Jump to content

full frame: Overrated or is Pentax just really good at APS-C


mountainvisions

Recommended Posts

looks like maybe some who think 24x36 is the holy grail of digital photography might need to take a

deep breath, this is either going to induce panic or a lot of excuses.

 

Pentax K-3 vs the Nikon D600

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5438&news=pentax+K-3+Nikon+D600+head+to+head+comparison+Pentax+wins

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I updated Pentax and Nikon last month, getting the K-50 and D7100. While both cameras are nice this K-3 looks really nice. Still, the K-50 came with a WR lens for a good price and the D7100 is still an awesome machine to use.</p>

<p>I really can wait on the K-3, personally :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The comparison doesn't interest and surprise me as much. We all know how Pentax has made magic in the past with APS-C sensor. I am happy with all the wonders in K-3 but one picky note is on no development of the flash sync limitation with 1/180 sec. I am not a photog but it looks like it is about the right timing for K-3 to omit once for all on that sync speed limitation. I don't quite understand, maybe this is not top on the list for Pentax/Ricoh but I for one will think that if Pentax/Ricoh moves that bar to 1/250 seconds in max flash sync speed besides HSS, it will make k-3 and the next camera more appealing to compete head to head with full frame and other professional equivalent.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sorry to side track the topic, but this is the 1/180 flash synch speed discussion and Chris in the discussion said it much better than I can put into words<br /><br /><br /> <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240500-those-questioning-1-180-flash-sync-speed-4.html#post2556585">Direct link in PentaxForums discussion on flash limitation</a> <br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<br /><br /> Pro's put up with the unreliability of Canon' date=' the expense of Nikon, why they aren't using a $1300 camera that has great image quality, lower noise, is far more reliable, weather resistant etc. etc. is another question you'll have to ask them.<br /><br /> I suggest one answer could be depth of field, if you want full frame and the narrow DOF that goes with it, you have to go with Canikon. The slower X speed limits the narrowness of the DOF as you have to use a (slightly) smaller f stop when using flash, along with the APS sized sensor which widens DOF, it all adds up for people who have to sell their images where narrow DOF can make a difference between your shot being chosen for publication and the next guy's. There are no image quality reasons for full frame anymore, but there are DOF reasons which is why I would love to see a Pentax FF camera. Combine all those things and you can see why Pro's tend to go for Canikons with all their faults and cost. If Canon can manage of 1/500th of a second X speed on their full frame cameras why can't Pentax on their APS cameras, don't they both use Seiko shutter mechanisms?<br /><br /> The opportunity for closing the gap between Canikon and Pentax has been missed - again, it's a small thing, but a few small things add up to a big difference. I hear time and time again from colleagues in the industry that Pentax doesn't cater for the needs of Pro photographers and, to be honest, I have to agree with them, having a few Canikons of my own. That's why Pentaxians on here and in other forums are pulling their hair out year after year, because we know that Pentax make great cameras, good enough to fill the number one slot as they did a few decades ago.<br /><br /> Amateurs want the camera the Pro's use in the mistaken belief that they will be able to take Pro images, wrong we know, but that's how it is, that's why a Pro level camera is necessary in the Pentax line up, the K3, great as it, innovative as it is, is not it, it's these little things like the slow X speed that limit market share for Pentax especially where it counts, in the Pro arena, camera market share is a top down thing, and it's a shame, I'll still buy one though.<br /><br /> Sorry, this turned into quite a rant.<br /> Chris<br /><br />[/quote']</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The maximum synch speed on Canon's and Nikon's top-of-the-line full-frame DSLRs is 1/250. The 5D3, which is widely used by professionals, has a top synch speed of 1/200. The difference between these and the Pentax is important only to forum spec warriors.

