Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-28-2013, 09:44 AM - 1 Like   #1
Site Supporter
Spodeworld's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Joisey
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,229
Neocamera - K3 vs. K5IIs

Interesting comparison between the K3 and K5IIs.

Points out the differences, the advantages of the K3 but also things that the K5 family had that they wish was kept in the K3.

Also, they point out that the noise performance of the K5 beats the K3 starting at ISO 800. I didn't want to hear that, but maybe with 50% more pixels it can't be helped with the current state of technology.

Ricoh Pentax K-3 vs Pentax K-5 IIs | Neocamera

I was going to say happy turkey day, but I am sure there are no happy turkeys until tomorrow

11-28-2013, 10:49 AM - 1 Like   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,456
I hate all those comparisons about noise performance. They are only valid if you use the in camera out of box JPEG settings. The only valid noise rating is to create a 20x30 inch print and work out how you can do the least noise. I think the K-3 will come out ahead simply because there are more pixels per inch, so the noise per pixel won't matter a hoot.
11-28-2013, 11:13 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Spodeworld's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Joisey
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,229
Original Poster
I made the assumption that they were saying it was noisier regardless of whether it was RAW or JPEG.
11-28-2013, 11:18 AM   #4
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,798
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
I hate all those comparisons about noise performance. They are only valid if you use the in camera out of box JPEG settings. The only valid noise rating is to create a 20x30 inch print and work out how you can do the least noise. I think the K-3 will come out ahead simply because there are more pixels per inch, so the noise per pixel won't matter a hoot.
Yes, and if you really must compare on-screen with JPEGs, set the K-3 to M (14 MP) and compare to the K-5 at 16 MP. The K-3 will still come out ahead.

11-28-2013, 11:23 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,456
QuoteOriginally posted by Spodeworld Quote
I made the assumption that they were saying it was noisier regardless of whether it was RAW or JPEG.
The fine print in most of the tests, if not all, says that noise control is rated from in camera JPEG at the default settings when the camera is received from the manufacturer. Pentax has rated poorly on noise in many tests, but because their default settings left more detail in the images. I personally turn all noise reduction off (even with my K10 !). Why remove detail that is there. A smooth blur is not what I am looking for in a picture.
11-28-2013, 12:09 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Spodeworld's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Joisey
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,229
Original Poster
So if this is JPEG, that is more understandable. Hopefully with a RAW file and good post processing the differences narrows.
11-28-2013, 03:15 PM   #7
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
DXO are the only ones that have credibility for Noise performance. I ignor the noise section in every other camera review site. Problems seem to be the others don't 1) take into account real ISO is not necessarily manufacturer claim ISO (very important comparing cameras of different brands) 2) they use JPEG instead of RAW 3) they don't scale image to same output size when comparing cameras of different MP.
11-28-2013, 03:42 PM - 1 Like   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 143
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
DXO are the only ones that have credibility for Noise performance. I ignor the noise section in every other camera review site. Problems seem to be the others don't 1) take into account real ISO is not necessarily manufacturer claim ISO (very important comparing cameras of different brands) 2) they use JPEG instead of RAW 3) they don't scale image to same output size when comparing cameras of different MP.
A 16 megapixel APSC sensor has larger photosites than a 24 megapixel APSC sensor. It will inherently have less noise. This is made less obvious by the image processor. However, it is, as I understand it, a simple law of physics that this is the case. It's always going to be a trade-off: Capacity for greater resolution vs lower noise. Everything is a compromise. Why do you think that the 16.2 megapixel sensor in the Nikon D4 (and now Df) has such tremendous high ISO capacity?

Ask yourself 'What are my photographic priorities?'. Maybe the K-5iis (the equal of the K-3 in most respects) would be the better choice.


Last edited by Byrd-2020; 11-28-2013 at 03:45 PM. Reason: correct spelling
11-28-2013, 03:57 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
rayallen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Forresters Beach, Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,669
QuoteOriginally posted by Byrd-2020 Quote
A 16 megapixel APSC sensor has larger photosites than a 24 megapixel APSC sensor. It will inherently have less noise. This is made less obvious by the image processor. However, it is, as I understand it, a simple law of physics that this is the case. It's always going to be a trade-off: Capacity for greater resolution vs lower noise. Everything is a compromise. Why do you think that the 16.2 megapixel sensor in the Nikon D4 (and now Df) has such tremendous high ISO capacity?

Ask yourself 'What are my photographic priorities?'. Maybe the K-5iis (the equal of the K-3 in most respects) would be the better choice.
That is one of the best posts I have seen for a while. My thoughts exactly. The size of the photosites is crucial. Some full frame sensors have less than 24 MP. Gee, I wonder why! No wonder their high ISO performance is good. It's not rocket science.
11-28-2013, 04:06 PM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,035
QuoteOriginally posted by Byrd-2020 Quote
A 16 megapixel APSC sensor has larger photosites than a 24 megapixel APSC sensor. It will inherently have less noise. This is made less obvious by the image processor. However, it is, as I understand it, a simple law of physics that this is the case. It's always going to be a trade-off: Capacity for greater resolution vs lower noise. Everything is a compromise. Why do you think that the 16.2 megapixel sensor in the Nikon D4 (and now Df) has such tremendous high ISO capacity?

