[normhead]

I have all but stopped using a cropped body, the only time I dig out the K5 is just to have a little fun around the office.
Out in the field it’s hard to give up the versatility of the D800 for wildlife photography
When Nikon released the 36mp FF camera I knew this is what I was for in a system for wildlife

And is there a place where we can see the results of your wildlife endeavours? What lenses are you using on your D800?
I assume this is you...
http://isfphotography.com

[Digitalis]

I've heard too many stories from people who have lost Nikons to light rain.

High ISO performance is all an illusion anyway, considering that the Fujifilm X-A1 matches the D750 in high ISO performance.

That is an audacious claim, but I suppose the extra interpolation used on X-trans files allows for random noise to be suppressed in such a way that people don't notice the loss of fine detail. Very high ISOs above 6400 are only able to be shot in JPG mode - I think the highest practical limit is for raw 1600 on the Fuji X system. IMO The Pentax K5IIS at ISO 6400 RAW files have higher accutance than the fuji X-pro files do, which leads to a crisper appearance. Chroma noise is higher in the pentax file but that is simple to eliminate.

For me the image quality in terms of colors is real off putting. Even side by side comparisons with Canon, shows that Canon has the color right (6D)

If you shoot raw ans have a calibrated colour set up the differences are actually very small, and the lenses contribute to colour rendering as well. RAW also allows for tremendous latitude in colour corrections - I would personally consider all criticisms about colour rendering to be too subjective to be of substance. Colour rendering is always a subjective thing, men are typically worse ad judging colour than women are. As things are my visual colour perception is about 94% accurate.

[normhead]

You are very brave to include Fujifilm in such a comparison ...

There is a valid 1 stop difference in high ISO IQ between 24MP K-3/D7100 grade cameras and 24 MP D610/D750 grade cameras. It's logical, and not that hard to detect when working close to the boundaries of their respective ISO envelopes. All the data and tests around the place support that conclusion too.

And in exactly what percentage of the images you take, are you working in those boundaries?

[zoolander]

I found that hard to believe.....so I went and did the research, and you are right! To my eyes it not only looked as good...it looked better on the X-A1. Imagine ...better ISO for under $500 bucks!

I'm glad you checked it out. In the hand, the X-a1 is really good with high ISO, so I don't see a reason to go for a 35mm dslr ...... if high ISO is what you are after.

That is an audacious claim, but I suppose the extra interpolation used on X-trans files allows for random noise to be suppressed in such a way that people don't notice the loss of fine detail. Very high ISOs above 6400 are only able to be shot in JPG mode - I think the highest practical limit is for raw 1600 on the Fuji X system. IMO The Pentax K5IIS at ISO 6400 RAW files have higher accutance than the fuji X-pro files do, which leads to a crisper appearance. Chroma noise is higher in the pentax file but that is simple to eliminate.

Its not audatious, I checked out the test samples on "Imaging Resources Comparo Meter". Even the review from Imaging Resources review which came out later, stated they were really impressed with the high ISO performance.

I know you're (Digitalis) a very experienced photographer but check it out for yourself: Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

Let us know what you think. The X-A1 isn't using X-trans bayer patern, but a conventional array.

If you shoot raw ans have a calibrated colour set up the differences are actually very small, and the lenses contribute to colour rendering as well. RAW also allows for tremendous latitude in colour corrections - I would personally consider all criticisms about colour rendering to be too subjective to be of substance. Colour rendering is always a subjective thing, men are typically worse ad judging colour than women are. As things are my visual colour perception is about 94% accurate.

I hate the color rendering of apsc and entry tier 35mm Nikons, and I know it can be corrected in post. I've had a Sony too, and the colors were way off too, but not as terrible as my old Nikon. Every time I see a review where Nikon goes up against Canon on this, I just cringe at the deranged colors. There's more to life than sitting at a computer and wasting time fixing something that shouldn't be so far out - lifes too short !

I don't get how you can say that color is subjective, I'm into photography and I like my colors to be as correct as possible. being a male doesn't disqualify me. Having those cameras side by side with my K-5, truly showed that the K-5 was truer, and Sony and Nikon were facsimiles of the scene - they're just fax machines (Que the salesman with the Nikon and his bow tie spins !). lol

[rawr]

And in exactly what percentage of the images you take, are you working in those boundaries?

You are going down the path of 'one camera must do everything' thinking.

Akin to 'one lens must do everything' thinking. Like asking: 'what percentage of your shots are over 135mm? Only 20%? Why do you need that DA*300mm. Just get closer, or crop harder, or learn to appreciate nature from a wider field of view.'

Different cameras have different roles and technical capabilities, that's all. My RX-100 fulfils a different role and has different capabilities to my DSLR's. Sure I could shoot gigs or events with the RX-100, since it is a very capable camera, but it's simply not the best tool for every job.

