Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2017, 03:52 PM   #31
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,494
OK so what are we talking about?

Here some comparison images, 3200 D750 on left, 1600 ISO K-3 (same DoF)

Uncropped


Pixel Peeper


$2449 Canadian, K-3 ii $1149 Canadian. Honestly, do you see $1300 dollars difference in those images?

My guess is in a 20x30 inch print, you can't see the difference.

02-11-2017, 03:54 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,096
QuoteOriginally posted by Sagala Quote
Pentax KP 1600 vs 100 iso raw files : Fine details lost at 1600 iso.
It beats the hell out of the Pentax K10D at ISO1600.
02-11-2017, 04:59 PM   #33
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,202
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
$2449 Canadian, K-3 ii $1149 Canadian. Honestly, do you see $1300 dollars difference in those images?
No But the OP went ahead and claimed the KP is doing as well in absolute terms as the D750. Which, in my eyes, is wrong. Of course the KP is still great for an APS-C, and it's also not surprising that it's etching closer to the D750, considering that one is already 2.5 years old.
02-11-2017, 05:16 PM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,331
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
No But the OP went ahead and claimed the KP is doing as well in absolute terms as the D750. Which, in my eyes, is wrong. Of course the KP is still great for an APS-C, and it's also not surprising that it's etching closer to the D750, considering that one is already 2.5 years old.
Etching?

02-11-2017, 06:10 PM   #35
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,494
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
It beats the hell out of the Pentax K10D at ISO1600.
Yes well, it's all a matter of perspective.
02-11-2017, 06:48 PM   #36
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Etching?
Dammit, spelling. You know, it's weird. There are mistakes that native speakers make a lot, probably because words are homonymous - they're, their, there etc. When I learnt English I never made these. But as I became reasonably fluent, I've found myself making these mistakes more often. Sometimes I find a 'their' in one of my texts that should actually have been a 'there'. And sometimes it's an 'etching' where it should have been 'edging'
02-11-2017, 11:31 PM - 1 Like   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,203
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
OK so what are we talking about?

Here some comparison images, 3200 D750 on left, 1600 ISO K-3 (same DoF)

Uncropped


Pixel Peeper


$2449 Canadian, K-3 ii $1149 Canadian. Honestly, do you see $1300 dollars difference in those images?

My guess is in a 20x30 inch print, you can't see the difference.
The Nikon is holding more detail more cleanly at a stop higher sensitivity, at least on my monitor. And If you're looking for high ISO performance, I'd say... yeah it might just be worth the money. Especially printing 20x30, which I actually do somewhat frequently, there's too much missing on the K-3 for me.

Looking at the KP's performance at 1600, 3200, and 6400 from the IR website, I am very excited for both it and the presumably to come new APS-C flagship. It's clearly a better sensor/processor than the K-3 imo and if I were buying a crop Pentax today, I'd be getting the KP. It may not be the flagship, but it's currently the best performer in IQ.
02-12-2017, 04:57 AM   #38
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,726
The noise reduction processing works for high ISO noise. At lower ISO's you are going to see no or not much difference. Claiming there is no improvement because there is little or no difference at this or that iso is cherry picking to make a point. It is about the ISO's where it does make a difference. Otherwise you could just compare it with the K10D at IS0 100 and say, look no improvements.

02-12-2017, 05:00 AM   #39
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Montréal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 75
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
It beats the hell out of the Pentax K10D at ISO1600.
Just to show that there is a noise reduction applied by the camera, even on raw files.:
02-12-2017, 05:05 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You're forgetting "the same results", and I'm not talking only about the noise - but other stuff like detail and colors.
Not really valid argument. If you compare the raw images, and the one from KP is better, and if you take the noise reduced version of it in JPEG and it is still ahead of the other JPEG, that means this is not only image processing that reduced the noise, and so, your can't get the same result from LR NR.

