Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-29-2016, 11:25 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 922
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
For shooting wildlife or any photography where a telephoto is going to be used a lot, you have made the right decision. Unless you have a lot of disposable income or shoot professionally, buy what you are going to use and will produce the best results for YOUR photography. I think you made the right choice.

We all would love to own a K1. I certainly would and maybe someday I will. I would also love to own a Corvette and an F350 Super Duty Diesel too, but we have to be practical sometimes......
Well said!

I would like to add to your list of those you might need the K1 - photographers who regularly print and sell extremely large prints (20inch x 30 inch and larger). The K1's 36mp size sensor will make better extremely large prints then will images from either a K3ii's 24mp sensor or a K5's 16mp sensor.

I find that 17" x 25.5" is about as large as I care to print K3ii image files. While I do not have my K1 yet, I expect that I will be able to make very good 24"x36" prints from its' image files.


Last edited by Fenwoodian; 04-29-2016 at 11:32 AM.
04-30-2016, 06:56 AM   #32
Site Supporter
dakight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,137
For me personally, image size is the least of the concerns. There are, as pointed out above, software solutions for producing very acceptable large size prints from smaller image files. To me the deciding factors were the articulating rear LCD panel, the wifi integration, the high iso noise performance, the dynamic range and many other feature too numerous to list. I had originally settled on the K-3 II and I still think I would be very happy with it, but the tipping point came when I learned that the flu card, the only viable tethering and wireless control option has been discontinued. Yes, I know they are still available but for how long? At my age it's difficult for me to get low angle shots and be able to compose and focus in either the viewfinder or rear LCD. The Articulating LCD makes the camera much more useable for many of the things I want to do.


Now, that is not to say that the OP made the wrong choice; he has other concerns and other needs and if he's happy with his choice then it was the right one.
05-01-2016, 04:50 AM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
Basically the differences between K1 and K3 (or K3-II, the 2 body are more similar than different) are that you can trade noise for shallower dof and benefit of the newest ergonomics (articulated screen, 3 wheel). All of that in exchange for overall significantly bigger/heavier/expensive lenses.

The high iso on recent FF (D800, A7-R-II...) indicate that the high iso performance go further than the 1.1 theoretical gain to more like 1.5 stop and up to 2 stops on high end sport FF bodies. Meaning that basically a guy with a 70-200 f/4 on FF still have a significant edge vs APSC and a 50-135 f/2.8. And that's not counting that most lens perform better at f/4 than f/2.8.

I can only hope that the next APSC body after K3 (again K3 and K3-II are same technology and more similar than different) would bring the key things from K1 into APSC: improved high iso algorithms, improved AF, improved ergonomics.

So i still think that a guy with an FF and say a 150-500 ot 150-600 still get an edge vs an APSC body for wildlife, if only because the long lenses except the 10K$ primes are not really sharp enough to outmatch a 15MP APSC sensor or 36MP FF sensors and that most shots are going to be taken in iso 400-6400 mode rather than iso 100-400.

For landscapes, well that one of the easiest practice for the gear. You don't need much to shoot landscapes and for sure any camera would do. People speak of sharpness but that is irrelevant as it would apply only to print of 30x40" or greater with people staring at them with a magnifying glass.

Anyway, all of this do not replace experience and skill. A great photographer with basic gear will get stunning pictures that the average photographer will never get with the best gear out there. And the more complex the practice (wildlife) the more likely it is to happen. The key is not more mm and higher end bodies but the right lighting, the right shooting position and right technique.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-01-2016 at 06:51 AM.
05-01-2016, 05:12 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 985
I'm also hoping for better performance at high ISO and low light shots for future APS-C cameras. After all, I'm not going into FF.

