[Spodeworld]

Interesting comparison between the K3 and K5IIs.

Points out the differences, the advantages of the K3 but also things that the K5 family had that they wish was kept in the K3.

Also, they point out that the noise performance of the K5 beats the K3 starting at ISO 800. I didn't want to hear that, but maybe with 50% more pixels it can't be helped with the current state of technology.

Ricoh Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-5 IIs | Neocamera

I was going to say happy turkey day, but I am sure there are no happy turkeys until tomorrow

[Canada_Rockies]

I hate all those comparisons about noise performance. They are only valid if you use the in camera out of box JPEG settings. The only valid noise rating is to create a 20x30 inch print and work out how you can do the least noise. I think the K-3 will come out ahead simply because there are more pixels per inch, so the noise per pixel won't matter a hoot.

[Spodeworld]

I made the assumption that they were saying it was noisier regardless of whether it was RAW or JPEG.

[bdery]

I hate all those comparisons about noise performance. They are only valid if you use the in camera out of box JPEG settings. The only valid noise rating is to create a 20x30 inch print and work out how you can do the least noise. I think the K-3 will come out ahead simply because there are more pixels per inch, so the noise per pixel won't matter a hoot.

Yes, and if you really must compare on-screen with JPEGs, set the K-3 to M (14 MP) and compare to the K-5 at 16 MP. The K-3 will still come out ahead.

[Canada_Rockies]

I made the assumption that they were saying it was noisier regardless of whether it was RAW or JPEG.

The fine print in most of the tests, if not all, says that noise control is rated from in camera JPEG at the default settings when the camera is received from the manufacturer. Pentax has rated poorly on noise in many tests, but because their default settings left more detail in the images. I personally turn all noise reduction off (even with my K10 !). Why remove detail that is there. A smooth blur is not what I am looking for in a picture.

[Spodeworld]

So if this is JPEG, that is more understandable. Hopefully with a RAW file and good post processing the differences narrows.

[twitch]

DXO are the only ones that have credibility for Noise performance. I ignor the noise section in every other camera review site. Problems seem to be the others don't 1) take into account real ISO is not necessarily manufacturer claim ISO (very important comparing cameras of different brands) 2) they use JPEG instead of RAW 3) they don't scale image to same output size when comparing cameras of different MP.

[Byrd-2020]

DXO are the only ones that have credibility for Noise performance. I ignor the noise section in every other camera review site. Problems seem to be the others don't 1) take into account real ISO is not necessarily manufacturer claim ISO (very important comparing cameras of different brands) 2) they use JPEG instead of RAW 3) they don't scale image to same output size when comparing cameras of different MP.

A 16 megapixel APSC sensor has larger photosites than a 24 megapixel APSC sensor. It will inherently have less noise. This is made less obvious by the image processor. However, it is, as I understand it, a simple law of physics that this is the case. It's always going to be a trade-off: Capacity for greater resolution vs lower noise. Everything is a compromise. Why do you think that the 16.2 megapixel sensor in the Nikon D4 (and now Df) has such tremendous high ISO capacity?

Ask yourself 'What are my photographic priorities?'. Maybe the K-5iis (the equal of the K-3 in most respects) would be the better choice.

[rayallen]

A 16 megapixel APSC sensor has larger photosites than a 24 megapixel APSC sensor. It will inherently have less noise. This is made less obvious by the image processor. However, it is, as I understand it, a simple law of physics that this is the case. It's always going to be a trade-off: Capacity for greater resolution vs lower noise. Everything is a compromise. Why do you think that the 16.2 megapixel sensor in the Nikon D4 (and now Df) has such tremendous high ISO capacity?

Ask yourself 'What are my photographic priorities?'. Maybe the K-5iis (the equal of the K-3 in most respects) would be the better choice.

That is one of the best posts I have seen for a while. My thoughts exactly. The size of the photosites is crucial. Some full frame sensors have less than 24 MP. Gee, I wonder why! No wonder their high ISO performance is good. It's not rocket science.

