Pentax KP vs. D750 raws at high ISO 25600 - Pentax APSC on par with Nikon FF

biz-engineer · 02-11-2017, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Would it need an air scoop?

You have to buy that one as accessory.

normhead · 02-11-2017, 09:31 AM

What I care about is ISO at 1600....

This doesn't look any better than my k3, sadly.

**pres589** · 02-11-2017, 09:37 AM

If what normhead suggests is true (and it's norm, so of course it is) then the K-5 II/IIs twins are going to provide better noise performance at ISO 1600 than the KP.

Who wants to buy my K-5 II to find out? I will sell it for whatever a new K-1 goes for. Deal?

beholder3 · 02-11-2017, 09:53 AM

The K-5II is not even competitive to a K-70 with regards to the sensor. Let alone the KP.

The KP is as obviously good as the Nikon FF. Maybe the D750 is a lame crippled down plastic camera, but it at least had average FF image quality, which means it should have had a major advantage of any APSC. But it did not.

FantasticMrFox · 02-11-2017, 10:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by biz-engineer

K1 shows much less chroma noise than any previous camera and they seem to have applied the same tech. on the KP.
Chroma noise is still very significant with other brands of cameras.

I am very sceptical about this. First of all, chroma noise really isn't a problem at all because RAW converters can get rid off it completely with basically no penalty in quality. I didn't even realise how much chroma noise images have at high ISO until I accidentally unchecked the chroma noise reduction option in Lightroom.

Second, the fact that Pentax somehow gets rid off chroma noise in RAW whereas other manufacturers don't leads me to believe that rather than having a better sensor or something like that, they are simply baking noise reduction into the RAW file. Which I am strictly opposed to - they should leave the RAWs alone, especially because chroma noise is such a non-problem and so easy to handle.

thibs · 02-11-2017, 10:22 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

I am very sceptical about this. First of all, chroma noise really isn't a problem at all because RAW converters can get rid off it completely with basically no penalty in quality. I didn't even realise how much chroma noise images have at high ISO until I accidentally unchecked the chroma noise reduction option in Lightroom.

Second, the fact that Pentax somehow gets rid off chroma noise in RAW whereas other manufacturers don't leads me to believe that rather than having a better sensor or something like that, they are simply baking noise reduction into the RAW file. Which I am strictly opposed to - they should leave the RAWs alone, especially because chroma noise is such a non-problem and so easy to handle.

Your pont is only applicable if the said sensor has been used by the other brands you talk about. And we aren't even sure. Talk about jumping to conclusions...

normhead · 02-11-2017, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

The K-5II is not even competitive to a K-70 with regards to the sensor. Let alone the KP.

The KP is as obviously good as the Nikon FF. Maybe the D750 is a lame crippled down plastic camera, but it at least had average FF image quality, which means it should have had a major advantage of any APSC. But it did not.

My K-3 was also very similar to the Nikon D750. The lw/ph was 100 lw/ph difference, 2700 lw/ph compared to 2800 lw/ph for a D750.
That is simply not a noticeable difference. SO would we be surprised a KP is close to a D750, hardly.

I got into a huge back and forth with a Nikon user here on the forum once. So, I looked at a lot of Imaging Resources test shots before coming to this conclusion. MY conclusion, save a pile of money, get a K-3. His conclusion spend the extra money, get a D750. Sometimes the same people looking at the same data come to different conclusions.

Kunzite · 02-11-2017, 10:23 AM

I really don't think you could get the same results just by applying chroma NR to K-3's RAWs...

reh321 · 02-11-2017, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Second, the fact that Pentax somehow gets rid off chroma noise in RAW whereas other manufacturers don't leads me to believe that rather than having a better sensor or something like that, they are simply baking noise reduction into the RAW file. Which I am strictly opposed to - they should leave the RAWs alone, especially because chroma noise is such a non-problem and so easy to handle.

