[BrianR]

Thanks for taking the time to do the practical test in real conditions, with real subjects. It will be interesting to see how your usage of the k-1 evolves as you spend more time with it.

I'd also wonder about how much of the difference is due to the lenses, but not quite enough that my DA*300 is headed for the mailbox. How would you rate the Autofocus of the k-1 compared to the k-3 when they're using the same lens (taking turns of course)?

[UncleVanya]

That's a key point to understand that a 1 stop difference in DOF at the working distances discussed here really would make or break the success of the photo. That 1 stop difference has more of an effect on the subject isolation from the back ground and unless you have 2 photos taken with that 1 stop difference and viewed side by side you wont see that much of a difference in DOF. Where you do see that 1 stop difference is in motion and cutting that movement in half



1 stop difference

This I agree with and assumed that the need for the same depth of field would be paramount to keeping the two shots similar. The ISO differences should not cause the issue given the sensor delta. Is it just the lens differences perhaps? I hate to bring t stops into the discussion but that is a real potential source of differences.

[noelpolar]

I hate to bring t stops into the discussion but that is a real potential source of differences.

I reckon we don't talk about transmittance enough across different lenses..... especially when we start to think one stop of something is relevant. It would be interesting for Norm to try both lenses on the one camera under the same lighting to see what it tells us as far as a baseline goes. From experience the DFA150-450 costs a stop or so at 300mm over my F*300/4.5

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

This I agree with and assumed that the need for the same depth of field would be paramount to keeping the two shots similar. The ISO differences should not cause the issue given the sensor delta. Is it just the lens differences perhaps? I hate to bring t stops into the discussion but that is a real potential source of differences.

The reason why we see such a difference between the K1 and K3 with noise is that the K1 shot is taken at iso 800 F/8 1/1250sec
while the K3 is taken at iso 400 F/5.6 1/640sec
While the images have been normalized for sensor area comparing iso 800 F/8 to iso 400 F5.6 the K1 sensor has captured less total light by limiting the exposure time by half( half the total light). You can see that the K3 captured more light by the blown highlights where as they are better preserved in the K1. This would be no different than placing a 1 stop ND filter in front of the K1 and wandering why it was more noisy

[UncleVanya]

The reason why we see such a difference between the K1 and K3 with noise is that the K1 shot is taken at iso 800 F/8 1/1250sec
while the K3 is taken at iso 400 F/5.6 1/640sec
While the images have been normalized for sensor area comparing iso 800 F/8 to iso 400 F5.6 the K1 sensor has captured less total light by limiting the exposure time by half( half the total light). You can see that the K3 captured more light by the blown highlights where as they are better preserved in the K1

Wait a sec, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either total light matters or it doesn't. With 2.2 times sensor area the k1 got more total light. Also the ff noise performance is supposed to result in the same results or better with higher iso. That is one of the claimed benefits. If I can't get the same iq at a stop less light where did the low light advantage go?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Wait a sec, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either total light matters or it doesn't. With 2.2 times sensor area the k1 got more total light. Also the ff noise performance is supposed to result in the same results or better with higher iso. That is one of the claimed benefits. If I can't get the same iq at a stop less light where did the low light advantage go?

Total light does matter but he has normalized the DOF and while doing so he also reduced the exposure time and this put less total light onto the sensor
This would be no different than shooting the K3 iso400 F5.6 1/640 and then shooting the sameK3 but at 1/1250 and wondering why the second shot has more noise.
He had normalized the DOF and iso for the sensor size differences had he held the same exposure time ( shutter speed) then both images would contain the same total light. But when he cuts the exposure time he cut the total light the sensor was exposed to and wonders why the K1 has more noise.

---------- Post added 10-22-2016 at 10:56 PM ----------

It is also worth noting the K1 produces the less sensor noise at iso 800 than iso 100

[Nicolas06]

Wait a sec, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either total light matters or it doesn't. With 2.2 times sensor area the k1 got more total light. Also the ff noise performance is supposed to result in the same results or better with higher iso. That is one of the claimed benefits. If I can't get the same iq at a stop less light where did the low light advantage go?

Personally I can't see any noise on the full image of normhead. It is only on 100% crop that i see the noise difference.

But then we don't speak of APSC vs FF anymore. We speak of 2 100% crop.

The APSC body being 24MP the actual sensor surface used for the crop is: 4x3mm2 = 12mm2.
The FF body being 36MP the actual sensor surface used for the crop is: 5x3.75mm2 = 18.74mm2

We no longer have 2.3 more surface area, but only 1.5X surface area when speaking of crops. that 0.5 stop.

The other important thing is that effective exposure between the FF and APSC isn't the same. Be it that the 300 f/2.8 T stop is not that good or that the lighting condition changed a bit between the 2 shots, this still affect the result. I'd not be surprised, there 0.5 stop involved again. The K1 picture look darker, duller, even without any crop. This isn't a noise or iso problem per se: the picture got less exposure, whatever the reason.

