Bye bye K20D, hello K-3!

**TER-OR** · 11-11-2013, 06:30 AM

Thanks for the report, it's very useful to hear firsthand experience like this.

bdery · 11-11-2013, 06:57 AM

A pleasure. I'll add a few things I forgot to mention.

Dust removal : it's now completely silent. On the K20D I used it on-demand only, since I found it to noisy to activate at each power up. Now it's on and I can't feel it or hear it.

SR : it's more silent. When using Live View (such as it was) on the K20D, I heard a low motor noise. It's still there but much lower with the K-3.

The Fx and AF buttons can be customized, but the level of customization is really limited. There are many more functions that I would like to assign to those buttons.

Image corrections : they are instant, from what I can tell (I'm talking aberrations, distorsion, etc). I'll test the actual time difference but so far they are on auto and they do not slow my process down at all.

EDIT---

I have had time to test two more things.

First, flash metering (with P-TTL and the AF-540) is much, much more reliable. My K20D used to underexpose a bit, which I had learned to live with, but this new camera is spot on. Bouncing on walls (even gray or slightly tinted walls), ceilings of different textures, it's always right on.

AF with slow lenses. By slow I mean slow to AF. For instance, my slowest AF lens is the DFA 100 mm macro WR. It's not horrible but it is the slowest. It also can hunt a bit in low light. Well, it's both faster and less prone to hunt with the K-3. I'm sure the same applied, to some extend, to previous models, but for me it's quite an upgrade. Even AF tracking (in this case, the eye of my 4 months old daughter) was quite reliable. I'm going to like this for handheld macro!

Finchj · 11-12-2013, 12:28 PM

bdery, have you mounted the 18-55 WR on the K-3 yet?

I'm debating moving from the K-7 (similar sensor to your K-20) to the K-3 and keeping the same glass I have now, or investing in a new wide angle lens and waiting for the K-3's price to drop.

I'd really like to hear your impressions regarding the kit lens and its performance on the K-3.

Quicksand · 11-12-2013, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by bdery

First, flash metering (with P-TTL and the AF-540) is much, much more reliable. My K20D used to underexpose a bit, which I had learned to live with, but this new camera is spot on. Bouncing on walls (even gray or slightly tinted walls), ceilings of different textures, it's always right on.

That's great. I haven't heard a single complaint about bounce P-TTL flash metering on the K-3, and I have been paying close attention to the consensus . . . because I (along with some others) have trouble with this on my K-5, and there are also some folks who don't seem to.

(Now watch, someone will come along and point me to a problem.)

Painter · 11-12-2013, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Finchj

bdery, have you mounted the 18-55 WR on the K-3 yet?

I'm debating moving from the K-7 (similar sensor to your K-20) to the K-3 and keeping the same glass I have now, or investing in a new wide angle lens and waiting for the K-3's price to drop.

I'd really like to hear your impressions regarding the kit lens and its performance on the K-3.

Here is a shot with the kit lens and a crop to show, 400ISO and f6.7. The DA18-55 WR is actually a fantastic lens for the money.

bdery · 11-13-2013, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Finchj

bdery, have you mounted the 18-55 WR on the K-3 yet?

I'm debating moving from the K-7 (similar sensor to your K-20) to the K-3 and keeping the same glass I have now, or investing in a new wide angle lens and waiting for the K-3's price to drop.

I'd really like to hear your impressions regarding the kit lens and its performance on the K-3.

I tested it yesterday evening. AF is great, it always surprises me how fast that lens can focus. It's also quite reliable. I ran tests in my basement and was again impressed at how the camera can focus in very low light levels.

Sharpness is just as you'd expect. That lens is not the sharpest but it delivers. It's clear that the sensor can deliver more than the lens, but you already knew that. There is nothing wrong with the kit lens but it won't really become any better than before

However, it made me discover that my DA40 is not well matched to my K-3. I wanted to post comparisons between the 40 (one of my best lenses) and the 18-55, but the kit was sharper at all apertures. That is NOT normal. I'll print a focus chart and adjust the AF of my 40, then post a comparison between the two lenses.

Frater · 11-14-2013, 08:03 AM

bdery, I also own both the DA40 Limited and the 18-55 kit, and made a comparison once. My finding was, that the DA40 is sharper and resolving higher.

To give the Kit the same sharpnes illusion as the DA40, you would have to crank up the Sharpening slider to the max (130%), to get the same level as the DA40 at 0%.

