Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2016, 11:28 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
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.
The point remains that a 24mp crop body gives more pixels on target than a 36mp FF body. That means more detail and the ability to blow it up bigger hiven that the same lens is used.

But it doesnt matter. I wasnt posting a ff vs crop for wildlife thread. I was posting about a choice a made based on value for the money and what I can afford.

05-04-2016, 11:46 AM   #47
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
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.
Hey Venom !
According to what you are saying, my technique really sucks when I go for deep wood/forest birding where the light is always dimmed and I have to crank up the ISO anywhere between 1000-3200.
With the K5, no problem.
With the K3, noise is expected (but that could be just me).
And that is with the DA*300/4.
Of course, there are times when the light is excellent and I am birding in wide open places ... ISO100-400 is sufficient.

Just my ten cents.
05-04-2016, 11:58 AM   #48
Pentaxian
traderdrew's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 570
Sometimes I wish I had a bigger sensor than the K-3 for wildlife but not often. I have to consider the DOF for wildlife and factoring that with the bigger sensor. It would be interesting to see how cropped K-1 photos compare to the K-3 for noise and dynamic range. I suspect the K-1 will have a bit of an advantage but I love the 24 megapixels and shooting under 500 ISO whenever possible. An APS-H would be the perfect solution for me but that isn't a deal breaker.

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 03:02 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Hey Venom !
According to what you are saying, my technique really sucks when I go for deep wood/forest birding where the light is always dimmed and I have to crank up the ISO anywhere between 1000-3200.
With the K5, no problem.
With the K3, noise is expected (but that could be just me).
And that is with the DA*300/4.
Of course, there are times when the light is excellent and I am birding in wide open places ... ISO100-400 is sufficient.

Just my ten cents.
I agree. I don't like to crank up the ISO above 800 with the K-3. With the K-5 II my ceiling is ISO 1250 unless I start post processing surgery. Even then. Noise always lives in the out of focus areas of photos and we are cropping photos 99% of the time.

Last edited by traderdrew; 05-04-2016 at 12:04 PM.
05-04-2016, 12:30 PM   #49
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,826
QuoteOriginally posted by traderdrew Quote
It would be interesting to see how cropped K-1 photos compare to the K-3 for noise and dynamic range.
How the K3 image compare to a K1 cropped in post image? The K3 image is better. How the K3 image compares to a K1 in crop mode image? The K3 still as a slight edge. The way I can explain it (from what I've seen) is that they've added software noise filtering on the 36Mp raw output (for some reasons... maybe to outperform other FF cameras in DXO or image resource targets) except in pixel shift mode where they bypass the software filter. So the pixel shift looks outstanding compared to non pixelshift image, but is about the same as a K3 image less the noise. So, the theory of nicolas06 may work for other brands, but currently in Pentax FF does not provide better IQ for long reach subjects except if getting closer. Would I give away my K3 for a K1 for wildlife? Not at all, I keep the K3. At closer distances, does the K1 in FF mode outperform the K3? Yes, essentially thanks to less noise and more subject separation.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 05-04-2016 at 12:38 PM.
05-04-2016, 12:55 PM   #50
Pentaxian
pete-tarmigan's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conception Bay South, New-fun-land
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 944
In another thread Adam mentioned a feature in the K-1's favour. The K-1 has lens correction profiles (distortion, peripheral illumination, lateral chromatic aberration, diffraction) for the FA* lenses (as well as FA Limited lenses, and FA 50mm and shorter fixed focal length lenses) (K-1 user manual, p. 108). So, if you use any of the FA* telephotos for wildlife the K-1 could correct for those lenses' admittedly few shortcomings. I don't know what the possibility is that Ricoh would include such profiles in firmware updates for the K-3II or K-3.
05-04-2016, 03:16 PM   #51
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,979
QuoteOriginally posted by pete-tarmigan Quote
I don't know what the possibility is that Ricoh would include such profiles in firmware updates for the K-3II or K-3.
If that is possible, it would be a great thing to do!

---------- Post added 05-04-16 at 06:24 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by traderdrew Quote
I agree. I don't like to crank up the ISO above 800 with the K-3. With the K-5 II my ceiling is ISO 1250 unless I start post processing surgery. Even then. Noise always lives in the out of focus areas of photos and we are cropping photos 99% of the time.
I suppose this is the trade off between the K3/K3II and the K5/K5II/s : you can manage to get some high ISO shots without too much "noise" (Gees ! I hate to mention this word) with the K5 versions and then again, the K3 is rendering some superb shots with proper exposure and (for me, personally) when I get the focus right. Still struggling with this.
Cropping ? Of course ... most of my posted shots have been cropped to some extent, and it's true that this "noise" shows all its splendor in OOF areas as you mentioned.
I still have both though (K5 and K3 ... even dear old K7). I considered selling one or two of them but for the price I would get, I might as well use them until they fluke out !
05-05-2016, 01:02 AM   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
The point remains that a 24mp crop body gives more pixels on target than a 36mp FF body. That means more detail and the ability to blow it up bigger hiven that the same lens is used.

