[kenspo]

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..

[hoopsontoast]

Some sexy K-3II shots....

K85 and FA20-35

[totsmuyco]

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.

[kenspo]

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.

[Dan Rentea]

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

[Class A]

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.

[rawr]

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.

[Dan Rentea]

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 ----------

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.

[Class A]

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.

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).

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.

[Dan Rentea]

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?!

[rawr]

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

[Matthew Saville]

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 ----------

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%

[mee]

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!

[Nicolas06]

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.

[Zafar Iqbal]

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.