[StiffLegged]

'C'est magnifique, mais ca n'est pas Daguerre'

Groannnnnn!

[mikesbike]

I'm reading up on this camera to learn how to use it so I'll probably have lots more questions. These new DSLRs are so much more advanced than film cameras, especially this one!

Ask away- don't hesitate! I understand your being mystified, coming from what you've been using. Having 6 years with my first SLR camera, the also all-manual only Vivitar SLR, then having to buy a new camera after it broke down, I was amazed by the new Pentax ME Super's capability in offering the then new aperture priority operation. But I too was mystified years later upon acquiring the Pentax PZ-1p, which was for the first time forward-designed very much like a modern Pentax DSLR. I turned it on, looked at the top LCD display, and said out loud- "What the hell does Tv or Av mean?? What do I DO?? Does this thing connect to my TV??

[Thrashercharged]

Regarding ISO, Mikesbike mentioned

With this camera, best to stay below ISO 3200 at the very most.

I'm accustomed to using ISOs from 64 to 400 if I recall correctly. Actually I still refer to it as ASA and not ISO for those of you that remember when it was called that. I recall Kodak came out with an ISO1000 for really low light conditions but it was really grainy. Does the camera go even higher than 3200? I assume this is to take photos in near dark conditions without a flash, how grainy are photos taken at 3200?

[UncleVanya]

Regarding ISO, Mikesbike mentioned


I'm accustomed to using ISOs from 64 to 400 if I recall correctly. Actually I still refer to it as ASA and not ISO for those of you that remember when it was called that. I recall Kodak came out with an ISO1000 for really low light conditions but it was really grainy. Does the camera go even higher than 3200? I assume this is to take photos in near dark conditions without a flash, how grainy are photos taken at 3200?

Yes they go higher. Check the detailed in depth reviews for specific info on how High and at what quality. Also film grain isn’t the same as noise in digital photography.

[mikesbike]

grainy are photos taken at 3200?

As UncleV says, but basically the same idea in disturbing high quality results, and in this case even accompanied by disintegration of image integrity if going beyond a certain point. With noise and ISO, depends also on how much the user deems acceptable. It also tends to show up first in shadowy areas, so how visible it will be at its first appearance will also depend on the nature of the scene. With the K-3, noise will become quite visible at ISO 3200, especially in shadowy areas, but for some people might be tolerable for some uses. I'd say a KP camera, a compact design yet having a likewise durable magnesium alloy metal build, has about 1-1/2 stops more ISO available for good results. The FF K-1 II can do at least another 1-1/2 stops. I have both, and these results are within my general use standards, even though I mostly shoot JPEGs right out of the camera. With some scenes I might be a bit more picky. There is also some very good further noise reduction processing available from certain available software. The new K-3 III appears to be even closer to the K-1 II in higher ISO performance.

Seems to me I recall sometimes using a commonly-available Fuji ASA 800 color print film that was outstanding for pretty good results at such a high sensitivity.

---------- Post added 11-30-21 at 06:49 PM ----------

I assume this is to take photos in near dark conditions without a flash

Yes, I do quite often shoot night scenes, and sometimes even having some subject movement. Also for shooting fast action subjects in less than bright conditions in order to get high enough shutter speed to achieve clarity.

ISO 1000 or even 1600 is no problem for a Pentax K-3 camera. You can expect clean results. If you're going to be very picky, keep to ISO 800 or less. Just take some shots and determine for yourself.

[UncleVanya]

I shot at 3200 frequently with my original k-3. I also shot in raw and used DXO photolab to clean this up using their prime noise reduction. Deep prime is available these days in DXO and other noise reduction programs exist also. This really improves what the base performance gives, newer sensors still excel at even higher iso but this reduces the gap.

[mikesbike]

newer sensors still excel at even higher iso but this reduces the gap.

Yes indeed! To clarify- reduces the gap between what APS-C is capable of compared to the FF K-1 II, though there are other factors as well.

[UncleVanya]

Yes indeed! To clarify- reduces the gap between what APS-C is capable of compared to the FF K-1 II, though there are other factors as well.

Well yes but no. I meant vs more modern sensors in newer apsc cameras the k-3 disadvantage is narrower using deep prime or other external noise reduction software. The improvement delta is larger with noisier older gear than with newer gear. Both improve over the internal noise reduction but the older models show higher improvements but still end up not as good as the newer sensor gear.

[Thrashercharged]

Thanks for all the responses and helpful info! So I was actually asking for my Daughter-in-Law (it's her Grandpa that loaned her the camera) - she's relatively new to photography from behind the lens, she typically takes portraits and using Photoshop/Lightroom to post process but her generation apparently doesn't do the forum thing to ask questions so I volunteered to.

