K3, how good?


sportyman531

Link Posted 22/02/2018 - 11:39
I have a K3 so I know it's a good camera but I have seen reviews saying that for prints up to 16" x 12" the K3 is just as good as full frame. Not having a FF camera I can't do a direct comparison but is this true? At the moment I don't print but 16 x 12 was my maximum in film days as I could squeeze 3 developing dishes into my darkroom under the stairs so that is likely to be my largest size with maybe 20" x 16" for a few top notch shots.
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

johnriley

Link Posted 22/02/2018 - 12:13
A friend of mine keeps holding me to task because I bought a K-1 after years of saying the APS-C was good enough and the jump to full frame wasn't enough to justify the change. It had to be a 645Z or nothing.

But I still bought one. Because I wanted one. Because it was quite nice for a wide angle lens to be a wide angle lens again. Because it looked and felt great in the hand.

But mostly because I wanted one, and my excuse was that I'd be able to review full frame lenses more conveniently than having to keep being sent a camera body to test them on. I tend to get sent a camera anyway, so it was just an excuse. Quite a good one though!
Best regards, John

johnriley

Link Posted 22/02/2018 - 12:14
To answer the question though. Is it better? Yes. Is it better enough to justify the outlay is a personal choice really. It makes the 645Z less necessary for what I do.
Best regards, John

mille19

Link Posted 22/02/2018 - 13:40
You should be able a 20" x 16" print easily from a K3 24mp image.
It depends what type of photography you do really, I do mainly Sport/Wildlife so didn't go FF, the K1 is just too slow for sport unless you use crop mode but then you get 15mp images. Don't forget if you go FF the lens are a lot bigger than the cropped lenses, I wouldn't fancy trying to hike around the lake district carrying the 15-30mm FF, have you seen the size of that thing
To answer your question I don't think you'd see a noticeable difference between prints from the K3 and K1 at 20" x 16".
www.srmillerphotography.co.uk

Nigelk

Link Posted 22/02/2018 - 13:55
APS-C sensor cameras are easily capable of providing files that will comfortably print at 16" x 12". At our most recent club print competition we had 50 entries for the colour section, most prints the sort of size you mention, there will have been all sorts of full frame, APS-C and other cameras used. There were differences in prints and their quality but I'm sure most of this was down to the quality of the original capture and less sophisticated processing and printers not the sensor size per-se. To cut to the chase, our very own Waywardcharlie came first in the colour print, photo taken with his trusty K5IIs and I managed a 2nd in the mono competition, about 20 entries, photo taken with my K-S2. All judged by a top tier external judge.
Looking at the prints no way could I distinguish between those taken with the larger sensor and those taken with the smaller, that was not the big differentiation.

sportyman531

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 19:29
johnriley wrote:
A friend of mine keeps holding me to task because I bought a K-1 after years of saying the APS-C was good enough and the jump to full frame wasn't enough to justify the change. It had to be a 645Z or nothing.

But I still bought one. Because I wanted one. Because it was quite nice for a wide angle lens to be a wide angle lens again. Because it looked and felt great in the hand.

But mostly because I wanted one, and my excuse was that I'd be able to review full frame lenses more conveniently than having to keep being sent a camera body to test them on. I tend to get sent a camera anyway, so it was just an excuse. Quite a good one though!

It's the old chestnut, choosing between what we need and what we want!
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

sportyman531

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 19:33
johnriley wrote:
To answer the question though. Is it better? Yes. Is it better enough to justify the outlay is a personal choice really. It makes the 645Z less necessary for what I do.

