Will the k-1 be better than k-3 is these circumstances ?

**BarryE** · 02-22-2016, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I plan to buy a K-1 and throw it in my bag for when the situation warrants. I'd be a little concerned about pixel peeping comparisons on the forum, the forum does not do prints from the images.

The best way to print is to upscale the ...... (removed for brevity by responder ...)

The reasons to buy the K-1 will be better colour clarity due to pixel shifting, more Dynamic Range (if there is more) , and better low ISO performance,(if it's two stops better or more.) It's more about the technical reproduction , improvements in colour values, and noise reduction values than the resolution from my perspective. And the numbers aren't in yet on those things, but the Pixel Shift is a great start. And a great example how 36 MP isn't just 36 MP. My guess is you could put a K-3II with pixel shift up against a D810 image and win the large scale print battle at lest 50% of the time with blind testing against an unbiased group, no matter what size you went to.

The Pentax pixel shift and Foveon sensors both show, a bayer pixel is not all it could be using a standard bayer configuration. 36 MP bayer is not 36 Mp pixel shift or Foveon.

That's a helpful response normhead. Thank you.

I agree where you're coming from on many of your printing points. The general buying public has a different view on the printed output to we photographers in most cases. I've started to experiment with different dpi resolutions and interpolations and the differences are both marginal and somewhat unpredictable, to my eye... and that's not taking in the crucial viewing ambience and glass used when displaying work. I'll continue to test & test ...

Taking all the possible parameters involved in getting a piece of work in front of potential customers reduces some of the gains that could be achieved (pixel shift apart) between the K-1 and the K-3. I guess we'll have to wait for the DR figures, but looking at DXOmark (ok I don't really trust them), the Nikon D8100 sensor at 100 ISO is only about 1/2 stop better than the K-3. The D8100 does have slightly better tonal figures, but until we see what the Ricoh engineers have done, then I guess we will not know. ... And then I'm back to the printing limitations, ie much lower DR for the papers (higher DR in post allows greater processing potential, I realise) and the glass and viewing problems etc . etc.

Thanks for offering another view, it really helps cement ideas ...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Does the K-3 Render Reds/Browns Better than Prior Pentax DSLRs?	Sagitta	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	5	02-23-2015 06:44 PM
k-3 colors - better than k-5?	yusuf	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	5	07-01-2014 02:58 AM
Second camera... is the K-30s AF really better than the K-5s?	Ubuntu_user	Pentax K-30 & K-50	16	08-16-2012 06:29 AM
With HDMI out & 3.5mm stereo mic in the K-01 is better than the K-30 for video	jogiba	Pentax K-01	2	05-22-2012 01:52 PM
Will the k-5 make my pictures look better than my k-x?	justtakingpics	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	23	05-29-2011 06:38 AM

02-22-2016, 07:36 AM	#16
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead I plan to buy a K-1 and throw it in my bag for when the situation warrants. I'd be a little concerned about pixel peeping comparisons on the forum, the forum does not do prints from the images. The best way to print is to upscale the ...... (removed for brevity by responder ...) The reasons to buy the K-1 will be better colour clarity due to pixel shifting, more Dynamic Range (if there is more) , and better low ISO performance,(if it's two stops better or more.) It's more about the technical reproduction , improvements in colour values, and noise reduction values than the resolution from my perspective. And the numbers aren't in yet on those things, but the Pixel Shift is a great start. And a great example how 36 MP isn't just 36 MP. My guess is you could put a K-3II with pixel shift up against a D810 image and win the large scale print battle at lest 50% of the time with blind testing against an unbiased group, no matter what size you went to. The Pentax pixel shift and Foveon sensors both show, a bayer pixel is not all it could be using a standard bayer configuration. 36 MP bayer is not 36 Mp pixel shift or Foveon. That's a helpful response normhead. Thank you. I agree where you're coming from on many of your printing points. The general buying public has a different view on the printed output to we photographers in most cases. I've started to experiment with different dpi resolutions and interpolations and the differences are both marginal and somewhat unpredictable, to my eye... and that's not taking in the crucial viewing ambience and glass used when displaying work. I'll continue to test & test ... Taking all the possible parameters involved in getting a piece of work in front of potential customers reduces some of the gains that could be achieved (pixel shift apart) between the K-1 and the K-3. I guess we'll have to wait for the DR figures, but looking at DXOmark (ok I don't really trust them), the Nikon D8100 sensor at 100 ISO is only about 1/2 stop better than the K-3. The D8100 does have slightly better tonal figures, but until we see what the Ricoh engineers have done, then I guess we will not know. ... And then I'm back to the printing limitations, ie much lower DR for the papers (higher DR in post allows greater processing potential, I realise) and the glass and viewing problems etc . etc. Thanks for offering another view, it really helps cement ideas ...