[dcBear78]

Since I shoot almost all landscape at 100 or 200 ISO, mostly 100, I would disagree. Look how far down the charts the DR us of all those cameras, are by the time you hit 800 ISO, and the K-3 is right on the D500 line at 100 ISO, marginally below the D750, maybe a stop, which is exactly what and APS-c camera is supposed to be all other things being equal.

Personally I consider all stops below 12 EV DR pretty much unusable. The D500 and d750 give you an extra half stop to 2/3s stop ISO. That's hardly worth writing home about forget about "And walks all over the K-3." No one give a crap about how a D750 or D500 beats a K-3 between 7 and 11 EV DR. DR of that nature is great for action shots, but is crappy for landscapes.

At maximum dynamic range they are within a stop of each other, and 1 stop can be real tough to even notice when the top is 14.

Personally I thought the D3s and A7s were tops of the high ISO hill. Give them a look, you might have to revise your analysis.

So nobody ever uses a camera in any way other than the way you do right?

Base ISO's are pretty much identical. From 200 on wards the D500 does walk all over the Pentax. So for landscapes and studio portraits it is on par, and for anything else like photo-journalism, sports, nature, weddings it is vastly superior to anything with a crop sensor and many things FF. It is a hell of a camera! Not cheap, but has the features and abilities to back it up.

[normhead]

So nobody ever uses a camera in any way other than the way you do right?

Right back at you dude.

Base ISO's are pretty much identical. From 200 on wards the D500 does walk all over the Pentax. So for landscapes and studio portraits it is on par, and for anything else like photo-journalism, sports, nature, weddings it is vastly superior to anything with a crop sensor and many things FF. It is a hell of a camera! Not cheap, but has the features and abilities to back it up.

So let's get this straight..
You shoot "photo-journalism, sports, nature, weddings" and have shot K-3 and a D500 side buy side and are able to provide images and discus your experience to show that show the the D500 is "is vastly superior to anything with a crop sensor and many things FF. It is a hell of a camera! Not cheap, but has the features and abilities to back it up." Because if you don't and you're just talking about crap you read on some website or magazine, you're you're most likely full of it. Knowing what the spec sheet says is one thing, knowing what the difference is in the field is something to talk about.

But lets break this down a bit.

Say you're shooting a typical sports image and your DR ends up being say 6 EV. If the K-3 captures the 6EV using all it's dynamic range, and the D500 captures it 6EV as well, will the D500 image be better, just because it had more EV available?

Or is the K-3 image better because it's sensor is good enough to capture all the detail in the scene and it's more resolution. My point being, until you go out and try some images, you won't know. Maybe the AF and DR of the D500 wins out, maybe the 24 MP of the K-3 wins out.

When i shot, I tend to shoot with AF priority off, I speed up the frame rate buy not asking the camera to check focus for every image. So would the Superior AF and tracking improve my images at all? I'm saying I don't know, and unless you've shot your typical shoot with the two cameras side by side, you don't either.

Once you understand the answer to this you'll understand why you need to shoot what you shoot with both cameras to understand the difference. The spec sheet don't tell the whole story, and comparisons are only relevant when you are maxing out the specs, which probably doesn't happen very often.

What the frame rate is doesn't matter when when you shoot in single frame mode.
How fast the AF is only matters if the slower system can't keep up with the subject. . If the slowest one is tracking adequately, it doesn't matter how fast the other one is.
The times when the photographer's skill can't make up for the stop difference between two cameras are very few and far between for most of us.

So since you assure me I just speak for myself, now is your chance to speak for yourself.
Tell us about how you've shot a D500 and K-3 side by side and about this huge difference between the two. Let us in on you knowledge. Please don't post a bunch of graphs, opinions or spec sheets, that for the above reasons, mean next to nothing in the field. But a couple of images showing perfectly captured D500 images that couldn't have been done with a K-3 will be appreciated.

[VoiceOfReason]

But didn't the Samsung NX1 kill high FPS shooting with a pretty good quality sensor?