Each of the K1 pixel received 1 stop less of light than the K3. Then this is no surprise there more noise visible on the 100% crop. But you don't look at 100% crop most of the time, you look at the full picture. This is less true for birding if you don't have enough reach but that's a rather specialized practice.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-23-2016 at 01:16 AM.

[Nicolas06]

That's a key point to understand that a 1 stop difference in DOF at the working distances discussed here really would make or break the success of the photo. That 1 stop difference has more of an effect on the subject isolation from the back ground and unless you have 2 photos taken with that 1 stop difference and viewed side by side you wont see that much of a difference in DOF. Where you do see that 1 stop difference is in motion and cutting that movement in half



1 stop difference

On you example, you can choose quite many appertures and still get the can enough in focus and what you'll get mostly is different levels of background blur. If you goal is subject isolation, having a wider apperture is not detrimental to the result, all the contrary as long as the subject is still enough in focus.

[Kerrowdown]

It is also worth noting the K1 produces the less sensor noise at iso 800 than iso 100

Really... that's the first time I've seen that statement.

So in simplistic terms, as the old Kerrowdown is a simple old photographer... on the K1 I should shooting general everyday stuff at a baseline 800 ISO and benefit an extra 4 stops of speed for no image quality loss?

[noelpolar]

Really... that's the first time I've seen that statement.

So in simplistic terms, as the old Kerrowdown is a simple old photographer... on the K1 I should shooting general everyday stuff at a baseline 800 ISO and benefit an extra 4 stops of speed for no image quality loss?

Whoa.... I can't see that as a good idea.... 2 stops less DR for starters.... can't believe that statement on noise regarding the K-1 anyhow... just seems plain silly.....maybe meant to say K-1 at iso 800 produces less noise than K3 at ISO 100.

[beholder3]

One taken with the K-3 and DA*200 ƒ2.8
One taken with the K-1 and Tamron SP AF 300 f2.8
The K-3 produced more subject magnification and a cleaner image and more vibrant colour. Not what I expected.

When you really want to differentiate such minimal differences, you have to also take into account the differing sensor resolutions, where a FF has an edge.

And your advantage of "subject magnification" obviously only depends on the lens used. Here it is just the "focus breathing" of the Tamron, which reduces the effective focal length down to 273 mm at MFD.
If you primarily shoot small birds near MFD the exact choice of lenses and their magnification probably will play at least as much a role as the sensor stuff behind it, as a lot of focus breathing in reality will force you to crop/Magnify in post to get the same result. And that will decrease resolution and DoF and increase noise.

There never is a general and simple answer to all these questions. Change lens, or sensor or subject size or subject distance and the answer will differ.

[UncleVanya]

I remain unconvinced. I stated I think that the lens differences may be the culprit and I stand by it. I have seen too many test shots blown up to 100% showing better noise performance from the k-1 at each ISO. And testing has shown more than a one stop improvement over the k-3.

T stops and glass is my bet. All in all a fascinating test and thread.

[Giklab]

T stops and glass is my bet. All in all a fascinating test and thread.

Probably, yes. But the 1-stop exposure difference doesn't help.

[jddwoods]

Is the main problem reach, weight or noise? I find that many people just buy a 150-500, 50-500 or 150-600, no TC and get lot of possibilities with a single lens, even sticking to APSC like a K5 or K3. You already have a decent body, so you can start with the lens, and wait for the FF options to become cheaper...

After all the DA*200 would be f/5.6 at 400mm and f/8 at 600mm and the tamron 300mm is quite expensive already. And if the subject is near enough for proper framing at 200mm or even 280mm (DA*200 + single TC) the 55-300 or the xx-500 variant would do a great job too. The comparison posted here. 200mm framing without need of cropping on APSC at f/5.6 is something anyone can do. You can do it with the 50-200 kit lens and a K10D. You could do it with the 18-135 and reframing. This isn't really any challenging condition. You can already do that with your gear just fine.

The key to the best results anyway is more being at the right place, with proper technique to be near enough than spending the most on gear. I have been to a safari recently with only HD55-300 and K3 and the results were great. Sure normhead 300mm f/2.8 would do much better in difficult conditions, in particular for the smallest birds if you focus mainly on that, but you don't need that all the time. If you take care to go to the right place, that change everything.

All taken with K3 and HD DA55-300:










And don't say to me that birds are not possible! To me, with a lens going up to 500mm or something, even more "consumer grade" you'll get very nice results, and many more possibilities than the guy had on film day even with the best like a 600 f/4.

You have some absolutely beautiful pictures of wildlife here. Actually my pictures of wildlife in Yellowstone National Park with my K-3 and HD DA 55-300 are great too. The point here is that this thread is about pictures of mostly songbirds other small wildlife which are a lot smaller and harder to get a quick catch than the larger animals. The smaller and faster the target, the harder it is to get a good picture.
It is much easier to get beautiful sharp pictures of wild Bison, Pronghorn Antelope and Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone National Park than it is to get American Goldfinches and Eastern Bluebirds in my backyard.

