[Lord Lucan]

be sure to find the "CameraVille" youtube video comparing sensor quality

I would not trust Cameraville further than I could throw him. I gave up watching him some ago when he suddenly got angry about Pentax, I think because they would not sponsor him. If you are thinking of a video with him praising Pentax in any way, it must have been one before that happened.

[house]

I would not trust Cameraville further than I could throw him. I gave up watching him some ago when he suddenly got angry about Pentax,

If you had no issues with his videos before he turned on Pentax your judgement may also be up for questioning... Now it is quite difficult to test and compare gear at the fidelity where it means anything. Cameraville certainly played a bit fast and loose and most of his comparisons raise big question marks about accuracy and conclusions. His terminology and technical understanding was also not really where it should have been. I'm sure parts of his work was useful but the good and the bad was completely mixed together.

[sebberry]

I can only help hope Pentax learned a couple things from the K3-3. On-sensor PDAF being one of them to enable more advanced detect and tracking features - I just can't get good photos of the new family puppy with the K3-3

[mikesbike]

I would not trust Cameraville further than I could throw him. I gave up watching him some ago when he suddenly got angry about Pentax, I think because they would not sponsor him. If you are thinking of a video with him praising Pentax in any way, it must have been one before that happened.

I am interested in looking at youtube videos of shots he produced under identical lighting conditions, especially one that shows the Pentax K-1 II better than the Nikon D850, and especially since he himself is a Nikon shooter. Just look at the comparisons between the Nikon, (the Sony he says he generally does not like Sony maybe because of handling, ergonomics etc which I've heard from others). But the images clearly show Pentax no.1, Sony no. 2, and Nikon a distant 3rd.

It is worth a look, and people can judge for themselves. I see no motivation for him to deliberately make the Nikon image look inferior.

In a separate youtube video, he shows the construction differences between the Pentax, the Nikon, and one other, where the Pentax same parts are superior. Showing the same part with visible differences between cameras would be hard to manipulate.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 12-23-2022 at 04:37 PM.

[gatorguy]

I can only help hope Pentax learned a couple things from the K3-3. On-sensor PDAF being one of them to enable more advanced detect and tracking features - I just can't get good photos of the new family puppy with the K3-3

Try outdoor, and with one of the quicker lenses like the DFA 16-50 PLM or even the relatively inexpensive 55-300 PLM. Indoor tracking of fast-moving subjects in subdued light on any camera I would imagine is a challenge.

On my own pup who is not nearly as rambunctious at 5 as she was as a pup I don't have a problem with a good success rate using that 16-50 on my K3III, and even the relatively slow *55 does pretty well. I would expect any new K1III to be at least as effective as Pentax flagship APS-C.

EDIT: Just for giggles I just grabbed one of my K1's with a 28-105, and fired off 3 shots as my pup trotted towards her food bowl. Noisey as expected at 6400 ISO and F5.6, but focus was spot on in all three. I think I could run those thru Topaz for noise, and adjust levels in PS, and have nice images. Gives me optimism that a K1III will do nicely.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

It is worth a look, and people can judge for themselves. I see no motivation for him to deliberately make the Nikon image look inferior.

One of the problems was that he did not understand what can make the difference between in the IQ between his setups one of the more important is the settings that produce a camera's image with less noise

[Rondec]

If you had no issues with his videos before he turned on Pentax your judgement may also be up for questioning... Now it is quite difficult to test and compare gear at the fidelity where it means anything. Cameraville certainly played a bit fast and loose and most of his comparisons raise big question marks about accuracy and conclusions. His terminology and technical understanding was also not really where it should have been. I'm sure parts of his work was useful but the good and the bad was completely mixed together.

He wasn't very good before or after. I seem to remember him perseverating about focus breathing. He had some understanding of digital photography, but I wouldn't have said that he was knowledgeable enough to be making comparison videos.

[mikesbike]

For one thing, I was rather surprised at the D850's blowing out of highlights in strong contrast conditions compared to the other two cameras. These setups being done by someone who regularly has been shooting Nikon and seemed himself to be surprised by this from their latest models. Certainly by now it would seem, he would know how to set up for Nikon to perform at best for Nikon. So I am to presume from his reaction that the previous Nikon models were far better in this regard under similar setup. This also suggests, although there are advancements for higher ISO with this newer BSI sensor, there may also be some downsides in terms of image quality. There could be some tradeoffs going on here. K-1 II seems to do at least as well for higher ISO with its technology, as does this BSI sensor. We see a lot of technical evaluation being done by machine, which does have value, and I look at these, but I am more of an image-comparison kind of guy. There should be more of this type of thing being presented- same lighting, optimum setup, each camera being operated in the same manner, and with a similar high-quality lens.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

For one thing, I was rather surprised at the D850's blowing out of highlights in strong contrast conditions compared to the other two cameras.

There was no blowing of the highlights in the tests, what he had done is use both cameras with the same exposure while not making corrections to the baseline exposure when converting the raw data into a working image.
Pentax likes to use a 1/3 of stop high difference in the jpg rendering while Nikon uses 1/3 under to produce a jpg rendering. Without taking this into account when doing a raw conversion between 2 different camera manufactures what he has done is make the image look lighter by introducing 2/3 of a stop image lightness in the raw conversion. his limited knowledge is what caused this. Also Nikon likes to use a rather high highlight headroom for their raw data storage 1.3 stops, so there is really no likelihood that any of the data in the raw file was close to clipping.

Certainly by now it would seem, he would know how to set up for Nikon to perform at best for Nikon.

