[Tatouzou]

If images from the K-3 can be pushed to ISO 12800 or 25600 (with proper software) then maybe the KP can be pushed to ISO 25600 or 51200 which would be a nice change.

How can you hope that KP sensor would give 1EV more than K3? This would mean KP would deliver almost the same high ISO performance as the FF K1, which is a 2016 model and has a lower pixel density. I dont believe it is possible in cameras released at less than one year interval and using the same state of the art technology.

Do you also believe KP high ISOs could outperform the Sony A6500?
Why would Sony sell its best sensor to Pentax rather than use it in its own APS-C flagship?

IMO, KP sensor should perform like that of A6500. What can be improved further in-camera is the JPEG output, when compared to previous genaration JPEGs, thanks to better scene analysis (= more accurate exposure), more processing power and better in-camera software. That is what we have seen in the last ten years, out of camera JPEGs improve faster than the RAW output at every new generation of cameras.

We all know that K3 JPEGs are good up to ISO 1600 (ISO 3200 on easy scenes), but that any average photographer can get much better pictures at ISO >2000 in post-processing the raw. This, not only because the photographer can choose custom settings, but also because the computer can use more sophisticated software, as it can take as long as needed to process a picture, whereas the in-camera raw must be cleaned out of the buffer to free the camera for the next shots.

Thus we can hope that the KP JPEGs will be good enough for most scenes up to ISO 6400/12800.
Beyond, the >100 K ISO settings in APS cameras (whatever the brand) are pure marketing.

---------- Post added 02-22-17 at 11:41 PM ----------

Make this "I need...".

It is strange that so many people on web forums say they do need to print huge every other day
And forget that the most important quality in a photography worth to be blowed up to wall size is the scene it shows, and how it shows it.
Which relies more on the skill of the photographer, or the unicity of the scene, much more than the performance of the gear.

[Glorfindelrb]

Raws from the same sensor do differ. The sensor is not all and both the substrate used to fix the sensor and the electronics is very important for noise control. The KP might well use the same sensor as A6500 and outperform it (but not by much ofc). Pentax is known for that.

If it's good up to 6400 it's a winner for aps-c.

[wkraus]

It is strange that so many people on web forums say they do need to print huge every other day
And forget that the most important quality in a photography worth to be blowed up to wall size is the scene it shows, and how it shows it.
Which relies more on the skill of the photographer, or the unicity of the scene, much more than the performance of the gear.

Nothing strange here. Different people have different needs and aspirations, that's all I meant to say. People on web forums should speak for themselves rather than pontificate.

[Nicolas06]

Raws from the same sensor do differ. The sensor is not all and both the substrate used to fix the sensor and the electronics is very important for noise control. The KP might well use the same sensor as A6500 and outperform it (but not by much ofc). Pentax is known for that.

If it's good up to 6400 it's a winner for aps-c.

The difference between K3 and A6500 is 0.15EV for noise. Their curve almost match on DxO.

KP might get 0.1-0.2 more than that, maybe up to 0.5Ev that doesn't make 6400 vs 1600.

The thing is many 6400 iso image look great if you know how to deal with it, even with K3 or K5. And many other image of same iso setting look quite borring. A part is the noise, lack of color graduation etc. A part is people failing to use proper PP software, a part is the scene itself is un-interresting and would look bad even at iso 100... But when something look bad at iso 100, nobody blame the gear...

This K3 pushed to iso 8000, see good 6400 on APSC been there for years so I am 100% sure the KP can do it too. No reason it couldn't.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-23-2017 at 04:53 PM.

[Nicolas06]

Nothing strange here. Different people have different needs and aspirations, that's all I meant to say. People on web forums should speak for themselves rather than pontificate.

The thing is it is easy to explain something is not possible blablabla and not giving example. And even an example, you can always manage to get something bad.

But if people that are not even pro, not with 40 years of practice etc manage it on a regular basis, with the same gear, we know the gear can do it. The few pictures I manage to see from kenspo on K3 and his concert shot were many time better than what I manage. This isn't a gear problem.

[JimmyDranox]

This could be a very interesting discution about high ISO performance of Pentax KP. Ohh. It was about KP? Sorry.