[Pål Jensen]

Am I wrong?

You are not wrong, just a bit simplistic. There are images that are DOF insensitive and those where difference in DOF does not matter much....

[biz-engineer]

Very nice shots.

I should be happy, living in Antibes, near Nice, I have the alps nearby on top of the sea... But finding some real wildlife is a challenge outside of most common birds...

You have the Camargue with its wild white horses, pink flamingos and abundant shore birds especially in spring time...one of the most famous bird sanctuary in Europe, I may give it a go as soon as I have a chance to be near the area.

[Nicolas06]

You have the Camargue with its wild white horses, pink flamingos and abundant shore birds especially in spring time...one of the most famous bird sanctuary in Europe, I may give it a go as soon as I have a chance to be near the area.

Yep, that's right . But even going there take the weekend and like 200€ all in all. No issue at all with that. but very soon, going at the right place, if you don't happen to live there going to cost more than the gear if you go regulary.

Edit: In a sense the expensive gear help to compensate the limitations you have to not be at the right place... That may be cheaper in the long run... but not necessarilly better for the results.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

This assumes no improvement in performance for sensors by generation which isn't accurate in reality - however it may be true that such changes are relatively minor and we have hit a plateau. I had thought that wasn't the case but I could be wrong.

There is indeed small improvements in sensor performance but from what I can see when a new FF camera is released they are inline with the improvements we see in smaller format sizes, We do notices differences in FF to cropped but more often those differences are seen because of the longer production runs of the more expensive cameras while cropped are updated rather quickly. But there is a trend over the last few years that FF has reaped the benefits of more advanced tech over cropped sensor. One of the advancement like switchable conversion gain that we first seen in Aptina sensors and marketed as DRPix ( which sony purchased) was used first in a FF sensor Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting and while nothing was released to cropped until later date.

More of the differences we see in sensors has more to do what field they are designed to fill Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

---------- Post added 11-02-2016 at 08:17 PM ----------

Apparently the new processing chip in the K-70 has moved the K-70 up into FF low noise at high ISO territory... despite the insistence of many that this is impossible. That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. Still, it's a viable possibility. You can't prove a negative. It's looking like someone in the photo industry realizing you were not going to change noise at the sensor level, decided to deal with it in internal post processing, and designed a chip just for that purpose, and that Pentax incorporated it into the K-70.

It is worth noting that tech ( switchable conversion gain ) was first implemented to a FF sony sensor well before it was implemented to cropped sensor

[Nicolas06]

It is worth noting that tech ( switchable conversion gain ) was first implemented to a FF sony sensor well before it was implemented to cropped sensor

But is it really important for us? K1 as great low light capabilities, even for its sensor format and K70 apparently too. We need to wait a bit more for the APSC flagship, but this isn't that terrible

[normhead]

It is worth noting that tech ( switchable conversion gain ) was first implemented to a FF sony sensor well before it was implemented to cropped sensor

Why?

[biz-engineer]

Why?

Because it takes more space of circuitry taxing on the pixel layout, so that's only possible either with larger pixels such a the one on 645Z and A7S, or if the fab process node is smaller in which case more circuitry can still be fitted into a smaller space. I mean, 5 year ago, you could add some local pixel improvements only is the pixel size was 5 um or larger, while today you can do the same to a smaller pixel. That's why you now get the same dynamic range on a apsc compared to what DR you could have on full frame years ago.

[UncleVanya]

Why?

I think it clarifies why people (me included) expected a larger performance delta for the two sensor sizes. Full frame has traditionally enjoyed early development of some features. (BSI being one that went the other way first. )

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

But is it really important for us? K1 as great low light capabilities, even for its sensor format and K70 apparently too. We need to wait a bit more for the APSC flagship, but this isn't that terrible

I bring this up because many think that DX always receives the newest tech first. but if we look at past trends when a FF and DX camera are released they have very similar levels of tech put into them, and in the last 3 years the newest tech skipped dx and was first seen in FF sensors. While it is true that smaller formats like that in cells and compacts see new tech first this is not true for DX.

---------- Post added 11-04-2016 at 10:00 PM ----------

I think it clarifies why people (me included) expected a larger performance delta for the two sensor sizes. Full frame has traditionally enjoyed early development of some features. (BSI being one that went the other way first. )

Only one DX camera beat FF to the BSI market by 9 months but the FF sensor had both BSI and switchable conversion gain nothing seen in DX at the time
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


The improvement of that later released FF surpassed what is seen in DX to the point that if one was to shoot that FF sensor in dx is truly could keep up with a later model FF in the mid to high iso's

And more likely than not the release date of that FF BSI camera was related to product cycle than tech level

---------- Post added 11-04-2016 at 10:04 PM ----------

Because it takes more space of circuitry taxing on the pixel layout, so that's only possible either with larger pixels

Not entirely true the first sensors to see BSI or switchable conversion gain are in the tic tac size sensors with very high pixel densities

[UncleVanya]

Only one DX camera beat FF to the BSI market by 9 months but the FF sensor had both BSI and switchable conversion gain nothing seen in DX at the time


The improvement of that later released FF surpassed what is seen in DX to the point that if one was to shoot that FF sensor in dx is truly could keep up with a later model FF in the mid to high iso's

And more likely than not the release date of that FF BSI camera was related to product cycle than tech level.

