Moving to full frame

I really don't see any point in comparing images of different sizes and jumping to conclusions.

For what its worth I think my K5 is better than my K3 at high ISO.

That's why I did compare them at the same size.

You can easily see the differences of those examples I posted viewing the full frame at the same size. I posted the full frame shots the last time.

Anyawy, I know there's more to the K-3 than IQ at high ISO I've never disputed that. For those that don't shoot at higher ISOs then it's not a problem.

I wouldn't say no to the improved features that come with the K-3 but they are not enough to warrant the reduction in high ISO performance

Pentax don't yet make a FF DIGITAL camera, but they made FF equivalent film cameras for a long time.


Check out the sideways depth! That's a full frame sensor in there, so you can fit them in some tiny bodies really.

It all comes down to the optical viewfinder and deciding if that's an issue. In video work you don't use the optical viewfinder anyway as an aside (something I'm regretting on sunny days!)


Anyway, the big questions are really around the lenses I expect. Pentax has been able to position itself with tiny lenses really, because they're APS-C rated only. That does lead to a potentially significant cost situation when it comes to changing to FF.

There are many avenues Pentax could head down. A K-3 with GPS and Wifi built in for example. A lot of their innovation to date has been around clever ideas with the Shake Reduction system, and all the tricks you can do when your sensor is moveable. (Anti Moire filter and astro tracing etc). I guess the concern is that the likes of Olypus have that technology also, so Full Frame does seem a sensible evolution path.

Sorry, the bottles look to be different sizes on my monitor

I reckon one can add to that by saying the K-3 has a better build quality and more attention to detail in its construction. Things that Pentax let go in the K-5 such as the dodgy horizon indicator and oil on the sensor in early batches don't seem to have surfaced with the K-3 (touch wood!)

Totally agree with you David

...and I am sure you are not allowed to specify which ones are these "most FF cameras" because of the forum rules. Laughable argument, really

To the OP - just do it, but not with D600 because of the oil issues. I have done the move to FF and I am not looking back. The only disappointment you might have is the surprise how low is the value on the second hand market of your Pentax equipment compared to the current skyrocketing high-street prices.

Yes they are. Those are the 100% shots and will be different sizes given one sensor is 24mp and the other is 16mp. As I said above you can easily see the differences in those examples when viewing the full frame shots at the same size.

Thing is though Smeggy. You take pictures of what is in front of the lens, not what's behind it. You're chucking in an unnecessary variable. Process the comparison images with the same size bottles and I think the K5 will be cleaner in any case. But you are giving room for doubt.

Having said the above. Do I pick up my K3 or K5. K3

As I've said I've compared the K-3 and K-5 DNGs at the same size and the difference at high ISOs is very noticeable.

The number of pixels is irrelevant when it comes to resizing the images to the same sizes to compare them, it's down to the level of noise in each pixel and the reason the K-3 is noisier at higher ISO is because each pixel is physically smaller and can't gather as much light for a given time the shutter is open.

Anyway there's bugger all difference at lower ISOs so for those who don't shoot at higher ISOs it aint' a problem

It's not actually intended to be arguing a point. The only FF cameras that out-resolve the K-3, if it matters, are the Nikon D800/800E, the new Sony and the Pentax 645D and Hasselblad equivalent, whose designation I don't recall offhand. The comparison comes from the AP resolution tests, so you have a reference if you need it.

Not really a big deal, although sometimes some try to make it so.

Well here are my rough and ready comparisons between the K-5 and the K-3 (which I currently have on loan, I've only had it for a couple of days, and these are the only really high ISO shots I've done with it, although this has been useful).

I've processed them similarly, although the K-3 doesn't need as much sharpening as the K-5 generally. Probably because of this, the NR settings in LR are a little lower for the K-3.

First two images are screen prints from LR5, with settings shown, and the images viewed at 100%. The second pair are the same shot, but with the K-3 image reduced in size to match that of the K-5, which is what lots of people are saying will give a more useful comparison.

K-5 ISO 51,200 image, processed, 100% crop.



K-3 ISO 51,200 image, processed, 100% crop.



K-5 ISO 51,200 image, processed, 100% crop.



K-3 ISO 51,200 image, processed, image size reduced to give same magnification as K-5 shot.



I know which I prefer. The odd colours (i.e. the yellowness of these) appears when I dump the screen print into Elements, for some reason.

Dan

Like I say many of us aren't interested in cameras out resolving each other.

The pictures taken through the Pentax Ltd Lenses with the Sony A7 look better than anything I've seen taken through a Pentax APS-C, even the K-3

It's nothing to do with resolving as the pics I saw were well below the resolution of any of them.

If and when Pentax release a FF, no doubt you won't still be trying to sell the K-3 over FF , but personally if the images look as cool as trhose from the A7 then I'll probably find myself hankering after one.

Thanks Dan, that's a much better comparison.

I wouldn't presume to guess what I might or might not be doing, but one thing is for sure. I spent decades selling things to a specialist group of people, I don't do that now and I have absolutely no desire to sell anything to anybody.