 

I didn't pixel peep the results of the test, but it looks like the main difference is that the Nikon is slightly more sensitive (at the same ISO), and the Nikon's metering tends toward overexposure and cooler color balance than the Pentax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Each format has certain benefits for particular rendering and output requirements, so a smart photographer should be able to match the right tool to the job. <br /><br />It is obvious that the baseline differences between state-of-the-art cropped and "FF" bodies are becoming highly narrow. In fact, the so-called argument here is starting to feel obsolete or dare I say, over. It seems apparent that more creative engineering energy has infused cropped sensor technology over the past five years. What Pentax has done on so many facets with the sensor hardware is a great example.<br /><br />I find it silly to compare these cameras without any context about the use of software. To me the tools of digital photography are as much software driven as they are hard-wired. So to get that thin DOF look for which FF cameras excel, is achievable by including a subtle blur of background visual elements using popular software. Conversely, one can use focus stacking to provide the defined DOF that smaller sensors deliver. Crop a FF sports image to provide the perception of increased reach that an APS-C frame offers. And so on.<br /><br />So I should revise the second half of my above sentence to read . . ."a smart photographer should be able to match the right tool to the job."<br /><br />ME</p>
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Coming from the other side of the fence: yes, full frame is often overrated, and APS-C is much better than many give it credit for. Plus, would I not be invested into another system, good odds today my money would go to Pentax. Not because they win in some test over a D600, but because they handle well, good prime lenses, well made. But most of all the handling could win me over.</p>

<p>And as nice as the comparison to the FF camera is, it's only showing me output made to compare. Nice for the headlines, but it's overlooking things. I shoot a full frame camera most of the time (D700, though) for other reasons than "image quality". It's got a larger, brighter viewfinder than any APS-C on the market today, which is nice given I prefer manual focus lenses most of the time. It gives me a more shallow DoF than APS-C can, and I like to (ab)use that using very fast lenses. It gives me an even wider choice of really good prime lenses. Plus, well, the D700 handles like a charm too. There can be reasons to move to FF, there can be reasons to stay with APS-C. Comparison photos just tell half a story.<br>

(Plus, what Michael said, what software is used? Complaints about colour accuracy between the two cameras, might be a valid argument but nothing a decent post processing workflow can't fix)</p>

<p>So, hats off for the K3, I am not surprised it's performing good and it would deserve a lot more recognition. But, frankly, one shouldn't be happy because it's good compared to something different. Be happy because it's darned good despite company take-overs, smaller budgets, fierce competition. It should hopefully help keeping the Pentax system alive and well.</p>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To be honest most of these spec comparisons are pretty meaningless to most photogs. But we men do like to fuss and classify. Many people claim to need huge megapixel cameras and vast dynamic range, when they don't really and so it goes on. I agree with Wouter: I am more interested in how the camera handles and whether there are the lenses you want in the system. In my case I went FF because at the time that was better for me because I had a set of Canon EF lenses, but I am pretty sure I could make Pentax work for me, for example.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Pros put up with the unreliability of Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hah! Yeah, Canon's unreliable - that's why you see so many of them all over the place.</p>

<p>Don't know who "Chris" is, but he's an arsehole - I wouldn't be quoting a muppet like him in support of any point <em>I</em> wanted to make...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We all know how Pentax has made magic in the past with APS-C sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Sony </em>has "made magic" - it you buy into the snake-oil that the ability to lift shadows five stops noiselessly at base ISO is <strong>The Only Thing That Matters</strong>. Frankly, the Real Worlds differences between the sensors of any of the current manufacturers are vanishingly small.</p>

<p>At higher ISO's my "ancient" Canon 7D can do anything the K-3 seems capable of. <em>Hint - just choose a Raw good converter.</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>looks like maybe some who think 24x36 is the holy grail of digital photography might need to take a deep breath, this is either going to induce panic or a lot of excuses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if you also throw some Q shots in that test you can demonstrate that APS-C is overrated as well. The problem is that these shots are not designed to emphasize an advantage when one is present. The FF shots show less DOF and more background blur but the scenes are so boring that it does not matter. It's like comparing brands of lipstick by applying them on pigs.</p>

<p>In terms of noise and general IQ, there is little difference between formats today - this can be seen in dpreview's side by side test shots. The remaining differences show up in specialized scenarios that demand the extra performance that the equipment can provide.</p>

