Originally posted by audiobomber DXO equalize all results to 8mp in their "Print" results. This is for comparing noise at the same resolution on a computer screen, and at the same print size (8"x10"). That makes sense to me. At 8mp, the K-3 and K-5 II will show the same amount of noise. At 16mp, they will show the same amount of noise.
Originally posted by jsherman999 Actually audiobomber is right - when you look at it at 100% pixel view, you're putting the higher-res sensor at a comparative disadvantage, and when you say you 'won't downsample the K-3 to 16MP' you're not realizing what you actually do when you print.
Wow... everybody knows what I do with my images better than I do. Maybe I should stop selling the digital files and start
printing my stitched, panoramic HDR (32-bits per channel) files.
Oh wait...
Let me say that my discussion of the noise in the K-3 images is based on a camera that I've only had for two days, with firmware 1.00, and using software (ACR 8.1) that doesn't know the camera model exists beyond what's in the EXIF. This is compared to a K-5 which I've used for my professional work for two years and 40,000+ images (on the main body), so I
definitely know my way around it's raw files!
The K-3 is certainly a great camera, but so far I am not seeing the kind of "in the raw file" dynamic range that the K-5 has (and I presume is in the K-5II and IIs). By dynamic range, I mean recognizable detail that can be pulled back from highlights and shadows without as much noise as I see here
at the pixel level. And of course I'm looking at the files at 100%, that's where you see noise or other artefacts!
I've installed the Ricoh DCU 5 software (Silkypix) that came with the camera, and am trying to find my way around it. I'll post what I see.