[slip]

Has anyone find that when you zoom in at 100% with the K3 there is a slight blur to your images compared to the same lens on the K5iis?
Is it just because you can zoom in much closer before the K3 pixelates?

Thanks

Randy

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

I've never had a K-5, but I can say that the K-3 really does exaggerate any flaws if you zoom in at 100%. If you're concerned, try re-sizing the K-3 images to 16MP to compare against your K-5 pics. I think this is an issue of the high resolution of the K-3 allowing you to look at your lenses more critically.

This is one of the reasons that some people say that the K-3 is harder to get a good image with. It's really not, it's just so good that it allows you to see more clearly when you've missed. ISO 80 and noise performance arguments aside, a K-3 image viewed at the same display size as a K-5, K-5II, K-5IIS image should be as good or better.

Another reason people have issues is if they try to use their favorite methods from processing K-5 images and don't like how it works with K-3 images. The K-3 has a different sensor, and many people have reported better results by ignoring their K-5 post-process settings and starting fresh figuring out new processing settings for the K-3 (including adjusting sharpening and noise reduction settings).

[slip]

I've never had a K-5, but I can say that the K-3 really does exaggerate any flaws if you zoom in at 100%. If you're concerned, try re-sizing the K-3 images to 16MP to compare against your K-5 pics. I think this is an issue of the high resolution of the K-3 allowing you to look at your lenses more critically.

This is one of the reasons that some people say that the K-3 is harder to get a good image with. It's really not, it's just so good that it allows you to see more clearly when you've missed. ISO 80 and noise performance arguments aside, a K-3 image viewed at the same display size as a K-5, K-5II, K-5IIS image should be as good or better.

Another reason people have issues is if they try to use their favorite methods from processing K-5 images and don't like how it works with K-3 images. The K-3 has a different sensor, and many people have reported better results by ignoring their K-5 post-process settings and starting fresh figuring out new processing settings for the K-3 (including adjusting sharpening and noise reduction settings).

Thanks! One question... how would you resize a 24mp image to 16mp?

Randy

[BigMackCam]

I've never had a K-5, but I can say that the K-3 really does exaggerate any flaws if you zoom in at 100%. If you're concerned, try re-sizing the K-3 images to 16MP to compare against your K-5 pics. I think this is an issue of the high resolution of the K-3 allowing you to look at your lenses more critically.

+1

The only other thing I'd mention - in case you haven't already considered this - is to ensure you have calibrated the lens with your K3 using AF fine adjust. It's just possible that you were getting more accurate AF with the lens on your K5IIs, so it's worth running some tests to make sure that lens with your K3 is fine adjusted. It can make the world of difference, particularly at wider apertures and closer distances where the depth of field is shallower.

[Davidparis]

Well, my K-5IIs rocks big-time and I don't have this problem...

[BrianR]

Thanks! One question... how would you resize a 24mp image to 16mp?

Any post processing software should be able to do this, what software do you use? You may not be able to enter "16mp" directly anywhere, but you should be able to enter the k5iis' pixel dimension 4928 x 3264px.