But it doesnt matter. I wasnt posting a ff vs crop for wildlife thread. I was posting about a choice a made based on value for the money and what I can afford.
And my point was on long lenses (500mm and up to be precise) that have an affordable cost (< 2000$) the lens can't resolve that much detail anyway. DA*300 is not that long and doesn't offer conveniance of a zoom. You'll still get more from a 150-600, 150-500 or 50-500 than with a DA*300, even with an FF limited to 15MP ASPC crop.
05-05-2016, 01:14 AM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
How the K3 image compare to a K1 cropped in post image? The K3 image is better. How the K3 image compares to a K1 in crop mode image? The K3 still as a slight edge. The way I can explain it (from what I've seen) is that they've added software noise filtering on the 36Mp raw output (for some reasons... maybe to outperform other FF cameras in DXO or image resource targets) except in pixel shift mode where they bypass the software filter. So the pixel shift looks outstanding compared to non pixelshift image, but is about the same as a K3 image less the noise. So, the theory of nicolas06 may work for other brands, but currently in Pentax FF does not provide better IQ for long reach subjects except if getting closer. Would I give away my K3 for a K1 for wildlife? Not at all, I keep the K3. At closer distances, does the K1 in FF mode outperform the K3? Yes, essentially thanks to less noise and more subject separation.
I compared for myself D810, K1 and K3 raw image to check the difference here at 3200 isos to see the low light difference. I used the raw version with no noise removal from imaging resources, selected the same area in test image, at 1024 px size for K3 and resize the D810 and K1 crop to 1024 as they more at 1250 due to their added resolution. On RawTherapee, I used the same noise reduction settings so the K1 picture looked pleasant to my eyes... RawTherapee was used because DxO doesn't support the K1 yet.

You can see that in attachment. The first one is K3 at 3200 iso, second is K1, last one is D810. I kind of fail to see any superiority of K1 vs D810... D810 look to have bit less details and more noise while K1 look to have a bit less detail and less noise. But the K3 look inferior.

As the same framing is kept (we are not in a wildlife case where you can't adapt the shooting distance or change lenses), the K3 both take the issue to be an APSC with more noise and to have "only" 24MP instead of 36MP so it is also less sharp, even with D810/K1 crop resized to fit the resolution of K3. So not it is not better in any way.

The only case were it would make a difference is if you were stick with the same lens and the same shooting distance with no possibility to adapt, here the K3 would get more magnification. In selected case, using your longuest lens, that could make the difference at low iso if the lens is sharp enough. But that's all.

Please notice that not even fair to the K1/D810 because they have been resized a bit to match 100% crop of K3 so a part of the additionnal fine details they can provide are simply lost. If it was not to make things easier to compare, they would perform even better.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
05-05-2016, 01:22 AM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
For comparison, here you can also find, processed the same, respectively, the 800 and 1600 iso shoot of K3.

We can see that neither match really the shoot at 3200 iso from K1 or D810. The iso 800 shoot is surprizingly soft with low noise (that is to be expected) but is in no way better than the 3200 iso shot of D810 or K1. The 1600iso shot manage to be sharp but has still significantly more noise than the 3200 isos shot of D810/K1.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
05-05-2016, 01:30 AM   #55
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,826
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
And my point was on long lenses (500mm and up to be precise) that have an affordable cost (< 2000$) the lens can't resolve that much detail anyway. DA*300 is not that long and doesn't offer conveniance of a zoom. You'll still get more from a 150-600, 150-500 or 50-500 than with a DA*300, even with an FF limited to 15MP ASPC crop.
:-) theory is good, but not exactly what I experienced. It's not proven at all that FF is a better choice for long lenses. Look here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/320304-k-1-vs-k3.html.
What happens is that MTF decrease from the center to edges, larger FF sensor uses more of the edges, for if the FF lens isn't equally fast (450 f4) as the APSC lens (300 f4), difference in IQ better APSC and FF = Zero.
But...but... with the subject only looks sharper in the ff image because 450/5.6 > 300/4 (450 f5.6 on FF create more out of focus blur and 300 f4 APSC). The elements of theory must be complete to produce a realistic conclusion. Overall, FF gear is better, and is 2x price + 2x size. So it more a matter on how heavy and pricey you can afford. I mean, for hiking up in the alps to shoot Alpin wildlife, APSC can be carried in a backpack, but carrying 4kg or 5kg of equivalent FF gear is going to make you remember the camera more than the journey. However, for shooting birds or safari with a beanbag seated in a car, you won't feel the weight of the FF gear.
05-05-2016, 01:53 AM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
:-) theory is good, but not exactly what I experienced. It's not proven at all that FF is a better choice for long lenses. Look here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/320304-k-1-vs-k3.html.
What happens is that MTF decrease from the center to edges, larger FF sensor uses more of the edges, for if the FF lens isn't equally fast (450 f4) as the APSC lens (300 f4), difference in IQ better APSC and FF = Zero.
But...but... with the subject only looks sharper in the ff image because 450/5.6 > 300/4 (450 f5.6 on FF create more out of focus blur and 300 f4 APSC). The elements of theory must be complete to produce a realistic conclusion. Overall, FF gear is better, and is 2x price + 2x size. So it more a matter on how heavy and pricey you can afford. I mean, for hiking up in the alps to shoot Alpin wildlife, APSC can be carried in a backpack, but carrying 4kg or 5kg of equivalent FF gear is going to make you remember the camera more than the journey. However, for shooting birds or safari with a beanbag seated in a car, you won't feel the weight of the FF gear.
In the worst case, basically, you are limited to equivalent of K5-IIs performance instead of K3 for sharpness and the camera is 200g heavier. Not for AF, ergonomics and all the rest. All the long lenses we have are FF, except the 60-250 anyway so there no lighter lens choice.

