Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-26-2013, 03:16 PM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,233
The odd thing to me is that in general, folks who are actually shooting with the K3 are satisfied. Maybe it is people trying to convince themselves that they don't really need a new camera?

11-26-2013, 03:26 PM   #47
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Offcourse not if you are forced into high-iso. For sports in stadium's I will still keep using the K-5 with iso6400 as that will be the better camera. But that is no surprise to me, since that was to be expected from the higher pixelcount.

Wich makes me wanting more an update to K-5 iii

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/239192-k-5-iii.html
If you want a K-5 III for the apparent noise control of the 16MP sensor, here's a thought: when DPreview reviewed the K-5, they found it actually applies noise reduction to raw files above ISO 1600:

QuoteQuote:
A closer look at the graphs, though, reveals a clear kink in the K-7's noise graphs at 1600, indicating that the camera applies some noise reduction even to the raw files.
This kink can also be seen in the DxoMark.com graphs for the K-5 and K-5 II. But the graph for the K-3 is almost a straight line, which is what you would expect. This leads me to believe that the K-3 does not apply noise reduction of its own, increasing high-ISO noise for raw files straight out of the camera, but also preserving more detail. So the reason that the K-5 measures better may be that it "cheated" by applying noise reduction. You can achieve the same in software with the K-3 raw files.
11-26-2013, 03:28 PM - 1 Like   #48
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,550
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The odd thing to me is that in general, folks who are actually shooting with the K3 are satisfied. Maybe it is people trying to convince themselves that they don't really need a new camera?
Quite so - some have experienced the K-3 and been disappointed, but not many - and the junk shots that convinced them of it looked mighty nice to me. One thing to measure endlessly, another to experience the camera and all its non-sensor improvements. If you can tell the difference in your one copy, that's sad to hear & you do what you must; I cannot say you're wrong, just that your decision likely won't affect mine. As civiletti notes, for some sensor and lens are vital, for others the entire package will factor into the decision.

When DxO claims the differences are statistically 'in the noise' and I see great K-3 shots that disappoint others, I know that I'd be quite happy with one.

Last edited by jimr-pdx; 11-26-2013 at 03:42 PM.
11-26-2013, 03:36 PM - 1 Like   #49
Pentaxian
dosdan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,699
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
This kink can also be seen in the DxoMark.com graphs for the K-5 and K-5 II. But the graph for the K-3 is almost a straight line, which is what you would expect. This leads me to believe that the K-3 does not apply noise reduction of its own, increasing high-ISO noise for raw files straight out of the camera, but also preserving more detail. So the reason that the K-5 measures better may be that it "cheated" by applying noise reduction. You can achieve the same in software with the K-3 raw files.
Well GordonBGood (retired digital camera engineer & Pentax fan) thinks that the K-3 and other APS-C cameras are using raw NR - just not being detected.

Re: The Toshiba sensor was not that bad...: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Last edited by dosdan; 11-26-2013 at 03:58 PM.
11-26-2013, 03:42 PM   #50
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by dosdan Quote
Well GordonBGood (retired digital camera emgineer & Pentax fan) thinks that the K-3 and other APS-C cameras are using raw NR - just not being detected.

Re: The Toshiba sensor was not that bad...: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Interesting. So it may use NR, but less (or maybe of a different kind) than the K-5 did.
11-26-2013, 03:54 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The biggest gap in dynamic range is at iso 400 between the K3 and K5 II and it is under 0.5 EVs. At higher EVs the graph for the K5 II and K3 overlap exactly.
Try looking at the K-5, which I've said I've been looking at, instead of the K-5II.
11-26-2013, 04:08 PM   #52
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
If you want a K-5 III for the apparent noise control of the 16MP sensor, here's a thought: when DPreview reviewed the K-5, they found it actually applies noise reduction to raw files above ISO 1600:



This kink can also be seen in the DxoMark.com graphs for the K-5 and K-5 II. But the graph for the K-3 is almost a straight line, which is what you would expect. This leads me to believe that the K-3 does not apply noise reduction of its own, increasing high-ISO noise for raw files straight out of the camera, but also preserving more detail. So the reason that the K-5 measures better may be that it "cheated" by applying noise reduction. You can achieve the same in software with the K-3 raw files.
Wait until the optimized ACR files are applied, they cannot yet be using XMP or Camera Raw data that is optimized for the K3 as they haven't been released yet. It makes you wonder what adjustment files they are using.

Chris
11-26-2013, 08:31 PM   #53
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,233
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Try looking at the K-5, which I've said I've been looking at, instead of the K-5II.
Do you honestly believe that there is a difference in these K5 and K5 II sensors? If you look at their SNR and dynamic range curves, they exactly overlap, except for a tiny blip at iso 1600.

This just goes to show how little people actually understand these measurements. It really doesn't matter if you take the K5 curve or the K5 II or the K5 IIs curves. In fact, you will probably get the best data if you average them all together. There is obviously some variability from sensor to sensor and in addition, there is some level of error in the test. You want to pull out one number -- an iso 1600 number that for whatever reason tests a little higher on the one K5 camera that DXO Mark got as compared to the K5 II -- as a reason to say the K3 is 1/2 stop behind the K5 is ludicrous. By the same standard, the K5 II is 0.3 stops behind the K5 and therefore also not worth your time.

I will just say one more time that I don't believe that in real world shooting you can tell the difference between these two sensors, except that in low iso settings you will get more resolution with the K3. That's it.

11-26-2013, 09:23 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Do you honestly believe that there is a difference in these K5 and K5 II sensors? If you look at their SNR and dynamic range curves, they exactly overlap, except for a tiny blip at iso 1600.