[Rondec]

A 16 megapixel APSC sensor has larger photosites than a 24 megapixel APSC sensor. It will inherently have less noise. This is made less obvious by the image processor. However, it is, as I understand it, a simple law of physics that this is the case. It's always going to be a trade-off: Capacity for greater resolution vs lower noise. Everything is a compromise. Why do you think that the 16.2 megapixel sensor in the Nikon D4 (and now Df) has such tremendous high ISO capacity?

Ask yourself 'What are my photographic priorities?'. Maybe the K-5iis (the equal of the K-3 in most respects) would be the better choice.

This just isn't true. First of all, as technology improves, things get better. a K7 has significantly worse noise issues than a K5. Secondly, assuming the same technology, finer pixels gives finer, less obtrusive noise. The K3 is equivalent to the K5 with regard to high iso. DXO Mark basically gave them the same sports iso score of about 1200.

If you are talking about a per pixel level noise, you might be right. But who really cares about that. The assumption is that you will be viewing or printing the final image on the same size media, which will give an advantage to the camera with more pixels, in general.

[rbefly]

Hi Spodeworld, thanks for posting this review link!
I've added it to the 'Reviews So Far' K-3 thread. This makes 20 reviews, videos and 'First Impressions' tests, now. I don't recall ever seeing this much interest in a new Pentax DSLR release.
Ron

[twitch]

That is one of the best posts I have seen for a while. My thoughts exactly. The size of the photosites is crucial. Some full frame sensors have less than 24 MP. Gee, I wonder why! No wonder their high ISO performance is good. It's not rocket science.

Actually it isn't. The sensor size hasn't changed at all, it still captures the same amount of light, just divided it up into smaller units. So the total "Pie" is the same size but you have a lot more slices. No difference for noise, but you do get more detail.

[Byrd-2020]

Actually it isn't. The sensor size hasn't changed at all, it still captures the same amount of light, just divided it up into smaller units. So the total "Pie" is the same size but you have a lot more slices. No difference for noise, but you do get more detail.

No difference in noise??

I quote Roger Clark from Clarkvision.com: "The number of photons a digital camera collects in each pixel is directly related to the size (area that converts photons into electrons) of the pixel and the lens feeding light to those pixels. The more photons collected, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in the image, thus the larger pixel sizes using larger lenses do better in this regard. Larger pixel cameras have better signal-to-noise ratios at all levels, but this becomes more obvious especially at low signal levels compared to cameras with smaller sensors which use correspondingly smaller lenses. In the extremes of current digital cameras with small cameras having pixel sizes near 2-microns, and large pixel cameras (currently found in DSLRs), there is a factor of about 12 to 16 in photons collected. That means the large pixel camera performs at ISO 1200 to 1600 with similar noise and dynamic range performance of a small pixel camera operating at ISO 100." (part 2 of "Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter")

Those interested in this issue might enjoy reading Clark's article at Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter.

[Rondec]

No difference in noise??

I quote Roger Clark from Clarkvision.com: "The number of photons a digital camera collects in each pixel is directly related to the size (area that converts photons into electrons) of the pixel and the lens feeding light to those pixels. The more photons collected, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in the image, thus the larger pixel sizes using larger lenses do better in this regard. Larger pixel cameras have better signal-to-noise ratios at all levels, but this becomes more obvious especially at low signal levels compared to cameras with smaller sensors which use correspondingly smaller lenses. In the extremes of current digital cameras with small cameras having pixel sizes near 2-microns, and large pixel cameras (currently found in DSLRs), there is a factor of about 12 to 16 in photons collected. That means the large pixel camera performs at ISO 1200 to 1600 with similar noise and dynamic range performance of a small pixel camera operating at ISO 100." (part 2 of "Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter")

Those interested in this issue might enjoy reading Clark's article at Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter.

By this standard, a K100 should out perform a K10 should out perform a K20 should out perform a K5. The reality is different from that. Noise is random and having smaller pixels tends to make it easier to clean up and less visible.

[twitch]

No difference in noise??
].

Yes, no difference. Every piece of the pie is smaller (or noisier at a pixel level), but the total size of the pie is the same. Pixel size is ~3.9 microns on the K-3 so no where near the 2 microns at which point it becomes a problem..