---------- Post added 12-02-17 at 13:10 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Honestly, do you see $1300 dollars difference in those images?
No, but I can clearly read "MAS PORTELL", so I don't get to open the wrong bottle :-)

---------- Post added 12-02-17 at 13:16 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
It's clearly a better sensor/processor than the K-3 imo and if I were buying a crop Pentax today, I'd be getting the KP. It may not be the flagship, but it's currently the best performer in IQ.
If you look at the S/N values of the DXO 8Mp downsampled images, the K3 sensor performs slightly less than the sensor use in the K5 and K5II. I'd have expected that the K3 sensor would have got the same S/N perf, as the K5 when image are reduced at the same size, which usually is the case. IMO the sensor used in the D7200 was slightly better than the one used in the K3, and I believe that the KP is recovering that gap.
02-12-2017, 05:42 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 10,227
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Not really valid argument. If you compare the raw images, and the one from KP is better, and if you take the noise reduced version of it in JPEG and it is still ahead of the other JPEG, that means this is not only image processing that reduced the noise, and so, your can't get the same result from LR NR.
Which is more or less my point - actually, that you probably can't apply chroma NR to the K-3 RAW and get similar results as with the KP's RAW, so what's "not really valid argument"?
02-12-2017, 06:41 AM   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,494
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
The Nikon is holding more detail more cleanly at a stop higher sensitivity, at least on my monitor. And If you're looking for high ISO performance, I'd say... yeah it might just be worth the money. Especially printing 20x30, which I actually do somewhat frequently, there's too much missing on the K-3 for me.
If you're looking for high ISO resolution why wouldn't you go for a K-1, and save money?

If you're selling prints, it is no advantage to pay more for your camera. I've sold 20x30 prints of 12 and 14 MP images. SO that's appears to me to be nonsense. The only thing I care about is whether or not someone buys the print. That's the only difference I care about, and to me, from perspective being out there talking to buyers etc. the only ones who care about that kind of detail (which can't even be seen in the print, or isn't important to the overall viewing pleasure of the public) are other photographers. And they don't buy so forget them.

I'd like the high ISO of a D750 but the frame rate is the same as my K-1 and I treasure the frame rate on my K-3 as well as the extra reach. The D750 has always seemed like a lose-lose camera. YOU need the bigger lenses to achieve the same resolution, and the 649 ISO my K-3 is clean to handles most situations.

These days I sit with either the K-3 or K-1 on the camera. K-3 for little birds, K-1 for bigger birds. The Tamron 300 SP AF 2.8 and 1.7x never comes off the tripod. I just change bodies. Why would I put a D750 there, what would it give me? And when I decide to walk around it's usually the DA*200 and 1.4 TC on the K-3, because walking around with heavy stuff hurts.

Last edited by normhead; 02-12-2017 at 07:11 AM.
02-12-2017, 07:37 AM   #43
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,202
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Claiming there is no improvement because there is little or no difference at this or that iso is cherry picking to make a point. It is about the ISO's where it does make a difference. Otherwise you could just compare it with the K10D at IS0 100 and say, look no improvements.
That's why I compared the two at ISO 6,400, which is a pretty relevant value for low-light work, and definitely not cherry picking.
02-12-2017, 07:47 AM - 1 Like   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 2,119
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
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.
Finally someone with a little sense You can pixelpeep as much as you want on a screen, but in real life use, APS-C is still not on level with FF on ISO..regardless if its a Pentax or a Nikon.

Difference between K-3II and K-1 is night and day. KP is ok for a APS-C camera, but still big difference up to K-1

---------- Post added 02-12-17 at 03:49 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
My guess is in a 20x30 inch print, you can't see the difference.
Then you guess wrong. We who works with big prints and for printed magazines, notices a BIG difference on higher ISO.
02-12-2017, 08:05 AM   #45
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,494
But I was discussing K-3 up to ISO 640, so I was right. Read my post.
You often do this, your reliance on high ISO images makes you impervious to the shooting style of most of the camera using public.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, aps-c, chip, d750, ff, image, images, iso, jpeg, k-1, k3, k5, kp, mode, nikon, noise, pentax, pentax kp, pentax news, pentax rumors, photography, post, raws, s/n, sensor, unit
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 12-23-2016 11:01 AM
Strange new $300 price drop on the Nikon D750 camera at Amazon.com interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 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 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 06-05-2014 06:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top