Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-05-2016, 04:35 AM   #61
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,191
Pushing all this pixel stuff and optics aside, my dilemma lies more around the other aspects of the camera.

I have a K5, and a K5-IIs so high ISO noise issues are pretty much covered. I love the ability to heavily crop my K3 images and still get good results. The issues for me lies more is other areas. Great viewfinder because I have a lot of good manual focus glass. My old eyes aren't what they used to be. Even with my autofocus lenses I still use manual focus a lot. Faster autofocus and improved focus confirmation. Pixel shift, articulating screen and tethering etc.
.
These are the features that make the K1 attractive to me. And that is why I wonder if I should jump on the K1 bandwagon. The problem is that the K1 is singing it's Siren's song and I may need to be tied to the mast so I can resist it. Ergo (Or is it Argo?) my dilemma.

05-05-2016, 04:51 AM - 1 Like   #62
Site Supporter
dakight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,178
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Pushing all this pixel stuff and optics aside, my dilemma lies more around the other aspects of the camera.

I have a K5, and a K5-IIs so high ISO noise issues are pretty much covered. I love the ability to heavily crop my K3 images and still get good results. The issues for me lies more is other areas. Great viewfinder because I have a lot of good manual focus glass. My old eyes aren't what they used to be. Even with my autofocus lenses I still use manual focus a lot. Faster autofocus and improved focus confirmation. Pixel shift, articulating screen and tethering etc.
.
These are the features that make the K1 attractive to me. And that is why I wonder if I should jump on the K1 bandwagon. The problem is that the K1 is singing it's Siren's song and I may need to be tied to the mast so I can resist it. Ergo (Or is it Argo?) my dilemma.

Yep, exactly what I was contemplating. My K-1 will be here tomorrow.
05-05-2016, 04:54 AM   #63
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,191
QuoteOriginally posted by dakight Quote
yep, exactly what i was contemplating. My k-1 will be here tomorrow.

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!
05-05-2016, 05:57 AM - 2 Likes   #64
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!
I've had the k-1 for a week now, and it's rubbish. It forces me to leave the house at night, dodging all the local druggies, so I can take ISO 10000 shots of stuff in near darkness. It also forces me out of bed early in the mornings, so I can spend a whole day shooting in the sunshine. I yearn for simpler times when flumping in front of the TV was a nice way to spend an evening. I can't stand the way the FA limiteds look - it just forces me to take even more photos.

Don't get a K-1, you'll hate it.

I think I'm going to trade mine in for a Pentax *ist D, so I can go back to being disappointed by Pentax cameras.....

05-05-2016, 06:13 AM   #65
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,258
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
I've had the k-1 for a week now, and it's rubbish. It forces me to leave the house at night, dodging all the local druggies, so I can take ISO 10000 shots of stuff in near darkness. It also forces me out of bed early in the mornings, so I can spend a whole day shooting in the sunshine. I yearn for simpler times when flumping in front of the TV was a nice way to spend an evening. I can't stand the way the FA limiteds look - it just forces me to take even more photos.

Don't get a K-1, you'll hate it.

I think I'm going to trade mine in for a Pentax *ist D, so I can go back to being disappointed by Pentax cameras.....
I really feel bad for you ...
In that case, I would offer my Fuji XE-2 as a trade for your K-1.
You gotta get some sleep !
05-05-2016, 07:28 AM   #66
Pentaxian
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,066
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
Don't get a K-1, you'll hate it.
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
I really feel bad for you ... In that case, I would offer my Fuji XE-2 as a trade for your K-1.
Rob,

Don't accept another hardship camera. What you need is my old Canon A80 P&S - a real liberating device. Pull-out flippy screen, too. Well, okay, the LCD is a bit wonky and I think part of the sensor is shot - but other than that, it's a great little go-anywhere 4 MP camera.


Seriously, I've enjoyed your reports on your K-1. Happy shooting (at midnight...)


