[totsmuyco]

I hope kenspo will post some high ISO low light unprocessed jpeg shots. I'm interested as my future plans remain with APS-C.

[BigMackCam]

Not sure if I've missed anything, but has anyone taken any RAW photos at various ISO levels yet? I'm particularly interested in ISO 6400 upwards... Would love to get some RAW files to play with. JPEGs are all well and good, but they really tell us very little about the actual performance. The in-camera JPEG processing masks the noise, but typically (especially with Pentax) doesn't do it very well. The RAW files will look worse to begin with, but should yield much better results with proper post-processing in Lightroom or similar...

[kenspo]

Not sure if I've missed anything, but has anyone taken any RAW photos at various ISO levels yet? I'm particularly interested in ISO 6400 upwards... Would love to get some RAW files to play with. JPEGs are all well and good, but they really tell us very little about the actual performance. The in-camera JPEG processing masks the noise, but typically (especially with Pentax) doesn't do it very well. The RAW files will look worse to begin with, but should yield much better results with proper post-processing in Lightroom or similar...

Dont think that many has the camera yet

But i have done som testing and will do some more. As expected, its not close to the ISO level for the K-1. But its good up to 3200..Ok on 6400..But since no one have FW1.0 yet, it can still be a bit better later. But i will say its a stop better then K-3II on ISO

[Nicolas06]

Yes... but, if high ISO RAW files from the KP are considerably better than, say, the K-3 (which we can almost guarantee they will be)

What "considerably better"? K3 is already great. K1 is considerably better than K3, but still 1.5-2EV. K5 a bit better than K3. KP still APSC and likely based on Alpha 6300 or equivalent that is not much better than other APSC. This isn't CMOS vs CCD change man.

at the very least it gives us more options. We may choose to shoot with a flash (assuming we have one with us) and keep the ISO lower, or we may decide that a flash would change the lighting for the worse - or may not even be allowed at certain events.

Yes a tiny bit more but likely less than if you invest in a lens that one stop faster, a great RAW processing software, a bigger sensor or a flash. I don't see it as KP would make a photo that K3 or K5 would break if you have a good workflow. Already people don't all agree on APSC vs FF that FF is really necessary, but there a bigger difference.

Of course, an ISO 12,800 shot on the KP is unlikely to be as good as ISO 1600 on the K-3... but it may be "good enough" with some post-processing.

Good enoug is relative, but I guess 1600 iso on KP go to look better than 12800 on KP and 12800 on KP isn't going to look that great most of the time... So you still want to avoid 12800 isos when you can... Like you'd want to shoot at low iso when you can anway. What I know is that if I have to show high iso often, I'd buy an A7s or a K1 and ensure I have f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes. I'd ensure I have the best raw processing software too and I'll invest into lighting equipment. I am not going to just buy a bit better APSC body.

[BigMackCam]

Dont think that many has the camera yet

Indeed I guess my question was aimed towards the very few early testers such as your good self

But i have done som testing and will do some more. As expected, its not close to the ISO level for the K-1. But its good up to 3200..Ok on 6400..But since no one have FW1.0 yet, it can still be a bit better later. But i will say its a stop better then K-3II on ISO

Really? Hmmm... I guess I was hoping for a little better than that. Still, a stop better is a stop better I'm happy with the K-3 / K-3II at up to ISO 20,000 or thereabouts, depending on the situation and subject, so it sounds like I could expect better results from the KP at ISO 25,600 than I would from the K-3II at ISO 20,000.

It's pretty much academic for me right now, as I don't intend on upgrading from my K-3 and K-3II for some time... but it's encouraging to know that a K-3II replacement will likely offer a tangible improvement in high ISO performance.

Thanks for feedback

[kenspo]

Indeed I guess my question was aimed towards the very few early testers such as your good self

Really? Hmmm... I guess I was hoping for a little better than that. Still, a stop better is a stop better I'm happy with the K-3 / K-3II at up to ISO 20,000 or thereabouts, depending on the situation and subject, so it sounds like I could expect better results from the KP at ISO 25,600 than I would from the K-3II at ISO 20,000.

It's pretty much academic for me right now, as I don't intend on upgrading from my K-3 and K-3II for some time... but it's encouraging to know that a K-3II replacement will likely offer a tangible improvement in high ISO performance.

As mentioned, FW isnt 1.0 yet, so there can still be some improvements before it hits the stores But aps-c still gonna be aps-c..will never be as good as FF.

Thanks for feedback

Pleasure is mine..Thats why I'm here (not really, but i still am )

[ogl]

What about AF? The same as K-3?

[normhead]

As mentioned, FW isnt 1.0 yet, so there can still be some improvements before it hits the stores But aps-c still gonna be aps-c..will never be as good as FF.

I would expect the APS-c to be half of FF, so, I'm hoping for relatively clean 3200 ISO images from the KP. My wife shouts acceptable 1600 ISO images on her K-5. I'm not upgrading her K-5 until we see that extra stop of low light ability. Otherwise, what's the point? My K-3 is 1000 ISO to get the same type of images and she won't use it.When I buy for her, I have to go with what's important to her, even if I'm happier with the bigger buffer and faster frame rate with the K-3, she doesn't care at all about those things.

[mee]

Pentax says the software is improved.
You could see for yourself if you're willing to buy one.

Why would anyone buy a product to test it? That is horrible for the company you bought it from.. if you don't like it, they take a loss. It isn't a free rental service.

[Zygonyx]

So, apparently anything has been said.
JPEG engine 1 EV better than K-3/II with KP.

[mee]

If people don't buy it and test it, we'll have endless speculation here, with some people just determined to believe that no product from Pentax could ever meet any reasonable standard.

Now, this thread is theoretically about high-ISO performance, and despite the regular nay-saying, the only thing discouraging me from buying the KP is my wallet - otherwise the pictures people are taking have convinced me that this is the best results yet from a mid-range Pentax camera.

They can rent it from an actual rental store instead of abusing a retail store's return policy.

Or, you know, just wait for the professional reviews to come in and see what they have to say...

Ogl did nothing wrong by asking his question. Actually, he was asking the one person here who currently can theoretically answer his question (whether they are allowed to due to NDA or not).

[frogfoot]

So, apparently anything has been said.
JPEG engine 1 EV better than K-3/II with KP.

It was said about RAWs not JPEGs, I'm sure.

[Zygonyx]

Well, i just want to see that...
Kenspo, is that too much asking you for ?
The germans did already post a complete full size KP JPEG serie : we now need some comparison samples JPEG and ideally RAW.
And we don't care if it's only FW 0.35

[thibs]

But Kenspo/Ricoh does IMO

[house]

This has been posted elsewhere:
KP ISO series Pentax KP hus, svart digital systemkamera

Ð500 ISO series Nikon D500 systemkamera toppklass i test | CyberPhoto

Click the second tab "Testbilder" under the product image. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click the ISO numbers for full size comparisons. Same scene and lighting.