[normhead]

This would be no different than shooting the K3 iso400 F5.6 1/640 and then shooting the sameK3 but at 1/1250 and wondering why the second shot has more noise.

Yet that is what you have to do to match DoF, and that has been exactly my point for years. When people do the total light thing, they shoot both cameras at the same settings, but they allow the DoF to become narrower. Then claim that the FF has better noise and low light performance. Well it does, but not for the same picture. If you need a constant DoF. The whole "total" light " movement, has been built on ignoring the changes in DoF when you shoot equivalent lenses from the same position. A larger sensor needs more light to produce the same DOF than a smaller one, just based on the equivalent lens being longer, and having narrower DoF for a given image. When you want narrower DoF for artistic reasons that's a good thing. When you want wider DoF to keep your whole subject in focus that's a bad thing.


It's really sad that people think the only difference in DOF in lenses is how blurry the background is. These folks must shoot images of cardboard cutouts against 3d backdrops or something.

The biggest difference in DoF are in to relation to keeping your subject in focus. If you are wondering where this viewpoint comes from, this is a perspective based on concepts taught in almost every commercial studio course, where the problem is often "how do I get the whole subject in focus, and without reflections from my lights".

Meet DoF sparrow...


Because of the lines on the ground showing exactly where my DoF is you can see the DoF. The main point of interest in these types os images is keeping the head and eye sharp.Going backwards, you can see exactly where my subject in acceptable focus area ends and the birds tail gets a little blurry.But really it doesn't matter for this image. Still if I could stop down enough I could get the whole bird in focus. But then I would be running into serious motion blur problems unless the bird stayed completely still.

Now, check this one out... this bird is aligned with my in this case invisible focal plane and the whole bird is in focus.


SO the advantage to more DOF or stopping down more to a technical photographer is not background blur. It is trying to get as what you want in focus in focus. Background blur is, in this way of looking at things, an unintended side effect.

Hopefully most of you can understand from this why DoF is important. Despite the denials from the impressionists, for a technical photographer, DoF is way more than background blur. Trying to keep the whole subject in acceptable focus is more important. If we get some background blur, we can live with it. The whole argument of the internet type photographer is "how do I demarcate my subject from my background with smooth creamy bokeh." That's backwards to a technical photographer. To a technical photographer question #1 is "How do I get my whole subject in focus?" Then if the background looks distracting we'll figure that out. Coming at the back ground instead of the subject is backwards.

So, I hope this illustrates why DoF cannot be ignored. As rule, the guys who think background blur is the goal of every photograph have gotten caught up in the knowledge of the internet. Not actual knowledge of photography. How else can you explain comments like the above, which is just wrong on so many levels.

This would be no different than shooting the K3 iso400 F5.6 1/640 and then shooting the sameK3 but at 1/1250 and wondering why the second shot has more noise.

Ian, and many like him in this kind of discussion don't even seem to comprehend the value of DoF in photography. Something I find odd, because from my first day at Ryerson Politech in Photo Arts, paying attention to the effects on DOF of changing you settings was drilled into us, daily.

Simply stated, anything that changes your DOF changes your picture. When I say APS-c gies you more DoF for the same distance they just say "Just stop down the FF". The changes your picture. Why don't they know that? T

If Ian had any technical training at all, I suspect he would realize that shooting a K-3 with a 200mm lens and a K-1 with a 300mm lens, from the same distance, you have to stop the 300mm lens down a stop to achieve the same DoF. That makes it the same picture. Shooting with different DoFs produces a different picture. Does shooting a K-1 at the same ƒ-stop as the K-1 affect my DoF sparrow image. Hell yes it does. The birds tail is already out of focus. Shooting the 300 on the K-1 even more of the bird will be out of focus.

The scary thing is, reading through the thread, there are folks claiming that that doesn't matter. That only the back ground blur is important. (ponder that for a a bit, eventually it will make you laugh.) I fail to see how any comparison, that does not include what you have do to get roughly the same image from the two different cameras, has any validity at all. Which is why I toss 90% of the knowledge passed on by technical newbs on the internet.

All I can say to the newbs is, if you were technically trained, you had some dumb ass instructors.

Ian claims I'm wrong because i insist on the same DoF and shutter speed to get the same image. I insist on images with he same DOF and the same shutter speed, because both affect the technical aspects of the image. ISO is the one thing you can change. That's why I am shooting the FF and APS-c at different ISOs. Depth of field is important to the look of the image, and a bunch of folks declaring it irrelevant, and posting a bunch of images they think proves it is crazy. Simply stated, if you aren aware of the effects of DOF on your final image, you aren't a photographer. You're a snapshot artist.

Am I wrong?