Not entirely true the first sensors to see BSI or switchable conversion gain are in the tic tac size sensors with very high pixel densities

I think you misunderstood my statements. My comments were about bsi making it into small sensors before full frame and that was the only tech leap I could think of that started small - Q sized not APSC was my point.

[M.B.Yates]

I have been using the K1 with the DFA 150-450 and the biggest difference over the K3 is ISO with the K3 I found 800 was good 1600 was not quite there for me...with the K1 I seem to get a nice image even at 1600 or 3200 iso...when hand holding in some lighting conditions i need a faster shutter speed..The link below is a Rainbow Bee Eater from my flickr.
IMGP9479 | Martin Yates | Flickr

[fwcetus]

DX... FX... Gee, it's as if I stumbled into a Nikon forum or something...

[MarkJerling]

DX... FX... Gee, it's as if I stumbled into a Nikon forum or something...

I feel your pain!

[normhead]

DX... FX... Gee, it's as if I stumbled into a Nikon forum or something...

Choice is complicated, it was easier when there was no choice.

I feel your pain!

Don't we all.
Now compound that with the pain in my wallet.

Do you feel it?
If you do you'll be heading to the fridge for a beer.

[normhead]

Adding another post on the topic, I got carried away. I clearly need to bookmark this page.

So any loss with crop factor could be gained with ability of the larger sensor in K-1 if shooting with full frame lenses. Crop image (36 divided by 1.5 ) on 36 MP by 1.5x and you get 24 MP. Same as K-3. Dynamic range, low light, high ISO are better in K-1.

All you need to know about this is that the Pentax K-1 crop is the same as 15 MP on a K-3, so you actually gain the difference between a mx. of about 2000 lw/ph on cropped K-1 to get the 27 lw/ph on a K-3. So if you crop to APS_c size you get about 30% more resolution using a K-3. A K-3 is about 2700 lw/ph.

To be equal to a K-3 you need about a .75 crop on the K-3 image 3600x .75=2700, so if you crop the K-1 image 25%, you'll have virtually the same image as a K-3. Anything more than a 25% crop and k-3 would have given you a better image, both in terms of reach, and straight up in resolution. So in K-3 vs K-1 terms, 400 k-3 = 500mm K-1 taking into account the difference in resolution and the crop factor. Because of the difference in pixel densities it's not a straight 1.5, the K-3 also has 1.5 more pixels in the area of the K-3 crop. The actually K-1 advantage is about 1.25.

IN any case, if you're used to your lens on a 24 MP APS-c sensor looking though the K-1 viewfinder is going to be a disappointment. But if you have the long glass and are willing to carry it the K-1 will get you better images.

If you crop more than this the K-3 will give you a better image. This is a 24 MP image.


A similar image uncropped.


You get a lot more, but I'm throwing out the K-1 advantage because it's not needed for how I want to crop.

Here's the same type of image taken with a K-3 although I expect it's actually taken a little closer.


if I took the same image with the K-1 there would be a smaller bird (less centre resolution) and more of the scenery around it.
It comes down to, what do you want? Bird or surrounding scenery.


In some cases you want more of the surrounding scenery.
In some cases you can get close enough to the bird the K-1 is the better image but in this case that wasn't the case. Even though the birds was so close I hade a 36MP file uncropped, the DoF at minimum focusing distance was so narrow, the shot isn't as good as it could have been.


And in shots like this where my final file was 11.5 MP taken with the K-3, the K-1 image would have cropped down to about 7 MP, with a significant loss of resolution.


That would cost me 37% of my resolution.


So that's what it comes down to real world in many situations. The difference between 11.5 MP file and a 7 MP file or a similar breakdown, because you didn't take your K-3

Every now and then you do get an image with the K-1 that is better than anything you might get with a K-3, superior DR, higher ISO range, more resolution, higher shutter speeds possible.


But most of the time I'm shotting with the K-3, faster burst, deeper buffer, quicker buffer refresh rate. When I really want to be sure, I bring both, I shoot with the K-3 when the subject is at a distance in good light, and the K-1 when the subject is close or the light is poor. But long story short, in I'd say 75% or your birding shots, using the K-1 is going to cost you. Either in IQ of the final crop, or the weight of the lenses you are carrying. Much of my shooting these days is done at 500mm ƒ4.5. You get a lot more reach with a K-3. But like everything else, you can gain a lot more by having your K-1 with you for the times you can use it. In fact it is very hard for me to find a K-1 birding image that isn't cropped below the level where the math says I should have used a K-3. I did find a couple though. As is becoming my usual answer, if you want to cover every eventuality, you need both, but for birding, the K-3 should come first. Unless you value the 25% of the images taken where the K-1 is better at 36 MP than the K-3 is at 24 MP. And 25% is probably on the high side. The low estimate would be 90% K-3, 10% K-1.

K-3 420mm Goldfinch says happy shooting.