<p>I think FF is overrated, but neither is Pentax APS-C providing effective competition for it. Fuji is now building an APS-C system to rival FF, but Ricoh/Pentax has not achieved that and they don't even seem to be aware of what it takes to do it. Take a look at the DA Limited lineup: 15/4, 21/3.2, 35/2.8, 40/2.8, 70/2.4 - with the exception of the 70mm, all those lenses are f/2.8 or slower. That doesn't really provide competition to FF lenses. The only modern fast prime lens is the 55/1.4. Now let's look at Fuji instead: 14/2.8, 18/2, 23/1.4, 27/2.8, 35/1.4 (and a 56/1.4 is in the roadmap) - this is how you compete with FF - the slowest lenses here are f/2.8, the average maximum aperture is f/2 - that is more than 1 stop advantage over what you can achieve with Pentax equipment and that stop helps compete with FF.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The FF shots show less DOF and more background blur but the scenes are so boring that it does not matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree: it does not matter. <br>

The mundane nature of the test shots was to me about the most convincing aspect of the article. This is because the great majority of people who really really care about whether these two sets of jpegs were comparable probably take similar types of shots on a regular basis. <br>

In 2013, if you really need a FF camera for say low-light stage shooting or specialized architectural images using a wide-angle tilt/shift, then you most likely already have one. Everyone else is acting aloud the opening soliloquy from Hamlet--to buy or not to buy.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After shooting FF for over a year it’s a hard sell to go back to using a cropped body, the only time I have used a cropped body was just for the snap shots. Using FF I mainly use 24-85 F3.5-4.5, 300 2.8 or 400 F4 and replacing them with cropped body and lenses with the same FOV and DOF control I really gain nothing in weight reduction or cost other than the camera body its self.<br /> While the article is great for generating traffic to their sight, they never really tested the performance between the two formats at exposures that would show the true differences between the two cameras, this made it easy for them to come up with the final conclusion they did.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nevertheless the Nikon shots are less appealing than the Pentax ones on aspects like color rendering and microcontrast, are there situations where this would reverse? Don't think so, therefore the advantage is real. Also, mundane as they may be, 85% of the buyers would probably have similar shots, and telling them it's not worth shelling out more money is a valuable message.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Don't think so, therefore the advantage is real</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's very false reasoning. You make an assumption, so the advantage is only real if your assumption is right. Which it isn't. Microcontrast depends on lenses mostly, and the article does not specify which 85 f/1.8 they used with the D600 - the older lens isn't fantastic and would indeed show less contrast and microcontrast than many of the newer lenses. Put a Zeiss 100mm macro on that Nikon, and you'll get microcontrast like little else can do.<br />Plus, there is not a single word on how these files were processed. Fretting over colour rendering without knowing that is useless arguing; any difference in colour and contrast can be handled in a good RAW editor.<br>

Nobody is suggesting Pentax bodies aren't good enough. But if you praise them, priase them on the right grounds: durable, well-built, good handling, high performance bodies for very reasonable prices.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Also, mundane as they may be, 85% of the buyers would probably have similar shots, and telling them it's not worth shelling out more money is a valuable message.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's probably more like 99%, but then they'll look at the results of the 1%, notice the difference, ask about the equipment used, and there you'll have it - FF craving!</p>

<p>People that get the message will be content with phone cameras. They are as competent at taking boring shots as any other equipment you can throw at that task.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find this report to be of great interest. But I also agree with those who observe little actual difference in the images between the two. Pentax has a tradition in most of their DSLRs of slight underexposure, while Nikon has been the opposite- slightly over. The K-r and K-x have been the exceptions. That is what I see going on here. The similarity in these images, however, is a compliment for the K-3.</p>

