100 Mark 4 +/- the Olympus EM1 with the 17/1.8 or the 25/1.8 or the 45/1.8. With the FL-300R / Metz 26AF2.
For 4K video, it's the Sony RX100 Mark 4.

[Dan Rentea]

For a field camera, used to it's strength, the K-1 gives you better images than a D750... live with it. A D750 has lower frame rate, slightly better resolution K-3 that needs really expensive lenses to achieve the same field of view. It's a type of camera I've never completely understood what the use for it would be. It doesn't have the resolution of a proper full frame, it doesn't have the lens selection and flexibility of APS-c.

It's a head scratcher for me... what is the actual use this camera is intended for? Bottom line, if you have a K-1, you don't need a D750. It doesn't even line up all that well a a K-3 replacement.

D750 has the same resolution as K3, but it has a very good low light performance, very good tracking af and decent frame rate (6.5 vs. 8.3 fps from K3 II). Once you mount a 200-500mm f5.6 (or the new Tamron 150-600mm G2) on it you'll get a good wildlife combo. It's a 411$ difference in price at B&H between a D750 with Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 and K-3 II with Pentax 150-450mm. Between K1 and D750 I would probably choose K1 if someone would put in front of me these 2 cameras. But it would be a decision based only on image quality and construction despite the fact that for my shooting style I would need a faster camera to focus, with a better frame rate and with better clearing time of the buffer. I can deal with 4.5fps... I used to shoot with 6D (4.5 fps) and I focused in keeping the subject in the frame longer so that I can grab a few more shots, that's why I can live with a slow frame rate camera as long as the image quality in poor illuminated scenarious is good. And K1 is good in low light.

But if I have to choose between D750 with 200-500mm and K-3 II with 150-450mm... It's hard to justify the K-3 II combo (at least for me) if you need low light capabilities and fast tracking af.

[normhead]

D750 has the same resolution as K3, but it has a very good low light performance, very good tracking af and decent frame rate (6.5 vs. 8.3 fps from K3 II). Once you mount a 200-500mm f5.6 (or the new Tamron 150-600mm G2) on it you'll get a good wildlife combo. It's a 411$ difference in price at B&H between a D750 with Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 and K-3 II with Pentax 150-450mm. Between K1 and D750 I would probably choose K1 if someone would put in front of me these 2 cameras. But it would be a decision based only on image quality and construction despite the fact that for my shooting style I would need a faster camera to focus, with a better frame rate and with better clearing time of the buffer. I can deal with 4.5fps... I used to shoot with 6D (4.5 fps) and I focused in keeping the subject in the frame longer so that I can grab a few more shots, that's why I can live with a slow frame rate camera as long as the image quality in poor illuminated scenarious is good. And K1 is good in low light.

But if I have to choose between D750 with 200-500mm and K-3 II with 150-450mm... It's hard to justify the K-3 II combo (at least for me) if you need low light capabilities and fast tracking af.

Fast tracking rules out any Pentax.... The K-3 with the 450 gives you 675 D750mm.. With the 1.4 attached... 975 D750mm... not hard to justify at all.

And as DxO points out, the D750 is not better in low light than a K-1 maybe at the pixel level, but not if you reduce the K-1 image to D750 size and then compare. As an image producer, the K-1 is simply way ahead, and every resolution chart I've seen confirms that. There just is no evidence to the contrary....I still don't see what it has to offer. Mid. range performance on a mid level camera, designed to be compromise on every feature. And for macro, a K-3 II with Pixel shift will out perform it, as it will for landscape and still life.

I would put up with 24 MP if it's an A9 and I'm getting 20 FPS frame rate. But that's the only way I'd ever go back to 24 MP. The D750 really has nothing to offer that isn't done better elsewhere.

Personally, I'm not convinced you get better images after about 10 FPS. Less than 5 is criminal in a 24 MP camera. Rate the action camera thing, take the FPS and subtract 5 to get a number out of 5. The K-3 rates a respectable 3.4, a D750, 1.5. That's pretty much how I see it. I'm looking for the K-3 replacement to have 10 FPS, I see many wildlife shooters shooting with cameras in the 10-15 FPS range. It seems to be optimum. I expect 36 MP cameras to be slower, because they are moving a lot more data through the pipeline.

