[jaad75]

thought this may be of interest to you from this thread:

I know how it works, but for me having more megapixels and the same level of noise after down sampling is not an improvement - I don't say it's worse on the same size print or web picture, but it is not better, so nothing to be happy about in terms of high iso IQ. And OP said it is better than K-5 (ISO800 vs ISO3200) which is simply impossible.

[Winder]

More pixels offset noise! - DxOMark

[jaad75]

Yeah, it's obvious, but it looks like you don't listen what I say. Having the same noise level as the K-5IIs on the web size picture (or let's say A4 print) is not an improvement for me. It is a stagnation. Of course, slightly more pixels (and hopefully detail, cause it's not as obvious as one might think) gives slightly more room for post-processing (including NR), so there might be a little improvement in the end, but it's still no improvement on the hardware level. And moreover, the higher noise floor means less dynamic range - I mean the real dynamic range, not the one the DxO shows you after their 8MPix "normalization". I would be happy with the same per pixel noise as the old sensor - that would mean that the technology was finally ready for that jump in resolution.

[Winder]

Yeah, it's obvious, but it looks like you don't listen what I say. Having the same noise level as the K-5IIs on the web size picture (or let's say A4 print) is not an improvement for me. It is a stagnation. Of course, slightly more pixels (and hopefully detail, cause it's not as obvious as one might think) gives slightly more room for post-processing (including NR), so there might be a little improvement in the end, but it's still no improvement on the hardware level. And moreover, the higher noise floor means less dynamic range - I mean the real dynamic range, not the one the DxO shows you after their 8MPix "normalization". I would be happy with the same per pixel noise as the old sensor - that would mean that the technology was finally ready for that jump in resolution.

If the S/N ratio stays the same but you increase the number of "pixels" by 50% you are improving IQ. I don't really care about the hardware level. most of the improvement we have seen in the last 10 years have come RAW converters in image processors, not sensors. What I do care about is image quality. Images are sharper, have more detail and the noise that I am seeing (up to 6400) is very fine grained and easy to handle in LR4.4. The A3+ test prints look great and the B&W prints are excellent.

It doesn't look like the K-3 has the processing latitude of the K-5, so people had better get their exposure right. When exposed correctly it appears the K-3 will produce higher quality images than the K-5. I really don't care if that is due to hardware, software, or magic elves.

[rawr]

It's instructive to look over the fence at how the neighbour is doing:
Nikon D7100 RAW noise | Cameralabs

The tech at 24MP, whether it be Toshiba or Sony over there, seems to be delivering pretty much the same results as we are seeing over here with the K-3 vs its predecessor the K-5.

There may indeed be tech stagnation in 24MP sensors. But the results from 24MP APS-C in Nikon seem to be assessed as positive, by cameralabs, dxomark and others. In time, after a few more reviews and tests of the K-3, we might draw the same conclusion in regard to Pentax 24MP APS-C.

[lightbulb]

From a k5iis owner pov I am with you. After all I need reasons to upgrade; )

[Wired]

I know how it works, but for me having more megapixels and the same level of noise after down sampling is not an improvement - I don't say it's worse on the same size print or web picture, but it is not better, so nothing to be happy about in terms of high iso IQ. And OP said it is better than K-5 (ISO800 vs ISO3200) which is simply impossible.

I never said it had less noise. I said the noise was less offensive

[Col]

Luke, I love it - and I'm having a good Chuckle... two of you now - enjoying the shooting experience, but cannot get pictures out of the darn thing

I'll be watching when you post 'em up.

That's why the buffer seems so huge... its actually an open system

[lightbulb]

Hi wired how do you rate the difference in iq between k3 and d800, is it close call dof aside? I have tried omd em5, it is a few classes below k5iis. The colour depth is simply not there. Thanks.

[jaad75]

If the S/N ratio stays the same but you increase the number of "pixels" by 50% you are improving IQ.

That's correct. But the problem is it doesn't stay the same (on pixel level or DxO's Screen Mode), so there is no real improvement in IQ on the final output (DxO's Print Mode).

most of the improvement we have seen in the last 10 years have come RAW converters in image processors, not sensors.

I don't agree. The last huge jump we have seen in the APS-C definitely came from hardware (IMX071) and its super low level of BRN.

It doesn't look like the K-3 has the processing latitude of the K-5, so people had better get their exposure right.

That's another issue with lower SNR - you don't have that elastic shadows adjustment, so exposing to the right and pulling up shadows looks worse with contrast scenes (even on lower sensitivities).

[Rondec]

That's correct. But the problem is it doesn't stay the same (on pixel level or DxO's Screen Mode), so there is no real improvement in IQ on the final output (DxO's Print Mode).
I don't agree. The last huge jump we have seen in the APS-C definitely came from hardware (IMX071) and its super low level of BRN.
That's another issue with lower SNR - you don't have that elastic shadows adjustment, so exposing to the right and pulling up shadows looks worse with contrast scenes (even on lower sensitivities).

I think the biggest reasons to get K3 are non-sensor related -- faster processing, faster auto focus, etc. On the other hand, those who have shot with the D7100 do say that there is significant improvement in detail in low iso situations, allowing for larger print sizes or, more cropping.

[jaad75]

I think the biggest reasons to get K3 are non-sensor related -- faster processing, faster auto focus, etc.

Yes - especially if you need better AF-C (AF-S is so good with SAFOX X, that there is more to be improved in lens mechanics than in the AF module itself).

On the other hand, those who have shot with the D7100 do say that there is significant improvement in detail in low iso situations, allowing for larger print sizes or, more cropping.

I've checked D7100 RAWs - no improvement over K-5 and fatal banding issue is a deal breaker for me. At least the K-3 does not seem to have any banding.

[Rondec]

Yes - especially if you need better AF-C (AF-S is so good with SAFOX X, that there is more to be improved in lens mechanics than in the AF module itself).
I've checked D7100 RAWs - no improvement over K-5 and fatal banding issue is a deal breaker for me. At least the K-3 does not seem to have any banding.

I have not shot with a D7100. My comments with regard to that are based on shooters like Joe.Penn who have shot with K5s and D7100 and compared the two.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/216...ml#post2378416

[jaad75]

That guy is so competent, that he didn't even notice the banding issue...

[Pheo]

Yes - especially if you need better AF-C (AF-S is so good with SAFOX X, that there is more to be improved in lens mechanics than in the AF module itself).
I've checked D7100 RAWs - no improvement over K-5 and fatal banding issue is a deal breaker for me. At least the K-3 does not seem to have any banding.

That was my reasoning... Needing faster and more effective autofocus. Then there are some nice bonuses as well (new movie functionality, multi-zone WB which is pretty awesome, dual SD)

Now it'd be good to see Pentax re-release the 16-50mm with super super fast focusing motor. Or I might checkout the sigma 18-35mm. Only once my bank balance has recovered mind! Until then I'll enjoy the faster screw focusing on my Tamron 17-50