This comparison is not fully fair though, because 40mm and the wide end are the weaker spots in the kit's zoom range. Whereas at the 24mm mark, it excels almost like a prime, and the tele end is better than 40mm as well. But this may be only so in my setup, because I calibrated the AF at 55mm.

The DA40 has a slightly but visibly higher contrast (evident also from the histogram, i.e. shadows are darker and highlights are brighter.
The Kit has one adantage over the DA40 though: it has a better corrected curvature of field (=flat focus plane). So it's more suitable for photographing planar targets.

The Kit has one disadvantage, after some years it seems to develop slight fogging, even if treated properly, i.e. some bright stuff (not organic or dark, i.e. not fungus) is finding its way onto at least one surface. My kit is 5 years old (the non-WR version II).

Last edited by Frater; 11-14-2013 at 08:12 AM.

normhead · 11-14-2013, 08:12 AM

Good post, and pretty much mirrors my impressions coming from a K-5.

People complained about the 11 AF points for years… now that I have a K-3 I don't know how I tolerated it…

bdery · 11-14-2013, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by normhead

People complained about the 11 AF points for years… now that I have a K-3 I don't know how I tolerated it…

Quite true. The numerous AF modes and options are a bit overwhelming at first, but I'll learn fast to live with them (or just use AFS select point as before). The three user modes are also excellent, I'll have one for studio work, maybe one for RAW shooting, and probably another for when I hand my camera to an "innocent bystander" to take a snapshot.

One thing that,s quickly growing on me is the focus peaking. It's quite simply amazing how easy it is to use that feature. For macro work, it will become a must-have, combined with the excellent screen.

Finchj · 11-15-2013, 04:51 AM

bedry and Painter,

Thank you for the replies. Very nice to see that the 18-55 is still a worthwhile lens on the K-3. Now here is to hoping that there are some very good deals coming up for the K-3. If not, I can wait.

audiobomber · 11-15-2013, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by bdery

ISO... that's the main reason why I upgraded. I'll just say this : ISO 12800 on the K-3 is about comparable to ISO 1000 on the K20D.

Sorry, but that is just wildly exaggerated.

bdery · 11-15-2013, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Sorry, but that is just wildly exaggerated.

In good light I find that it is not exagerated. In dark areas it's not as good, I'd say ISO 12800 compares to about ISO 1600 on the K20D.

It also depends if you compare pixel-by-pixel or screen (or better, print) size. If you look at each pixel then the K-3 might seem noisier than what I wrote. But it has about 65% more pixels. If you print 12x8 images and compare, then you will find that the K-3 offers a tremendous gain.

normhead · 11-15-2013, 08:45 AM

Last night, looking at some images, I did notice the noise in the OOF areas on the K-3, but when I cropped the way I wanted the picture displayed, i.e. reduced the number of pixels in the image by about half, the noise was gone, and the image didn't need noise reduction, and the distracting OOF areas wee also cleaned up. It's going to take a while to get used to artifacts caused by the fact that my images are more reduced in size when I view them on my monitor than they used to be. And since my main reason for buying a k-3 was more room to crop wildlife images, I'm completely comfortable with that.

Cynog Ap Brychan · 11-15-2013, 09:54 AM

Just received an email to say my K-3 has been posted! Now I'll be able to see things for myself, rather than jealously read about other members' experiences. Trouble is, the courier they use don't deliver on Saturdays, so I've still got some waiting to do. Man, these next couple of days are going to seem endless

Frater · 11-17-2013, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by bdery

In good light I find that it is not exagerated. In dark areas it's not as good, I'd say ISO 12800 compares to about ISO 1600 on the K20D.

I also think it's exaggerated.

The K-5(ii) has a noise advantage over the K20D of ~1 EV, as per DXO labs. Assuming, that the K-3 and K-5 are in the same league (after netting off the resolution difference), then the K-3 will have an advantage ~ 1 EV as well. As soon as the K-3 will be DXOlab'ed, we will have the exact figures.

This assumes though, that we are talking about RAW, and that for High-ISO comparisons, the hidden (undesired) RAW denoising is switched off in both cameras (the K20D allows that in the unofficial debug mode), or has the same strength.