For most work, a faster shutter makes up in large part for not as good tracking AF. In most wildlife situations, tracking is not necessary because the wildlife is relatively stationary, but frame rate and reach are.

[LeeRunge]

Are you talking re-sized or compared at one hundred percent? Because the "fair" way is to compare them at the same viewing size -- aka what the print button does on DXO Mark. The whole point is that if you have to upsize your D750 file to get K-1 resolution then the D750 is at a disadvantage and a lot of the apparent noise advantage of the D750 goes away when you down size K-1 files to 24 megapixels.

And furthermore, all of that goes out the window when you use pixel-shift which really does kill the D750 and even the D850 in terms of resolution and color depth.

Standard resolution of each in which case the 24mp is slightly better than the D810 and K-1.

Here's a direct comparison of the D810 (same sensor, looks identical in DP Compare) to the D750 when scaled.

Nikon D750 vs D810: The Winner for Night Photography

As for Pixel shift you can do the same thing with any camera with an image stack and photoshop, it's essentially what Pixel Shift is. They all require a static image and extra steps in post (Pentax software or Photoshop).

[normhead]

As for Pixel shift you can do the same thing with any camera with an image stack and photoshop,

You can? With any camera, you can shift the sensor one pixel and take direct readings at every pixel site for each RGB reading and luminance

I suspect you are in error.

As for the article LeRunge has posted, first, the guy is a web blogger, not a scientist, and I would dispute his conclusions based on his own images... so, no points awarded there.

Do you realize how much nonsense is out there for people trying to prove one system is better than another? Why do you think that information is so different from what's posted on DxO, where they actually do have science backgrounds and a consistent approach, even though many of us do question the value of that approach (given that it's so heavily weighted towards low light performance). However, it's designed to measure low light performance and completely applicable in this case. The only thing that cancels evidence, is better evidence and in this case, we have better evidence.

LeRUnge, we aren't comparing a D750 to a D810, we are comparing to a K-1. And you image hasn't reduced the D810 to D750 size for a real comparison. As long as the D750 is 50% smaller, of course it has an advantage.

GO to Imagine Resources, look at the still life image taken with a D750 and a K-1 at 6400 ISO (the highest ISO I'm likely to shoot.) The D750 has less noise, but the detail in the K-1 totally blows it away. it doesn't even look like the same picture.

Please stop the nonsense.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-12-2018 at 09:20 AM.

[LeeRunge]

You can? With any camera, you can shift the sensor one pixel and take direct readings at every pixel site for each RGB reading and luminance

I suspect you are in error.

As for the article LeRunge has posted, first, the guy is a web blogger, not a scientist, and I would dispute his conclusions based on his own images... so, no points awarded there.

Have a gander, there are techniques that do basically what pixel shift does. We need to be scientists now to look at two pictures and see which has less noise? Keep moving the goalposts Normhead.
A Practical Guide to Creating Superresolution Photos with Photoshop

Can you see the photo above?

---------- Post added 02-12-2018 at 09:22 AM ----------

GO to Imagine Resources, look at the still life image taken with a D750 and a K-1 at 6400 ISO (the highest ISO I'm likely to shoot.) The D750 has less noise, but the detail in the K-1 totally blows it away. it doesn't even look like the same picture.

Which is what we've been saying this entire time, less noise, not better resolution. I 100% agree the K-1 is better for more resolution.

[normhead]

Have a gander, there are techniques that do basically what pixel shift does.

OK, now you are just trolling. Is there a technique using photoshop that reads the RGB values at each pixel site and the luminance in separate reading? Then combines them so you have an accurate RBG and luminance taken at each Pixel site without interpolation??

There is or there isn't. I don't care what you think is "basically the same". That's just an opinion. Yes or no dude? Lets see if you can retrieve even a small semblance of credibility here. Can you admit there are areas where Pentax has an advantage, or are you just a complete Nikon fanboy?