This just goes to show how little people actually understand these measurements. It really doesn't matter if you take the K5 curve or the K5 II or the K5 IIs curves. In fact, you will probably get the best data if you average them all together. There is obviously some variability from sensor to sensor and in addition, there is some level of error in the test. You want to pull out one number -- an iso 1600 number that for whatever reason tests a little higher on the one K5 camera that DXO Mark got as compared to the K5 II -- as a reason to say the K3 is 1/2 stop behind the K5 is ludicrous. By the same standard, the K5 II is 0.3 stops behind the K5 and therefore also not worth your time.

I will just say one more time that I don't believe that in real world shooting you can tell the difference between these two sensors, except that in low iso settings you will get more resolution with the K3. That's it.
You've been proven wrong.. Apparently there are people who can see the light... Hence the argument around here...

For me, i'm just a mere mortal... Being able to shoot the darkness is good enough..
11-26-2013, 09:31 PM   #55
Pentaxian
yorik's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Scotts Valley, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 812
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
... No, my cat has less noise. Sound about right?
I wish our cat had less noise... Maybe I can ask R/P to install the new shutter mechanism from the K3 in his mouth.
11-26-2013, 11:10 PM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Do you honestly believe that there is a difference in these K5 and K5 II sensors? If you look at their SNR and dynamic range curves, they exactly overlap, except for a tiny blip at iso 1600.

This just goes to show how little people actually understand these measurements. It really doesn't matter if you take the K5 curve or the K5 II or the K5 IIs curves. In fact, you will probably get the best data if you average them all together. There is obviously some variability from sensor to sensor and in addition, there is some level of error in the test. You want to pull out one number -- an iso 1600 number that for whatever reason tests a little higher on the one K5 camera that DXO Mark got as compared to the K5 II -- as a reason to say the K3 is 1/2 stop behind the K5 is ludicrous. By the same standard, the K5 II is 0.3 stops behind the K5 and therefore also not worth your time.

I will just say one more time that I don't believe that in real world shooting you can tell the difference between these two sensors, except that in low iso settings you will get more resolution with the K3. That's it.
Maybe you clicked on the 'screen' button.
11-26-2013, 11:53 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,418
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
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.

I do almost all my landscape photography at iso 80, so the difference is important to me.
11-26-2013, 11:58 PM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,418
QuoteOriginally posted by dosdan Quote
I doubt, in the real world, that 13 stops of DR vs 14 stops of DR is going to make a significant difference.
It makes a difference only in scenes with more than 13 stops of range, but then it makes an important difference.
11-27-2013, 02:48 AM   #59
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,092
So, the Canon D70 scores 12 fewer points than the K-3. That must mean the D70 is utter rubbish and no-one in their right mind would buy it? Let's be realistic here: I would have loved the K-3 to have come with the top DxO score of the APS-C sensor cameras, but I'm not about to sell my K-3 and rush out and buy a D7100. I can't speak for all cameras, but it seems to me that modern cameras are capable of great images, the D70 included (my remarks about this camera was tongue-in-cheek, in case anyone missed it). The K-3 is certainly one of the very best cameras money can buy, and I like it for things other than the DxO score. If the score is the only deciding factor, then one must have very particular usage in mind. For most of us "enthusiasts", I can't see that it matters that much. I have a D800 which scores a massive 15 points more than the K-3 in DxO terms, but unless I use it at low light levels, I can't see that much difference in day-to-day image quality (I'm not including resolution here, as DxO doesn't score that). As for Ricoh bragging rights, as an earlier poster mentioned, I think the K-3 has a lot more going for it than simply a DxO score. With such small differences in DxO scores, it's the feature set and other factors that swing it for me.
11-27-2013, 02:50 AM   #60
Pentaxian
dosdan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,699
QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
It makes a difference only in scenes with more than 13 stops of range, but then it makes an important difference.
I suppose it depends on how much significant info is in the 14th stop band. When test images from the K-5 first came, GordonBGood decided to see how much shadow info would be lost when he reduced the K-5's 14-bit raw to 12-bit, dithering it sufficiently. He saw little worthwhile improvement. So I'm inclined to believe that, assuming the sensor has no banding issues i.e. is clean/uncorrelated in its noise distribution, it won't make a significant difference when boosting deep shadows, whether the system offers 13 stops or 14 stops of technical DR.

And then we have veiling glare. Consider the Canon 20D with some different types of lenses:

Imatest - Veiling Glare AKA lens flare

Even with the best lens, (primes are usually better than zooms in this regard) veiling glare only got down to 0.291% i.e. -8.4 stops down. When DxOMark measured the 20D, they only achieved a max. DR of 11 stops.

Tests and reviews for the camera Canon EOS 20D - DxOMark

But if the noise floor is uncorrelated, then veiling glare may end up being a greater inhibitor of actual DR in some shooting situations.

A paper that discusses the problem of veiling glare: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/glare_removal/glare_removal.pdf

Quoting:
Based on simulations, the Canon 20D can record nearly 20 stops of dynamic range using HDR imaging if only a point light source is present. If half of the field of view is
covered by an extended source, then only 9 stops of dynamic range can be recorded by the 20D.

Here is message describing an 2008 GoogleTech video of a talk by John McCann of Polaroid:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/160900-effect-lens-flare-glare-dynamic-range.html

In the presentation, he only managed to get lens glare down to -10 stops. The presentation is well worth watching.


Dan.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dslr, k-3, k3, pentax k-3, review
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-3 review - The Phoblographer Ash Pentax K-3 35 12-03-2013 07:08 PM
ephotozine K-3 review out aguest Pentax K-3 12 11-14-2013 01:22 PM
K-3 Review by PhotoSafari Winder Pentax K-3 4 11-11-2013 12:49 PM
K-3 Review kricha6431 Pentax K-3 12 10-12-2013 09:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top