05-01-2016, 05:27 AM   #35
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,585
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
bought a k-3II instead of K-1
At the end of the day, it's all about what kit works for you... enjoy your new camera once you get your hands on her.
05-03-2016, 05:34 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
So i still think that a guy with an FF and say a 150-500 ot 150-600 still get an edge vs an APSC body for wildlife, if only because the long lenses except the 10K$ primes are not really sharp enough to outmatch a 15MP APSC sensor or 36MP FF sensors and that most shots are going to be taken in iso 400-6400 mode rather than iso 100-400.
I disagree. The general consinsis on the DA*300 is that you will see a npticable gain in resolution performance at f/5.6 when moving from 16 to 24MP. My impression from changing camera bodys agrees with that. So im not convinced you need to drop 10k to get past the 16MP level.

Additionally, in order to tale advantage of the FF's 36 MPs you need more reach. So if i am to match the DA*300/4 then i would need to use the 150-450 at 420 amd 5.6. Well that eatra reach just cost you a stop of light (f4 vs f5.6) since there are no current 400 f4 penses in the pentax lineup. Additionally you will meed to stop the zoom down a bit to math the performance of the prime. So you have lost a syop and a third or half performance and thus negated the ISO performance of the FF. Though you still may get more resolving power.... if you were to compare with the same lens, say the 150-450, then the apsc gets more reach and I'm not sure the full frame would be able to over come that.

I think the only time FF sees an advantage in wildlife is when you can get the same reach at the same speed in a system. This usually costs a fortune and right now it is not to be had in modern pentax lenses.


Finally, of you are shooting all of your wildlife shots between ISO 400 and 6400 then I am sorry but that is poor technique. Most of my wildlife shots are between ISO 160 and ISO 800. ISO 800 is rare and it's extremely rare that I push it past that. If you are shooting past that, you either have a slow lens, you need a triood, or the lighting is bad and you need to go home. Even guys with Canon 1DX rarely shoot wildlife past ISO 3200.
05-03-2016, 12:01 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
QuoteOriginally posted by dakight Quote
For me personally, image size is the least of the concerns. There are, as pointed out above, software solutions for producing very acceptable large size prints from smaller image files. To me the deciding factors were the articulating rear LCD panel, the wifi integration, the high iso noise performance, the dynamic range and many other feature too numerous to list. I had originally settled on the K-3 II and I still think I would be very happy with it, but the tipping point came when I learned that the flu card, the only viable tethering and wireless control option has been discontinued. Yes, I know they are still available but for how long? At my age it's difficult for me to get low angle shots and be able to compose and focus in either the viewfinder or rear LCD. The Articulating LCD makes the camera much more useable for many of the things I want to do.


Now, that is not to say that the OP made the wrong choice; he has other concerns and other needs and if he's happy with his choice then it was the right one.
Having once ignored wifi and articulating screens, I must say I kinda miss them on the K-3II. I did snag a FluCard; sad to see they are discontinued. Once I started doing quite a few macros I had the AHA! moment over the moving screens. Then you start using them in other kinds of shots and then you're hooked. Using a remote VF on a smartphone is also great; makes using a tripod easier, or even waving the camera around at the end of a monopod to get unique angles.

But even the K-1 doesn't have a touchscreen, right? that makes the wifi that much more useful, assuming as with other camera you can touch a part of the view to focus and shoot on that spot.
05-03-2016, 12:20 PM   #38
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,812
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
This will also allow me to have money to pick up a flash to help round out my kit.
+1. That's what I did: got a flash with 60 meters GN + got a better beamer flash extender ! With this, I can shoot small birds up to 12 meters at ISO100 (=0 noise) f10. And since the flash burst duration is better 1/5000th and 1/8000th of a second, it also eliminate the effect of any camera or subject move. If I would buy the flash again, it would be the Metz 64, it has a GN of 64 meters and 200mm zoom capability.

05-03-2016, 01:25 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 302
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
I am a believer in the crop frame bodies when it comes to telephoto work...a 200 on FF becomes a 300 equivalent, 300 becomes a 450 etc. and the crop-frame on the K-1 has lower resolution than the k-3ii's uncropped frame.
Exactly my thoughts. I love size and handling of my SMC-A 200 f/4, of example. I found an FA 300 f4.5 recently...great for birds hand held.