Btw, does anyone know about another camera from another manufacturer out there, which has the same (Sony?) sensor as the K-3? Then we could lookup up the facts&figures even today

(provided that the other cam would be DXO tested already)

11-11-2013, 06:57 AM	#17
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357 Original Poster	A pleasure. I'll add a few things I forgot to mention. Dust removal : it's now completely silent. On the K20D I used it on-demand only, since I found it to noisy to activate at each power up. Now it's on and I can't feel it or hear it. SR : it's more silent. When using Live View (such as it was) on the K20D, I heard a low motor noise. It's still there but much lower with the K-3. The Fx and AF buttons can be customized, but the level of customization is really limited. There are many more functions that I would like to assign to those buttons. Image corrections : they are instant, from what I can tell (I'm talking aberrations, distorsion, etc). I'll test the actual time difference but so far they are on auto and they do not slow my process down at all. EDIT--- I have had time to test two more things. First, flash metering (with P-TTL and the AF-540) is much, much more reliable. My K20D used to underexpose a bit, which I had learned to live with, but this new camera is spot on. Bouncing on walls (even gray or slightly tinted walls), ceilings of different textures, it's always right on. AF with slow lenses. By slow I mean slow to AF. For instance, my slowest AF lens is the DFA 100 mm macro WR. It's not horrible but it is the slowest. It also can hunt a bit in low light. Well, it's both faster and less prone to hunt with the K-3. I'm sure the same applied, to some extend, to previous models, but for me it's quite an upgrade. Even AF tracking (in this case, the eye of my 4 months old daughter) was quite reliable. I'm going to like this for handheld macro! Last edited by bdery; 11-11-2013 at 07:31 PM.

11-12-2013, 02:33 PM	#20
Painter Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 348	18-55 WR on K-3 Originally posted by Finchj bdery, have you mounted the 18-55 WR on the K-3 yet? I'm debating moving from the K-7 (similar sensor to your K-20) to the K-3 and keeping the same glass I have now, or investing in a new wide angle lens and waiting for the K-3's price to drop. I'd really like to hear your impressions regarding the kit lens and its performance on the K-3. Here is a shot with the kit lens and a crop to show, 400ISO and f6.7. The DA18-55 WR is actually a fantastic lens for the money.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bye bye, Pentax II !!!	Tord	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	4	03-30-2013 10:18 AM
Bye, bye film hello digital	Ex4x5	Pentax K-r	7	08-31-2011 01:42 PM
Bye bye K-x, hello K-5.....	London Rob	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	08-27-2011 03:49 PM
Bye Bye HP, hello Epson!	Buddha Jones	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	11-25-2008 11:51 AM

11-11-2013, 06:30 AM	#16
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Thanks for the report, it's very useful to hear firsthand experience like this.

11-12-2013, 12:28 PM	#18
Finchj Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 142	bdery, have you mounted the 18-55 WR on the K-3 yet? I'm debating moving from the K-7 (similar sensor to your K-20) to the K-3 and keeping the same glass I have now, or investing in a new wide angle lens and waiting for the K-3's price to drop. I'd really like to hear your impressions regarding the kit lens and its performance on the K-3.

11-12-2013, 02:30 PM	#19
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by bdery First, flash metering (with P-TTL and the AF-540) is much, much more reliable. My K20D used to underexpose a bit, which I had learned to live with, but this new camera is spot on. Bouncing on walls (even gray or slightly tinted walls), ceilings of different textures, it's always right on. That's great. I haven't heard a single complaint about bounce P-TTL flash metering on the K-3, and I have been paying close attention to the consensus . . . because I (along with some others) have trouble with this on my K-5, and there are also some folks who don't seem to. (Now watch, someone will come along and point me to a problem.)

11-13-2013, 06:06 AM	#21
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357 Original Poster	Originally posted by Finchj bdery, have you mounted the 18-55 WR on the K-3 yet? I'm debating moving from the K-7 (similar sensor to your K-20) to the K-3 and keeping the same glass I have now, or investing in a new wide angle lens and waiting for the K-3's price to drop. I'd really like to hear your impressions regarding the kit lens and its performance on the K-3. I tested it yesterday evening. AF is great, it always surprises me how fast that lens can focus. It's also quite reliable. I ran tests in my basement and was again impressed at how the camera can focus in very low light levels. Sharpness is just as you'd expect. That lens is not the sharpest but it delivers. It's clear that the sensor can deliver more than the lens, but you already knew that. There is nothing wrong with the kit lens but it won't really become any better than before However, it made me discover that my DA40 is not well matched to my K-3. I wanted to post comparisons between the 40 (one of my best lenses) and the 18-55, but the kit was sharper at all apertures. That is NOT normal. I'll print a focus chart and adjust the AF of my 40, then post a comparison between the two lenses.

