Blind test: K-3 vs K-5 IIs

Kenntak · 11-03-2013, 09:20 PM

I have to agree, file 1 has more detail, but also has a greener, warmer tint. Would that be the K-3 strictly going on detail?

bossa · 11-03-2013, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

1 (or E) is more detailed and has more colour moire in the balcony railing of the house on the right. I would assume that to be the K-3 with the AA filter deactivated.
If the K-3 has the AA filter on, it could be the other way around though....

@ Sandy K-5IIs should show MORE moire ( sorry) than the K-3.

KMP-33 · 11-03-2013, 09:28 PM

File 1 = k5 iis
File 2 = k3

Sandy Hancock · 11-03-2013, 09:28 PM

Can you explain why Steve? Is it just because the pixels are smaller?

bossa · 11-03-2013, 09:29 PM

File 1 is softer and has colour Moire = K-5IIs
File 2 is the K-3 for the same reasons.

bossa · 11-03-2013, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Can you explain why Steve? Is it just because the pixels are smaller?

Moire is an interference pattern where when the ratio of pixel size (bigger on K-5) to image detail is closer you're more likely to detect it, although it does depend on the image viewing system and size of the recurring pattern.

bossa · 11-03-2013, 09:34 PM

Reducing the images to the same size is a bit of cheat because it's only representing one way to use the cameras.

jsherman999 · 11-03-2013, 09:35 PM

I guessed/voted, then checked the EXIF, and I was right.

Even downsampled to 16MP, K-3 image crisper/sharper looking than the native K-5 image. K-3 looks good.

Now, Adam, I'd like to see a couple ISO 6400 shots taken/processed the same way! I think the K-3 will shine there as well, but I'd like to see.

**mtngal** · 11-03-2013, 09:37 PM

Thanks for posting these - I ended up trying to find out if I could tell the difference by lightening the shadows in LR (4.4). I was surprised that I didn't see any difference in noise when I adjusted both the shadows and the blacks quite a bit. So at lower ISOs you can still recover detail if the shot is underexposed. Dynamic range looked just about the same in both pictures to me - maybe others can see more or less in one but I couldn't. Since I often find myself trying to recover detail in shadows (I do a lot of landscape pictures), I've been concerned about this.

I had decided which photo I wanted to be the K3 before I looked to see whether the exif information had been deleted from the files. I was happy to see that the one I thought should be the K3 actually was the right one. I fully expected to see noise in the shadows when I pushed them, like I always did with the K7 and that would convince me that I didn't need the K3. This is not helping me keep my money in my pocket.

**Mutters** · 11-03-2013, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I guessed/voted, then checked the EXIF, and I was right.

Even downsampled to 16MP, K-3 image crisper/sharper looking than the native K-5 image. K-3 looks good.

Now, Adam, I'd like to see a couple ISO 6400 shots taken/processed the same way! I think the K-3 will shine there as well, but I'd like to see.

He-he-he Did the same thing.

AB

Khaf · 11-03-2013, 09:40 PM - **1 Like**

The EXIF shows that E.jpg is made by K-3, and B.jpg (the second one) is made by k-5 IIs.

jsherman999 · 11-03-2013, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by bossa

Reducing the images to the same size is a bit of cheat because it's only representing one way to use the cameras.

True, you could also upsample the K-5 to 24MP, but that would probably make it look even less close, unless you use one of the really nice specialized upsampling software packages.

You either have to upsample or downsample one or the other if you display them at the same size on either print or screen (or upsample/downsample both to different degrees.)

jsherman999 · 11-03-2013, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Khaf

..spoiler quote....

Not supposed to give it away right in the body of the thread, c'mon.

**Mutters** · 11-03-2013, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Khaf

???????.

Well done Sherlock!

Why would you do that? Everyone else who's worked it out has left it alone.

jfuqua11 · 11-03-2013, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

The first file has much more detail and sharpness, but also has color moire in the fencing and other areas. The second is less detailed and softer, but lacks the moire. Seems obvious that the K-3 is #1 and K-5 is #2

It is K-3 vs K5IIs so both don't have the AA filter. I love how many people are confused about the AA filter hahahaha

View Poll Results: Which is which?
File one = K-3, File two = K-5 IIs	272	64.00%
File one = K-5 IIs, File two = K-3	153	36.00%
Voters: 425. You may not vote on this poll

11-03-2013, 09:29 PM	#50
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	That's a moire. File 1 is softer and has colour Moire = K-5IIs File 2 is the K-3 for the same reasons.