I also agree about the need for great technique. Just because you can shoot at ISO 6000 and such does't mean you should. Look at what people did with ISO 100 and 400 films. I also seldom set higher than 800, which I consider a great advantage over what film used to require.

Last edited by jeverettfine; 05-03-2016 at 01:35 PM.
05-03-2016, 01:32 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
+1. That's what I did: got a flash with 60 meters GN + got a better beamer flash extender ! With this, I can shoot small birds up to 12 meters at ISO100 (=0 noise) f10. And since the flash burst duration is better 1/5000th and 1/8000th of a second, it also eliminate the effect of any camera or subject move. If I would buy the flash again, it would be the Metz 64, it has a GN of 64 meters and 200mm zoom capability.
I picked up a Metz 50 AF-1 for $105 at adorama. I gave it a whirl just to make sure it worked but haven't had a chance to use it birding yet.

I also snuck in an FA 35/2 and DA 15/4... while full frame would have been great, for the first time I feel like I have a well rounded kit that is nice (i.e. not consumer zooms).
05-03-2016, 03:31 PM   #41
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
I think the only time FF sees an advantage in wildlife is when you can get the same reach at the same speed in a system. This usually costs a fortune and right now it is not to be had in modern pentax lenses.
i agree with the thrust of that, i see it with my a7r, when i can bring the full 36mp to bear it makes a big difference.

but it's rather misleading, because sensor size does not change the focal length of a lens.

so crop sensors can't give more "reach"... at most you might get higher pixel density with smaller sensors, using current 24mp vs. 36mp technology, although that does have some advantages.

since we judge dr by print size at a fixed distance, cropping 36mp ff pixels to ~16mp(or whatever) aps-c size is about a stop less of dr, starting at ~iso200?? 24mp aps-c sensor is somewhere in between... but with canon already at 50mp, that pixel loss difference will matter less in the near future: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

as for the cost of ff long glass, the tamron 150-600 was recently blown out for $679, in three different mounts, in a so-called "dented box" sale: http:///f/8695523-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-telephoto-zoom-lens-...om-buydig-ebay

at some level, it might be more cost-effective to just get a used d750 or something, avoid the k-mount lens tax.
05-03-2016, 05:09 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 985
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
as for the cost of ff long glass, the tamron 150-600 was recently blown out for $679, in three different mounts, in a so-called "dented box" sale: http:///f/8695523-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-telephoto-zoom-lens-...om-buydig-ebay

at some level, it might be more cost-effective to just get a used d750 or something, avoid the k-mount lens tax.
I would really love to see more glass from 3rd party manufacturers in the K-mount. The 150-600 Tamron or Sigma looks impressive. I would choose either lens over the the Pentax 140-450 for more reach. I would even consider a Sigma 50-500 if they would make a WR version. WR is one of the main reasons why I chose Pentax.
05-03-2016, 11:02 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
I disagree. The general consinsis on the DA*300 is that you will see a npticable gain in resolution performance at f/5.6 when moving from 16 to 24MP. My impression from changing camera bodys agrees with that. So im not convinced you need to drop 10k to get past the 16MP level.
What really the difference between 15MP of an APSC crop and the 24MP of the K3 or K3-II ? All are filterless, so thet only difference comes from the number of pixels. There a factor of 1.26 for resolution. Not 1.4... That's not that much. That's half the effect of an 1.4 TC and nobody say you can't add a TC on FF like you can on APSC.

Adding a TC on a 15MP crop is like going to 30MP worth of detail, except you only see the center, of course. So that still more than the 16-24MP.

But let say you take more like a zoom like a 150-500 or 150-600 to get some reach for birding. Theses lenses are not razor sharp at their max focal length so they'll not provide that much more on an APSC body.

All the argumentation for APSC is that 15MP vs 24MP right now. I agree if we were speaking of older FF with 16 or 24MP only, but the only FF we have on Pentax has 36MP and a 15MP APSC crop.

