Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2015, 12:06 AM   #856
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,948
I use the Mark II at metal and rock concerts. So you can say that i've have tested it very much...hehe..I just need to wait for my next payday, so i can upload more pics here, then i can give a good feedback on the Mark II on those things real life use is a better test then staged ones..

06-09-2015, 12:22 AM - 1 Like   #857
Pentaxian
hoopsontoast's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 828
Some sexy K-3II shots....

K85 and FA20-35





06-09-2015, 12:41 AM   #858
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,072
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
If you're referring to normal shooting (i.e. not super resolution), see:
Pentax K-3 Review - Low-Light High-ISO | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Okay, thanks Adam

@ Kenspo, Please do post them so that we can see them. I hope you'll post some pics without post processing them. Then we can truly see how good it is.

Last edited by totsmuyco; 06-09-2015 at 12:44 AM. Reason: Add more comments
06-09-2015, 12:48 AM   #859
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,948
I will do I have a lot of shows coming up..both inside and outside..so i can test it real good. I have Marilyn Manson this evening and Foo Fighters tomorrow.

06-09-2015, 01:01 AM   #860
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 624
Here is a shot taken in a restaurant, with little light. The noise was quite bad at ISO 1600, but that was my fault. I'm used to K-5 II, which is more forgiving when it come to shoot underexposed. With K-3 II you bring a lot of noise into the image if you shot underexposed and try in post processing to rise the exposure and/or shadows. When I will get home I will upload again the picture, but with a better resolution.

Pentax K-3 II, DA50mm f1.8, ISO1600, f3.2, 1/80, no flash


And here is another image, taken in the same restaurant, but with a few more lights on.
Pentax K-3 II, DA50mm f1.8, ISO1600, F4, 1/125, no flash

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 06-09-2015 at 01:07 AM.
06-09-2015, 01:37 AM   #861
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,175
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
The noise was quite bad at ISO 1600, but that was my fault. I'm used to K-5 II, which is more forgiving when it come to shoot underexposed.
The high-ISO advantage of a K-5 II compared to a K-3 (II) is virtually non-existent, if you compare images as opposed to single pixels (the latter being smaller and hence noisier on the K-3).

The K-5 (II) shines with its ISO 80 option, but in terms of high-ISO noise the differences are negligible. Please refer to the DxOMark results for both cameras, using the "print" tab which compares images of the sane size as opposed to 100% views which differ in magnification and hence noise levels when different resolutions are involved.
06-09-2015, 01:46 AM   #862
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Here is a shot taken in a restaurant, with little light.
It's interesting, but when you view the first image in Opera v12.17 (top part of image), the colours look OK. However, when viewed in the latest Firefox (v38.05), (EDIT - or Google Chrome] there is a heavy yellow/orange cast to the image. What colour space did you save the image in?


Last edited by rawr; 06-09-2015 at 01:55 AM.
06-09-2015, 01:54 AM   #863
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 624
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The high-ISO advantage of a K-5 II compared to a K-3 (II) is virtually non-existent, if you compare images as opposed to single pixels (the latter being smaller and hence noisier on the K-3).

The K-5 (II) shines with its ISO 80 option, but in terms of high-ISO noise the differences are negligible. Please refer to the DxOMark results for both cameras, using the "print" tab which compares images of the sane size as opposed to 100% views which differ in magnification and hence noise levels when different resolutions are involved.
I'm so tired of DXO and other laboratory tests. I had K-5 II for 2 years and (although I know what are you referring to) I didn't bought K-3 II in order to resize the files to match the files from K-5 II.
So, when I'm looking at pictures taken with K-3 II on a large monitor, I see a little more noise. And the noise gets even more pronounced if I raise the exposure or shadows in Lightroom (on a picture which is underexposed). That is what I see when I work with files from K-3 II in Lightroom.
But if I'm more carrefour to get the right exposure from the camera, the results are quite impressive.

---------- Post added 06-09-15 at 08:58 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
It's interesting, but when you view the first image in Opera v12.17 (top part of image), the colours look OK. However, when viewed in the latest Firefox (v38.05), (EDIT - or Google Chrome] there is a heavy yellow/orange cast to the image. What colour space did you save the image in?
Wow, that looks bad.
I use SRGB. I'm looking at the image in Chrome and it looks ok. I don't know why looks so bad in Firefox.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 06-09-2015 at 02:01 AM.
06-09-2015, 02:04 AM   #864
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,175
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
I'm so tired of DXO and other laboratory tests.
They give you the proper answers, though.

You may think that your real life experiences trump laboratory results, but you are mistaken.

QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
I had K-5 II for 2 years and (although I know what are you referring to) I didn't bought K-3 II in order to resize the files to match the files from K-5 II.
You don't have to.

You just need to do fair comparisons (see below).

QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
So, when I'm looking at pictures taken with K-3 II on a large monitor, I see a little more noise.
But not unless you zoom into the image, right?

I bet you cannot see any noise level difference based on full image views (because there aren't any noticeable ones).