- Craig

Last edited by c.a.m; 05-05-2016 at 02:38 PM.
05-05-2016, 07:43 AM   #67
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
Original Poster
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.
Im betting the DA* 300 on a 24mp crop sensor with the HD 1.4 tc shows more detail than 600mm on FF. Its about 30mm equivelant more reach (yes i know magnification isnt changed by the crop factor), and with 50% more megapixels.

So... you are likely still wrong. There is a reason the 7Dii and D500 exist...

I dont want a zoom anyways...
05-05-2016, 09:39 AM   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
Im betting the DA* 300 on a 24mp crop sensor with the HD 1.4 tc shows more detail than 600mm on FF. Its about 30mm equivelant more reach (yes i know magnification isnt changed by the crop factor), and with 50% more megapixels.

So... you are likely still wrong. There is a reason the 7Dii and D500 exist...

I dont want a zoom anyways...
There no evidence this is the case for the DA*300, DxO test show the DA*300 get 7MP worth on detail on a K5-II, 9MP worth of detail on a K5-IIs and also 9MP worth of detail on a K3. Basically removing the low pass filter helped the lens quite a bit, but going from 16 to 24MP didn't change much.

You already explained us going from K5 to K3 showed more improvement than adding a TC while DxO show most of the difference came from the low pass filter removal, not the added resolution. The DA*300 will perform the same on K1 and on K3 on their shared part, basically. The lens sharpness start to show its limit.

Want to put a TC? Well you can do that on both the FF and the APSC.

On the contrary, if I take a DA35ltd, I get 9MP on a K5-II, 12MP on a K5-IIS and 13MP on a K3... Again see how the gain is mostly from the low pass filter removal. And also see how much better a shorter focal length prime, at an easy focal length perform significantly better.

So the 150-600? The tamron one on a 760D, get 7MP. Because that's a zoom let's open up the graph and see at 600mm... I get arround 3-4MP reading. That doesn't sound much isn't it? How people can even buy such things?

First point to understand is that even more than the DA*300, the slightly different pixel density between K1 and K3 will not be a factor... The sensor here completely outresolve the lens so might point that if you use such zoom lens there would not be difference between K1 and K3 for APSC crop look perfectly valid.

Secod point is to check how 3-4MP at 600mm compare to 9MP a 300mm ? Well there a factor of 4 to apply (2^2). So cropped to 600mm, the DA*300 would give 2.25MP only if you do that on a K3 or another 24MP APSC. This is still significantly less details than 3-4MP.

So no, not all primes can be considered as a 2X zoom "for free". My personnal experience on this, is well a DA35 might do it. a DA50-135 might also do it... At iso 100, f/5.6 but the DA*300? Well it may perform well enough with a TC or cropped to 420mm. Already people comparing the DA*300 with or without TC with the 150-450 do not all agree on relative performance as if the prime + TC or the zoom is better. And of course some tried the zoom with the TC. It works, of course.

But 600mm? I think that's streching the things too far. The DA*300 is great compromize, light lens... But this is not the ultimate silver bullet that will solve all wildlife shooter issues. They would not all want Tamron/Sigma to get one of their 150-600 on K-mount otherwise they would not have asked to get more long lenses from Pentax neither.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-05-2016 at 09:49 AM.
05-05-2016, 10:01 AM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
There no evidence this is the case for the DA*300, DxO test show the DA*300 get 7MP worth on detail on a K5-II, 9MP worth of detail on a K5-IIs and also 9MP worth of detail on a K3. Basically removing the low pass filter helped the lens quite a bit, but going from 16 to 24MP didn't change much.

You already explained us going from K5 to K3 showed more improvement than adding a TC while DxO show most of the difference came from the low pass filter removal, not the added resolution. The DA*300 will perform the same on K1 and on K3 on their shared part, basically. The lens sharpness start to show its limit.

Want to put a TC? Well you can do that on both the FF and the APSC.

On the contrary, if I take a DA35ltd, I get 9MP on a K5-II, 12MP on a K5-IIS and 13MP on a K3... Again see how the gain is mostly from the low pass filter removal. And also see how much better a shorter focal length prime, at an easy focal length perform significantly better.

