[Vylen]

Don't think Nikon has much to brag about - with only a marginal lead, they don't have a body that has a selectable AA filter

[rawr]

Nikon can brag all they want. No one will be able to discern the difference.

This is of course true. If you look at the DxO charts in detail, much of the difference - eg between the D7100 and K-3 - comes down to only tiny, tiny differences - eg at the base ISO end of the scale. And there are those issues of ISO measurement that others have mentioned that do cloud the real value of Nikon's results. But tiny differences are how horse races (and marketing campaigns) are won.

I'm mainly pleased to see that the K-3 high-ISO score is simply the same as the K-5 IIs, and even marginally better than my K-5. In fact the SNR curves for the K-3 and K-5 are practically identical, especially when equalized for print.

[RobA_Oz]

Canon is the really big loser in this comparison. The "revolutionary" 70D is left well behind on these measures.

[Uluru]

The DXO difference is not noticeable with naked eye, no matter which camera with similar sensor tech is used.

Choosing a camera for its sensor alone as a determining factor that impacts image quality has stopped being a determining factor of any kind. Any difference on paper or in the lab environment is same as a difference previously obtainable in developing same films in different labs.

Welcome back good days of film!

Now when we take sensors out of equation, as we did learn with films but forgotten about it, we finally talk about things that really matter and make difference in our camera choices.

Ergonomics, the lenses, the philosophy of the lineup.

[civiletti]

So, the K-3 sensor ranks below previous Pentax's as well as the NIkon D7100, which has been out for a while. That is not inspiring.

[Jbloomerjo]

So, the K-3 sensor ranks below previous Pentax's as well as the NIkon D7100, which has been out for a while. That is not inspiring.

K-3 = 8.3 fps shooting, silent shutter, magnesium body, 24 mp, larger buffer, improved video

And yet the camera does all of this with no problem compared to the d7100 and the k-5iis. It's not just the sensor people! It's also the features that come with the camera! How does one not understand this simple concept?

If going by image quality alone, get the k-5iis for pete's sake! It is 16mp vs 24mp, so obviously the k-3 won't beat the previous offerings, and though it loses to the d7100, it only lost by 0.3 dynamic range difference. Does it make a BIG difference? Not even.

[Ayoh]

A DR difference of almost 1 stop as between the k5 and k3 will certainly lead to more noticeable noise (to the "naked eye") in the shadows for the K3 when raising shadows in raw. The K3 may be a nice camera but lets be realistic - the sensor could be better and closer to the competition (Nikon d5200/d7100).

The DXO difference is not noticeable with naked eye, no matter which camera with similar sensor tech is used.

[Jbloomerjo]

A DR difference of almost 1 stop as between the k5 and k3 will certainly lead to more noticeable noise (to the "naked eye") in the shadows for the K3 when raising shadows in raw. The K3 may be a nice camera but lets be realistic - the sensor could be better and closer to the competition (Nikon d5200/d7100).

I forgot to add the k5 vs k-3, thanks for that. It DOES make a difference if it is compared to these two.

I was comparing the k-3 to d7100, and a 0.3 ev difference does not make a differnece at all. So you can't say that the sensor is not closer to the competition as it is. 13.4 vs 13.7 is not a huge difference to go OH MY GOODNESS!!!! That's terrible!!! I am disappointed in the k-3, .

Yet...it's doing fine for what the sensor is capable. There is no "more noticable noise" with the k-3 vs d7100 either. Some people even prefer the k-3 noise over the d7100! This means it is not an inferior sensor and people are looking way into the dxomark.

Here's a suggestion. Rent the k-3 and see if you like what you see. If not, return that camera and try the d7100. I have both of these cameras and to be honest, I am disappointed in the d7100's noise levels. Even at low iso it had noise that I did not enjoy seeing at iso 800. Look at the sample shots k-3 thread and you'll see what i mean. I can't blame the camera though, it is all on me for not doing a good job as a photographer. I won't say that the nikon is worse than the k-3 because of that!

Good insight though!

[rawr]

A DR difference of almost 1 stop as between the k5 and k3

Well, the difference between 14.1 and 13.4 as single number scores for the K-5 'Classic' and K-3 looks like the chart below. As you can see, across the curve the 14.1 action is all below ISO 100. Above that the two cameras behave similarly.