At iso 100, sure if the lens can do it, likely not a 150-500 or equivalent, well you'll get equivalent to 1.25TC by using a K3 instead of K1. You may get a few more details. A few. And on select lenses... Hopping that DA*300 + 1.7 TC would give significantly more than DA*1.4TC basically and limited to primes like the DA*300.

And at iso 100, you'll get the most of it. But what happen if you shoot in not so ideal conditions? What if you shoot at iso 800 or iso 1600? The 100% crop aren't that perfect anymore. There noise, details are lost. Once you enter that territory, there really no much more to take, really.
05-04-2016, 06:57 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
What really the difference between 15MP of an APSC crop and the 24MP of the K3 or K3-II ? All are filterless, so thet only difference comes from the number of pixels. There a factor of 1.26 for resolution. Not 1.4... That's not that much. That's half the effect of an 1.4 TC and nobody say you can't add a TC on FF like you can on APSC.<br />
<br />
Adding a TC on a 15MP crop is like going to 30MP worth of detail, except you only see the center, of course. So that still more than the 16-24MP.
<br />
<br />
Dude where do you get you math?

A 24 mp sensor has 50% more resolution than a 16mp sensor. So that is 1.5. A teleconverter is 1.4. Look at the pentax forums review of the k3 where thwy show that a k3 plus da300 has as good of or better results than a k5 plus da300 plus 1.4 tc.

Adding a 1.4 on to 15mp is going to give you 21mm equivalent (15*1.4=21). This 21mp assumes an OPTICALLY PERFECT teleconverter. Those dont exist. And by adding the tc you have lost a stop of light so the ISO performance is back to apsc levels.

I'm not anti full frame, but for wildlife reach the math favors apsc until full frame pixel density can catch up.
05-04-2016, 11:03 AM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
A 24 mp sensor has 50% more resolution than a 16mp sensor. So that is 1.5. A teleconverter is 1.4. Look at the pentax forums review of the k3 where thwy show that a k3 plus da300 has as good of or better results than a k5 plus da300 plus 1.4 tc.
Crop factor apply to distances not to surface or pixel count, you miss a square root. That where my math are : not messing up surface and distance units.

Remember 1.5 crop factor is FF vs APSC... 36MP vs 15. You can check into D800 or K1 manuals if you don't trust me. It doesn't become magically 15 vs 24 when you revert it

If you apply 1.5 crop factor to a 24MP FF, this give 24/(1.5^2) = 10.66MP.

As for K5 vs K3, K5 has a low pass filter while the K3 and K1 have not. So there more difference between a K5 and K3 than the number of pixel would make us guess. A crop of K1 is actually sharper than what a K5 or K5-II can do, but a tiny bit less sharp than what a K5-IIs can do (15MP vs 16MP). If we follow DxO sharpness figure on different bodies, most of the gain is by removing the low pass filter while increasing the resolution doesn't bring that much.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-04-2016 at 11:11 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advantage, bit, camera, crank, crop, dslr, firmware updates, focus, im, iso, k-1, k-3, k-3ii, k-5, k3, k5, light, noise, photography, photos, post, sensor, sharpness, shoot, shot, shots, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: Instantly download your Pentax eBook! (K-1, K-70,K-3, K-5, K-50, K-S2 and more DSLRs) ebooks4pentax Photographic Equipment for Sale 100 2 Days Ago 11:12 PM
I Must be stupid ! Bought a K-3II instead of what I wanted.....was owed $$$ Dlanor Sekao Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 04-26-2016 12:00 PM
Why A K-S1 Instead Of The K-50 / K-30? I'm A Pentaxian Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 71 12-24-2015 03:50 AM
Upgrade Advice? K-3, K-3II, K-50, K-S2???? Blacknight659 Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 10-16-2015 09:36 PM
Specs of K-3II Daikokuya Pentax News and Rumors 780 04-26-2015 06:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top