Another "not sure about the k-3" thread, noise?

**skid2964** · 11-12-2013, 01:41 PM

I need to upgrade from my k-5, I was going to get a k-5IIs until I heard about the k-3.
The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on it is that the reviews, photo samples etc. say this camera does not perform as well at high ISO (more noise).
I have also read where, "it does not matter since it is easier to process it out due to the high res." but I can't get my brain around that just yet.
I guess I am seeking real world opinions like "I swapped my k-5IIs for a k-3 and the final results are that the extra noise does not matter.." and I'd like to know why and how if this is the case...

mrNewt · 11-12-2013, 01:48 PM

Maybe not what you are looking for but...

As a K-5 user, based on the reviews and samples I have seen, if I would look to upgrade my camera, I would go for the K-3!
Is not just the IQ... is also all the other things that were improved when comparing it to a K-5.

Also, personally, I have never shoot above 800ISO. Is my own personal religion, but that's a different story.

Sandy Hancock · 11-12-2013, 01:48 PM

Next gig I shoot I will be packing the K-3 alongside my trusty K-5 IIs. There will plenty of low light shots to make a comparison, but it might be a few days.

rawr · 11-12-2013, 01:49 PM

A good place to start on the subject of high-ISO noise, aside from user feedback of course, might be this article. It is very relevant to the K-3 vs K-5 issue:
More pixels offset noise! - DxOMark

Winder · 11-12-2013, 02:20 PM

I swapped my K-5 for a K-3 and I have been very happy with the high ISO. I don't go above 6400, so if you are needed more than than I can't know. I also do mostly B&W and find the K-3 makes excellent B&W images even at high ISO. I use to dream in T-Max 3200, so what I consider noisy might not be the same as what other people consider noisy.

Painter · 11-12-2013, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by skid2964

I need to upgrade from my k-5, I was going to get a k-5IIs until I heard about the k-3.
The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on it is that the reviews, photo samples etc. say this camera does not perform as well at high ISO (more noise).
I have also read where, "it does not matter since it is easier to process it out due to the high res." but I can't get my brain around that just yet.
I guess I am seeking real world opinions like "I swapped my k-5IIs for a k-3 and the final results are that the extra noise does not matter.." and I'd like to know why and how if this is the case...

I don't have a K-5II but the K-01 is my benchmark. I would say that the K-3 has more noise than the K-01 but retains more detail and after applying noise reduction to both the K-3 is the superior file. The K-7 can't even play in the same sandbox with the K-3 6400 being better than the K-7 at 800 not even taking into account the higher megapixels.

I am writing up a blog post with comparison shots

dosdan · 11-12-2013, 03:34 PM

A discussion about big sensels vs small sensels:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/238970-pentax-k-3-h...ml#post2534630

Dan.

Parallax · 11-12-2013, 03:52 PM

Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

normhead · 11-12-2013, 04:06 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say, the K-3 is noisier.. maybe a stop. Just a general impression. I still prefer it to my K-5. But I say that without having had a good day to even shoot at 100 ISO for landscape.

Parallax · 11-12-2013, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say, the K-3 is noisier.. maybe a stop.

Comparing images side-by-side on the Imaging Resource site, I only noticed the noise being a touch greater from the K-3 above ISO 6400; however, they were noticeably sharper. At 6400 and below I couldn't convince myself that there was any difference.

Winder · 11-12-2013, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Comparing images side-by-side on the Imaging Resource site, I only noticed the noise being a touch greater from the K-3 above ISO 6400; however, they were noticeably sharper. At 6400 and below I couldn't convince myself that there was any difference.

I agree. When I adjust for the difference in pixels the K-3 looks better up to 3200 and at 6400 I can't see a difference. I haven't compared JPEG files so maybe that is where people are seeing it. The RAW files from the K-3 look better.

Barry Pearson · 11-13-2013, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Comparing images side-by-side on the Imaging Resource site, I only noticed the noise being a touch greater from the K-3 above ISO 6400; however, they were noticeably sharper. At 6400 and below I couldn't convince myself that there was any difference.

I noticed that with the Imaging Resource site too, when comparing K-5IIs and K-3 DNGs. The K-3 was noisier, although only ISOs above 6400 were a worry.

But when I did my own side-by-side comparisons with my own K-5IIs and K-3, the differences largely disappeared. The differences may be because of slightly difference automatic exposure between these cameras.

I don't expect the K-3 to have significantly better high-ISO noise characteristics, but I'm not worried that that it is significantly worse. So I've pretty well dismissed this is as "no significance change" for my own purposes. (And of course in nearly every other respect the K-3 is better).

derekkite · 11-13-2013, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

So I've pretty well dismissed this is as "no significance change" for my own purposes. (And of course in nearly every other respect the K-3 is better).

I concur.

rawr · 11-13-2013, 04:31 PM

I think we talk too casually about ISO 6400 and above nowadays, in relation to noise or anything else.

The image quality performance of camera sensors is continuously improving, to be sure (my K200D doesn't even go past ISO 1600), but even today the RAW images from high-end high ISO full-frames like the Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4 don't look pretty at ISO 6400 level and above, especially at 100% crops. So picking apart, in minute detail, images from the K-5 or K-3 at ISO 6400+ isn't likely to reveal much of value.

11-12-2013, 01:41 PM	#1
skid2964 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Posts: 614	Another "not sure about the k-3" thread, noise? I need to upgrade from my k-5, I was going to get a k-5IIs until I heard about the k-3. The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on it is that the reviews, photo samples etc. say this camera does not perform as well at high ISO (more noise). I have also read where, "it does not matter since it is easier to process it out due to the high res." but I can't get my brain around that just yet. I guess I am seeking real world opinions like "I swapped my k-5IIs for a k-3 and the final results are that the extra noise does not matter.." and I'd like to know why and how if this is the case...