Reminds me of other geek debates about tech boundaries: leaf vs focal plane vs electronic shutter, manual vs TTL flash, EVF vs OVF, SD vs HD vs 4K, valves vs transistors, vinyl vs CD, Mac vs Windows vs Linux ...

[Digitalis]

Its not audatious, I checked out the test samples on "Imaging Resources Comparo Meter". Even the review from Imaging Resources review which came out later, stated they were really impressed with the high ISO performance.

Of course they were impressed, they have just as much riding on successful camera sales as Fuji does. Do you think camera reviewers work for free? and in any case I was looking at the Dpreview comparison.

I hate the color rendering of apsc and entry tier 35mm Nikons, and I know it can be corrected in post. I've had a Sony too, and the colors were way off too, but not as terrible as my old Nikon. Every time I see a review where Nikon goes up against Canon on this, I just cringe at the deranged colors.

Are you working with a colour calibrated system? I work with Canon, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Phase one and Hasselblad camera systems - the RAW files do exhibit some slight differences due to the lenses, but If I use Zeiss glass on all of them the colour response is basically identical (though differences inherent in sensor architectures CMOS V CCD and variations in CFA design) - I wouldn't describe any of them as deranged*. The only system that does get a bit unhinged would be the output from foveon sensors at moderate to high ISOs, the colours from those layered sensors can be really off. I suspect the inherently weak blue channel has something to do with this.

I don't get how you can say that color is subjective

I can because I know that people of different ethnicities percieve colour differently from others, certain colour cobinations are more pleasing to people of certain cultural backgrounds than others. Women are typically more demanding when it comes to colour accuracy than men are**. Depending on your age you eyes will perceive colours differently as you get older - babies and young children are particularly sensitive to blues and greens - older people perceive yellow and reds to be more vivid than they normally are.

If you take a colour from the pantone library, say Pantone 361C, how would you describe it in natural terms? - people will describe it differently, and sometimes in conflicting ways - this is partly to do with the inherent inaccuracy of language but also due to subjective bias.


* I'll admit I'm a bit biased - I work with upper tier camera bodies, I haven't worked with a D7100 or D750/D610 and I don't see much point in doing so.
**which is why my mother who worked as a photojournalist only shot kodak transparency and negative films, she detested Fuji colours.

---------- Post added 12-10-14 at 09:35 AM ----------

Reminds me of other geek debates about tech boundaries: leaf vs focal plane vs electronic shutter, manual vs TTL flash, EVF vs OVF, SD vs HD vs 4K, valves vs transistors, vinyl vs CD, Mac vs Windows vs Linux ...

...or the flame wars between Vi and EMACS users.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

And is there a place where we can see the results of your wildlife endeavours? What lenses are you using on your D800?
I assume this is you...
Ian Stuart Forsyth Photography Home

With the D800 I primarily use the 200-400 F4 VrII, a borrowed 300 F2.8 VrI, 70-200 F4vr for wildlife







And seeing as you asked for some MF photos in another thread here’s an old 645n posted on photonet sometime ago

I was scanned by Scott sometime ago for me

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

^ What he said.... if you use 600 on an FF and 400 on APS-c, you have exactly the same ability to crop on both systems as long as they are 24 Mp. The 6000x4000 pixels for the D750, 6000x400 pixels for the K-3, The number of pixels is the same on both....so if lenses are equivalent, you need a much more expensive lens on FF to get the same field of view. IN low light you may have a bit of an advantage with a D750. If DoF is is important, then you are going to get more DoF using APS-c for a given ƒ-stop.

Hey, if you want to go for a full frame, don't let me talk you out of it. But I have the reach you plan to achieve with a D750 and 150-600 with my $500 SMC A-400. There may be other features that make the D750 attractive. I don't know I've never met a D750 shooter up here in wildlife land. But it's a new camera so, maybe soon.

For me it's really simple, there are no 600mm lenses that I'm capable of carrying on hikes, because of weight, and when you go to a bigger lens, you need heavier tripod. I don't know about the 150-600 it seems like a goo lens. But I seriously doubt it's DA* 300 + TC quality, or DA 560 quality. I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me.

Maybe the 150-600 is better, and it could be marginally better on an FF. But my experience with Tamron and Sigma long zooms is that they are pretty bad in the long end. For me, send them back to the store and get my money back bad, but, who knows maybe Tarmon hit a home run with this lens and things will work out for you.

Check out the goose, further down this page,
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3062629

See the problem faced both by FF and cropped body photographers is if you need a lens with the FOV 4° 30‘ 18" with a virtual aperture of F4 (correction) 75mm you save nothing by going with the smaller format other than the size of the body and the cost of that body.
4/3 system one would need the 150mm F2 VA (virtual aperture) of 75mm
Aspc system one would need the 200 F2.8 VA of 71mm
FF system one would need a 300mm F 4 VA of 75mm

Then the lens on all the formats would weigh in at about the same so you gain nothing with going to a smaller format other than losing some FWC of that sensor at base iso.