Sadly it was his not knowing what caused the problems

---------- Post added 12-23-2022 at 08:10 PM ----------

There should be more of this type of thing being presented- same lighting, optimum setup, each camera being operated in the same manner, and with a similar high-quality lens.

This is correct but understanding the optimum setup is the key, one of the overlooked is that the Nikon D850 could have used a exposure that was nearly 2 stop larger reducing the noise in the shadows all the way up to the midtones

[texandrews]

With respect to the above back and forth: setup is the bugaboo that has always plagued DPR's tests. It's not just a matter of the fstop's, shutter, and iso---and this last one is particularly fraught, as iso's are something manipulated or somehow variable according to sensor specs. And of course there's no "universal lens" for testing.

And then there's all this jpg business, which adds to the mix. As a raw shooter, none of that is meaningful to me, but then we get into the weeds about how raw converters treat different files.

Comparing cameras, especially very good ones, is pretty difficult imo.

[gatorguy]

With respect to the above back and forth: setup is the bugaboo that has always plagued DPR's tests. It's not just a matter of the fstop's, shutter, and iso---and this last one is particularly fraught, as iso's are something manipulated or somehow variable according to sensor specs. And of course there's no "universal lens" for testing.

And then there's all this jpg business, which adds to the mix. As a raw shooter, none of that is meaningful to me, but then we get into the weeds about how raw converters treat different files.

Comparing cameras, especially very good ones, is pretty difficult imo.

Is there a good reason to use camera-processed jpegs rather than the raw files? Seems the latter would be a more representative example of what the camera can produce. Post-processing whether in camera or on computer is a user-setting choice with lots of options and variables.

[texandrews]

Is there a good reason to use camera-processed jpegs rather than the raw files? Seems the latter would be a more representative example of what the camera can produce. Post-processing whether in camera or on computer is a user-setting choice with lots of options and variables.

I think the difficulty then is setting up the raw converters to give equivalent results---and how the heck is that done? Thinking about it is making my brain hurt, but maybe that's just a "seasonal" thing, maybe my brain hurt already.

But this user doesn't know how that could be done---at least not "objectively". Already my settings for my K1mkII and 645Z are different, even different for different use cases. Don't get me started on my legacy A7R files, or A850 files, or the 5DmkIV files I drag home from work. Ay-yi-yi...

[StiffLegged]

I think the difficulty then is setting up the raw converters to give equivalent results---and how the heck is that done? Thinking about it is making my brain hurt, but maybe that's just a "seasonal" thing, maybe my brain hurt already.

But this user doesn't know how that could be done---at least not "objectively"....

You don't get "objective" reviews, you get someone's opinion.

[mikesbike]

There was no blowing of the highlights in the tests, what he had done is use both cameras with the same exposure while not making corrections to the baseline exposure when converting the raw data into a working image.
Pentax likes to use a 1/3 of stop high difference in the jpg rendering while Nikon uses 1/3 under to produce a jpg rendering. Without taking this into account when doing a raw conversion between 2 different camera manufactures what he has done is make the image look lighter by introducing 2/3 of a stop image lightness in the raw conversion. his limited knowledge is what caused this. Also Nikon likes to use a rather high highlight headroom for their raw data storage 1.3 stops, so there is really no likelihood that any of the data in the raw file was close to clipping.


Sadly it was his not knowing what caused the problems

---------- Post added 12-23-2022 at 08:10 PM ----------



This is correct but understanding the optimum setup is the key, one of the overlooked is that the Nikon D850 could have used a exposure that was nearly 2 stop larger reducing the noise in the shadows all the way up to the midtones

Thanks! Now I get it as to the issues with his test procedure.

I just checked comparisons done on the Imaging Resource Comparometer. The method is simply by using JPEG images right out of the camera with no PP of any kind. This of course does not take into account variances of in-camea processing between models, but at least it leaves the differences up to the manufacturers instead of doing any additional processing methods that would mess up one model while optimizing another. What you bought is what you got, without doing your own processing.

In comparing the Nikon D850, the Pentax K-1 II, and the 61mp Sony 7r V, the Nikon comes out on top, differences especially emerging at higher ISO settings. The Sony tends to lose contrast and color saturation. All three do a good job with noise control, with both Pentax and Nikon maintaining IQ better. From past experience, Pentax tends to set "normal" sharpening to a rather low standard for their in-camera JPEG processor, especially with flagship models. This is apparently true with the K-1 II, as I have observed myself in my own use. The K10D was terrible in this regard, as revealed in testing by dpreview, and its controls to compensate for this were inadequate. But the controls in the K-1 II's Custom Image menus are indeed adequate, or of course sharpening can be optimized in PP. But I strongly suspect this is a primary cause of IQ differences between the K-1 II and the Nikon D850, as shown in these comparisons.

The D850 as presented here is very impressive. If the same 45.7 mp sensor were to be used in a forthcoming Pentax MK-1 III, along with other improvements, it should be quite a draw for those looking for a top-level FF DSLR.

[Kingman]

IMHO a 45.7 MP would not seem to be enough of technological leap for a K-1 Mk III. I realize the larger pixel size is important to minimize noise and maximum dynamic range but going to a BSI 45.7 or 50 + MP would be a minimum up grade on the sensor for the K-1 Mk III. I'd probably take a BSI 50 MP over the 62 MP sensor, but at this point it's all hyperbole. If even there's an announcement in 2023, we'll be waiting until 2024 to hold the K-1 Mark III in our mitts. I like to hear an announcement in 2023 so I can move on to MILC or stay with the last full frame featured DSLR.