[LFLee]

Hi,

For those who have K-30 and K-5, is the high iso performance of K-30 better (clean, less noise) than K-5?

I have been thinking to have it as my 2nd camera. Right now I have a K200D as 2nd camera, but it starts to show it's limits when using along side K5. Don't get me wrong, K200D CCD's colors and top lcd still the features I like. But when I can use K5 to shoot panoramic shots continuously non-stop, I need to stop a while after 4 shots on the K200, and then 1 shot at a time for the remaining shots.

I am debating whether I should wait for K5 replacement or get the K30, budget-wise K-30 makes more sense (as I can get it sooner as well). Of course, K-30 unique look would be difficult to pass the wife/gf test when I tell her "no, this is not a new camera"...

Lee

[Anvh]

Are there even people that have both cameras?

Anyway if you want to replace the K200D then get a K5 since having 2 of the same camera is better then having 2 different camera's around your neck.

[JinDesu]

There were a few owners who made comments in the general k-30 threads running around. My memory of this include:

-The k-30's high ISO performance above ISO 6400 is a little weaker than the k-5
-The k-30 has a bit more chroma noise than the k-5 at high ISO
-The k-30's detail retention is a bit better than the k-5 at high ISO

Hopefully someone can clarify more.

[LFLee]

Hm.... thanks for both of your info.
K-30 does have some features that I like (manual video, focus peaking), that's why I don't want a 2nd K5 although their price is similar now.

I read somewhere the K-30 high iso (though highest iso is 25600) is better than K5, hm....

[jimr-pdx]

Looking at dpr shots the k30 looks a bit better at 6400 when looking 1:1 (an awful habit). Remember you lose 14 bit raw though, so it's safest overall to consider it a draw.

[JinDesu]

It's really close, in my opinion.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7253/7585839082_3be9ecd04c_o.jpg

Full size image above shot at ISO 25,600 on a demo K-30 at B&H. No noise reduction, shot in RAW. Processed to JPEG in Lightroom I believe, with no noise reduction on.

It's noisy, but it retains detail pretty well. I didn't try the k-5 next to it to compare, but you can see generally how much base noise there is on a normally exposed shot.

[snake]

There were a few owners who made comments in the general k-30 threads running around. My memory of this include:

-The k-30's high ISO performance above ISO 6400 is a little weaker than the k-5
-The k-30 has a bit more chroma noise than the k-5 at high ISO
-The k-30's detail retention is a bit better than the k-5 at high ISO

Hopefully someone can clarify more.

From the DPR comparo tool, I have to say that the difference is slightly weaker, mostly negligible, in the K-30. The character is slightly different, mostly.

The chroma noise is better described as "different" in character. The K-5 wins out, though if you're looking to quantify it, but the fact of the matter is whether the character is something that your PP program can deal with or not. With LR3/4, I've preferred the K-5 character of chroma when dealing with it. It appears to leave nicer, cleaner pics behind with better detail.

The detail retention seems a bit interesting between them. It looks better in the K-30, but overall, fairly similar. I think that's a good thing, by the way. The K-5 is still a tough act to follow (and the D7000), so even if performance is the same, they are still great, not to mention, astounding for entry-level/intermediate cams.

[JinDesu]

Yeah - again, it's the same sensor, except the k-5 has 2 bit more data (for color information) and the k-30 has newer processing. I really can't say there's a significant difference between them in the high-ISO department.

However, it does have better AF (per a few user comments), better live view AF, and focus peaking.

[Anvh]

Don't forget that the difference in image processing.

[snake]

Yeah - again, it's the same sensor, except the k-5 has 2 bit more data (for color information) and the k-30 has newer processing. I really can't say there's a significant difference between them in the high-ISO department.

However, it does have better AF (per a few user comments), better live view AF, and focus peaking.

That, I think, is a huge deal because those extra 2 bits would theoretically allow more room to play with and push the shots in post under normal conditions, as well as under extreme conditions.

[JinDesu]

That, I think, is a huge deal because those extra 2 bits would theoretically allow more room to play with and push the shots in post under normal conditions, as well as under extreme conditions.

It could be - but my understanding of the extra two bits was to store color information (which is why the k-5 is so fantastic when recovering shadow details, as the color reproduction is good when doing so).

But my other understanding was also that the extra two bits aren't always used, and that the k-30 performed practically similar in some of the DR tests (PF's own review, for one).

[snake]

We'll probably know for sure in the coming months when more critical tests take place, particularly by users and testers that are going to push the cameras to extremes to see their limits.

For the most part, neither is going to be terribly usable at 25,600 and above. However, The Shadow recovery of the K-5 is certainly something that brought some attention from me, and not to mention, altering many other parameters greatly, with little degradation, was an added benefit, but I think the K-30 and k-01 will offer much the same, too.

[glanglois]

That, I think, is a huge deal because those extra 2 bits would theoretically allow more room to play with and push the shots in post under normal conditions, as well as under extreme conditions.

Are you suggesting that the additional bits provides additional dynamic range? AFAIK, that's not the case at all. Nor are the bits devoted to color.

This is a matter of, in effect, dividing the existing dynamic range into smaller increments during the A/D conversion. Whether the viewer can observe the difference on paper or monitor after conversion is another thing entirely.

Based on a lot of ignorance, I won't comment beyond that.

[sbroadbentphoto]

It is all software based. Real ISO doesn't actually change after ISO1600 or something. After that it is all done in software making the best use of the dynamic range and its ability to pull out info from shadows. so any ISO higher than that has noise reduction applied even in RAW. The K5 and K30 can actually get the same results with fine tuning in RAW. The reason the K30 seems better is because it appears that they have removed some colour noise before the photo is made into a RAW file.
The in camera software is better but with external software, you can get very similar results as they are the same sensor with software tweaks

[Anvh]

You can push a underexpose ISO1600 quite a bit, have done that a couple of times.