K3 vs K5 high ISO noise.

normhead · 01-10-2014, 08:38 AM

I finally got around to comparing images today.

I've been under the impression that K-3 images were a bit noisier than k5 images were, so I finally got around to comparing them today, using the same camera settings a 2 sec. delay, and cropping to produce a 1:1, approx 500x400 section.

With the same processing (the curves were almost identical) these are the results. Sometimes I think one is better , sometimes the other. It's pretty much a saw off. Go down further in the thread for the correct comparison.

Oops I made a mistake. the first is the K-5 on a tripod, but no delay at 1600 the second is on a tripod, but with a 3 second delay.

Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 10:59 AM.

Kozlok · 01-10-2014, 08:58 AM

Most of the comparisons I've seen post 1:1 for both, so they are at different effective magnifications. This is the first I've seen at the same "print size". Looks promising!

VoiceOfReason · 01-10-2014, 08:58 AM

Just out of curiousity have you done any 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, and 51200 comparisons too?

RonHendriks1966 · 01-10-2014, 09:11 AM

I think taht up to iso2500 the differences are small, but the advantage for the K-5 only starts there.

Alfie · 01-10-2014, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I won't tell which is which, but I'm sure the exif will give it away if anyone cares to look.

Nice comparison. exifttool 9.4.5.0 tells me both are from a K-5.

normhead · 01-10-2014, 10:27 AM

I better check that

You're right, I can't bel;I've I did that, ok, I'll go back and get the K-3 image... the first image was the K5 but not on the 2 second delay..

And the K-3 is out of focus, have to reshoot...

**crewl1** · 01-10-2014, 10:29 AM

They both look good to me

Unregistered User · 01-10-2014, 10:53 AM

I compared the ISO between K-3 and K-5 when I got the K-3 and my conclusion is that up til ISO1600 they look the same with a finer grain in the K-3. At ISO3200 the K-5 starts to get much harsher grain and loosing a little more detail. At ISO12800 the K-5s harsh grain makes it a clear looser. I made two sets, first on my girlfriend and second on two stuffed animals and with more light on the first set.

normhead · 01-10-2014, 10:54 AM

OK try again....

K-5 1600

K-3 1600

K-5 6400

K-3

Ok, now there's a difference, using the K-3 at 6400 there is enough noise to produce sharpening artifacts. Also in the K-3 at 1600 but not as distinct. So this is what I was observing.. the K-3 is going to be more dependent on noise reduction software, or mean I have to use less sharpening than I'm accustomed to on the whole image. Much of this can be reduced by turning down the sharpening... but this is my fairly standard level of sharpening using the K-5.

**Rondec** · 01-10-2014, 11:07 AM

But the fact that the K3 does not have an AA filter means that you should sharpen quite a bit less than with the K5. In particular, I don't sharpen high iso (more than iso 1600) images on either camera, or if I do, I do it very selectively. Otherwise you end up with significantly worse noise.

normhead · 01-10-2014, 11:23 AM

Reprocessed, this time no sharpening - noise reduction applied...

K-5 1600

K-3 1600

K-5 6400

K-3 6400

So, my conclusion is, you can crop, but you'll have to deal with more noise. For those of us planning on using the larger file size to crop images, say to use a shorter lens for BiFs to make framing less critical, there is a price to pay for that.

normhead · 01-10-2014, 11:34 AM

The four images again... this time uncropped with both sharpening and NR turned on but no brush effects, only global effects..

To my eye, even cropped to the same size, at 1600 the k-3 is noisier, and since 1600 on the k-5 was my upper limit, and the K-3 goes beyond that, for me personally, 800 ISO will be the top for using the K-3, although I have been sneaking up to 1000 lately in critical situations.

VoiceOfReason · 01-10-2014, 01:06 PM

Thanks for this informative post. Looks like as long as the lighting is good the K3 will beat the K5, but the K5 will do better in lower light situations. I do shots at anime conventions, and am generally running ISO 800-3200 inside at them. Looks like the K3 might not be the best for me for that. I guess my next photographich purchase will be the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and I will see what happens with any firmware updates.

RonHendriks1966 · 01-10-2014, 01:32 PM

Did you put off hi-iso noise reduction inside the camera? Since your K-5 imgae looks a little smeared with the K-5.

Simply to say: The 16 megapixelsensor is a little better on hi-iso then the 24 megapixelsensor, but could expect that.

normhead · 01-10-2014, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Did you put off hi-iso noise reduction inside the camera? Since your K-5 imgae looks a little smeared with the K-5.

Simply to say: The 16 megapixelsensor is a little better on hi-iso then the 24 megapixelsensor, but could expect that.

Does that make a difference in RAW? I usually never pay attention to the jpeg settings.

Some people expect it, some people argue that it's not true...