On a prime if your lens is razor sharp and benefit a lot from K5-IIs to K3, then yes. As if DA*300 + TC 1.4 would perform much better on K3 than on K1, that remain to be seen. Would that make a real difference in the field? Would that allow you to get a nice shoot to print with a K3 and a crap shoot with the K1? I don't think so, the 15vs24MP difference is not enough.

But if your lens is not 100% rasor sharp at it longuest focal length anyway, potentially when a TC is added or if you have to crank the iso to much to use the appearture of the lens that would allow that (f/8, f/11) there going to be no difference.

I don't want a K1 because the gear I need to buy to make it really superior would be often expensive and heavier/bigger. As you know I plan to go to Tanzania with the 55-300 and I find out, this guy can take great pictures. To me DA*300 already too big and can't even zoom (and I'am a prime guy). The key difference for wildlife, the thing that will make a great picture is not the ultimate gear anyway, even if it help a lot, but your capacity to get more near to the subject. That's the real difficult part. If I may be blunt, it is the expensive trip whose cost is comparable to K1 + 150-450 that may give me the pictures, and much more: the whole experiences, memories etc. But once I am there the gear may not make that much of a difference once it is good enough, in particular if I don't have the experience to use it to its best or simply if I get a slightly worse guide or bit less luck and can't get interresting wildlife spots.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-05-2016 at 01:59 AM.
05-05-2016, 01:56 AM   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,826
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
We can see that neither match really the shoot at 3200 iso from K1 or D810. The iso 800 shoot is surprizingly soft with low noise (that is to be expected) but is in no way better than the 3200 iso shot of D810 or K1. The 1600iso shot manage to be sharp but has still significantly more noise than the 3200 isos shot of D810/K1.
It's not all in contradiction with what I wrote. The difference is I have put the K3 and the K1 side by side on the same lens and same target, and I understood the choice that Ricoh did for the K1. My impression is that the K1 sensor image processing has been designed for Pentaxians and it has not been designed for Nikonians... do you see what I mean? In fact, I don't think you understand because you infer from some images from image-resources and you did not play with the K1. Can you imagine that you can have the truth about the K1 without having to spend $1? Either the K3 raw are sharpened in camera (I don't believe) or the K1 36Mp image are noise filtered (not as sharp but less noise), and the K1 crop mode raw images are unfiltered (deliver similar sharpness/noise of a K3).

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
You can see that in attachment. The first one is K3 at 3200 iso, second is K1, last one is D810. I kind of fail to see any superiority of K1 vs D810... D810 look to have bit less details and more noise while K1 look to have a bit less detail and less noise. But the K3 look inferior.
That's not a bit surprise, the K3 sensor is smaller.

I can boil down all discussion in just a few lines:
- K1 36Mp RAW is pre-processed for image rendering rather than pixel sharpness, less pixel sharpness and less noise, a better compromise for using FA lenses, not as good when using tack sharp lenses, but pixel shift disable the noise reduction (do you understand I mean here?). Per pixel sharpness of the K1 @100% crop is less than the K3, that means at 100 ISO, the K3 don't win, but K3 is almost as good as K1.
- At higher ISO, K3 noise eat sharpness, K1 wins
- K1 15Mp RAW isn't noise filtered, K1 and K3 are the same in this case, but the K3 win on FPS.

