Moving to full frame
- Topic Locked - You will not be able to post to this topic. Thread descended to insults
Posted 09/12/2013 - 00:13
Link
no processing - click on them for better size
K5 51200
K3 51200
K5 51200
K3 51200
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 09/12/2013 - 00:24
Link
One bit of advice I'd give, is that you should only have one system. Trying to use more than one system means you need to duplicate gear and you never have the right system for any given situation (unless you carry it all - where you miss the shot lugging it all about).
When considering a change, depending how much you've already got invested (or how much cash you can afford to throw away), you need to be fully happy with a possible new system before changing. Don't pay any attention to anybody else's opinion (including gear reviews, youtube videos, this forum or similar), get hold of the gear, make sure you understand and are comfortable with everything. If you choose to switch, you should dump your old system and go whole hog in the new one, if there's a reason why that's a problem, it might be a reason not to switch.
I've been there in my film days which was a disaster for me (and a complete wipe-out financially). Don't assume that if you don't like something you can sell it on later for minimal loss. Likewise, don't assume your current gear has residual value until you've sold it.
Overall, be very clear what you expect to gain from the exercise, and if you decide to go ahead, be prepared to put in the extra effort you'll need to get that gain. If you don't put extra effort in, you're unlikely to get a noticeable gain. If you do decide to switch, buy the best camera in the new system you can (otherwise you'll be back to square one - looking to upgrade to a better option from day one).
John.
When considering a change, depending how much you've already got invested (or how much cash you can afford to throw away), you need to be fully happy with a possible new system before changing. Don't pay any attention to anybody else's opinion (including gear reviews, youtube videos, this forum or similar), get hold of the gear, make sure you understand and are comfortable with everything. If you choose to switch, you should dump your old system and go whole hog in the new one, if there's a reason why that's a problem, it might be a reason not to switch.
I've been there in my film days which was a disaster for me (and a complete wipe-out financially). Don't assume that if you don't like something you can sell it on later for minimal loss. Likewise, don't assume your current gear has residual value until you've sold it.
Overall, be very clear what you expect to gain from the exercise, and if you decide to go ahead, be prepared to put in the extra effort you'll need to get that gain. If you don't put extra effort in, you're unlikely to get a noticeable gain. If you do decide to switch, buy the best camera in the new system you can (otherwise you'll be back to square one - looking to upgrade to a better option from day one).
John.
Posted 09/12/2013 - 00:25
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
no processing - click on them for better size
Would you not process your photos though, to get the best from them? And might one camera take to processing more readily than another?no processing - click on them for better size
Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Posted 09/12/2013 - 00:50
Link
Daniel Bridge wrote:
Dan
Yes of course I'd process them, but as said in to you in the other thread, I tried to get the K-3 51200 shot as good as the K-5 51200 shot in lightroom and the extra NR required smeared the image to an unacceptable level.Smeggypants wrote:
no processing - click on them for better size
Would you not process your photos though, to get the best from them? And might one camera take to processing more readily than another?no processing - click on them for better size
Dan
I've no other complaints about the K-3 from what I've seen, I'm sure it's damn good camera and have no complaints about it at lower ISOs where it equals the K-5, but very high ISO performance is important to me.
Not aimed at you, but I can't see the point of "purchase defending" by people who don't even shoot at such high ISOs.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 09/12/2013 - 01:27
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
I've no other complaints about the K-3 from what I've seen, I'm sure it's damn good camera and have no complaints about it at lower ISOs where it equals the K-5, but very high ISO performance is important to me.
Not aimed at you, but I can't see the point of "purchase defending" by people who don't even shoot at such high ISOs.
Smeggy, have you actually used a K-3? Just asking as your very comprehensive sig. gear list omits the K-3 and the Sigma 70mm lens used in the comparisons. Personally, I don't care for 'secondhand' opinions (or even firsthand ones) preferring to make up my own mind. Everybody (read organisation) has their own agenda, I don't let it colour my judgement.
