[alijafary509]

File 2 is definitely from K-3.

[bossa]

When you remember that the screen res' is 72dpi, and that the K-3 is being downsampled to 16MP, you really have to think that this test was "inconclusive". If you're printing at between 150-300dpi and not downsampling the output I'm sure you'd greatly appreciate the K-3's extra res'.

This test was also faulty in that the same parts of each image weren't focus matched. If I were a Ferrari which was nobbled so I could race against a family sedan, and without obviously being a Ferrari, am I still a Ferrari?

[Class A]

In retrospect it would probably be better to stick to in-camera JPEGs for a comparison like this (as long as all settings are the same), as there are so many variables in RAW files these days that you can goof even if you go way out of your way to try to get two files to look the same.

I wouldn't use JPEGs, because then you are also comparing the in-camera JPEG engines which are tweaked all the time.

I'd also recommend a basic converter such as dcraw. RawTherapee may also work, but in any case you need to make sure that exactly the same WB settings and the same tone curves are used.

Aw well- I can take it out again tomorrow! Test charts would also work, of course, but that's not what it's about IMO. Been trying to avoid those as much as possible!

It would be great if you could take them out again.

I'm happy for you to avoid test charts but real world scenes are more challenging to get right, i.e., make sure the focus is spot on and identical for both cameras.

Why it should be avoided?

ACR is a very capable converter but it does a lot of things behind the scenes.
Depending on the camera model, it will use different black point settings, tone curves, etc.
Using the same slider values in ACR (and LR) is no guarantee for achieving the same RAW development.
Hence it should be avoided for camera comparisons as it is very hard to eliminate any difference introduced through ACR.

When you remember that the screen res' is 72dpi, and that the K-3 is being downsampled to 16MP, you really have to think that this test was "inconclusive".

Screen resolution is irrelevant when -- as Adam did -- you are allowed to zoom in to a 100% view.

Also, the downsampling to 16MP isn't as crippling as you describe it, as the image will gain with respect to both noise and micro-contrast in the down-sampling process. It is just a bit better to upscale the lower-res image, but it isn't as terrible as you make it appear to create a level playing field by downscaling.

[jaad75]

When you remember that the screen res' is 72dpi

Maybe yours. My screens have typically much higher res.

ACR is a very capable converter but it does a lot of things behind the scenes.

I know, but in my opinion it is better to compare the output from popular Adobe converter, than pure dcraw conversion. It will be closer to what people will typically get.

[awaldram]

It confirmed that if images of K-3 are cropped to the size as from K-5iis, K-3 doesn't convince the majority to upgrade the K-5iis

It shows many folks would be better off taking pictures than pixel peeking.
at least 50% initially of the respondents do not have the temperament for it

the k3 image was obvious with only a modicum of knowledge about the two cameras.

[Michaelina2]

It shows many folks would be better off taking pictures....

And we all know that "taking" is only about 50% of the story... eh?

The remaining part is the "making" of the photograph which involves the fine tuning associated with post processing. I consider out-of-camera images like the examples in Adam's demonstration, to be much like contact prints from the film years. Clearly, each meets the threshold necessary for further development... a good sign.

For me, the choice between these camera bodies has more to do with ease of configuration and durability; that is, how stealthy, nimble, or responsive each can be made to fit the behavior of my subjects and their settings. In short, which will give me the highest keeper rate. Since I like to photograph undisturbed nature in place, from what others are saying, it appears the K-3 has the edge even though I find the K-5 produces great results... even better from the K-5IIs.

Looks like "Dear Santa..." time is closing in... quickly.

Cheers... M

[jaad75]

I consider out-of-camera images like the examples in Adam's demonstration, to be much like contact prints from the film years

These are out-of-ACR images...

[Michaelina2]

These are out-of-ACR images...

Technically agree... RAW is not an image, some degree of pp is always needed (even to chimp review it on the camera's LCD) to establish a starting point. In Adam's case, I gather his intent was to minimally level the images so as to compare camera bodies via what he considered to be representative, or "native" out-put... eh?

Clearly, both produce excellent results full of potential. Guess digging deeper into the characteristics of each camera and pairing fit to shooting style is needed to make a good buying decision... Life was so much easier when IQ was the key determinant...

Just sayin'... M

[jsherman999]

...

Also, the downsampling to 16MP isn't as crippling as you describe it, as the image will gain with respect to both noise and micro-contrast in the down-sampling process. It is just a bit better to upscale the lower-res image, but it isn't as terrible as you make it appear to create a level playing field by downscaling.

Very true. The reason I almost always downsample in these types of comparisons because it more closely mimics what I actually do with the output - whether printing or displaying, my output generally is always downsampled. (36MP at 8x10 or 11x16 prints @ 300dpi, or 2048-pixel-width images for the monitor.) Thus downsampling is usually more meaningful for me. But it's very instructive/interesting to upsample as well, especially if you plan to print a crop of the image larger, which my in-laws seem to constantly want to do with my images

[bedo]

the k3 image was obvious with only a modicum of knowledge about the two cameras.

I would argue that (more or less) all it showed was more contrast (yes, more contrasty picture appears to be "sharper") and more moiré in the first picture which is quite counterintuitive since smaller pixels should be more moiré resistant by the very nature of the phenomenon. Just hope the moiré tamer works as advertised (on real world pictures, that is).

[derekkite]

I would argue that (more or less) all it showed was more contrast (yes, more contrasty picture appears to be "sharper") and more moiré in the first picture which is quite counterintuitive since smaller pixels should be more moiré resistant by the very nature of the phenomenon. Just hope the moiré tamer works as advertised (on real world pictures, that is).

The subject pattern just happened to coincide with the K-3 sensor, but wouldn't have with the K-5iis. From what I understand, a scene with different patterns would show moire at different spots on both cameras.

[jaad75]

a scene with different patterns would show moire at different spots on both cameras.

Of course. But with 24MPix the lens will act as an AA filter equivalent much more often than with the lower density sensors.

[audiobomber]

I only read the first and last pages. The poll is closed, has the answer been divulged?

I say K-3 is file 1, due to more noise and more detail.

[Catscradle]

So, the first pic was from the k3 and the second from the k5iis.

Whats funny is that until the smart alecs started posting replies, the poll was split 50-50 Says something, doesn't it?

Would it be worth posting another pair of pictures with comments restricted until after the results were revealed? Or maybe several picture pairs of different types (portraits, landscape, macro).
Though somebody could just start another thread for replies which would defeat that. I didn't look at comments before voting and I'm glad I didn't.

[IchabodCrane]

Comparing full images seems largely moot as both cameras should and undoubtedly do produce outstanding results. Instead, cropping to 20% of the original image (essentially 45% of picture height and width) will provide a better comparison. So instead of trying to figure out if 24 MP is better than 16 MP, we've shifted the question to comparing noise and resolution on a 4.8 MP image vs 3.2 MP image. Wouldn't the answers start to become much more clear with either down-sampling the 4.8 MP image or up-sampling the 3.2 MP image (instead of re-sampling the originals)?

I don't think this is just an academic exercise, either, as the major motivation for higher pixel count is to take advantage of cropping capabilities. We could even extend this to 10% of original which is not as extreme as it sounds as it's still about 32% of original height and width. Now we're looking at 2.4 MP vs 1.6 MP for resolution and noise.