For reference, my camera expertise is almost solely from a Pentax Spotmatic which for those of y'all that don't know, was a manual SLR (before Av/Tv existed) with TTL light metering so I understand F-stop, Shutter Speed, Depth of Field and manual focus fairly well because well, film was expensive and developing even more so! Waiting a week just to get blurry and badly exposed prints taught us to figure it out real quick! But shutter speed in those days only had a range of 1/1000 to 1 second max so when we flipped through those settings on the K3 and all I saw were numbers from single digits to 30" it totally confused me.

I never flipped it far enough to get into the fractions as I've never seen that large of a range for shutter speeds. I'm accustomed to only having 11 speeds to choose from so after flipping through several and only seeing whole numbers, I assumed whole number were all there were hence my interpretation of the " to mean inches! 30 seconds for shutter speed? That's insane! Why? What for? If we needed longer than a 1 second exposure we had these cable shutter releases that would screw onto the camera's shutter release button (that's why there was a tapped hole inside the button on SLRs) so we could hold it down without shaking the camera and then time the exposure using a stop watch. Yeah, real old school as my kids say.

Anyway, thanks again for the warm welcome and helpful advice. My DIL (Daughter in Law) read your comments and she's also embarrassed that she didn't realize the " meant seconds but as she's not experienced and mainly only taken portraits, she's never used Shutter Speeds slower than probably 1/60 I'd guess so she was shocked that speeds can be so long too and had no idea either what the single digits meant. I'm reading up on this camera to learn how to use it so I'll probably have lots more questions. These new DSLRs are so much more advanced than film cameras, especially this one!

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments, I'm showing them to my DIL so she can learn how to use this K3 but she might not have it for much longer because she has revived her Grandpa's interest in photography again and he's wanting it back! The reason she borrowed it is because it has a 17-70mm 2.8-4 Sigma lens and the lens on her camera only goes as wide as 28mm.

However, after doing some research I'm beginning to wonder if this lens is of any benefit to her because her camera is a mirrorless full-frame Sony and I believe the K3 is a APS-C? So with the 1:1.5 ratio conversion between APS-C and Full Frame focal lengths, this 17mm on the APS-C K3 is equivalent to her 28mm on her Full-Frame Sony, is that correct?

I'm just now learning about this APS-C thing. Is it essentially like using 23mm film instead of 35mm film? I don't think 23mm film existed, but that's what 35mm/1.5 comes out to. I think those 110 "Pocket Instamatic" cartridge cameras we had that used those disposable flashcubes were 13x17mm weren't they? Horrible cameras!

And when did Sony start making cameras? Mirrorless? Mirrorless cameras used to be known as Rangefinders if I recall, but this Sony mirrorless is a TTL I believe, how is that done? Is a mirrorless camera still a SLR? So many questions...

[StiffLegged]

...However, after doing some research I'm beginning to wonder if this lens is of any benefit to her because her camera is a mirrorless full-frame Sony and I believe the K3 is a APS-C? So with the 1:1.5 ratio conversion between APS-C and Full Frame focal lengths, this 17mm on the APS-C K3 is equivalent to her 28mm on her Full-Frame Sony, is that correct?

No, it's not. 17mm is still 17mm regardless of the camera. However the lens might not cover the full area of the full frame sensor, because APS-C lenses are made to cover an APS-C sensor, which is smaller.

If the lens doesn't cover the Sony's sensor properly, there will be dark corners on the photos. She'd need an adapter to use the lens on her own camera anyway.

[mikesbike]

Thanks for all the suggestions and comments, I'm showing them to my DIL so she can learn how to use this K3 but she might not have it for much longer because she has revived her Grandpa's interest in photography again and he's wanting it back! The reason she borrowed it is because it has a 17-70mm 2.8-4 Sigma lens and the lens on her camera only goes as wide as 28mm.

However, after doing some research I'm beginning to wonder if this lens is of any benefit to her because her camera is a mirrorless full-frame Sony and I believe the K3 is a APS-C? So with the 1:1.5 ratio conversion between APS-C and Full Frame focal lengths, this 17mm on the APS-C K3 is equivalent to her 28mm on her Full-Frame Sony, is that correct?

I'm just now learning about this APS-C thing. Is it essentially like using 23mm film instead of 35mm film? I don't think 23mm film existed, but that's what 35mm/1.5 comes out to. I think those 110 "Pocket Instamatic" cartridge cameras we had that used those disposable flashcubes were 13x17mm weren't they? Horrible cameras!

And when did Sony start making cameras? Mirrorless? Mirrorless cameras used to be known as Rangefinders if I recall, but this Sony mirrorless is a TTL I believe, how is that done? Is a mirrorless camera still a SLR? So many questions...