01-10-2014, 08:38 AM	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	K3 vs K5 high ISO noise. I finally got around to comparing images today. I've been under the impression that K-3 images were a bit noisier than k5 images were, so I finally got around to comparing them today, using the same camera settings a 2 sec. delay, and cropping to produce a 1:1, approx 500x400 section. With the same processing (the curves were almost identical) these are the results. Sometimes I think one is better , sometimes the other. It's pretty much a saw off. Go down further in the thread for the correct comparison. Oops I made a mistake. the first is the K-5 on a tripod, but no delay at 1600 the second is on a tripod, but with a 3 second delay. Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 10:59 AM.

01-10-2014, 10:54 AM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	OK try again.... K-5 1600 K-3 1600 K-5 6400 K-3 Ok, now there's a difference, using the K-3 at 6400 there is enough noise to produce sharpening artifacts. Also in the K-3 at 1600 but not as distinct. So this is what I was observing.. the K-3 is going to be more dependent on noise reduction software, or mean I have to use less sharpening than I'm accustomed to on the whole image. Much of this can be reduced by turning down the sharpening... but this is my fairly standard level of sharpening using the K-5. Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 11:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New K3 vs K5ii high iso RAW tests	ihasa	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	8	11-04-2013 09:15 AM
DR/Noise performance: pushing exposure vs high ISO	HSV	Photographic Technique	8	03-12-2013 06:51 PM
K-R VS X100 High Iso Noise Comparison	Ryan Cole	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	02-01-2013 02:36 PM
K5 High ISO Noise Reduction Setting	daphnejohn	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	11-06-2011 07:45 PM
High ISO Noise vs. Underexposure Correction	yoon395	Photographic Technique	7	08-27-2011 06:13 AM

01-10-2014, 08:58 AM	#2
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Most of the comparisons I've seen post 1:1 for both, so they are at different effective magnifications. This is the first I've seen at the same "print size". Looks promising!

01-10-2014, 08:58 AM	#3
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Just out of curiousity have you done any 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, and 51200 comparisons too?

01-10-2014, 09:11 AM	#4
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I think taht up to iso2500 the differences are small, but the advantage for the K-5 only starts there.

01-10-2014, 09:37 AM	#5
Alfie Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 51	Originally posted by normhead I won't tell which is which, but I'm sure the exif will give it away if anyone cares to look. Nice comparison. exifttool 9.4.5.0 tells me both are from a K-5.

01-10-2014, 10:27 AM	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	I better check that You're right, I can't bel;I've I did that, ok, I'll go back and get the K-3 image... the first image was the K5 but not on the 2 second delay.. And the K-3 is out of focus, have to reshoot...

01-10-2014, 10:29 AM	#7
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	They both look good to me

01-10-2014, 10:53 AM	#8
Unregistered User Guest	I compared the ISO between K-3 and K-5 when I got the K-3 and my conclusion is that up til ISO1600 they look the same with a finer grain in the K-3. At ISO3200 the K-5 starts to get much harsher grain and loosing a little more detail. At ISO12800 the K-5s harsh grain makes it a clear looser. I made two sets, first on my girlfriend and second on two stuffed animals and with more light on the first set.

01-10-2014, 11:07 AM	#10
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	But the fact that the K3 does not have an AA filter means that you should sharpen quite a bit less than with the K5. In particular, I don't sharpen high iso (more than iso 1600) images on either camera, or if I do, I do it very selectively. Otherwise you end up with significantly worse noise.

01-10-2014, 11:23 AM	#11
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Reprocessed, this time no sharpening - noise reduction applied... K-5 1600 K-3 1600 K-5 6400 K-3 6400 So, my conclusion is, you can crop, but you'll have to deal with more noise. For those of us planning on using the larger file size to crop images, say to use a shorter lens for BiFs to make framing less critical, there is a price to pay for that.

01-10-2014, 11:34 AM	#12
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	The four images again... this time uncropped with both sharpening and NR turned on but no brush effects, only global effects.. To my eye, even cropped to the same size, at 1600 the k-3 is noisier, and since 1600 on the k-5 was my upper limit, and the K-3 goes beyond that, for me personally, 800 ISO will be the top for using the K-3, although I have been sneaking up to 1000 lately in critical situations.

01-10-2014, 01:06 PM	#13
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Thanks for this informative post. Looks like as long as the lighting is good the K3 will beat the K5, but the K5 will do better in lower light situations. I do shots at anime conventions, and am generally running ISO 800-3200 inside at them. Looks like the K3 might not be the best for me for that. I guess my next photographich purchase will be the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and I will see what happens with any firmware updates.

01-10-2014, 01:32 PM	#14
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Did you put off hi-iso noise reduction inside the camera? Since your K-5 imgae looks a little smeared with the K-5. Simply to say: The 16 megapixelsensor is a little better on hi-iso then the 24 megapixelsensor, but could expect that.

01-10-2014, 01:34 PM	#15
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Did you put off hi-iso noise reduction inside the camera? Since your K-5 imgae looks a little smeared with the K-5. Simply to say: The 16 megapixelsensor is a little better on hi-iso then the 24 megapixelsensor, but could expect that. Does that make a difference in RAW? I usually never pay attention to the jpeg settings. Some people expect it, some people argue that it's not true...