[Azzy]

Had a chance to test the DR of ISO100

Baseline


5 Stop underexposed shot:


Pushed in LR +5 EV, +23 contrast, +100 Shadow. +45 white, +29 Blacks. Lots of monochromatic noise at 1:1, at 1:2 which mimic K-5 res it looks about the same as K-5

[jsherman999]

FWIW, I don't think people should be concerned about the 'more noise' the K-3 might show at 100% compared to the K-5. Just wanted to link to this post in this thread - basically, when printed or displayed at the same sizes as the K-5, more MP can work as an advantage and compensate for noise during a downsampling routine, like sending to a printer driver or exporting with LR.

[Buceemie]

FWIW, I don't think people should be concerned about the 'more noise' the K-3 might show at 100% compared to the K-5. Just wanted to link to this post in this thread - basically, when printed or displayed at the same sizes as the K-5, more MP can work as an advantage and compensate for noise during a downsampling routine, like sending to a printer driver or exporting with LR.

Jsherman is right. You might find equal amount of noise or slightly more in an image produced by the k3 compared to that of the k5, under magnification, but it's also a larger file. When printing an image of the same size, the end result will be less noise from the larger file, all else being equal.
Bottom line is don't worry about noise or high iso performance in the k3. If anything, it's slightly better than the k5, which was excellent.

[kdre]

Dear Pentaxians,

I got my K-3 two days ago and shot some test pics (nothing to be proud off) and thought I share it with you. You can find them here:

http://goo.gl/inxz0M

There you can find OOC JPGs (highest resolution, least compression, all in-camera corrections off) and corresponding PEFs and a couple of DNGs.

Please note that you have to download each file separately.

Best wishes,
Klaus

[jpzk]

Originally posted by jpzk I would also ask: does it (luminance noise) have anything to do with the greater number of "pixels" (24 vs. 16) ?? I am no wiz on the technical bits, so I thought I'd ask.
It is true that shots taken with my K5 seldom need any sort of "denoising" at up to ISO 1600 and at times even at ISO 3200 (given that there was no exposure problems during the shot). I'm sure the noise is related to the number of pixels on the APS-C sensor, as well as the newness of the camera (no raw profiles), and also to what Pentax engineers wanted to achieve (they tend to allow noise to preserve detail).
So here is another post about the K-3 noise (at least as of Nov. 1, 2013 - with no mass-market processing software recognizing or profiling the PEFs).
And since this is a "post your K-3 images" thread, here is the full image I talk about in that NR post (note that the splotchy neutrals are due to jpeg compression and sRGB colorspace - I shoot in AdobeRGB and process in 16-bit):

Thanks for the info !
I wonder what that will involve when people start going out (with the K3) for some wildlife shots (with 300mm + lenses) and have to shoot in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, and having to still use a high shutter speed ?
My sole trick with the K5 at the moment is to use TAv and let the ISO floats ... sometimes it gets me right up there in ISO, although not too bad as long as the eposure is right.
I suppose it will be a bit tricky to manage the K3 RAW files (I use DNG with the K5) with CS5 and/or with the supplied Pentax utilities coming with the K3.

I am just about ready to place the order for the K3 but .... I am still unsure.

Thanks again for the feedback.

JP

[rawr]

Dear Pentaxians,

I got my K-3 two days ago and shot some test pics (nothing to be proud off) and thought I share it with you. You can find them here:

Index of /~kdre/k3

[...]
Klaus

No thumbnails

[derekkite]

Thanks for the info !
I wonder what that will involve when people start going out (with the K3) for some wildlife shots (with 300mm + lenses) and have to shoot in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, and having to still use a high shutter speed ?
My sole trick with the K5 at the moment is to use TAv and let the ISO floats ... sometimes it gets me right up there in ISO, although not too bad as long as the eposure is right.
I suppose it will be a bit tricky to manage the K3 RAW files (I use DNG with the K5) with CS5 and/or with the supplied Pentax utilities coming with the K3.

I am just about ready to place the order for the K3 but .... I am still unsure.

Thanks again for the feedback.