Going FF for wildlife for me is all about versatility for example my primary rig for the bush is the 200-400 F4 , I will convert all FL to aspc as this is what we are comparing. With the 200-400 F4 using it on a FF body I can use it as a 36mp 120-220mm F2.8 image capturing devise or swapping it over to DX 16mp 200-400mm F4. Or if the subject permits the addition of a TC can negate the cropped advantage ASPC has.

---------- Post added 12-09-2014 at 10:37 PM ----------

You realize that with your 150-600 on full frame, you'll be at 600 ƒ6.3. AN equivalent in Pentax would be the K-3 with a DA*300 and a 1.4 TC, which gets you 420mm ™ ƒ5.6. FF equivalent that's 630 @ƒ5.6. So you're going to be slower and shorter, if only marginally for wildlife. As for the assumption that you're going to get better images with your FF, well maybe.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/270829-misc-post-your...s-version.html

Just to add to that a comparison between my K-5 and K-3




You can add quite a bit of detail to your K-5 images with a K-3. But the the D810 is pretty amazing for dynamic range....

IN any case, you seem to be sold, so good luck with your new system. Let us know what it eventually costs and how it works out.

Yes he would being using a 600 F6.3 but your 300mm F4 + the 1.4 tc is a FF 630mm F 8.4 equivalent not a 630mm F 5.6
Also with that 300mm+1.4+ crop factor is really not a 630mm lens its being taxed by the cropping of the body and the cropping from the tc whereas using the 150-600 F 6.3 natively and might even give you better IQ

[Digitalis]

ee the problem faced both by FF and cropped body photographers is if you need a lens with the FOV 4° 30‘ 18" with a virtual aperture of F4

you see, this is what happens when people read too much Ken Rockwell.. Virtual aperture? There is no such thing: f/4 is f/4 no matter what format you are using. The DOF may change depending on the format but the transmission and aperture diameter will remain roughly the same*

* Thought this depends on the lens design being compared, some lenses transmit more light and some transmit less.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

you see, this is what happens when people read too much Ken Rockwell.. Virtual aperture? There is no such thing: f/4 is f/4 no matter what format you are using. The DOF may change depending on the format but the transmission and aperture diameter will remain roughly the same*

* Thought this depends on the lens design being compared, some lenses transmit more light and some transmit less.

What do you think the 50mmF/2.0 stands for? a hint its a formula 50/2.0=25mm

Simple question, if I take a 2 photos under controlled lights and from the same position, the first ones settings FF 140mm F10 1/20sec iso 3200
And for the second photo I use cropped by a factor of 2X 70mm F5 1/20sec iso 800 and print both images at 8x10

Will one image show more noise or will they both show the same noise?

Remembering that one was shoot at F10 while the other shot at F5
We could do this very experiment using a factor of 1.5 but for this one I used 2

Here the 140mm F10 iso 3200


Here is the cropped 2x 70mm F5 iso 800 photo




Here’s the break down why this happens the first image 140mm F10 has a light intensity that is 4 time less striking a sensor 4 times as large
While the 70mm F5 has a light intensity that is 4x more striking a sensor that is 4 times smaller
What do we have at the end of this, both images are made up of the same total light and this is why they have the same shot noise.

[Digitalis]

nice, you now have too well exposed images of an X-rite colour checker.

My issue with your earlier comments was your use of the term "virtual aperture" I think you meant equivalent aperture.

[zoolander]

* I'll admit I'm a bit biased - I work with upper tier camera bodies, I haven't worked with a D7100 or D750/D610 and I don't see much point in doing so.
**which is why my mother who worked as a photojournalist only shot kodak transparency and negative films, she detested Fuji colours.

Okay get your hands on a D750, or take a look at some comparison shots somewhere online, youtube ... I don't know. The processing engine is flawed when it comes to color. We're talking about lower tier cameras, which do not produce the same image quality as upper tier Nikon bodies, which you've stated you only use.

I can because I know that people of different ethnicities percieve colour differently from others, certain colour cobinations are more pleasing to people of certain cultural backgrounds than others. Women are typically more demanding when it comes to colour accuracy than men are**. Depending on your age you eyes will perceive colours differently as you get older - babies and young children are particularly sensitive to blues and greens - older people perceive yellow and reds to be more vivid than they normally are.

I'm saying you cannot invalidate my opinion by claiming men are less demanding over color accuracy, your using a sexist argument. Saying women are more demanding over color accuracy is pretty sexist. If you were to say to a woman that men perceive colors more accurately than women ...... then every woman would be tearing you apart. Please show me the scientific evidence that testosterone causes me to have a degraded perception of color accuracy.