So the 150-600? The tamron one on a 760D, get 7MP. Because that's a zoom let's open up the graph and see at 600mm... I get arround 3-4MP reading. That doesn't sound much isn't it? How people can even buy such things?

First point to understand is that even more than the DA*300, the slightly different pixel density between K1 and K3 will not be a factor... The sensor here completely outresolve the lens so might point that if you use such zoom lens there would not be difference between K1 and K3 for APSC crop look perfectly valid.

Secod point is to check how 3-4MP at 600mm compare to 9MP a 300mm ? Well there a factor of 4 to apply (2^2). So cropped to 600mm, the DA*300 would give 2.25MP only if you do that on a K3 or another 24MP APSC. This is still significantly less details than 3-4MP.

So no, not all primes can be considered as a 2X zoom "for free". My personnal experience on this, is well a DA35 might do it. a DA50-135 might also do it... At iso 100, f/5.6 but the DA*300? Well it may perform well enough with a TC or cropped to 420mm. Already people comparing the DA*300 with or without TC with the 150-450 do not all agree on relative performance as if the prime + TC or the zoom is better. And of course some tried the zoom with the TC. It works, of course.

But 600mm? I think that's streching the things too far. The DA*300 is great compromize, light lens... But this is not the ultimate silver bullet that will solve all wildlife shooter issues. They would not all want Tamron/Sigma to get one of their 150-600 on K-mount otherwise they would not have asked to get more long lenses from Pentax neither.
You are missing my point completely. As long as you cannot fill the frame with your subject, lenses being equal, the APSC will win. That is what more megapixels do for you.

The minute you are able to fill the frame, the full frame has a substantial advantage. But for many of us, we cannot afford lenses that fill the frame on full frame sensors and we don't want to settle for a 150-600 3rd party zoom.

Spend some time on photography on the net and read about their comparisons. They have been debating this for years.

But I'm done with this thread. Im not here to explain the advantages of drop sensors when you have a limited budget for long lenses. Im simply stating what I bought and why, Why people can't accept that, be happy for me and shut the heck up is beyond me.
05-05-2016, 11:17 AM   #70
Pentaxian
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 864
For all these reasons...

QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
I have been contemplating this myself. The K-3II has a lot of great features that are the same as the K-1 at half the price. K-3II is also smaller. But I have waited so long to upgrade from my K-5 makes the K-1 so tempting. Still you can not beat the price on the K-3II.
QuoteOriginally posted by Turbofrog Quote
For wildlife shooting in particular, I think you clearly made the right choice.

The K-1 looks to be a spectacular camera, but besides its pricing, I think its real forte will be producing the highest-quality landscape, architecture, and studio photos this side of a 100MP Hasselblad with its 36MP pixel-shift mode. Considering the pixel-shift modes on the K-3 II and Olympus E-M5 II produce better image quality than a 36MP FF D810 (assuming no subject movement, of course!), I am really looking forward to seeing how amazing the samples from the K-1 are going to look.
QuoteOriginally posted by microlight Quote
I went from K-5 to K-3II and the difference is palpable. Physically they are very similar and the build quality is the same - excellent. The resolution is better (lack of AA filter and more megapixellage), the autofocus is much improved, the shutter is even quieter, the mirror is tightly-controlled so no slap or thump. Don't forget the pixel-shift too; on a tripod for landscapes it makes the resolution even better. For back-button focusing, the button is better placed than on the K-5. You'll be very pleased.
QuoteOriginally posted by C_Jones Quote
I had the K-5, actually two of them and now have the K-5IIS and K-3II. The K-5IIS is a fantastic camera, and in itself is definitely an image resolution and AF advancement compared to the K-5. Though the K-5IIS is a camera that delivers superior results, the K-3II has a resolution/detail factor that contributes even more to the image quality, and the AF seems to perform in long distance and moving subject shooting (example: bird in flight) in a more advanced manner. There are also features such as the dual SD card slots, built in GPS, and Pixel Shift Resolution, along with others, that contribute to the K-3II. I have been really pleased with it.
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
K5 was great on paper, K3 deliverd what K5 promised and more. Autofocus especially in low light was completely erratic with K5. K3 has better high ISO and overall precision and feeling.
In case K3II can be had for even less money soon, I may get one as well. K1 is on my priority list - as high iso performance will be better, pixel pitch is wider, but I need to get a couple more lenses for it to be happy - Pentax still needs to release most of them.
Even the K1 will drop in price in two years... don't worry. K5 to K3 is worth the step.