<p>It is a good thing to have a variety of approach in designs and concepts available in the market, because these differences suit the different needs and styles of use people may have. For myself, I prefer a top LCD panel and well laid out full spectrum of controls, well-designed for efficient use. I agree with the statements regarding the excellent handling and controls of Pentax DSLRs. There are always advantages and disadvanges in the varius concepts. As to which atributes may be important or not so depends on who the interested party is. In another thread there were comments to the effect that a product line should point the way to the ultmate goal of full-frame. But FF does not best serve the needs of everyone, indeed not even most photographers, although it does for some. So it is not a matter of competing with FF, even though it appears here that the gap has been narrowed once again in some of those areas where FF has been advantageous.</p>

<p>FF has been shown to be better for less noise at higher ISO. Better for wide angle use, due to its being possible to design faster WA lenses with lower distortion. Better for reducing DOF, especially with a mid-range to shorter tele FL, as is shown in these shots.</p>

<p>I was amazed upon the arrival of the Pentax K-5 and the Nikon D7000 at the leval of performance at higher ISO they delivered, especially that this was achieved along with an increase to 16 MP!! I am now impressed with the IQ of the K-3 at higher ISO in these shots. If this impression is substantiated upon further testing and examination, I will be once again amazed! Certainly this would narrow the gap yet more. Better high ISO performance also makes a faster lens of less importance than say f/4 lenses like my fine Pentax DA 12-24mm, for getting a faster shutter speed in low light. As to DOF, not so much an issue at this FL. As one goes into the upper tele range it becomes increasingly easy to blur background anyway. It is in the tele range where APS-C gains advantages. I would much rather be shooting with my DA*200mm f/2.8 on a well-built but compact Pentax DSLR than having to haul a huge 300mm f/2.8 lens on a larger FF body. I would likewise rather be using my relatively lightweight DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 than a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF body.</p>

<p>I also thoroughly enjoy my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG, my Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2, 43mm f/1.9, and 77mm f/1.8 Limiteds, as well as my FA 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 primes. For versatility in a zoom, the Pentax DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is great, offering WR and a fine AF system in a still compact design. It is f/3.5-4.5 out to 70mm with fine performance.</p>

<p>I look forward to more revelations regarding the K-3.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I would much rather be shooting with my DA*200mm f/2.8 on a well-built but compact Pentax DSLR than having to haul a huge 300mm f/2.8 lens on a larger FF body. I would likewise rather be using my relatively lightweight DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 than a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a FF body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you wanted to replace your DA*200mm F 2.8 on a cropped body a FF could replace that with a 300 F/4 and the same with your 50-135 with a 70-200 F/4 with very close specs in weight these both would give you the same DOF & FOV control as there cropped body counterparts. If you wanted to replace a FF 300 2.8 in a cropped body you would need something like 200 F/1.9 the closest you could find is a 200 F/2 that is the same weight as the 300 F/2.8</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe Pentax will offer up 24x36 Dslr in 2014 & put these silly debates to rest.<br /> I've decided to happily hold onto my full frame Pentax lenses as I've seen promise in Ricoh~Land.<br /> The Dark Days of Hoya are fading from my memories...<br /> Maybe 2014, maybe 2016? I'm fine with waiting till Pentax joins the full frame party.<br /> In the meantime, Nikon Df intrigues me as does Canon 70D.<br /> Nikon Df could be a handy addition to my lovely pair of D700.<br />Canon 70D reminds me I have no articulated viewscreen camera & it offers up a handy touch screen interface too !!!<br /> Had K-3 offered this aticulated option I'd have a K-3 already.<br /> I leaning towards the 70D, though I've never owned a croppy sensor Canon, just full frames.<br /> I never thought I'd buy another smaller viewfinder dslr again, so we'll see.<br /> ;^)</p>

<p>B&H has had K-3 instock for a few days now:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007545-REG/pentax_15530_k_3_dslr_camera.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007545-REG/pentax_15530_k_3_dslr_camera.html</a></p>

<p>I wonder what kind of K-3 Holiday Deals will pop up ???<br /> I'd guess K-3 put a damper on K-5II & K-5IIs sales.</p>