I've no other complaints about the K-3 from what I've seen, I'm sure it's damn good camera and have no complaints about it at lower ISOs where it equals the K-5, but very high ISO performance is important to me.
Not aimed at you, but I can't see the point of "purchase defending" by people who don't even shoot at such high ISOs.
Posted 09/12/2013 - 02:12
Link
johnha wrote:
Indeed. That's exactly what I've been doing by downloading the K-3 test shots from Imaging Resource ...Smeggypants wrote:
I've no other complaints about the K-3 from what I've seen, I'm sure it's damn good camera and have no complaints about it at lower ISOs where it equals the K-5, but very high ISO performance is important to me.
Not aimed at you, but I can't see the point of "purchase defending" by people who don't even shoot at such high ISOs.
Smeggy, have you actually used a K-3? Just asking as your very comprehensive sig. gear list omits the K-3 and the Sigma 70mm lens used in the comparisons. Personally, I don't care for 'secondhand' opinions (or even firsthand ones) preferring to make up my own mind. Everybody (read organisation) has their own agenda, I don't let it colour my judgement.I've no other complaints about the K-3 from what I've seen, I'm sure it's damn good camera and have no complaints about it at lower ISOs where it equals the K-5, but very high ISO performance is important to me.
Not aimed at you, but I can't see the point of "purchase defending" by people who don't even shoot at such high ISOs.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
... so I can load them into Lightroom and compare them with the k-5 test shots. I do listen to other opinions of course but like you I realise everyone ahs their own agenda so I prefer to make up my own mind up and that's where the test shots from places like imaging Resource and DPReview come in very valuable to help make up my mind whether to put the K-3 on the shopping list. I did exactly the same thing before buying my K-5s. not everyone is able to borrow cameras to test the sensor performance themselves and really there's no need as it doesn't matter who physically presses the shutter button, only that the shots rule out as many unwanted variables as possible.
No I don't have the 70mm Sigma lens used in the comparisons, but I'm not evaluating that, I'm evaluating the HIGH ISO performance of the K-3. The lens isn't going to affect the noise levels. not sure of the relevance?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 09/12/2013 - 07:11
Link
I dunno. Noise is altered by exposure and those two images you've linked to have slightly differing tonal ranges, Smeggy. Is it not possible that using "identically exposed" images rather than "correctly-exposed" is enough to make comparison impossible?
How would the K3 image look if it had (say) a third of a stop extra exposure?
How would the K3 image look if it had (say) a third of a stop extra exposure?
Posted 09/12/2013 - 07:22
Link
johnha wrote:
One bit of advice I'd give, is that you should only have one system. Trying to use more than one system means you need to duplicate gear and you never have the right system for any given situation (unless you carry it all - where you miss the shot lugging it all about).
When considering a change, depending how much you've already got invested (or how much cash you can afford to throw away), you need to be fully happy with a possible new system before changing. Don't pay any attention to anybody else's opinion (including gear reviews, youtube videos, this forum or similar), get hold of the gear, make sure you understand and are comfortable with everything. If you choose to switch, you should dump your old system and go whole hog in the new one, if there's a reason why that's a problem, it might be a reason not to switch.
I've been there in my film days which was a disaster for me (and a complete wipe-out financially). Don't assume that if you don't like something you can sell it on later for minimal loss. Likewise, don't assume your current gear has residual value until you've sold it.
Overall, be very clear what you expect to gain from the exercise, and if you decide to go ahead, be prepared to put in the extra effort you'll need to get that gain. If you don't put extra effort in, you're unlikely to get a noticeable gain. If you do decide to switch, buy the best camera in the new system you can (otherwise you'll be back to square one - looking to upgrade to a better option from day one).
John.
The most logical post so far, Totally agree with this point John.
One bit of advice I'd give, is that you should only have one system. Trying to use more than one system means you need to duplicate gear and you never have the right system for any given situation (unless you carry it all - where you miss the shot lugging it all about).