You do know that every image you compared to at 51200 ISO is crap don't you? If you re arguing that a d750 is better at crap pictures, I'm with you dude.

I have never seen a decent image taken at 51200 ISO. Try and keep it real. Lets talk about some images we might actually want to use.

Did you go to IR and look at the resolution of the K-1 and D750 at 6400 ISO (the highest ISO I actually use.?) It would appear that the D750 uses some noise reduction that completely obliterates fine detail at least at 6400 ISO. Maybe at some point on the ISO scale that gives the D750 some advantage, in noise reduction not resolution. And anyone can fake resolution just selecting images where heavy noise reduction is more suited, to that particular image. That in no way would apply to all images or even most images.

If you haven't gone to IR to see what I'm talking about, this conversation is over.I can put the data out there for you, I can't make you look at it. :;ol at the red section of the cloth swatches at 6400 ISO... you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

At that point the question is, do you want a representative image? (K-1). Or do you want splotchy mess.(D750)

[LeeRunge]

OK, now you are just trolling. Is there a technique using photoshop that reads the RGB values at each pixel site and the luminance in separate reading? Then combines them so you have an accurate RBG and luminance taken at each Pixel site without interpolation??

There is or there isn't. I don't care what you think is "basically the same". That's just an opinion. Yes or no dude? Lets see if you can retrieve even small semblance of credibility here. Can you admit there are areas where Pentax has an advantage, are are you just a complete Nikon fanboy?

Looking for a higher megapixel photo? They do both.
Looking for less noise? They do both.
Looking for more detail? They do both.

Your defining win/loss based on technicality. In the end they both produce a better looking photo. Both require static objects but the Pentax system can auto-edit out some small motion items to some degree. Pixel shift is a limited use application, like image merging.

I've admitted time and again Pentax does some things better. Keep moving goalposts. I've owned 3 of them and a bunch of lenses, still own some. I just admit when I see something done better elsewhere.

Calling me a Nikon fanboy is a joke. I've got 4 brands of Camera and readily admit which does what better or worse, something you obviously are incapable of doing as you attack relentlessly anyone entering this forum with anything other than "Pentax is best". That's the definition of fanboy.

People came in here looking for differences, myself and others who have multiple systems pointed them out. If you don't like that fine. Relentlessly attacking anyone who mentions "brand x has an edge here" isn't helping them make a choice in the system they want for their needs.

Pentax has it's strengths and it's weaknesses like every brand.

---------- Post added 02-12-2018 at 10:11 AM ----------

You do know that every image you compared to at 51200 ISO is crap don't you? If you re arguing that a d750 is better at crap pictures, I'm with you dude.

I have never seen a decent image taken at 51200 ISO. Try and keep it real. Lets talk about some images we might actually want to use.

Agreed, ISO 51200 is stupid. Is there a difference in low light iso vs the K-1 and D750 which you and others said can't be true? Yes slight advantage D750. I personally very rarely go above ISO 12800 in any camera body. Is the D750 now the king of all cameras? No the K-1 has a better 36 megapixel sensor with slightly better dynamic range and it's a better stills and landscape camera bar none. Better than the other brands using the same sensor for those applications too. (Did I just say Pentax was good at something!)

Did you go to IR and look at the resolution of the K-1 and D750 at 6400 ISO (the highest ISO I actually use.?) It would appear that the D750 uses some noise reduction that completely obliterates fine detail at least at 6400 ISO. Maybe at some point on the ISO scale that gives the D750 some advantage, in noise reduction not resolution. And anyone can fake resolution just selecting images where heavy noise reduction is more suited, to that particular image. That in no way would apply to all images or even most images.

If you haven't gone to IR to see what I'm talking about, this conversation is over.I can put the data out there for you, I can't make you look at it. :;ol at the red section of the cloth swatches at 6400 ISO... you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

I think IR is using JPEG unfortunately. I'd say win for low noise on D750, K-1 huge win for detail. I prefer the dpreview compare tool as you can select RAW. Pentax has always favored detail over noise in JPEG but they tend to get a blotchiness in JPEGs that others don't. I personally use RAW 90% of the time with all my cameras otherwise your losing all that dynamic range in lightroom.