<p>Which I'll guess makes the K-5II & K-5IIs the Best Dslr Deals to watch for this Holiday Season !<br /> <br /> We are in the 26 Day countdown till Turkey Day Deals of 2013 are but a sweet memory.<br /> <br /> Happy Shopping !!!<br /> <br /> Lindy</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wise words for holiday shopping bargains, Lindy! The K-5 cameras have proven themselves to still represent an extremely fine choice. dpreview recently declared them to be very much contenders in today's market. I forgot to mention the larger VF of the FF designs. Importnt for some. For me, I've had no problem with AF or MF with the APS-C size VF on my Pentax DSLRs, even after years of using my FF 35mm film AF and MF bodies, which I still use on occasion. </p>

<p>f/4 will not get me the shutter speed of f/2.8, which is one of the main advantages to prompt shelling out the money for such a zoom or tele prime lens. Substituting an f/4 lens on a FF body would eliminate that advantage, leaving only DOF. When going to 200mm f/2.8 on an APS-C body, the background becomes already so blurred any more blur capabilty is of diminishing or vanishing returns- even pretty much so with 135mm. The degree of blur is also related to the distance of backround objects behind the focus subject, so any advantage here is even more specialized to very specific conditions.</p>

<p>My Pentax DA* 200mm f/2.8 is a FF design and is therefore usable on my 35mm film bodies when or if needed. Pentax also offers a DA* 300mm f/4 lens of FF design, which I do not have. Both of these lenses are somewhat more compact and lighter than their Nikon counterparts. I do instead own the older Pentax FA*300mm f/4.5, which due to a very slight decrease in speed is more compact than the current DA* f/4, yet is a FF lens. It is highly regarded for its fine optical performance. I can state without a doubt by holding both in my hands that this exceptionally compact FA* 300mm f/4.5 is still considerably larger and weightier than my DA* 200mm f/2.8. </p>

<p>By putting this 300mm lens on a Pentax DSLR, its FF equivelent works out to a bit over 450mm f/4.5, yet it is still compact enough for practical hand-held use. Of course, under the urgency of blurring the background yet a little more, or in order to work in FF digital with similar results, one could invest in a FF DSLR with a 500mm f/5.6 lens for which a bazooka shoulder pad would be a useful accessory. <br>

<br>

</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After my post about K-5II/IIs pricing the two dslrs went back up to full price at B&H.<br /> Maybe K-5II/IIs inventories are already low ?<br /> At the same time Canon 70D dropped $100, making it the same price as K-5II or $200 less than K-3.<br /> I'm still leaning towards getting a 70D just for the articulated viewscreen feature.<br /> <br /> I wish K-3 had offered an articulated screen, then I'd already own one & it would compliment my K20D.<br /> K20D is the last Pentax item I bought new way back in 2008. <br /> <br /> Ricoh rumors say 24x36 Full Frame K Mount is due to announce at September 2014 Photokina.<br /> 10 months to go & then we'll know if Pentax full frame is better than Pentax aps-c or not.</p>

<p>I'm guessing we'll see $1500 Canon 6D & Nikon D610 full frame pricing in next few weeks.<br /> This happened during 2012 Christmas Season w/ Canon 5D Mark II & Nikon D600 selling for $1500 brand new.<br /> I got my two 5D Mark II at $1500 each brand new during last year's Holiday specials.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh well, the Nikon Df full frame is $2747 at launch. Too much $ for me.<br /> This is Nikon's 6th full frame in their current lineup !!!<br /> D3X, D4, D800E, D800, D610 & Df Retro.<br /> Nikon Full frames now out number their aps-c dslr line up.<br /> <br /> Nikon full frame offers also out number current Canon full frames & Sony full frames & Leica full frames.</p>

<p>So for me, K-3 gets elevated back to my top two choices, it's K-3 versus Canon 70D or neither.<br /> I sure like the idea of having an 70D articulated viewscreen dslr & built in wifi & mfa adjustments for glass, 60D lacked this.<br>

<br /> I don't need another dslr camera so I can wait for the Holiday Specials to decide.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...