11-03-2013, 09:46 PM	#58
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	foul Originally posted by Khaf ..spoiler quote.... Not supposed to give it away right in the body of the thread, c'mon.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Firmware for K-500, K-50, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, K-5, K-30, K-01, K-r, and 645D is out	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	60	09-16-2013 05:46 AM
K-5 ii vs K-5 iis comparison with higher sharpness in K-5 ii	kataria0	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	62	12-22-2012 10:12 PM
Pentax K-5 IIs vs K-5 II (take two...)	JohnBee	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	9	12-06-2012 04:10 AM
K-5 IIs vs K-5 II - can you tell the difference?	JohnBee	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	85	11-19-2012 10:48 PM
Stop Sign: K-5 vs K-5 IIs Comparison Shots	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	14	10-28-2012 06:10 AM

11-03-2013, 09:20 PM	#46
Kenntak Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 198	I have to agree, file 1 has more detail, but also has a greener, warmer tint. Would that be the K-3 strictly going on detail?

11-03-2013, 09:24 PM	#47
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock 1 (or E) is more detailed and has more colour moire in the balcony railing of the house on the right. I would assume that to be the K-3 with the AA filter deactivated. If the K-3 has the AA filter on, it could be the other way around though.... @ Sandy K-5IIs should show MORE moire ( sorry) than the K-3.

11-03-2013, 09:28 PM	#48
KMP-33 New Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Innisfail, Far North Queensland Posts: 3	File 1 = k5 iis File 2 = k3

11-03-2013, 09:28 PM	#49
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Can you explain why Steve? Is it just because the pixels are smaller?

11-03-2013, 09:32 PM	#51
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Can you explain why Steve? Is it just because the pixels are smaller? Moire is an interference pattern where when the ratio of pixel size (bigger on K-5) to image detail is closer you're more likely to detect it, although it does depend on the image viewing system and size of the recurring pattern.

11-03-2013, 09:34 PM	#52
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Reducing the images to the same size is a bit of cheat because it's only representing one way to use the cameras.

11-03-2013, 09:35 PM	#53
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I guessed/voted, then checked the EXIF, and I was right. Even downsampled to 16MP, K-3 image crisper/sharper looking than the native K-5 image. K-3 looks good. Now, Adam, I'd like to see a couple ISO 6400 shots taken/processed the same way! I think the K-3 will shine there as well, but I'd like to see.

11-03-2013, 09:37 PM	#54
mtngal Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Wherever I’m Parked Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,003	Thanks for posting these - I ended up trying to find out if I could tell the difference by lightening the shadows in LR (4.4). I was surprised that I didn't see any difference in noise when I adjusted both the shadows and the blacks quite a bit. So at lower ISOs you can still recover detail if the shot is underexposed. Dynamic range looked just about the same in both pictures to me - maybe others can see more or less in one but I couldn't. Since I often find myself trying to recover detail in shadows (I do a lot of landscape pictures), I've been concerned about this. I had decided which photo I wanted to be the K3 before I looked to see whether the exif information had been deleted from the files. I was happy to see that the one I thought should be the K3 actually was the right one. I fully expected to see noise in the shadows when I pushed them, like I always did with the K7 and that would convince me that I didn't need the K3. This is not helping me keep my money in my pocket.

11-03-2013, 09:40 PM	#55
Mutters Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 263	Originally posted by jsherman999 I guessed/voted, then checked the EXIF, and I was right. Even downsampled to 16MP, K-3 image crisper/sharper looking than the native K-5 image. K-3 looks good. Now, Adam, I'd like to see a couple ISO 6400 shots taken/processed the same way! I think the K-3 will shine there as well, but I'd like to see. He-he-he Did the same thing. AB

11-03-2013, 09:40 PM - 1 Like	#56
Khaf New Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 10	The EXIF shows that E.jpg is made by K-3, and B.jpg (the second one) is made by k-5 IIs.

11-03-2013, 09:45 PM	#57
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by bossa Reducing the images to the same size is a bit of cheat because it's only representing one way to use the cameras. True, you could also upsample the K-5 to 24MP, but that would probably make it look even less close, unless you use one of the really nice specialized upsampling software packages. You either have to upsample or downsample one or the other if you display them at the same size on either print or screen (or upsample/downsample both to different degrees.)

11-03-2013, 09:52 PM	#59
Mutters Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 263	Originally posted by Khaf ???????. Well done Sherlock! Why would you do that? Everyone else who's worked it out has left it alone.

11-03-2013, 09:55 PM	#60
jfuqua11 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 36	Originally posted by enoeske The first file has much more detail and sharpness, but also has color moire in the fencing and other areas. The second is less detailed and softer, but lacks the moire. Seems obvious that the K-3 is #1 and K-5 is #2 It is K-3 vs K5IIs so both don't have the AA filter. I love how many people are confused about the AA filter hahahaha