I keep hearing that Fuji and others "bake" their raw files - but I don't know, and I don't know whether any manufacturer exactly copies values from sensor to raw file. The test should be what we see in the raw files when two cameras are compared.

FantasticMrFox · 02-11-2017, 11:34 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Kunzite

I really don't think you could get the same results just by applying chroma NR to K-3's RAWs...

Why? You move a little slider in Lightroom and the chroma noise vanishes into thin air. Why wouldn't that work in camera?

Kunzite · 02-11-2017, 12:27 PM

You're forgetting "the same results", and I'm not talking only about the noise - but other stuff like detail and colors.

normhead · 02-11-2017, 01:16 PM

We were looking at a comparison with some camera yesterday, the KP had better noise, the other had better detail. Until you equalize the noise, you have no idea which is better, and that is probably the one thing DxO is good at.

mee · 02-11-2017, 01:26 PM

Who is shooting at 25600 regularly though? We can make each camera's output into a mushy, noisy mess then not be able to tell which is which... how is that beneficial in choosing a camera?

I'd rather see detail comparisons at 1600 or even 3200...

FantasticMrFox · 02-11-2017, 02:13 PM

Also, I went ahead now and compared the full-size samples of the KP and D750 at ISO 6,400 (which is more realistic than ISO 25,600 or 51,200 or whatever). The D750 is clearly better, showing less luminance noise.

**Rondec** · 02-11-2017, 02:26 PM

It looks nice. No full frame killer, but nice.

Biggest thing about full frame in higher iso levels is that it keeps dynamic range better. For some reason or other everyone seems to focus on noise and while that's something, it isn't everything. Still, it is a crop camera that will be usable at iso 6400 for snap shots and that's better than the K3.

02-11-2017, 09:31 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	What I care about is ISO at 1600.... This doesn't look any better than my k3, sadly. Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2017 at 03:54 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax KP - High ISO Samples	Tau-Ceti	Pentax News and Rumors	350	02-23-2017 05:43 PM
New High ISO Nikon FF 2017?	sunCrm	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	10	12-23-2016 11:01 AM
Strange new $300 price drop on the Nikon D750 camera at Amazon.com	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	10-10-2016 03:53 PM
Pentax colors on Nikon D750	skyer	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	26	03-06-2015 01:42 PM
Sony A7s vs Canon 5D Mark III at ISO 25600	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	06-05-2014 06:02 AM

02-11-2017, 09:19 AM	#16
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,228	Originally posted by normhead Would it need an air scoop? You have to buy that one as accessory.

02-11-2017, 09:37 AM	#18
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	If what normhead suggests is true (and it's norm, so of course it is) then the K-5 II/IIs twins are going to provide better noise performance at ISO 1600 than the KP. Who wants to buy my K-5 II to find out? I will sell it for whatever a new K-1 goes for. Deal?

02-11-2017, 09:53 AM	#19
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112 Original Poster	The K-5II is not even competitive to a K-70 with regards to the sensor. Let alone the KP. The KP is as obviously good as the Nikon FF. Maybe the D750 is a lame crippled down plastic camera, but it at least had average FF image quality, which means it should have had a major advantage of any APSC. But it did not.

02-11-2017, 10:12 AM - 1 Like	#20
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by biz-engineer K1 shows much less chroma noise than any previous camera and they seem to have applied the same tech. on the KP. Chroma noise is still very significant with other brands of cameras. I am very sceptical about this. First of all, chroma noise really isn't a problem at all because RAW converters can get rid off it completely with basically no penalty in quality. I didn't even realise how much chroma noise images have at high ISO until I accidentally unchecked the chroma noise reduction option in Lightroom. Second, the fact that Pentax somehow gets rid off chroma noise in RAW whereas other manufacturers don't leads me to believe that rather than having a better sensor or something like that, they are simply baking noise reduction into the RAW file. Which I am strictly opposed to - they should leave the RAWs alone, especially because chroma noise is such a non-problem and so easy to handle.