[normhead]

But didn't the Samsung NX1 kill high FPS shooting with a pretty good quality sensor?

I remember when looking at 1 inch sensor cameras or something, there were frame rates as high as 30 FPS on some of those cameras, and as high as 60 in shot 4 MP movies and just used the movie frames.

As far as I remember, the downfall of those really fast FPS cameras was horrible low light capacity. For myself, I like ƒ8, 1/2000s and that usually means 1000-3200 ISO. Anything over 200 ISO on the cameras I saw was depressingly bad. Panasonic also had some very big FPS cameras. 50 FPS in a reduced mode, but using the full 20 MP, only 12. You really have to read the fien print.

Specs - DMC-FZ1000 LUMIX Digital Cameras - Point & Shoot - Panasonic Africa

[VoiceOfReason]

I remember when looking at 1 inch sensor cameras or something, there were frame rates as high as 30 FPS on some of those cameras, and as high as 60 in shot 4 MP movies and just used the movie frames.

As far as I remember, the downfall of those really fast FPS cameras was horrible low light capacity. For myself, I like ƒ8, 1/2000s and that usually means 1000-3200 ISO. Anything over 200 ISO on the cameras I saw was depressingly bad. Panasonic also had some very big FPS cameras. 50 FPS in a reduced mode, but using the full 20 MP, only 12. You really have to read the fien print.

Specs - DMC-FZ1000 LUMIX Digital Cameras - Point & Shoot - Panasonic Africa

The NX1 was a 28mp APSC camera and according to DXO it scored 83 on the sensor, plus did 15fps and 4k. I wonder what happened to it.

[normhead]

Samsung NX1 Review - Specifications

That is impressive.... 3000 lw-ph, better than a D750 or K-3, and 15 FPS, twice as good as a D750 or K-3.

Functional to 1600 ISO probably useable to 800 ISO, pretty much the same as a K-3, very good low light performance.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Wireless-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera/dp/B00NFDZRRA

My guess is, it's a little pricey and there wasn't the lens support to make a viable system. There was an K mount adapter, but who wants to mess with a 400mm lens and no AF?

And the continuos AF wasn't judged to be in the ball park.

http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-nx1/

[VoiceOfReason]

Maybe the next top tier Pentax APSC will get specs like that.

[normhead]

Maybe the next top tier Pentax APSC will get specs like that.

Apparently the lenses were quite expensive. The last link I added, would kind of confirm, it as an high resolution, high end, lightweight system. Most of us would rather go FF and same money. But if Pentax can get their hands on that 28 MP backlit sensor, I certainly won't complain.

[VoiceOfReason]

Apparently the lenses were quite expensive. The last link I added, would kind of confirm, it as an high resolution, high end, lightweight system. Most of us would rather go FF and same money. But if Pentax can get their hands on that 28 MP backlit sensor, I certainly won't complain.

Yeah, I looked at the price with a 16-50 lens. 2800 dollars. A thousand more than the K1. Wow, just wow. Looks like they could have had a game changer in APSC, but didn't have the lenses and price to change the game.

[normhead]

The dynamic range appears to max out just under 13 EV or roughly K-3 quality, but not K-5 quality., given the right price and marketing, it definitely could have been contender. If I could get that thing to AF like a Pentax with my DA*200 , and stacked 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, that image quality would be to die for.

Imagine 13 EV, 3000 lw/ph, and 15 FPS. That would kill a $6000k 1DX up to 400 ISO and maybe at 800 ISO.

They should have made it in K-mount.

[D1N0]

The nx-500 did even better. But samsung isn't a patient company so they axed their camera division.

[dcBear78]

waffle

No I've not used a D500. But I do own a D810 and a K-3 and as for things like autofocus the Pentax isn't in the same game. Not even close. And the D500 has superior AF again. Have you seen the viewfinder coverage?

Actually have you used any other camera in the last century to have any reference for your argument?

As for things like dynamic range, these are not subjective. They are clearly visible.