When considering a change, depending how much you've already got invested (or how much cash you can afford to throw away), you need to be fully happy with a possible new system before changing. Don't pay any attention to anybody else's opinion (including gear reviews, youtube videos, this forum or similar), get hold of the gear, make sure you understand and are comfortable with everything. If you choose to switch, you should dump your old system and go whole hog in the new one, if there's a reason why that's a problem, it might be a reason not to switch.
I've been there in my film days which was a disaster for me (and a complete wipe-out financially). Don't assume that if you don't like something you can sell it on later for minimal loss. Likewise, don't assume your current gear has residual value until you've sold it.
Overall, be very clear what you expect to gain from the exercise, and if you decide to go ahead, be prepared to put in the extra effort you'll need to get that gain. If you don't put extra effort in, you're unlikely to get a noticeable gain. If you do decide to switch, buy the best camera in the new system you can (otherwise you'll be back to square one - looking to upgrade to a better option from day one).
John.
Fletcher8.
Posted 09/12/2013 - 07:31
Link
Rowan
In relation to your post at the very start of this thread, I decided to take a look at your flicker page to try and get an idea of why you might need a full frame system. From the images I viewed, i personally don't see how a full frame camera would be an advantage to you, but its your choice and your money not mine.
In relation to your post at the very start of this thread, I decided to take a look at your flicker page to try and get an idea of why you might need a full frame system. From the images I viewed, i personally don't see how a full frame camera would be an advantage to you, but its your choice and your money not mine.
Fletcher8.
Posted 09/12/2013 - 08:31
Link
Has anyone actually tried a good FF camera and compared real world images against a crop sensor?
Not necessarily in a technical way, but looked at them both to decide which they prefer
Test charts are fine for advertising and reviews, but not really much help to assess everyday use
Not necessarily in a technical way, but looked at them both to decide which they prefer
Test charts are fine for advertising and reviews, but not really much help to assess everyday use
Posted 09/12/2013 - 09:22
Link
I've handled a lot of cameras and in one way it doesn't matter one jot which make or format of camera we use, as long as it suits what we do. There's a lot of comment on what might be "better" than something else, but we need to be sure we ask "better in what way?"
To give an example, a medium format DSLR gives much higher resolution than an APS-C DSLR and is clearly better in that respect. It's very much not better if we need to keep down the bulk and cost. We decide where our priorities are and define our own best for purpose.
Photographers who want a general purpose camera that's suitable for everything from landscapes to sport might well choose a DSLR in FF or APS-C formats. Then choices will include price level, availability of lenses, ergonomics, etc. But most of all, do we like the results?
An example will be if you want to shoot JPEG, as it happens I do for various reasons. Then I wouldn't buy a Canon or the new Sony, because their JPEGs are not really that good. Pentax JPEGs are actually amongst the best out there and the new K-3, for example, still equals the resolution of the D610 even when shooting in JPEG.
Noise has been raised as an issue, but we have to look at processed results, as Dan sussed out. Comparing images with no noise reduction applied will obviously get the result observed, but we don't shoot like that.
There are many issues like this, but overall you can't beat that Pentax colour and the images look just great. Format is largely irrelevant in this and a good photographer will do fine whatever they choose. If this leads you to Pentax, then this forum has been provided to help you with that choice.
To give an example, a medium format DSLR gives much higher resolution than an APS-C DSLR and is clearly better in that respect. It's very much not better if we need to keep down the bulk and cost. We decide where our priorities are and define our own best for purpose.
Photographers who want a general purpose camera that's suitable for everything from landscapes to sport might well choose a DSLR in FF or APS-C formats. Then choices will include price level, availability of lenses, ergonomics, etc. But most of all, do we like the results?
An example will be if you want to shoot JPEG, as it happens I do for various reasons. Then I wouldn't buy a Canon or the new Sony, because their JPEGs are not really that good. Pentax JPEGs are actually amongst the best out there and the new K-3, for example, still equals the resolution of the D610 even when shooting in JPEG.
Noise has been raised as an issue, but we have to look at processed results, as Dan sussed out. Comparing images with no noise reduction applied will obviously get the result observed, but we don't shoot like that.