02-11-2017, 10:22 AM - 2 Likes	#21
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox I am very sceptical about this. First of all, chroma noise really isn't a problem at all because RAW converters can get rid off it completely with basically no penalty in quality. I didn't even realise how much chroma noise images have at high ISO until I accidentally unchecked the chroma noise reduction option in Lightroom. Second, the fact that Pentax somehow gets rid off chroma noise in RAW whereas other manufacturers don't leads me to believe that rather than having a better sensor or something like that, they are simply baking noise reduction into the RAW file. Which I am strictly opposed to - they should leave the RAWs alone, especially because chroma noise is such a non-problem and so easy to handle. Your pont is only applicable if the said sensor has been used by the other brands you talk about. And we aren't even sure. Talk about jumping to conclusions...

02-11-2017, 10:23 AM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by beholder3 The K-5II is not even competitive to a K-70 with regards to the sensor. Let alone the KP. The KP is as obviously good as the Nikon FF. Maybe the D750 is a lame crippled down plastic camera, but it at least had average FF image quality, which means it should have had a major advantage of any APSC. But it did not. My K-3 was also very similar to the Nikon D750. The lw/ph was 100 lw/ph difference, 2700 lw/ph compared to 2800 lw/ph for a D750. That is simply not a noticeable difference. SO would we be surprised a KP is close to a D750, hardly. I got into a huge back and forth with a Nikon user here on the forum once. So, I looked at a lot of Imaging Resources test shots before coming to this conclusion. MY conclusion, save a pile of money, get a K-3. His conclusion spend the extra money, get a D750. Sometimes the same people looking at the same data come to different conclusions.

02-11-2017, 10:23 AM	#23
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I really don't think you could get the same results just by applying chroma NR to K-3's RAWs...

02-11-2017, 11:25 AM	#24
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Second, the fact that Pentax somehow gets rid off chroma noise in RAW whereas other manufacturers don't leads me to believe that rather than having a better sensor or something like that, they are simply baking noise reduction into the RAW file. Which I am strictly opposed to - they should leave the RAWs alone, especially because chroma noise is such a non-problem and so easy to handle. I keep hearing that Fuji and others "bake" their raw files - but I don't know, and I don't know whether any manufacturer exactly copies values from sensor to raw file. The test should be what we see in the raw files when two cameras are compared.

02-11-2017, 11:34 AM - 2 Likes	#25
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by Kunzite I really don't think you could get the same results just by applying chroma NR to K-3's RAWs... Why? You move a little slider in Lightroom and the chroma noise vanishes into thin air. Why wouldn't that work in camera?

02-11-2017, 12:27 PM	#26
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	You're forgetting "the same results", and I'm not talking only about the noise - but other stuff like detail and colors.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2017, 01:16 PM	#27
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	We were looking at a comparison with some camera yesterday, the KP had better noise, the other had better detail. Until you equalize the noise, you have no idea which is better, and that is probably the one thing DxO is good at.

02-11-2017, 01:26 PM	#28
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Who is shooting at 25600 regularly though? We can make each camera's output into a mushy, noisy mess then not be able to tell which is which... how is that beneficial in choosing a camera? I'd rather see detail comparisons at 1600 or even 3200...

02-11-2017, 02:13 PM	#29
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Also, I went ahead now and compared the full-size samples of the KP and D750 at ISO 6,400 (which is more realistic than ISO 25,600 or 51,200 or whatever). The D750 is clearly better, showing less luminance noise.

02-11-2017, 02:26 PM	#30
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	It looks nice. No full frame killer, but nice. Biggest thing about full frame in higher iso levels is that it keeps dynamic range better. For some reason or other everyone seems to focus on noise and while that's something, it isn't everything. Still, it is a crop camera that will be usable at iso 6400 for snap shots and that's better than the K3.