As for shots a Pentax is not capable of matching? Well there are 4 or 5 more of those for every second of shooting the D500 can get that the Pentax can't. And it can do that in less light. No I have not done it myself to prove it. Nor have you to prove otherwise. I will just take the word of every single reviewer anywhere that is saying it is not only the best crop sensor camera available, by a large margin. But one that rivals the pro level FF cameras.

[normhead]

No I've not used a D500. But I do own a D810 and a K-3 and as for things like autofocus the Pentax isn't in the same game. Not even close. And the D500 has superior AF again. Have you seen the viewfinder coverage?

Actually have you used any other camera in the last century to have any reference for your argument?

Said by a dude who's bragging about a camera he's never held in his hand.

As for things like dynamic range, these are not subjective. They are clearly visible.

So you're saying you can see the difference between a 13 EX Dynamic range K-3, and a D500? Wait the D500 isn't out yetYou don't have a D500so you can't see caca.

As for shots a Pentax is not capable of matching? Well there are 4 or 5 more of those for every second of shooting the D500 can get that the Pentax can't.

Once I lock focus with my K-3 I shoot 8 frames a second, and any image I capture with a 24 MP K-3 is going to have more resolution than what's captured with any D500 image, so I definitely have a possibility of more keepers, in that circumstance. How does the D500 end up with 4 or 5 superior shots when none of the 8 equal images are going to be better, and it has a chance of getting only two more. You're talking nonsense.

And it can do that in less light.

Unbeknownst to yourself, the K-3 AF system is ratedd for -3 EV, the D500 system is rated for 03 EV. The K-3 is rated 100 ISO to 51,200 the D500 is rated exactly the same. But both will be surpassed by the Pentax K-70 covering ISO 100 to 102,400 ISO.

I will just take the word of every single reviewer anywhere that is saying it is not only the best crop sensor camera available, by a large margin. But one that rivals the pro level FF cameras.

The article I read said best crop sensor AF available. No where did i read "best crop sensor camera available.". The problem with that line is many of my images are MF, I don't even need AF, so it's hardly a feature I'm going to buy a camera for given it's other limitations.

SO, just from my reading of the article, it will have less resolution than a K-3, K-3II of K-70. The K-3II or K-70 with pixel shift will leave it in the dust for IQ. It has a new improved high ISO image processor. The K-70 has a potentially better new improved image processor. The Pentaxes have internal SR, for your older lenses, and the price of the K-70 is $650 cost of the D500 1996, more than a K-1 which will literally blow it's socks out of the water in IQ.

To me, the D500 is the 1dx of APS-c, a camera with an AF system second to none. However, 10 FPS isn't even tops for APS-c a Sansung NX1 achieved 15. I'm sure the tracking etc. are out of this world. The tracking has always been accomplishable with technique. The 10 fps spec is hardly impressive compared to the Pentax's 8.3, or the 1dx's 14-16. After careful consideration, given a choice between this camera and an FDA 150-450, I'd take the 150-450, it would improve my images more.

As for your assertion that all the reviewers say it's the greatest camera ever, I would suggest, you can't read.

I can say without fear of contradiction, if you stand side by side with me as I go through a day of shooting, from the accounts and specs written so far, you might get a few better images than I do of some fast moving creatures, you might, but probably not, , with a D500, but the top images and the majority of the best images will all be mine. That is, if you can even keep up. This is an action camera for a guy who already has a good field camera like a D810 or K-1. A companion camera, not a full service camera like I expect my K-3 and other APS-c bodies to be.

[rawr]

it is vastly superior to anything with a crop sensor

Let's not go overboard about it. A6300 gives D500 some decent sensor competition. Has more AF points too.


The strengths of the D500 are, after all, not just it's sensor. Same with the D5 (or for that matter, the Canon 7DII or 1Dx). All are mean machines as an integrated package, not as a jumble of parts.

[bobmaxja]

For people who said they will wait for a D510, well Nikon never made a D310 or D400. This mean you could wait a long long time.