[redcat]

wow, the discussion between Biz and Nicolas is endless I skip lots of pages and they are still arguing
When I buy my lenses I already predict that Pentax would go FF so all my lenses are FF, just don't have enough money (yet) to upgrade the K3 to K1. And hey, I can shoot amazing photos with the K3, why rush. I'll definitely get the K1 (or K1ii) in the future though

[northcoastgreg]

You assume that full frame does not deliver more IQ with cheaper lenses; and that's wrong.

But that depends on what you mean by IQ. If you assume that IQ is just resolution, particularly resolution in the center of the image, than FF will deliver more IQ with all lenses, cheaper or otherwise. But if IQ is not just resolution, then this is wrong.

No less an authority than Mike Johnston (who knows a thing or two about lenses, having introduced the term "bokeh" into the English language) has argued that lens contrast, rather than resolution, is the primary determinant of image quality:

In my opinion, lens contrast of fairly large image structures is a primary determinant of subjective optical quality in a camera lens.... [R]esolution of very fine structures seldom helps pictorial photographs much, and, in my opinion, is an overrated property where lens quality is concerned.

Now you can agree or disagree with Johnston. Since image quality involves aesthetic value judgments, which are subjective, there's no right or wrong answer here. Anyone's free to decide that resolution=IQ; but that person can't expect everyone else to accept his subjective value judgment. Now I happen to agree with Johnston. For me, IQ is primarily color and contrast. Resolution has its place as well, but it's more for printing larger and/or cropping bigger than for providing the ultimate in IQ. I would consider a move to FF if I needed to print larger. But I would not give up color and contrast to get the additional resolution. That would be one step forward and two steps back. Nor do I believe that FF necessarily delivers more IQ with cheaper lenses. I'll take my DA Limiteds on APS-C over the Tamron 28-75 on FF any day. The color, the contrast, the flare control of the Limiteds enable me to get landscape images that look better, at the sizes I'm likely to print, then what I could get out of that older Tamron zoom.

[biz-engineer]

Why can you not accept it that not everyone is going to do what you did?

I totally accept the choice of other people. Everyone does what he wants, there are various products for everyone's choice. I guess, hopefully, I comment on the threads regards to incorrect arguments. Someone saying that crop is fine from him/her is ok, although when it's being turned into arguments made up to prove that different format do the same, I also reply with the same stupid arguments. Nicolas and Normhead have decided for themselves that they aren't going to get a Pentax K1, and they are basically saying (I simplify here), if you consider equivalence, crop and 24x36 are doing the same, and so I disagree with that. Every camera company know exactly the difference between camera sensor formats, how can this be that people just downgrade a new larger format camera because they aren't willing to get one? I put this in perspective: as if when the 645z was released, a group on people on Pentax forum, because they aren't willing to get one, start pulling out on Pentax forum every disadvantage of the 645Z. I'm not Ricoh marketing, but if I was, I wouldn't appreciate this destructive attitude.

A company release a new product, larger format, less noise, some additional shallow DoF properties, and people who never ever used it, start shooting this new camera model down. It's kind of primitive and tribal.

[redrockcoulee]

I totally accept the choice of other people. Everyone does what he wants, there are various products for everyone's choice. I guess, hopefully, I comment on the threads regards to incorrect arguments. Someone saying that crop is fine from him/her is ok, although when it's being turned into arguments made up to prove that different format do the same, I also reply with the same stupid arguments. Nicolas and Normhead have decided for themselves that they aren't going to get a Pentax K1, and they are basically saying (I simplify here), if you consider equivalence, crop and 24x36 are doing the same, and so I disagree with that. Every camera company know exactly the difference between camera sensor formats, how can this be that people just downgrade a new larger format camera because they aren't willing to get one? I put this in perspective: as if when the 645z was released, a group on people on Pentax forum, because they aren't willing to get one, start pulling out on Pentax forum every disadvantage of the 645Z. I'm not Ricoh marketing, but if I was, I wouldn't appreciate this destructive attitude.

A company release a new product, larger format, less noise, some additional shallow DoF properties, and people who never ever used it, start shooting this new camera model down. It's kind of primitive and tribal.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. If that was all you were arguing against I would have sat out this discussion. When you brought up costs your posts did not represent most people's experiences.

