[mecrox]

Most of us, essentially keep their photographs on a hard drive or flickr. We are very depending on image quality because we pixel peep on a computer. Take any current Pentax camera and print A4, the prints are awesome. If the KP shows less noise, it's even better. We just don't do enough photo printing to enjoy our cameras.

Yes, this is a huge but rarely mentioned issue with way cameras and pics are assessed all over the Internet. And it is changing the way cameras and lenses are designed too. Quite right.

[thibs]

Or we dont print enough so we bitch about noise instead of praising the quality we.never got before.

[eddie1960]

Or we dont print enough so we bitch about noise instead of praising the quality we.never got before.

We don't print nearly enough, I even have a good printer (pro10 canon) and still rarely print

[gazonk]

Or we dont print enough so we bitch about noise instead of praising the quality we.never got before.

+1 to that. But at least I finally finished my 2017 calendar, a few days into February

Our son printed and framed some of his favorite shots from last year as a Christmas present for my wife. I must say that even ISO 3200 shots from his K-s1 look quite good printed. That underrated little camera has a remarkably good sensor (and the AF seems more reliable than on my K-5 as well).

[thibs]

I'm nom better really, but staring at enlarged pixel really doesn't do that much good. I'm no less guilty than others.

But then a silver print appearing in developer bath is waaaayyyyyore enjoyable than millions of pixels (IMO)

[gazonk]

I print as much as I did with film, namely not at all.
My computer screen has replaced my slide projector screen.

I'm an old slide fan, too, but I used to order quite a few prints from my slides.

[climit]

quite nice high iso performance

[Zygonyx]

Pentax KP Review: First Shots - Samples


Sooo, Imaging Ressources did get authorised to post KP ALL-ISO Samples....

[kenspo]

Thats because they have PENTAX KP Ver. 1.00 in camera now. We others dont.

[totsmuyco]

Absolutely fantastic! If these shots are better than the competition then.... Be careful guys, Ricoh means business.

[Winder]

I went to a branch of Yodobashi near my home, and they now have a book of A4 prints from the KP. I found them pretty impressive, to say the least. Up to ISO 12,800, the images retain a lot of detail at A4 size. At 51,200 and above, you can see the blotchiness fairly clearly, but step back and the colour information is still accurate. I would be pretty happy using it for smaller prints. The images at 1,600 just looked like base ISO on my K-5iis to me. All of these images were JPEGs, because they mentioned the custom image setting in the description.

I spoke to the Ricoh rep, who I've spoken to on occasion before. He was in unusually enthusiastic mood. He said they had been taking preorders like never before. Apparently, the silver one is especially popular. Bear in mind that there is no discount or price cut for pre release cameras, so the preorders are at 123,800 yen.

What kind of light? High ISO under good light usually looks pretty decent, but most people need high ISO because the light is low and that is when you start to see color shift. Usually those promotional books show a lot of different images shot under different conditions, but what you need for high ISO testing is the same picture taken at different ISO settings and with different light. I find that skin tones start to fall apart at 800 ISO on the K-3 even with good light.

The KP looks like a great little camera but like the hype with the Fuji APS-C (As good as FF), or the hype over the Samsung NX-1 sensor (As good as FF), they all end up being a stop behind FF. I hope the KP is a huge success and Ricoh continues to refine to concept and maybe even produce a FF version of the KP.

[normhead]

With all due respect... a batch of A4 prints is much better than industry hype as a source of information. And yes some of us shoot in bad low light conditions. Some of us have noticed you get better photo's in better conditions. Hell, I hardly ever even go out in bad light, and every time I do, it gets reinforced why I don't.

The images at 1,600 just looked like base ISO on my K-5iis to me. All of these images were JPEGs, because they mentioned the custom image setting in the description

.

That's what I'm looking for in a KP. excellent at 1600 ISO, 3200 ISO in a pinch ( I suspect I could use 6400 in a pinch with a K-1 but I've never actually needed to go that high in the field.) . Just like my K-1, and K-5 (800 preferred, 1600 in a pinch).. The K-3 is the only recent Pentax that didn't measure up (640 ISO preferred max., 1000 ISO in a pinch).

The K-3's strength is resolution at base ISO-400 ISO, magnification, FPS and buffer.

If the KP can do better than K-5 values with 8 more MP, it's a keeper for sure.

If things hold up, I may go for one once the price starts to drop.

[photoptimist]

With all due respect... a batch of A4 prints is much better than industry hype as a source of information. And yes some of us shoot in bad low light conditions. Some of us have noticed you get better photo's in better conditions. Hell, I hardly ever even go out in bad light, and every time I do, it gets reinforced why I don't.

.

That's what I'm looking for in a KP. excellent at 1600 ISO, 3200 ISO in a pinch ( I suspect I could use 6400 in a pinch with a K-1 but I've never actually needed to go that high in the field.) . Just like my K-1, and K-5 (800 preferred, 1600 in a pinch).. The K-3 is the only recent Pentax that didn't measure up (640 ISO preferred max., 1000 ISO in a pinch).

The K-3's strength is resolution at base ISO-400 ISO, magnification, FPS and buffer.

If the KP can do better than K-5 values, it's a keeper for sure.

Exactly!

The challenge with "bad light" is that the planet and it's people spend the majority of their time in bad light (night, deep shade, indoors, etc.) More the half the interesting stuff happens in bad light and I, for one, would like to take pictures during that time.

Much of the history of photographic technology advancement has been about redefining "bad light" (faster lenses, faster emulsions & sensors, image stabilization, flashes, noise reduction algorithms, etc.) and being able to take "acceptable" photographs under previously unacceptable conditions.

The KP looks like a good step in that direction.

[BigMackCam]

Just like my K-1, and K-5 (800 preferred, 1600 in a pinch).. The K-3 is the only recent Pentax that didn't measure up (640 ISO preferred max., 1000 ISO in a pinch).

Norm, not wanting to take the thread off topic, but you (and several others) have mentioned previously that the K-5 is a better high ISO performer than the K-3. In terms of pure luminance noise, I'd agree - there definitely is a touch more with the K-3 than the K-5 at, say, ISO 3200 (for example). But, I find the K-3 reproduces very fine detail better (presumably because of the lack of AA filter, and possibly due to increased resolution also), and can take a little more NR in Lightroom if required without losing that detail. Plus, when images are down-sampled to the same physical dimensions as those from the K-5, the very slightly greater noise of the K-3 is visually reduced. That's been my experience, at least...

Regardless, it looks like the KP is going to be something pretty special for low light shooting

[normhead]

Plus, when images are down-sampled to the same physical dimensions as those from the K-5, the very slightly greater noise of the K-3 is visually reduced. That's been my experience, at least..

What blows that out of the water for me is the K-3 is used for wildlife. There is usually heavy cropping, often below 16 MP, whereas the K-5 is used for landscape where I can frame my images to avoid cropping.SO, yes I'm comparing a cropped K-3 image to an uncropped K-5 image, but, that's the way I shoot. These days, the K-5 is gone and it's the K-1 for landscape. SO my personal guidelines still apply to me personally.