There are many issues like this, but overall you can't beat that Pentax colour and the images look just great. Format is largely irrelevant in this and a good photographer will do fine whatever they choose. If this leads you to Pentax, then this forum has been provided to help you with that choice.
Best regards, John
Posted 09/12/2013 - 12:29
Link
Well, I've just done as Smeggy suggested and compared the K5IIs and K3 using the DNG files from Imaging Resource.
My process:
* Download the K3hSLI51200NRAD.DNG & K52ShSLI51200NRAD.DNG files
* Import into Lightroom with the "None" profile setting
* Set both Camera Calibration to "Embedded" (important!)
* Adjust the K5IIs image as I would expect for a print
* Copy the Sharpening & NR settings onto the K3
* Export both at 402dpi 18x12" (my ProAM export)
* Load the resultant K5IIs image into PS and add the K3 on a layer above
My results show that the K3 is no worse than the K5 at ISO51200. In some ways it is better in that the grain is finer and there is some extra sharpness. Not a lot in it, but certainly not worse IMHO.
I had previously compared ISO6400 for both - since I regularly shoot between ISO3200 and ISO6400. Again, I would be perfectly happy with either output (and my customers would be none the wiser). Personally I'd say that's impressive given the finer pixel density and greater resolution!
It's also worth pointing out that the DNG embedded colour profile isn't that great. Using the QPcard profile for the K5IIs gives a nicer rendition for sure - but that's useless for comparison purposes as I don't have a K3 to profile
Regarding the OP question... my work from the K5IIs+DA* lenses often trumps the work of pros using FF. Would my work with a FF be better still? Can't say - maybe it would be better still - but the expense and weight of FF lenses are prohibitive for my work
The focus accuracy on the K5IIs was a massive step up from anything previous. Given the other improvements in the K3, and (to my mind) the small change in IQ at real-world print sizes at high ISO along with 50% more pixels, I'd have no hesitation in upgrading...
...just wish my bank balance would allow me to
Matt
My process:
* Download the K3hSLI51200NRAD.DNG & K52ShSLI51200NRAD.DNG files
* Import into Lightroom with the "None" profile setting
* Set both Camera Calibration to "Embedded" (important!)
* Adjust the K5IIs image as I would expect for a print
* Copy the Sharpening & NR settings onto the K3
* Export both at 402dpi 18x12" (my ProAM export)
* Load the resultant K5IIs image into PS and add the K3 on a layer above
My results show that the K3 is no worse than the K5 at ISO51200. In some ways it is better in that the grain is finer and there is some extra sharpness. Not a lot in it, but certainly not worse IMHO.
I had previously compared ISO6400 for both - since I regularly shoot between ISO3200 and ISO6400. Again, I would be perfectly happy with either output (and my customers would be none the wiser). Personally I'd say that's impressive given the finer pixel density and greater resolution!
It's also worth pointing out that the DNG embedded colour profile isn't that great. Using the QPcard profile for the K5IIs gives a nicer rendition for sure - but that's useless for comparison purposes as I don't have a K3 to profile
Regarding the OP question... my work from the K5IIs+DA* lenses often trumps the work of pros using FF. Would my work with a FF be better still? Can't say - maybe it would be better still - but the expense and weight of FF lenses are prohibitive for my work
The focus accuracy on the K5IIs was a massive step up from anything previous. Given the other improvements in the K3, and (to my mind) the small change in IQ at real-world print sizes at high ISO along with 50% more pixels, I'd have no hesitation in upgrading...
...just wish my bank balance would allow me to
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 09/12/2013 - 12:38
Link
It's widely accepted that FF will have a shallower DOF than
APS-C, which shows up as extra bokeh. Unfortunately that also
means that (statiscally) more shots taken on FF will be OOF
Manual focus will also be more difficult.
--
APS-C, which shows up as extra bokeh. Unfortunately that also
means that (statiscally) more shots taken on FF will be OOF
Manual focus will also be more difficult.
--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
414 posts
12 years
Bolton
Sorry...just feeling silly...nothing of value here...move along...
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?