[biz-engineer]

And for me personally I would be very interested if anyone could also drop some raw images of 100 iso test images, comparing k3 v k1, particularly of a high dynamic range subject. Anyone ...?

DR is the same: 14 bits. At 100 ISO, no difference, except K3 is 24Mp and K1 is 36Mp. ISO 100 is putting a lot of restrictions to what you can do, but that's a choice.

[BarryE]

DR is the same: 14 bits. At 100 ISO, no difference, except K3 is 24Mp and K1 is 36Mp. ISO 100 is putting a lot of restrictions to what you can do, but that's a choice.

So can you then explain, please, why the measurements in the dxomark DR comparison between the K3 and the D800 , which I understand is the sensor in the k3, shows approx 1EV difference at low iso ? There must be more going on than just the the 14 bit sampling. Isn't the Canon 5Diii also 14bit and it's DR is poorer than either the Pentax or Nikon ? Does not the theoretical dr of the 14-bit samples get reduced by other factors in the A/D processing, eg noise ? So wouldn't my request to see actual RAW files show some DR differences ? Thanks.

[Rondec]

Any chance of seeing some examples of quality images that can be achieved on the k-1 that would be a struggle on an apsc. Then the value arguments being made here could gain some objectivity.

And for me personally I would be very interested if anyone could also drop some raw images of 100 iso test images, comparing k3 v k1, particularly of a high dynamic range subject. Anyone ...?

It is really hard for me to pick a specific image that K-1 could take that a K3 couldn't. Often, with an APS-C image, you either are at the edge of what you can do with regard to dynamic range, or you end up making an HDR image.

It does feel like the images don't look "pushed" as quickly as my K3 files do, for what it is worth.

This image has full size available on Flickr, although it is only a jpeg. It may be worth a look.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 06-25-2016 at 05:57 AM.

[Nicolas06]

So can you then explain, please, why the measurements in the dxomark DR comparison between the K3 and the D800 , which I understand is the sensor in the k3, shows approx 1EV difference at low iso ? There must be more going on than just the the 14 bit sampling. Isn't the Canon 5Diii also 14bit and it's DR is poorer than either the Pentax or Nikon ? Does not the theoretical dr of the 14-bit samples get reduced by other factors in the A/D processing, eg noise ? So wouldn't my request to see actual RAW files show some DR differences ? Thanks.

DxO dynamic range official number are from an image reduced to 8MP. Resolution doesn't count. But the same pixel on this 8MP image is going to receive light over a greater surface (2.3X time bigger in fact, so a bit more than 1EV difference). For the same exposure, the absolute quantity of light received is greater and thus the signal is stronger and higher dynamic range can be achieved before noise disturb the signal.

There noise at all iso setting, including iso 100. It is just lower. Andthe latest D810 has lower iso setting allowing to go even further, growing the gap.

[BarryE]

It is really hard for me to pick a specific image that K-1 could take that a K3 couldn't. Often, with an APS-C image, you either are at the edge of what you can do with regard to dynamic range, or you end up making an HDR image.

It does feel like the images don't look "pushed" as quickly as my K3 files do, for what it is worth.

This image has full size available on Flickr, although it is only a jpeg. It may be worth a look.

Thanks Rondec. There is some really nice depth to this image. I suspect, the being on the "edge" is a key difference. I do tend to take my K3 shots at low ISO on a tripod, with MUP etc. Having some more headroom would be nice with the k1 at times especially shots into the light, but I've heavily invested in DA lenses and I use two K3 bodies, each with a limited prime on most occasions. Trying to see how much more I could squeeze out of a FF (resolution apart) is something I'd like to try and get a real-world feel for. Eventually, I guess I'll hire one when they are available, but until then ...

[Nicolas06]

although when it's being turned into arguments made up to prove that different format do the same, I also reply with the same stupid arguments. Nicolas and Normhead have decided for themselves that they aren't going to get a Pentax K1, and they are basically saying (I simplify here), if you consider equivalence, crop and 24x36 are doing the same, and so I disagree with that.