My perception of color is not determined by my gender, thats not a valid argument and is sexist. Furthermore, cultural and ethnic perceptions of color is irrelevant and a borderline racist statement. Please show me the scientific evidence that Asian people, or Middle eastern people, or African people, or European people perceive one color or many colors differently ...... I mean where do you come up with this stuff ? Blue is blue, yellow is yellow, red is red and green is green - its all been standardized through the internation standards associations. Thats a strawman argument.

Lower tier 35mm and all apsc Nikons have wrong colors. Whether this has to do with white balance or the processing engine, both are out for the purpose of ......... model separation into price segments. The higher you go up in price, the more accurate the colors and white balance become.

Here's a quick example where I first noticed the difference. Its Kai comparing 24-70mm 2.8 with a 5D and D700. Go to 8:48 and see the images (rather than watch him goofball for the first 8 minutes):

You Tube

You Tube

The Canon wins it, but the large Blue material on the barge is very blue in the Nikon shot.

Here's a D800 vs K-3 blog:

LK1:1photoGRAPHICS: Nikon D800 and Pentax K3 / Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and Pentax 43mm f1.9

Here's the D800 Image of the train Bridge scene:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-32-bckCYNJg/UoBcrDHuP8I/AAAAAAAABL4/KeNV2TwhTyY/s1...n+11.08.13.jpg

Here's the K-3 image of the train bridge:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I6A0ZTDnmik/UoBcj6WBjnI/AAAAAAAABLw/d271F-ra2vo/s1....08.13+-+2.jpg

Those are two real world images by a real person. In the Pentax image, the snow in the middle of the train tracks look like ....... wait for it ..... snow ! the D800 image is all over the place and ugly. There's a huge diference there in processing engine and White balance.

You've said that you'll only look at the DPreview site for comparisons. DPreview is joke, as soon as a Canon or Nikon comes out, they'll review it, and pile on praise. They'll take their sweet time with Pentax reviews and others. DPreview has shown itself to be biased a very long time ago ........ thats old news.

[rawr]

Pls, no more 3,680 x 2,456 pixel inline 4MB JPEGs. It breaks my browser and makes the page slow to load. Resizing to something like 1000px on the long side would be just as effective.

As for colour perception and gender, ethnicity etc - it's all valid and real. Canon Labs know that. Marketers and advertisers have known about that for generations too.

Colour perception is a big subject, perhaps an interesting place to start is to take the Lüscher Colour Test Just to see for yourself what sort of person your colour preferences reveal you to be

[Rupert]

I'm enjoying this thread, and I am actually learning a little too, not that it will do much for my own personal improvement. It does make me realize that leaving the high end camera world and entering the world of Toy Cameras was a very good decision for me. Toy Cameras get better every day, and some of the thanks go to you guys that are obsessed with perfection......I have to appreciate that!

Regards!

[normhead]

See the problem faced both by FF and cropped body photographers is if you need a lens with the FOV 4° 30‘ 18" with a virtual aperture of F4

Show me where the "Virtual ƒ4 " setting on your camera is?

With APS-c shooting from a given position, and equivalent lenses you get more DoF with APS_c . The sharpest part of the lens is usually about ƒ5.6. To get "virtual ƒ5.6" on FF I have to go to ƒ8, and by ƒ 8 a lens is already becoming diffraction limited (on FF or APS_c), so even though I've stopped down to gain DoF I've lost resolution to diffraction.

So do you understand what I've done there to make this point?

First, I defined "virtual ƒ 5.6" in terms of APS-c instead of FF. Then I've defined "normal" as wide DoF, instead of narrow DoF, shifting the advantage to APS-c instead of FF. Then, I've defined a situation, shooting at ƒ5.6 on APS_c as the "ultimate goal". Then I've pointed out the problems you face shooting that "normal" on FF.

So in essence, what I've done is, I've done for APS-c what you did for FF. And the argument is just as compelling and just as erroneous.

The argument for FF is more resolution in some camera bodies, less DoF, if that's what you want, and better low light performance, although light so low it makes a difference ruins your dynamic range in any case. But as soon as you have a situation where you want more DoF and don't need to blow your image up to 96x48, you've actually crippled yourself going FF, in terms of weight and the size of the lenses you'd have to carry. To match the resolution of your subject you achieve with APS_c you'd have to have a 51 MP D810.

You choose to give up the advantages of APS-c to get the advantages of FF. I choose to give up the advantages of FF, which are of very little use to me, to get the advantages of FF. But no where in my thinking do I imagine that one system is in some way "better". They both have advantages over the other.

You should check out this thread.... if you check out the images objectively, you might understand there are circumstances where you aren't using the best equipment for the job. You might want to add a D7100 to your camera bag...until 51 MP FF is available. But 28 MP APS-c is already available, so even that won't really cut it.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...enses-973.html