11-14-2013, 08:03 AM	#22
Frater Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 143	bdery, I also own both the DA40 Limited and the 18-55 kit, and made a comparison once. My finding was, that the DA40 is sharper and resolving higher. To give the Kit the same sharpnes illusion as the DA40, you would have to crank up the Sharpening slider to the max (130%), to get the same level as the DA40 at 0%. This comparison is not fully fair though, because 40mm and the wide end are the weaker spots in the kit's zoom range. Whereas at the 24mm mark, it excels almost like a prime, and the tele end is better than 40mm as well. But this may be only so in my setup, because I calibrated the AF at 55mm. The DA40 has a slightly but visibly higher contrast (evident also from the histogram, i.e. shadows are darker and highlights are brighter. The Kit has one adantage over the DA40 though: it has a better corrected curvature of field (=flat focus plane). So it's more suitable for photographing planar targets. The Kit has one disadvantage, after some years it seems to develop slight fogging, even if treated properly, i.e. some bright stuff (not organic or dark, i.e. not fungus) is finding its way onto at least one surface. My kit is 5 years old (the non-WR version II). Last edited by Frater; 11-14-2013 at 08:12 AM.

11-14-2013, 08:12 AM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Good post, and pretty much mirrors my impressions coming from a K-5. People complained about the 11 AF points for years… now that I have a K-3 I don't know how I tolerated it…

11-14-2013, 08:54 AM	#24
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead People complained about the 11 AF points for years… now that I have a K-3 I don't know how I tolerated it… Quite true. The numerous AF modes and options are a bit overwhelming at first, but I'll learn fast to live with them (or just use AFS select point as before). The three user modes are also excellent, I'll have one for studio work, maybe one for RAW shooting, and probably another for when I hand my camera to an "innocent bystander" to take a snapshot. One thing that,s quickly growing on me is the focus peaking. It's quite simply amazing how easy it is to use that feature. For macro work, it will become a must-have, combined with the excellent screen.

11-15-2013, 04:51 AM	#25
Finchj Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Espoo Photos: Albums Posts: 142	bedry and Painter, Thank you for the replies. Very nice to see that the 18-55 is still a worthwhile lens on the K-3. Now here is to hoping that there are some very good deals coming up for the K-3. If not, I can wait.

11-15-2013, 07:04 AM	#26
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by bdery ISO... that's the main reason why I upgraded. I'll just say this : ISO 12800 on the K-3 is about comparable to ISO 1000 on the K20D. Sorry, but that is just wildly exaggerated.

11-15-2013, 08:38 AM	#27
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber Sorry, but that is just wildly exaggerated. In good light I find that it is not exagerated. In dark areas it's not as good, I'd say ISO 12800 compares to about ISO 1600 on the K20D. It also depends if you compare pixel-by-pixel or screen (or better, print) size. If you look at each pixel then the K-3 might seem noisier than what I wrote. But it has about 65% more pixels. If you print 12x8 images and compare, then you will find that the K-3 offers a tremendous gain.

11-15-2013, 08:45 AM	#28
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Last night, looking at some images, I did notice the noise in the OOF areas on the K-3, but when I cropped the way I wanted the picture displayed, i.e. reduced the number of pixels in the image by about half, the noise was gone, and the image didn't need noise reduction, and the distracting OOF areas wee also cleaned up. It's going to take a while to get used to artifacts caused by the fact that my images are more reduced in size when I view them on my monitor than they used to be. And since my main reason for buying a k-3 was more room to crop wildlife images, I'm completely comfortable with that.

11-15-2013, 09:54 AM	#29
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Just received an email to say my K-3 has been posted! Now I'll be able to see things for myself, rather than jealously read about other members' experiences. Trouble is, the courier they use don't deliver on Saturdays, so I've still got some waiting to do. Man, these next couple of days are going to seem endless

11-17-2013, 06:13 AM	#30
Frater Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 143	Originally posted by bdery In good light I find that it is not exagerated. In dark areas it's not as good, I'd say ISO 12800 compares to about ISO 1600 on the K20D. I also think it's exaggerated. The K-5(ii) has a noise advantage over the K20D of ~1 EV, as per DXO labs. Assuming, that the K-3 and K-5 are in the same league (after netting off the resolution difference), then the K-3 will have an advantage ~ 1 EV as well. As soon as the K-3 will be DXOlab'ed, we will have the exact figures. This assumes though, that we are talking about RAW, and that for High-ISO comparisons, the hidden (undesired) RAW denoising is switched off in both cameras (the K20D allows that in the unofficial debug mode), or has the same strength. Btw, does anyone know about another camera from another manufacturer out there, which has the same (Sony?) sensor as the K-3? Then we could lookup up the facts&figures even today (provided that the other cam would be DXO tested already)