JP

I suspect that a few will be out shooting wildlife this weekend. The people who have the cameras in their hands are predominantly Canadians, and it is barely light when they leave for work and almost dark when they get home. It doesn't surprise me that there aren't many photos available yet.

Watch the 300mm club. I know for a fact that some K-3's have shown up and probably will have shots on display.

[rawr]

but .... I am still unsure

It is probably worth the risk.

Long telephotos will benefit from the new AF, especially the 3 extra sensitive centre points, which will also likely allow better use of teleconvertors. And in optimal light, the extra cropability of the K-3 may have real advantages too. The better AF tracking could also be useful for wildlife or other dynamic subjects. Time will tell. There need be, of course, no rush to upgrade.

[m8o]

I prefer the noisy image to the plastic look. It's usually best to leave a bit of noise in the final result, just taming it down a bit looks more natural.

But you don't hate purple splotchiness? I do. 'Grainy' noise is one thing, but large purple splotches in my photographs kinda makes me mad.

[rawr]

large purple splotches in my photographs

???
If you are refering to the post-processed JPG posted above, you should note what panoguy said:

note that the splotchy neutrals are due to jpeg compression and sRGB colorspace - I shoot in AdobeRGB and process in 16-bit)

If you examine some of the work by wahid satu looking in detail at some K-3 DNG's in the K-3 IR Studio samples thread, comparing the K-3 to the K-5IIs for example, you won't see any 'large purple splotches' in the K-3 RAWs, even at ISO 6400. You will see noise, of course, but nothing totally hideous.

[m8o]

If you examine some of the work by wahid satu looking in detail at some K-3 DNG's in the K-3 IR Studio samples thread, comparing the K-3 to the K-5IIs for example, you won't see any 'large purple splotches' in the K-3 RAWs, even at ISO 6400. You will see noise, of course, but nothing totally hideous.

I can't quickly find which of the many threads it was that I saw it in.... But there is that imaging-resource image of the red fabric, where all detail was lost in the jpg, and the poster posted a quick conversion of the RAW. It's tough to see but there's a lot of purple in that.

found it. The bottom half of the processed raw left me unhappy. And I so want to be happy...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240948-pentax-k-3-studio-s...ml#post2557762

[rawr]

And I so want to be happy...

Then you should have turned to page 2 of that thread, starting from here

The basic point in that whole thread is that how the RAW image is processed will be very important to the result. No news there, really.

I don't see any purple in the image you highlighted, BTW.

[kricha6431]

Had a chance to test the DR of ISO100

Baseline


5 Stop underexposed shot:


Pushed in LR +5 EV, +23 contrast, +100 Shadow. +45 white, +29 Blacks. Lots of monochromatic noise at 1:1, at 1:2 which mimic K-5 res it looks about the same as K-5

WHOA ------ nice images,

[Barry Pearson]

FWIW, I don't think people should be concerned about the 'more noise' the K-3 might show at 100% compared to the K-5. Just wanted to link to this post in this thread - basically, when printed or displayed at the same sizes as the K-5, more MP can work as an advantage and compensate for noise during a downsampling routine, like sending to a printer driver or exporting with LR.

Jsherman is right. You might find equal amount of noise or slightly more in an image produced by the k3 compared to that of the k5, under magnification, but it's also a larger file. When printing an image of the same size, the end result will be less noise from the larger file, all else being equal.
Bottom line is don't worry about noise or high iso performance in the k3. If anything, it's slightly better than the k5, which was excellent.

My own printing at A3+ doesn't support that view. Unless I've done something wrong, an A3+ print of a K-5IIs ISO 51200 shot shows less noise (both luminance and colour) than an A3+ print of a K-3 ISO 51200 shot, even where the same scene is shown on the print because the cameras were at the same position with the same lens.

I urge people to do their own side-by-side tests then print them large. I worry that there is too much theory here about what the effect of megapixels and pixel-sizes should be, and not enough about what happens in practice if people take the same scene with the same lens from the same place then print them so that the prints are otherwise identical.

Important edit: I have posted a revised view later in this thread.

[Papa Lazarou]

Shot these with K-3 and D-FA 100 handheld at ISO 400.











Pretty pleased with the colour rendition.