Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2015, 07:17 AM   #871
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,930
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
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
No problem here with Firefox 38.0.5 and Windows 7.

06-09-2015, 12:55 PM   #872
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 903
QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
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..
someday you will find Jazz is much better use of the cam how is the high ISO 1600-3200 compared to the K3???

---------- Post added 06-09-15 at 10:05 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
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?!
would be nice if you could compare K5II to K3II as I wonder about noise @ 1600-3200, if possible an outdoor pic of a bird would be great--same lens settings etc... & you say to overexpose on K3II? pity as have pulled alot of detail out of K5II shadows
06-09-2015, 01:07 PM   #873
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,942
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
someday you will find Jazz is much better use of the cam how is the high ISO 1600-3200 compared to the K3???
Dont see a big difference to be honest. Its on the AF-C i notice a big improvement.
06-09-2015, 02:20 PM   #874
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
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.
Interesting; I have the K-5 and what held me back originally from upgrading to the K-3 was the reports of poorer high ISO performance (which since may have been overblown).

I treat the K-5 similarly to you; I almost treat it like pushing film. In my case I sometimes don't have a choice of aperture or shutter speed; I need a minimum shutter to freeze some motion, a certain aperture for reasonable isoloation (ie usually not f/1.4, but 2.8 to 5.6 depending on focal length).

That leaves ISO, but if I set it where it should be, I get a raw file that I have very little control over, and the noise is baked-in. If I shoot a stop or two underexposed and only bring up the details in post that I need to, I get a better result overall. Shadow noise isn't bad, and there isn't any pattern noise/banding at all.

06-09-2015, 04:02 PM   #875
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 903
QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
Dont see a big difference to be honest. Its on the AF-C i notice a big improvement.
like it tracks much better
06-09-2015, 10:49 PM   #876
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Surrey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 179
QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
Dont see a big difference to be honest. Its on the AF-C i notice a big improvement.
any chance of more details on this, Kenneth? Thank you!
06-10-2015, 02:39 AM   #877
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,744
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
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 ----------



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.
My experience shooting a K3 and a K5 II currently, is that they are the same with regard to high iso performance. The K3 has extra resolution at low iso and the K5 has better dynamic range (better shadow detail) at lowest iso (80) setting. Otherwise, there is not a big difference between them. I find that I get better shots with the K3 in dark settings because the auto focus performance is better with it than the K5 II, but I am not afraid to shoot iso 6400 with the K3 in the situation that I need to.
06-10-2015, 08:36 AM   #878
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,942
QuoteOriginally posted by davidsladek Quote
any chance of more details on this, Kenneth? Thank you!
It tracks better in bad/dark light. More accurate. Yesterday at latest, at Marilyn Manson..Much smoke, bad lightning. Worked well..better then i could with K-3..So I'm shure its better in good light too

06-10-2015, 11:38 AM   #879
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cracow
Posts: 457
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
K50 (performance is the same as K5-II):
It is not.
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Up to my knowledge for now DxO prime is significantly better than the alternatives.
These pictures are not showing it - that's for sure.
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I find that I get better shots with the K3 in dark settings because the auto focus performance is better with it than the K5 II
You mean AF-C? I found the K-5IIs to be more precise in AF-S, but it could be just a matter of a copy.
06-10-2015, 11:42 AM   #880
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,655
QuoteOriginally posted by jaad75 Quote
It is not.
These pictures are not showing it - that's for sure.
Thanks for the very argumented response.

I had K5, have K3, my father has K30 as long as few friends. Not only K5-II, K5, K30, K50 have very similar performance in high isos, but K3 does too. It doesn't blur the output like the K5 familly so you have to know what you are doing, you can choose between keeping more sharpness or being more agressive in noise reduction (like K5 familly is without possibility to remove the bluring from the raws).

The more funny thing about this is arguing about tiny difference in theses performance like if high iso performance is important K3, K3-II, K50 or K5 would make a noticable difference between them. If you are really after it, be serious and go for a full frame or a camera that actually show a real difference in that aspect.

Edit here one or 2 example of old K3:

2500 isos, f/4



3200 isos, f/4


6400 iso, f/4, polariser filter


Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-10-2015 at 12:04 PM.
06-10-2015, 11:44 AM   #881
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,744
QuoteOriginally posted by jaad75 Quote
It is not.
These pictures are not showing it - that's for sure.
You mean AF-C? I found the K-5IIs to be more precise in AF-S, but it could be just a matter of a copy.
Smaller auto focus points. The K5 II will always lock focus, but I could never be certain exactly where on a person the focus would be, or if some reason the focus would be on the back ground instead. Otherwise, they are very similar.
06-10-2015, 12:37 PM   #882
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 903
QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
It tracks better in bad/dark light. More accurate. Yesterday at latest, at Marilyn Manson..Much smoke, bad lightning. Worked well..better then i could with K-3..So I'm shure its better in good light too
So do you think its the same sensor as K3, or tweaked some more..glad to hear tracking has improved
06-10-2015, 12:41 PM   #883
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cracow
Posts: 457
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I had K5, have K3, my father has K30 as long as few friends. Not only K5-II, K5, K30, K50 have very similar performance in high isos, but K3 does too.
K-30/K-50 have very different output than the K-5/K-5II, not to mention the K-5IIs. It's not only a difference between 12 and 14-bit RAW, but a different noise processing above ISO1600. Prime M cameras have quite a different noise structure and noticeably less workable files.
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
K5 familly is without possibility to remove the bluring from the raws
That's not true - you can easily push ISO1600 instead of using higher settings - anything above ~ISO1000 is just a software push with the IMX071 anyway.
06-10-2015, 12:52 PM   #884
Veteran Member
bobell69's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Courtenay BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 422
I've had my K3II for a week now and took it on a bear trip this past weekend. Used it for a number of actions including birds. Focus is very good and I am so far very happy with the cameras noise control.
06-10-2015, 02:41 PM   #885
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,942
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
So do you think its the same sensor as K3, or tweaked some more..glad to hear tracking has improved
I think they have improved the same sensor a bit. I might be mistaken, but it seem like it. Af-C is without doubt better then.
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 08:07 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