I've sold my big glass and am going all in on APSC.

Come on, PayPal!

Cheers,
Cameron
05-05-2016, 03:26 PM   #71
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iloilo City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,106
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
I've sold my big glass and am going all in on APSC.

Come on, PayPal!

Cheers,
Cameron
Now that there are more of us, I hope Pentax will come out with more improved APSC lenses and cameras.
05-06-2016, 12:28 PM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
You are missing my point completely. As long as you cannot fill the frame with your subject, lenses being equal, the APSC will win. That is what more megapixels do for you.

The minute you are able to fill the frame, the full frame has a substantial advantage. But for many of us, we cannot afford lenses that fill the frame on full frame sensors and we don't want to settle for a 150-600 3rd party zoom.

Spend some time on photography on the net and read about their comparisons. They have been debating this for years.

But I'm done with this thread. Im not here to explain the advantages of drop sensors when you have a limited budget for long lenses. Im simply stating what I bought and why, Why people can't accept that, be happy for me and shut the heck up is beyond me.
Well we are happy for you and myself I am not interrested in FF, too big first more than too expensive. The quality difference may not b be worth it.

At one point I said:

"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."

Apparently that was quite innaceptable. I don't know why ? That wasn't an attack... Starting there I got even from you that I didn't know my math (in fact you didn't) you explained how of courses the DA*300 is better than everything else, including a 150-600 at 600mm for reach and when I show you it might not be from some reviewer point of view you said I didn't got the point, that as long as there were more MP and a crop to do, APSC was better, even if the lens can't resolve it or if the iso setting wash out the details.

Ok.

Hope you enjoy your gear. That was not an attack for your choice. I settled for a 55-300 myself and APSC. I know very well prices and weight and that not because I say a BMW may be better than a ford in some case that I attack all ford drivers.

Have a nice day,

Nicolas.
05-06-2016, 12:55 PM   #73
Site Supporter
dakight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,178
Well, the OP had to know that his post would provoke debate and that's all I see here, healthy debate. No one was flamed or attacked and more than one person congratulated him on his choice, including myself even though my choice was different from his. I would have said the same had he chosen a brand other than Pentax. If he is happy with his choice then it's the right choice but when you lay out that choice for public scrutiny and enumerate the reasons for making it then you'd better expect and be prepared for the comments of those who have evaluated the same factors and have taken a different direction. It won't be all back slaps and atta boys and frankly, I wouldn't want it to be.


Enjoy your new camera and I say this with all sincerity, I'm happy for you.
05-06-2016, 02:32 PM   #74
Veteran Member




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."

Apparently that was quite innaceptable. I don't know why ? That wasn't an attack... Starting there I got even from you that I didn't know my math (in fact you didn't) you explained how of courses the DA*300 is better than everything else, including a 150-600 at 600mm for reach and when I show you it might not be from some reviewer point of view you said I didn't got the point, that as long as there were more MP and a crop to do, APSC was better, even if the lens can't resolve it or if the iso setting wash out the details.

None of your math shows any edge in favor of the full frame. At best it shows a tie. and like I said in my first post- the full frame doesn't offer an advantage that is with paying 1000+ dollars extra for- especially not a tie.

Im not saying the DA* 300 is the best lens. There are plenty of other lenses I would rather have but can't afford. But it is pretty well documented that the sigma 150-500 and 50-500 perform worse than the DA* 300 cropped to match. There is little reason to expect substantially better performance from the 600mm versions. The pentax 150-450 is a different animal from the sigma/tamron versions and is priced accordingly.