K-1 is much better if your after higher resolution and details in shots, I've never argued otherwise. Weren't we talking about a high iso difference?

On dpreview it seems like some color noise is making it's way in, the blacks are kinda tinted on the K-1 (and D-810). Nothing that couldn't be quickly fixed with a bit of noise correction in lightroom. Like most of these differences were all hot blooded over a very small difference in image quality.

[Dan Rentea]

Fast tracking rules out any Pentax.... The K-3 with the 450 gives you 675 D750mm.. With the 1.4 attached... 975 D750mm... not hard to justify at all.

Depends on a lot of things. For stationary animals or birds, in good light, a K-S II or a K5 IIs have good enough image quality to satisfy a lot of people. Once you add a 1.4 TC on a 150-450mm, tracking becomes history on K3/K1. Tamron 150-600mm is good opticaly and even if it is has f6.3 at 600mm, the 2 stops difference in image quality at ISO above 800 between D750 and K3 it will cancel the advantage of the f5.6 aperture from 450mm f5.6 Pentax lens.

And as DxO points out, the D750 is not better in low light than a K-1 maybe at the pixel level, but not if you reduce the K-1 image to D750 size and then compare. As an image producer, the K-1 is simply way ahead, and every resolution chart I've seen confirms that. There just is no evidence to the contrary...

I never said D750 is better than K1 for image quality at any ISO. I said that D750 is 2 stops better than K3 II at high ISO.

And for macro, a K-3 II with Pixel shift will out perform it, as it will for landscape and still life.

A very close friend of mine (wildlife and landscape photographer) just bought D750, D7200 and 200-500mm f5.6 for wildlife. We go out often to shoot BIF. He has a long history with Pentax cameras and he invested a lot in Pentax, but he got tired of working harder than the rest of us trying to nail the shot... He is selling everything except his K3 II and 100mm macro. It's very attached to this combination (K3 II and 100mm macro) and because he didn't recieved a good offer for this combo, he decided to keep it. So far is happy that his keeper rate has improved shooting BIF with Nikon and he is also happy because he knows that for macro he has a very good combo (K3 II and 100mm f2.8 macro).

Personally, I'm not convinced you get better images after about 10 FPS. Less than 5 is criminal in a 24 MP camera. Rate the action camera thing, take the FPS and subtract 5 to get a number out of 5. The K-3 rates a respectable 3.4, a D750, 1.5. That's pretty much how I see it. I'm looking for the K-3 replacement to have 10 FPS, I see many wildlife shooters shooting with cameras in the 10-15 FPS range. It seems to be optimum. I expect 36 MP cameras to be slower, because they are moving a lot more data through the pipeline.

Yes, 10-14-20fps is optimum for wildlife/sport. But having both (framerate and tracking performance) it's expensive no matter if you're shooting with APS-C or full frame. See 7D Mark II/D500 or D5/1Dx Mark II/a9. Some of the Pentax shooters expect from the upcoming K3 III a D500 kind of tracking performance with at least KP image quality at a price similar with KP price. I don't think it can be done, unfortunatelly.

For most work, a faster shutter makes up in large part for not as good tracking AF. In most wildlife situations, tracking is not necessary because the wildlife is relatively stationary, but frame rate and reach are.

Reach is important for some wildlife who usually implies tracking (predators and eagles or similar birds hunting). Otherwise, with a good hide you don't need a lens longer than 300mm. But to be fair, wildlife means different things for different people, based on where they live and what they like to shoot.

[LeeRunge]

Depends on a lot of things. For stationary animals or birds, in good light, a K-S II or a K5 IIs have good enough image quality to satisfy a lot of people. Once you add a 1.4 TC on a 150-450mm, tracking becomes history on K3/K1. Tamron 150-600mm is good opticaly and even if it is has f6.3 at 600mm, the 2 stops difference in image quality at ISO above 800 between D750 and K3 it will cancel the advantage of the f5.6 aperture from 450mm f5.6 Pentax lens.