When you zoom into an image with Lightroom, you'll get a 100% view, or less than that depending on your settings, but in any event due to the higher magnification the increased resolution of the K-3 provides, you will see more noise. This is normal and irrelevant when you compare images at the same size, e.g., as full image views or as 8x10 prints, or whatever.
06-09-2015, 02:15 AM   #865
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 624
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
But not unless you zoom into the image, right?

I bet you cannot see any noise level difference based on full image views (because there aren't any noticeable ones).

When you zoom into an image with Lightroom, you'll get a 100% view, or less than that depending on your settings, but in any event due to the higher magnification the increased resolution of the K-3 provides, you will see more noise. This is normal and irrelevant when you compare images at the same size, e.g., as full image views or as 8x10 prints, or whatever.
Maybe... I will have to take a few shots with K-5 II and K-3 II from a tripod, with the same settings and compare them (without zooming them). But there is a little more "noise" on the K-3 II images, which I didn't had on K-5 II, even at ISO 400 (click on the image bellow). Maybe do to the the higher resolution from the K-3 II?!

06-09-2015, 02:19 AM   #866
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
I don't know why looks so bad in Firefox.
Neither do I. Modern Firefox is supposed to be colour-space aware, but the latest Firefox and Chrome on my XP PC are not. Easy browser test is here:

Color Management test
06-09-2015, 02:20 AM   #867
Senior Member
Matthew Saville's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 250
I appreciate DXO's tests only as a general marker for overall industry improvement.

Meaning, Canon shooters probably need to raise an eyebrow at the fact that they only have one or two cameras in the top ONE HUNDRED on DXO's chart for dynamic range. That is no conspiracy, that is a clear indication that Canon has in fact fallen behind in that particular aspect of image quality. Anyone who argues that the results are completely worthless, let alone faked, needs to pull their head out of the sand.

Beyond that, however, I never pay attention to the small, incremental improvements / differences that each sensor or lens seems to produce on those charts. DXO's "overall" rankings for both sensors and lenses are even less useful.

So, read charts with a grain of salt ready, and unless there is a significant jump between the camera you own and the latest one being tested, (a jump that is also backed up by multiple real-world reports) ...don't let it affect your buying decisions.

:-)
=Matt=

---------- Post added 06-09-15 at 02:21 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dave L Quote
Unlike Nicads, with Lithium Ion batteries, you could probably do better by discharging them less, before recharging.

How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries - Battery University
Oh, I didn't mean that I intentionally discharge them in some sort of "refresh" cycle on a charger, I just meant that I routinely use them up entirely while shooting long wedding days. I make time to swap at about 15-20%
06-09-2015, 02:27 AM   #868
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,866
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
But there is a little more "noise" on the K-3 II images, which I didn't had on K-5 II, even at ISO 400 (click on the image bellow).
And that is precisely why I'm very hesitant to 'upgrade' to a K-3 class body over my K-5 II

A test of the same scene photographed with the K-3 II and with the K-5 II with the same lens would be interesting. I have more than enough noise in my K-5 II images at ISO 200, I don't think I want even more!
06-09-2015, 04:57 AM   #869
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
And that is precisely why I'm very hesitant to 'upgrade' to a K-3 class body over my K-5 II

A test of the same scene photographed with the K-3 II and with the K-5 II with the same lens would be interesting. I have more than enough noise in my K-5 II images at ISO 200, I don't think I want even more!
Just for the record, taken from the RAWs of imaging resources, processed both with same DxO prime setting.

Both taken with same lense and at iso 6400 and represent a 100% crop of the K50. To match the framing of the K50 crop the K3 image has been resized accordingly.

K50 (performance is the same as K5-II):



K3:



If high iso performance is important to you, ensure you shoot raw (the results are quite different in Jpeg) and use a software optimized for processing high iso images. Up to my knowledge for now DxO prime is significantly better than the alternatives.

If you doesn't do that, discussing of the minor differences in high iso performance between K5-II and K3 is a bit meaningless, counting the results are not necessarily in favor of the K5-II in all conditions.

K5-II would beat K3 at very high iso like 12800 and up and very dark picture while K3 would maintain it's edge in resolution toward K5-II up to 1600 isos included and be very similar (but sharper) in the 3200-6400 iso range.
06-09-2015, 06:19 AM   #870
Pentaxian
Zafar Iqbal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,167
Got mine yesterday and so far I love this camera. The extra dynamic range compared to K-30 is so awesome. That alone is worth the purchase for me, but then there's the faster burst rate, larger buffer, improved AF and the quiet shutter.

I like

Edit: Btw, which 3rd party charger would you guys recommend? I can't find a lot and even less info about what I can find.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, af-c, camera, canon, d-fa, diglloyd, f2.8, features, ff, flash, gps, hardware, ii, iso, k-3, module, nikon, pentax, pentax k-3 ii, pentax news, pentax rumors, price, sample shots, sensor, shot, technology, time, utility
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced Adam Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 12 05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-3 Officially Announced (See our detailed preview here!) Adam Pentax News and Rumors 213 11-18-2014 01:46 AM
Pentax K-500, K-50, and Q7 cameras officially announced! Adam Pentax News and Rumors 346 07-08-2013 01:10 PM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs OFFICIALLY Announced Adam Pentax K-5 9 09-11-2012 08:43 AM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 533 03-06-2012 05:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top