This is not the case, I said many time here that FF provide better quality and that I am all for people going FF if that's their thing.

My point is to consider the benefits you get from getting it and the drawbacks.

Benefit are higher resolution, more room to arbitrate between noise and dof and market segmentation that tend to keep the most high end features to FF bodies (like top end AF or 50 iso sensor)

For Pentax FF only, the price of the FF is quite interresting and there unique feature like SR, the bundled astro tracer and pixel shilft. Handling is nice with a fully articulated back screen and lot of control thanks to the 3 wheels mechanism.

Drawback are the price of the body, associated with the price of high end lenses. There the size and weight with K1 being one of the heaviest FF bodies out there. Lenses are typically bigger for the same reach.

For Pentax FF and Pentax only, the lens offering is lacking choice. there no FF prime bellow 31mm, no f/4 zooms (like 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/4, 100-300 f/4), no entry level tele (70-300) and super tele (150-600). There a lack of portrait primes choice (85mm & 135mm) with only the FA77 covering it and ovrerall there few f/1.4 primes. Many of the lenses are still using SDM or screw drive meaning you are not going to fully leverage that ultra fast AF performance for your action shoots you could expect if you were on Canikon.

You have to know your priorities before making a choice. If you do weddings all day and shoot in very demanding conditions all the time, FF give you an edge. If you care about size, weight or money, a carefull choice of an APSC setup or, why a m4/3 could be a better fit.

And yes, in most cases, it may not matter that much anyway. If you slightly missed your focus, if you didn't frame the picture well , if you didn't manage to be there when the light is best or to capture the right instant, you'll get quite average shoot, even with the best body in the world. It might be more important to train, be at the right place at the right moment than spending time to get the best gear. For most it is easier to get better gear than to become better through... On is just money, the other require time, dedication and a bit of talent.

[Rondec]

DxO dynamic range official number are from an image reduced to 8MP. Resolution doesn't count. But the same pixel on this 8MP image is going to receive light over a greater surface (2.3X time bigger in fact, so a bit more than 1EV difference). For the same exposure, the absolute quantity of light received is greater and thus the signal is stronger and higher dynamic range can be achieved before noise disturb the signal.

There noise at all iso setting, including iso 100. It is just lower. Andthe latest D810 has lower iso setting allowing to go even further, growing the gap.

This image was actually bumped a couple of stops for the foreground, for what it is worth.

[Nicolas06]

This image was actually bumped a couple of stops for the foreground, for what it is worth.

The photo look great but not perfect. I agree that among theses shoots you typically take, the current one is significantly less noise onthe shadow part than you managed in the past. But there still need to cheat, to compress the original scene dynamic range into the limited one of a screen or print. And this show. at the area at the limit between dark and light area there halos, the tree on the right in particular has it. It look like fog, but still look strange... It almost look like that tree was added and pasted to the image. The cloud on the top right look underexposed.

As I understand it, the best shoots are still with the best possible light to begin with. We can push things, a better sensor help, but that still hard job.

[gavinhw]

Now this is what I call a literate post. No it's/its confusion. :-)

[biz-engineer]

The photo look great but not perfect. I agree that among theses shoots you typically take, the current one is significantly less noise onthe shadow part than you managed in the past. But there still need to cheat, to compress the original scene dynamic range into the limited one of a screen or print. And this show. at the area at the limit between dark and light area there halos, the tree on the right in particular has it. It look like fog, but still look strange... It almost look like that tree was added and pasted to the image. The cloud on the top right look underexposed. As I understand it, the best shoots are still with the best possible light to begin with. We can push things, a better sensor help, but that still hard job.

Sounds like you're a high caliber in photography :-)

[microlight]

A company release a new product, larger format, less noise, some additional shallow DoF properties, and people who never ever used it, start shooting this new camera model down.

I don't think anyone's shooting it down - the majority of Pentaxians are very impressed with it, me included. But that doesn't mean that I need or want one, which I don't. I also agree that resolution is not the be-all-and-end-all of IQ, and that colour and contrast make a much more immediate impression. This is where Pentax lenses (and Limiteds especially) have almost always scored over the competition.