Comparing the Nikon D810, Sony A7rII, and the Pentax K1

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Scary stuff these Papaver species, apparently. I stand corrected. All my P. nudicaule photos show glabrous stems and foliage. As stated earlier, they all originate from cultivated stocks as the P. nudicaule is not native to the Nordic countries and probably not even to Iceland, its vernacular name notwithstanding.

Now, as the identity matter appears to be solved, time has come to address the three cameras under investigation. I expect the handling behaviour of the trio might differ more than the output image quality, which should satisfy most nitpickers. There is also the question of lenses. The Sony due to its short register of course can use a wealth of lenses through the appropriate adapters, but all automation we have come to rely on is lost unless stock Sony lenses are deployed with it. This might not be critical for studio work in the close-up range though. The Pentax has to be even more susceptible to camera and tripod vibrations than the two others because the need for taking 4 perfectly aligned images. I fail to see why ISO 64 as a baseline ISO should be an advantage for the D810, as we are dealing with a digital system and the relationship between image quality and ISO from the film days are no longer in existence. The camera maker sets a baseline ISO value for which the camera is optimised in quality terms. However, using the "Low" settings will produce less noise, but the dynamic range is compromised. For critical studio work with full control of lights, this might not be as big a disadvantage as it is under field conditions.

[Michael Erlewine]

As for the why of the ISO 64 on the D810 being helpful, I am not a technician, but I do have eyes. IMO, the blacks and shadows at ISO 64 on the D810 are “better.” I felt the same way when the D3x first appeared. I find the “LO” settings on cameras, which I imagine are some kind of electronic baseline, are not helpful in my work. Show me how they are, please.

The Pentax K1 on Pixel-Shift is VERY touchy. In fact, it is a joke to take a landscape shot in that mode in my experience. You don’t just get some vague movement artifact, you get really ugly artifacts, which I am sure some one of you can explain why. I will try it again, just in case I missed the boat on this.

The K1 has a mode for pixel-shift that attempts to compensate for motion, but it is NOT supported by Adobe Camera Raw, and the Silkpix software shipped with the K1 is perhaps the worst software I have ever attempted to use, like out of the 1980s or something. As a systems programmer, I know a little about software design, and this is atrocious. However, some who have learned it (not me) say that it does do something useful with the Pixel-Shift Mode that includes movement.

My biggest gripe with the K1 is how difficult they make it to use LiveView and see (in real-time) changes (via dials) you make with the shutter and aperture. It kind of can be done, sort-of, but obviously no thought was put into making ease of use for fine focusing a priority.  Their approach is itself a workaround for the fact that they did not consider this aspect of photography.

I also find Pentax camera supporters fierce and unrelenting, so just comments like these can upset them. This has been my experience. I kind of see what they are about, because the K1 is an interesting camera, with lots of thought put into the features. And they are well built and water resistant. I watched a video of someone holding at K1 under the waters of a rushing stream, etc. The Pentax support forums are anxious to help and knowledgeable. It is almost as if they hearken from a bygone age on the Internet.

[simsurace]

I fail to see why ISO 64 as a baseline ISO should be an advantage for the D810, as we are dealing with a digital system and the relationship between image quality and ISO from the film days are no longer in existence.

The lower native ISO means (requires) higher full-well capacity, specifically 78083 electrons (D810) vs. 48818 electrons (D800). One can use more exposure and therefore one obtains a higher signal-to-noise ratio, everything else equal.

Michael, if you find ISO 64 a dramatic improvement over ISO 100, I hope you are using ETTR. That can give you a couple of stops of the same kind of improvement, depending on the scene contrast you are dealing with. The half-stop 2/3stop (thanks Bjørn) improvement of ISO 64 vs ISO 100 is comparatively tiny.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

To elaborate on your ISO statement: the ISO 64 of D810 *is* the baseline. The lower settings, to L1 (approx. 32 ISO) has lower noise, (in my experience) slightly better defined blacks, and clipped highlights. The meaning of this is the dynamic range is more restricted so the scene should be lit for a lower contrast.

I feel a basic point must be missed if a camera capable of better defined image quality (according to the maker) apparently lacks a commensurable improved capability of precise focusing. A camera should be seen as an entity including its lenses and accessories and the weaker points, if relating to important handling or performance aspects, always lower the overall value of the system.

ISO 64 is 2/3 stops 'slower' than ISO 100, by the way.

[simsurace]

ISO 64 is 2/3 stops 'slower' than ISO 100, by the way.

Correct.

Was the rest of your post directed at Micheal?

[Fons Baerken]

Romneya is often referred to as Californian treepoppy with large paperlike white flowers the size of small saucers, their grey leaves suggest hot and dry conditions.
It can be acquired from specialist breeders here in Holland.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

...

Was the rest of your post directed at Micheal?

I pondered on the ramifications of his observations, that's all. It is surprising to learn some of the experiences he has had with the K1.

[bjornthun]

There is also the question of lenses. The Sony due to its short register of course can use a wealth of lenses through the appropriate adapters, but all automation we have come to rely on is lost unless stock Sony lenses are deployed with it. This might not be critical for studio work in the close-up range though.

Metabones makes a Canon EOS to Sony E adapter that retains AF as well as all the usual exposure modes, PASM, and that adapter is by now mature. There is also an adapter for Nikon F mount to Sony E that gives AF as well as PASM exposure modes, but that adapter is by no means a mature product. Of course Sony also makes adapters for their own DSLR lenses to use AF as well as exposure automation. In essence there are many more lenses than Sony E mount lenses that can be used and retain full automation on Sony's A7 series cameras.

[longzoom]

20130210-2013.02.10 michelle 003 by 20130210-2013.02.10 michelle 003-2 by longzoom, on Flickrcom/photos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr.     With all due respect, but I used to work or tried everything (or most mentioned) from above.  And I think, nothing is close to D800-810 in department of DR.  Even D810 is a hair - I mean a HAIR - less competent of DR, than D800, due to its higher resolution/absence of LP filter. So the image and crop, ISO 1600. I am not able to see any significant difference to ISO 100.  THX!   LZ

[BruceSD]

The Otus lens does not come in the Pentax K mount.

Unless Michael had it "Leitaxed", I suspect that the Nikon to Pentax K adapter that he used "had glass in it".  If so, the adapter's glass would have degraded the Pentax K1 images.

[Michael Erlewine]

The Otus lens does not come in the Pentax K mount.

Unless Michael had it "Leitaxed", I suspect that the Nikon to Pentax K adapter that he used "had glass in it".  If so, the adapter's glass would have degraded the Pentax K1 images.

I only do close-up, so I knocked out the glass because it is cheap and only ruins the image. The Oti lenses do not come in Pentax, although the Zeiss Distagon 28mm ZF lens (not Otus) comes in Pentax. I am selling one on Ebay now.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Metabones makes a Canon EOS to Sony E adapter that retains AF as well as all the usual exposure modes, PASM, and that adapter is by now mature. There is also an adapter for Nikon F mount to Sony E that gives AF as well as PASM exposure modes, but that adapter is by no means a mature product. Of course Sony also makes adapters for their own DSLR lenses to use AF as well as exposure automation. In essence there are many more lenses than Sony E mount lenses that can be used and retain full automation on Sony's A7 series cameras.

I'm aware of the existence of adapters, but that does only reduce the problem, not solving it. Adding an adapter means more lens/camera interfaces and less stability, and the potential for introducing more issues. A native lens format eschews these issues.