11-12-2013, 02:26 PM	#6
Painter Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 348	I just did a test between the K-01/K-7/K-3 Originally posted by skid2964 I need to upgrade from my k-5, I was going to get a k-5IIs until I heard about the k-3. The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on it is that the reviews, photo samples etc. say this camera does not perform as well at high ISO (more noise). I have also read where, "it does not matter since it is easier to process it out due to the high res." but I can't get my brain around that just yet. I guess I am seeking real world opinions like "I swapped my k-5IIs for a k-3 and the final results are that the extra noise does not matter.." and I'd like to know why and how if this is the case... I don't have a K-5II but the K-01 is my benchmark. I would say that the K-3 has more noise than the K-01 but retains more detail and after applying noise reduction to both the K-3 is the superior file. The K-7 can't even play in the same sandbox with the K-3 6400 being better than the K-7 at 800 not even taking into account the higher megapixels. I am writing up a blog post with comparison shots

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Another "someone wants to use my photo" thread	loco	Photographic Industry and Professionals	2	10-16-2013 07:01 AM
Single Malt Whisky - more productive than talking about the "K-3"	Docrwm	General Talk	148	03-31-2013 02:53 AM
Another "Help me decide between K-5, K-30" thread	ChooseAName	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	10-15-2012 05:53 PM
Yet another "Upgrading to a K-5 from a K-x" thread!	BirdDude007	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	03-14-2012 01:29 AM
Misc "The Party" Act 3 "People and Pizza"	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	4	01-19-2012 11:08 AM

11-12-2013, 01:48 PM	#2
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Maybe not what you are looking for but... As a K-5 user, based on the reviews and samples I have seen, if I would look to upgrade my camera, I would go for the K-3! Is not just the IQ... is also all the other things that were improved when comparing it to a K-5. Also, personally, I have never shoot above 800ISO. Is my own personal religion, but that's a different story.

11-12-2013, 01:48 PM	#3
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Next gig I shoot I will be packing the K-3 alongside my trusty K-5 IIs. There will plenty of low light shots to make a comparison, but it might be a few days.

11-12-2013, 01:49 PM	#4
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	A good place to start on the subject of high-ISO noise, aside from user feedback of course, might be this article. It is very relevant to the K-3 vs K-5 issue: More pixels offset noise! - DxOMark

11-12-2013, 02:20 PM	#5
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	I swapped my K-5 for a K-3 and I have been very happy with the high ISO. I don't go above 6400, so if you are needed more than than I can't know. I also do mostly B&W and find the K-3 makes excellent B&W images even at high ISO. I use to dream in T-Max 3200, so what I consider noisy might not be the same as what other people consider noisy.

11-12-2013, 03:34 PM	#7
dosdan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,741	A discussion about big sensels vs small sensels: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/238970-pentax-k-3-h...ml#post2534630 Dan.

11-12-2013, 03:52 PM	#8
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

11-12-2013, 04:06 PM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say, the K-3 is noisier.. maybe a stop. Just a general impression. I still prefer it to my K-5. But I say that without having had a good day to even shoot at 100 ISO for landscape.

11-12-2013, 04:12 PM	#10
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by normhead I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say, the K-3 is noisier.. maybe a stop. Comparing images side-by-side on the Imaging Resource site, I only noticed the noise being a touch greater from the K-3 above ISO 6400; however, they were noticeably sharper. At 6400 and below I couldn't convince myself that there was any difference.

11-12-2013, 04:33 PM	#11
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Parallax Comparing images side-by-side on the Imaging Resource site, I only noticed the noise being a touch greater from the K-3 above ISO 6400; however, they were noticeably sharper. At 6400 and below I couldn't convince myself that there was any difference. I agree. When I adjust for the difference in pixels the K-3 looks better up to 3200 and at 6400 I can't see a difference. I haven't compared JPEG files so maybe that is where people are seeing it. The RAW files from the K-3 look better.

11-13-2013, 01:27 AM	#12
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by Parallax Comparing images side-by-side on the Imaging Resource site, I only noticed the noise being a touch greater from the K-3 above ISO 6400; however, they were noticeably sharper. At 6400 and below I couldn't convince myself that there was any difference. I noticed that with the Imaging Resource site too, when comparing K-5IIs and K-3 DNGs. The K-3 was noisier, although only ISOs above 6400 were a worry. But when I did my own side-by-side comparisons with my own K-5IIs and K-3, the differences largely disappeared. The differences may be because of slightly difference automatic exposure between these cameras. I don't expect the K-3 to have significantly better high-ISO noise characteristics, but I'm not worried that that it is significantly worse. So I've pretty well dismissed this is as "no significance change" for my own purposes. (And of course in nearly every other respect the K-3 is better).

11-13-2013, 08:22 AM	#13
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by Barry Pearson So I've pretty well dismissed this is as "no significance change" for my own purposes. (And of course in nearly every other respect the K-3 is better). I concur.

11-13-2013, 04:31 PM	#14
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	I think we talk too casually about ISO 6400 and above nowadays, in relation to noise or anything else. The image quality performance of camera sensors is continuously improving, to be sure (my K200D doesn't even go past ISO 1600), but even today the RAW images from high-end high ISO full-frames like the Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4 don't look pretty at ISO 6400 level and above, especially at 100% crops. So picking apart, in minute detail, images from the K-5 or K-3 at ISO 6400+ isn't likely to reveal much of value.