You can buy a D7500 + a Sigma 150-600 C for within a few hundred bucks of a 150-450 (just the lens) Similar AF to the D750. Or a 7d ii with the same lens for a few hundred more. Just for BIF needs that might be the way to go instead of picking up the 150-450 (and TC's).

The K-1 and 15-30 seems like the ultimate landscape and astro camera. I don't have a super wide yet for my D750 (Still using K3 plus sigma 8-16). Maybe if they K-1 drops in price with the K-1ii I'll grab that combo instead and get the resolution upgrade. Best of both worlds.

[Rondec]

Standard resolution of each in which case the 24mp is slightly better than the D810 and K-1.

Here's a direct comparison of the D810 (same sensor, looks identical in DP Compare) to the D750 when scaled.

Nikon D750 vs D810: The Winner for Night Photography

As for Pixel shift you can do the same thing with any camera with an image stack and photoshop, it's essentially what Pixel Shift is. They all require a static image and extra steps in post (Pentax software or Photoshop).

As far as your comparison, there is a print button on that DP Review tab and you should hit that. It will resize the images to the same size and amazingly you will find that the images on the D750 and K-1 look amazingly similar with regard to noise. It is the only way to do such a comparison, because the assumption has to be that your eventual viewing size/print size is the same regardless of the camera you are using. The way you have it in your comparison puts any camera with more megapixels at a disadvantage, although they aren't really. Truth to tell, the A7s eats up your D750 by your standard due to its low megapixel number, but you wouldn't find it as much if you are printing at a decent size.

Pixel shift is different from what you are mentioning and has a significant boost in color depth and decrease in moire that you don't get with the process you mention. Beyond which, it is a lot more automated with pixel shift.

[LeeRunge]

As far as your comparison, there is a print button on that DP Review tab and you should hit that. It will resize the images to the same size and amazingly you will find that the images on the D750 and K-1 look amazingly similar with regard to noise. It is the only way to do such a comparison, because the assumption has to be that your eventual viewing size/print size is the same regardless of the camera you are using. The way you have it in your comparison puts any camera with more megapixels at a disadvantage, although they aren't really. Truth to tell, the A7s eats up your D750 by your standard due to its low megapixel number, but you wouldn't find it as much if you are printing at a decent size.

Pixel shift is different from what you are mentioning and has a significant boost in color depth and decrease in moire that you don't get with the process you mention. Beyond which, it is a lot more automated with pixel shift.

That print button is super useful, thanks for that. Clicking that basically orders in best-->worst A7s/ii >D750>K-1/D810 (identical) By "worst" I mean they are all good.

The difference is super small and only at ISO's above 6400 does it show up in any meaningful way. The resolution of the 36 (and 42/45 on the A7iii and D850) is significantly better. For large prints it's a no brainer to get the camera with the bigger sensor if you can and it has the lenses you need to create images your after.

** Nobody uses ISO 51200, it's just to show the difference, at lower iso's they're all very good. Thinking of you Normhead!

The heroes that are left out of this discussion are the KP and the D500/7500 latest generation APS-C bodys. WOW those things are better than the K3/ii etc that came before them. They are very close to full frame in ISO perfomance now, same for M43, it's behind but more than usable now for a small sensor.

I'm guessing K-1ii will be the 42mp sensor in the A7iii which is great, hopefully the price stays at @2000 and Pentax continues to deliver a great sensor at the best price. Anyone think the K-1 would use the 45mp sensor out of the D850 or is that exclusively contracted to Nikon?

[krazykat]

That print button is super useful, thanks for that. Clicking that basically orders in best-->worst A7s/ii >D750>K-1/D810 (identical) By "worst" I mean they are all good.

I did it myself and would have it A7s/ii >K-1/D810 (identical)>D750. The lower resolution of the D750 smears more detail.