Ask yourself 'What are my photographic priorities?'. Maybe the K-5iis (the equal of the K-3 in most respects) would be the better choice.
This just isn't true. First of all, as technology improves, things get better. a K7 has significantly worse noise issues than a K5. Secondly, assuming the same technology, finer pixels gives finer, less obtrusive noise. The K3 is equivalent to the K5 with regard to high iso. DXO Mark basically gave them the same sports iso score of about 1200.

If you are talking about a per pixel level noise, you might be right. But who really cares about that. The assumption is that you will be viewing or printing the final image on the same size media, which will give an advantage to the camera with more pixels, in general.
11-28-2013, 04:28 PM   #11
Site Supporter
rbefly's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,030
Good Link!

Hi Spodeworld, thanks for posting this review link!
I've added it to the 'Reviews So Far' K-3 thread. This makes 20 reviews, videos and 'First Impressions' tests, now. I don't recall ever seeing this much interest in a new Pentax DSLR release.
Ron
11-28-2013, 05:27 PM   #12
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by rayallen Quote
That is one of the best posts I have seen for a while. My thoughts exactly. The size of the photosites is crucial. Some full frame sensors have less than 24 MP. Gee, I wonder why! No wonder their high ISO performance is good. It's not rocket science.
Actually it isn't. The sensor size hasn't changed at all, it still captures the same amount of light, just divided it up into smaller units. So the total "Pie" is the same size but you have a lot more slices. No difference for noise, but you do get more detail.
11-28-2013, 05:59 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 143
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
Actually it isn't. The sensor size hasn't changed at all, it still captures the same amount of light, just divided it up into smaller units. So the total "Pie" is the same size but you have a lot more slices. No difference for noise, but you do get more detail.
No difference in noise??

I quote Roger Clark from Clarkvision.com: "The number of photons a digital camera collects in each pixel is directly related to the size (area that converts photons into electrons) of the pixel and the lens feeding light to those pixels. The more photons collected, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in the image, thus the larger pixel sizes using larger lenses do better in this regard. Larger pixel cameras have better signal-to-noise ratios at all levels, but this becomes more obvious especially at low signal levels compared to cameras with smaller sensors which use correspondingly smaller lenses. In the extremes of current digital cameras with small cameras having pixel sizes near 2-microns, and large pixel cameras (currently found in DSLRs), there is a factor of about 12 to 16 in photons collected. That means the large pixel camera performs at ISO 1200 to 1600 with similar noise and dynamic range performance of a small pixel camera operating at ISO 100." (part 2 of "Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter")

Those interested in this issue might enjoy reading Clark's article at Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter.

Last edited by Byrd-2020; 11-28-2013 at 06:24 PM. Reason: spelling correction
11-28-2013, 07:20 PM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,035
QuoteOriginally posted by Byrd-2020 Quote
No difference in noise??

I quote Roger Clark from Clarkvision.com: "The number of photons a digital camera collects in each pixel is directly related to the size (area that converts photons into electrons) of the pixel and the lens feeding light to those pixels. The more photons collected, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in the image, thus the larger pixel sizes using larger lenses do better in this regard. Larger pixel cameras have better signal-to-noise ratios at all levels, but this becomes more obvious especially at low signal levels compared to cameras with smaller sensors which use correspondingly smaller lenses. In the extremes of current digital cameras with small cameras having pixel sizes near 2-microns, and large pixel cameras (currently found in DSLRs), there is a factor of about 12 to 16 in photons collected. That means the large pixel camera performs at ISO 1200 to 1600 with similar noise and dynamic range performance of a small pixel camera operating at ISO 100." (part 2 of "Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter")

Those interested in this issue might enjoy reading Clark's article at Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter.
By this standard, a K100 should out perform a K10 should out perform a K20 should out perform a K5. The reality is different from that. Noise is random and having smaller pixels tends to make it easier to clean up and less visible.
11-28-2013, 08:12 PM   #15
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Byrd-2020 Quote
No difference in noise??
].
Yes, no difference. Every piece of the pie is smaller (or noisier at a pixel level), but the total size of the pie is the same. Pixel size is ~3.9 microns on the K-3 so no where near the 2 microns at which point it becomes a problem..
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!
conversion, dslr, k-3, k-5, k3, k5, k5iis, mp, mp sensor, mpix, neocamera, neocamera k3, pentax, pentax k-3, sensor, technique, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K3 vs. K5IIs Fontan Pentax K-3 18 08-18-2014 01:40 PM
Autofocus accuracy - K3 vs K5II vs K5 ? vrphoto Pentax K-3 57 03-19-2014 08:23 AM
K5II vs K5IIs - A New Choice Tested mcgregni Pentax DSLR and Camera Articles 15 10-31-2013 02:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 PM. | 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