---------- Post added 05-05-16 at 10:58 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
In the worst case, basically, you are limited to equivalent of K5-IIs performance instead of K3 for sharpness and the camera is 200g heavier.
Yes. K1 crop mode = K5IIs. And K1 36Mp cropped in post to 15Mp isn't as good... because the details are gone by the Pentax raw firmware de-noising.

---------- Post added 05-05-16 at 10:59 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
As if DA*300 + TC 1.4 would perform much better on K3 than on K1, that remain to be seen.
He he... yes I've seen it. Both camera are here side by side on the same target. See here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/320304-k-1-vs-k3.html

---------- Post added 05-05-16 at 11:06 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Would that make a real difference in the field? Would that allow you to get a nice shoot to print with a K3 and a crap shoot with the K1? I don't think so, the 15vs24MP difference is not enough.
Well if sharpness is the only attribute of an image, then the difference between a K3 and K1 will be pretty small. Although the images from the K1 look better...strange, so there must be something extra to pixel sharpness regarding how an image looks like.

---------- Post added 05-05-16 at 11:08 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If I may be blunt, it is the expensive trip whose cost is comparable to K1 + 150-450 that may give me the pictures, and much more: the whole experiences, memories etc. But once I am there the gear may not make that much of a difference once it is good enough, in particular if I don't have the experience to use it to its best or simply if I get a slightly worse guide or bit less luck and can't get interresting wildlife spots.
Yes, fully valid point, independent from images.
05-05-2016, 02:10 AM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Yes. K1 crop mode = K5IIs. And K1 36Mp cropped in post to 15Mp isn't as good... because the details are gone by the Pentax raw firmware de-noising.
K3 doesn't do it, and I think K1 doesn't do it in RAW. We have proof K5, K5-II, K5-IIs, K50 and K30 all do heavy softtening of pictures starting iso 1600.

That being said, the D810 and K1 picture look more similar than different. Remember also that I provided picture from RAW and enabled Raw therapee noise reduction. Without noise reduction, in raw therapee all camera, D810, K1, K3 have significant noise (not at same level) with both luminance and chromatic noise visible. The raw managed by raw therapee (with no noise reduction) are much much less processed than what I get from Lightroom or DxO... event at iso 100 can I see some chromatic noise with rawtherapee but I can see details in the picture that the other raw processing software can't resolve.

And no, the K1 raws don't look that cooked or different of D800. Again if we look at the difference, the things are more similar than different. I'll check at 12800 isos when I have time. But for now to me D810 = K1, or near enough.
05-05-2016, 02:22 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Well if sharpness is the only attribute of an image, then the difference between a K3 and K1 will be pretty small. Although the images from the K1 look better...strange, so there must be something extra to pixel sharpness regarding how an image looks like.
Yes and no... For the theoretical part here, we basically looked at 100% K3 crops and K1 and D810 resized to fit the same. That crazy magnification level. Except when you are desesperate for you small bird shot, you typically try to frame the shoot correctly to begin with. And again outside a few pratices, you also try to shoot in great light anyway. That bird in the shadow will not look great even at iso 100 and not cropped, because the light is not great to begin with. The great bird pictures that everybody will admire will have interresting light to begin with. A nice posing and so on. As my father say, anyway good birders take pictures of bird while they are flying, doing something interresting, not still in a tree.

If we admit we want to take great shots, we avoid heavy crop, we avoid extremely high iso etc. Now a 8MP shot print to A4(8x12") with 300dpi. This also match 4K, the resolution you from 60" TV screens and nobody complain the 4K TV are not sharp enough. Cinema also use 4K and can go to 15, 20 meters wide. I didn't heard many complaining about the lack of sharpness at cinema. A 16MP shot provide A3 (12x16") at 300dpi, so you'd a magnifying glass to see any issue. You can also go A1 (32x24") and still get 150dpi, more than most screens.

K1, K3 are all good enough. We may get some comfort like now a 3200 iso picture can look great, before it was 1200 iso or something. But that doesn't change photography as a whole, it doesn't mean that a better photographer with average APSC gear will not routinely take better picture than a lesser photographer wiht D5 or 645Z and 10-20K$ worth of lenses. If anything the second one is more likely to develop back problems.
05-05-2016, 02:52 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
Nice arguments. I would just say that I agree with Venom, that unless you are planning to drop several thousand dollars on lenses, if your main goal is wildlife shooting than you probably are better off going with APS-C. Who even cares if you can crop a K-1 to a K5 image? You are still paying for a full frame sensor and paying the full frame debt (lower frame rate, bigger files) and if you are throwing away all but the APS-C portion of that image then you are better off getting an APS-C camera.

If you are shooting portraiture or other things, with shorter lenses, then the equation shifts to full frame advantage, but here it feels like the full frame "advantage" is minimal without spending a lot of money on glass.
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 5 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 12:41 PM. | 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