Im not saying the DA*300 is a silver bullet to all wildlife needs. There are plenty of other lenses I had rather have. But you are trying to tell me that a 800 dollar consumer zoom will best an 800 professional prime on the same 16mp sensor, even if you give the prime a teleconverter. Sorry but I call bullcrap. The reason most pick these zooms is convenience, not absolute IQ. Also look on DXO at those resolution numbers for the zooms- they are all noted to be best at 150mm at F5 where they achieve 5mp on a 24mp crop sensor. Thats a pretty far cry from 300mm let alone 600mm.

Even if it still resolves 5mp at 300mm, the 300 prime resolves 9... a substantial advantage. With the prime at 420mm, you get roughly 4mp of resolution which again matches or bests the zoom. The only time you *Maybe* see an advantage with the zoom is at 600mm and f8 the zoom matches the prime at 420 and 5.6.... and its not really known then because its not know how much resolution the prime has with the TC (likely more than just a cropped image)

and all of those measurements only take into account one part of sharpness: resolution. The other half is contrast, and there is little doubt a professional prime beats a consumer zoom with a ton more lens elements in this regard.

regardless I think you are splitting hairs. Both will deliver professional results in the right hands.
05-08-2016, 01:54 AM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
Im not saying the DA*300 is a silver bullet to all wildlife needs. There are plenty of other lenses I had rather have. But you are trying to tell me that a 800 dollar consumer zoom will best an 800 professional prime on the same 16mp sensor, even if you give the prime a teleconverter. Sorry but I call bullcrap.
They are not the same focal length, do you get that or do you plan next time to use a FA31 because it is more expensive and more well seen? If there many lenses with different focal length, that for a reason. You forget things like the DA*300 cropped to 600mm is basically an f/8 equivalent lens, that the sensor is limited to 6MP and something like 2MP worth of real detail...

QuoteOriginally posted by Venom3300 Quote
Even if it still resolves 5mp at 300mm, the 300 prime resolves 9... a substantial advantage. With the prime at 420mm, you get roughly 4mp of resolution which again matches or bests the zoom. The only time you *Maybe* see an advantage with the zoom is at 600mm and f8 the zoom matches the prime at 420 and 5.6.... and its not really known then because its not know how much resolution the prime has with the TC (likely more than just a cropped image)
The problem is again not same focal lens and the way you use the lens. There no point for the FF shooter than would want to shoot APSC 300mm framing to use its 150-600 zoom lens at 300mm and crop to APSC size. That would be completely stupid. The guy will simply use 450mm focal length and keep the full FF image.

The DA300mm is 9MP at 300mm... At 450mm, equivalent to 300mm on APSC the 150-600 on FF is more than 12MP. At 420mm the 300mm is 4MP you say. That match rougly 600mm (630) on FF and the graph the 150-600 is around 10MP at that setting. The 150-600 on FF clearly resolve signifcantly more details at 600mm than the DA*300 on APSC.

If you use the same lenses, then if the lens is good enough, you can get more magnification on the 24MP APSC body than on 36MP FF using the same lens, and on a 56MP FF body that would not change anything, same magnification. So a Canon 50D S would resolve the same because the resolution is good enough to not matter one bit.

So yes, the 150-600 on APSC and FF, there no particular hope that at 600mm you can get more reach on FF than APSC, against a 24MP APSC. Because the lens is outresolved by the sensor (3-4MP worth on detail on APSC crop) this doesn't change anything through.

But for anything that don't need to crop, so anything between 150mm to 600mm FF equivalent the FF will have the edge... Well a bit more than 600mm actually because the FF has 36MP, 50% more pixels. So you can crop up to 600*(36/24)^(0.5) = 734mm and still get exactly the same magnification. Bellow that FF better, above that if the lens good enough (and theses 150-600 consummers zooms are not) the APSC is better.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-08-2016 at 02:13 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 105 09-28-2017 06:53 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 08:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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