Sony has been making cameras for a long time, taking the place of Minolta. These include P/S, DSLR, and now mirrorless models. If the camera she has is indeed FF, you are right in that the wide angle of the lens will be compromised if it could be fit onto the K-3, as you will get a narrower field of view (FOV) with a smaller sensor of APS-C design like the K-3. 28mm will provide no wide angle at all, while 17mm will, and somewhat wider than what 28mm will get on a FF body. You can use a FF lens on APS-C bodies, as long as the mount will fit, yet with the narrower FOV, but not the other way around. The outer area of the larger-cut lens will simply not be in use with a FF lens on the K-3. Lenses cut for APS-C are not usable on a FF body without the probable occurrence of vignetting effects, since these lenses are not cut large enough for the larger sensors.

[Thrashercharged]

Sony has been making cameras for a long time, taking the place of Minolta. These include P/S, DSLR, and now mirrorless models. If the camera she has is indeed FF, you are right in that the wide angle of the lens will be compromised if it could be fit onto the K-3, as you will get a narrower field of view (FOV) with a smaller sensor of APS-C design like the K-3. 28mm will provide no wide angle at all, while 17mm will, and somewhat wider than what 28mm will get on a FF body. You can use a FF lens on APS-C bodies, as long as the mount will fit, yet with the narrower FOV, but not the other way around. The outer area of the larger-cut lens will simply not be in use with a FF lens on the K-3. Lenses cut for APS-C are not usable on a FF body without the probable occurrence of vignetting effects, since these lenses are not cut large enough for the larger sensors.

So just to be clear, she's not trying to put the 17-70mm 2.8-4 Sigma lens that's on her Grandpa's K3 camera onto her Sony Camera (it's a Sony Alpha 7iii which according to the internet is a Full Frame). We're not trying to swap lenses, etc. She's borrowing the entire Pentax K3 camera with that lens because we were thinking that combo would have a greater FOV than her Sony with 28mm lens, but because the K3 is a APS-C and the Sony is a FF, I think they're both about equivalent in their widest FOV, is that correct? (K3 APS-C with 17mm lens vs Sony FF with 28mm lens).

I see from the internet that Sony essentially bought out Minolta. I'd wondered what happened to Minolta, and I was wondering how good Sony lenses could be seeing that Sony has no history in the lens business but now I understand. Hmmm... I wonder what happened to Olympus? Similar thing? Were they bought out too? So how do mirrorless cameras still maintain TTL (through the lens) viewing and not be a Rangefinder type?

[pschlute]

is that correct? (K3 APS-C with 17mm lens vs Sony FF with 28mm lens)

Roughly yes.

So how do mirrorless cameras still maintain TTL (through the lens) viewing and not be a Rangefinder type?

Electronic wizardry The viewfinder displays what the sensor sees as a video image.

Same as what you see in your car when you put it into reverse !

[UncleVanya]

No, it's not. 17mm is still 17mm regardless of the camera. However the lens might not cover the full area of the full frame sensor, because APS-C lenses are made to cover an APS-C sensor, which is smaller.

If the lens doesn't cover the Sony's sensor properly, there will be dark corners on the photos. She'd need an adapter to use the lens on her own camera anyway.

While true a 17mm on apsc covers about the same angle as a 28mm on FF.

---------- Post added 12-05-21 at 08:26 PM ----------

I'm just now learning about this APS-C thing. Is it essentially like using 23mm film instead of 35mm film? I don't think 23mm film existed, but that's what 35mm/1.5 comes out to. I think those 110 "Pocket Instamatic" cartridge cameras we had that used those disposable flashcubes were 13x17mm weren't they? Horrible cameras!

APS film was a thing. It was a little odd as it retracted the film into the casing after use including processing. It also recorded the exposure info on magnetic media.

APS Film - The Darkroom Photo Lab

---------- Post added 12-05-21 at 08:28 PM ----------

I also shoot Sony. Mirrorless in this case can be TTL because it uses the sensor to see through the lens and then transmits this in real-time to an electronic viewfinder to show you what the camera lens sees.

[mikesbike]

Again as Uncle V says- it will be roughly the same. However, you'd be slightly ahead with the 17mm on the K-3, as its FOV will come out close to that of 26mm on your FF camera. That Sigma 17-70mm is also a good quality lens too, according to reports and lab tests, and with its aperture capabilities being exceptional for a lens with such a zoom range, able to get f2.8 at 17mm. This can translate to higher available shutter speeds at a lower ISO setting under the same lighting compared with many zoom lenses for FF use which have 28mm for the widest angle. So this f/2.8 capability can make it more likely that you would be able to achieve the shutter speed you need wth the K-3 set at the wider angle, with a lower ISO that is well within the K-3's limitations.