[jbinpg]

I have personal experience with K-5, IIs and now K-3. I find the K-3 easier to get rid of unwanted noise in post, including the shadows. If you check the first tests that started coming through around the time of the K-3 release, there was one set that clearly showed the superior handling of shadows by the K-3 as the ISO increased. This K-3 sensor has its own characteristics but is not one to be thrown under the bus by someone just looking at numbers.

And I agree that when you include the other improvements in the camera, the K-3 is a remarkable tool. We just need to wait for the post-processing software to catch up with the sensor.

Jack

[civiletti]

It's not just the sensor people! It's also the features that come with the camera! How does one not understand this simple concept?

Yes, of course, but more or less according to one's photographic needs and interests. I am almost always on a tripod with self-timer at iso 80, which I cannot use on the K-3. So, for me, it is mostly about sensor and lens. If I were into sports or photojournalism, the K-3 would be an improvement.

[Jbloomerjo]

Yes, of course, but more or less according to one's photographic needs and interests. I am almost always on a tripod with self-timer at iso 80, which I cannot use on the K-3. So, for me, it is mostly about sensor and lens. If I were into sports or photojournalism, the K-3 would be an improvement.

I agree, but that is for the most rational photographer. If the sensor has banding problems, missing ISO like the ISO 80, or anything else that is essential for a photographer, then its a good critique.

However, some people just bash the k-3 without the features it has. They also bash the noise it produces and how the sensor is not up to par with other cameras, while bashing on the dynamic range. Yet there are minor differences in each camera, and it is all up to the features that one person needs. If the iso of nikon d7100's camera is needed, those 40 more points of iso that the d7100 has against the k-3, then go for it! Yet if people say it's not up to par with nikon's, well it is not that big of a difference. That 0.3 ev is not that noticable, and even dxomark says that it isn't!

Yet, there are people who do see that there are some features that have been removed for other essential features for a targeted audience to enjoy. What you stated is exactly how people should view a camera. Not, "That sensor is terrible, I'm not buying."

No one said that, but I have a feeling that someone will eventually post that, and it is just despicable (imo).

[Rondec]

A DR difference of almost 1 stop as between the k5 and k3 will certainly lead to more noticeable noise (to the "naked eye") in the shadows for the K3 when raising shadows in raw. The K3 may be a nice camera but lets be realistic - the sensor could be better and closer to the competition (Nikon d5200/d7100).

It isn't that different. As has been stated multiple times, the presence of iso 80 on the K5 II is the difference in dynamic range. In addition, the K30 and K-01 (both of which have the same sensor as the K5), actually test to have less dynamic range than the K3. Now, I have owned a K5, K5 II, a K-01 and a K3 and the difference in dynamic range isn't particularly visible or useful.

With regard to the Nikon comparisons, they are equivalent with regard to dynamic range as long as you adjust for Nikon's over statement of iso. At iso 3200, the D7100 measures to only 2192, while the K3 measures 2933. That is a pretty big difference and enough to show why there is any difference. I prefer Pentax to be honest with their isos, but iso inflation certainly can make your DXO scores look "better."

[dosdan]

A DR difference of almost 1 stop as between the k5 and k3 will certainly lead to more noticeable noise (to the "naked eye") in the shadows for the K3 when raising shadows in raw. The K3 may be a nice camera but lets be realistic - the sensor could be better and closer to the competition (Nikon d5200/d7100).

Perhaps not in real-life very-high-contrast situations. Ever tried to take a direct picture of a street lamp and dark surroundings at night with a K-5? Veiling glare, present to a degree in all lenses, usually limits the purity of the dark stuff next to the lamp, not the camera's DR. I doubt, in the real world, that 13 stops of DR vs 14 stops of DR is going to make a significant difference.

Dan.

[Belnan]

I am pretty confident that Pentax got no unreleased sensor from sony and that it is the same sensor found in the nex-7. Ricoh squeezed a bit more in the high iso department but is you look at the SNR of the K-3 and Nex-7 they are virtually the same, in addition if you look at the image comparometer of the two, they look pretty much they same as well. Kudos to pentax for squeezing slightly more out of the sensor, albeit at slightly lower tonal range.

So here is the question for those with the patience to wait. Sony will likely release a new version of the nex-7 with an even better sensor followed by pentax with a K-3 II, can you wait a year and a half or is the k-3 good enough. It was for me, but not because of the IQ.