The choice is between value for money and ultimate image quality and, as you say John, that's a personal choice.
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

Fishbones

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 19:39
I easily obtain quality prints of 12x18 from K10D files and they look great so I can't see you struggling with the K3 files
"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop." — Ansel Adams

sportyman531

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 19:51
mille19 wrote:
You should be able a 20" x 16" print easily from a K3 24mp image.
It depends what type of photography you do really, I do mainly Sport/Wildlife so didn't go FF, the K1 is just too slow for sport unless you use crop mode but then you get 15mp images. Don't forget if you go FF the lens are a lot bigger than the cropped lenses, I wouldn't fancy trying to hike around the lake district carrying the 15-30mm FF, have you seen the size of that thing
To answer your question I don't think you'd see a noticeable difference between prints from the K3 and K1 at 20" x 16".

At the moment I carry a K3 with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a K5 with a 55-300 f4-5.8 and I find that I can cover anything with that combination and it's not too heavy even when going straight up the Hoad in Ulverston last week! What I do find is that with the K5 + 55-300 combination, photographing distant subjects where focusing is at infinity and the main subject is a small part of the image, whilst the image looks OK at screen size if I enlarge it the image starts to look "woolly". Is that image resolution, screen resolution, focusing, sharpening, operator error or I am I suffering from pixel peeping?
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

sportyman531

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 19:54
Nigelk wrote:
APS-C sensor cameras are easily capable of providing files that will comfortably print at 16" x 12". At our most recent club print competition we had 50 entries for the colour section, most prints the sort of size you mention, there will have been all sorts of full frame, APS-C and other cameras used. There were differences in prints and their quality but I'm sure most of this was down to the quality of the original capture and less sophisticated processing and printers not the sensor size per-se. To cut to the chase, our very own Waywardcharlie came first in the colour print, photo taken with his trusty K5IIs and I managed a 2nd in the mono competition, about 20 entries, photo taken with my K-S2. All judged by a top tier external judge.
Looking at the prints no way could I distinguish between those taken with the larger sensor and those taken with the smaller, that was not the big differentiation.

Thanks for that Nigel, I have been mostly viewing my images on screen. If I have some printed large I will have a better idea.
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

womble

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 20:27
Most of the time I have a fuzzy/soft image at 300mm it is down to technique, not the gear. I'm just not very good at holding longer lenses still enough. If I use the monster tripod (which I bought for my 5x4" view camera) which is as steady as a rock, I get nice sharp images out of my SMC Takumar 400 or my K series 300mm. I just don't take many images with longer lenses to get enough practice (which brings us back to John's point about what we would like and what we need... I was eyeing up the A* 1200 a little while ago but I couldn't see me being able to slip it into the house without anyone noticing...! ).

K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

sportyman531

Link Posted 25/02/2018 - 21:40
I was eyeing up the A* 1200 a little while ago but I couldn't see me being able to slip it into the house without anyone noticing...!

Well, we all have that problem at some time or other!
I use a substantial Manfrotto monopod for longer focal length shots, sometimes I use a fence post or a wall, occasionally I use a tripod.
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

danofmk

Link Posted 26/02/2018 - 21:11
Somebody did a test on another forum recently and even with a lot of pixel peeping the K3 was almost indistinguishable from the K1

And I am talking HUGE crops

sportyman531

Link Posted 26/02/2018 - 21:24
Fishbones wrote:
I easily obtain quality prints of 12x18 from K10D files and they look great so I can't see you struggling with the K3 files

Thanks for thatm
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie

sportyman531

Link Posted 26/02/2018 - 21:25
danofmk wrote:
Somebody did a test on another forum recently and even with a lot of pixel peeping the K3 was almost indistinguishable from the K1

And I am talking HUGE crops

That's very interesting and could save me a lot of money!
flickr ID: SteveW46243 or sw46246
DA AL 35mm f2.4, K3,18-135 WR, DA 55-300, Pentax KX, K5 x 2, 18-50 50-200 kit lenses, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Fuji X10, 2x Mamiya 1000s 2x 80mm f2.8, 150mm f3.5, 210mm f4, Yashica 124G TLR, 2x Yashica FX3 Super 2000, Tamron 28mm f2.8, 90mm SP f2.5, 135mm f2.5, Olympus 35RC, 2x Yashica FX2, Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Kodak Box Brownie
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.