[Grokh]

Dear colleagues, some of you have ask me about the difference between K-3 and K-5IIs in the terms of IQ and matrix resolution.
I did a small test - shoot the LCD screen because (this my opinion) the LCD screen is a good test object for the resolutions control.
The same lens (DA* 16-50), the same settings (F=28 mm @ f=5.6), the same distance to monitor.
Look on these samples please:
K-3:


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/11603906585_fd0b444fe9_o.jpg


K-5IIs:


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2868/11604201104_65e30d3b7a_o.jpg

[JinDesu]

Well, the higher MP actually resolves the individual pixels on the monitor, while the k-5IIs forms moire all over it.

[Grokh]

Aha, my DA* 16-50 is "playing new colors" on the K-3.

[GlennG]

I second JinDesu's comments above. Thanks for sharing, Grokh. Now I am thinking about this a bit and just wondering to myself - I am comparing resolution to resolution by looking at photos of a nice LCD screen on my very old low-res and low contrast LCD screen and I'm not sure how valid that would be. Nonetheless, I found this article from Ken Rockwell comparing D600, D7100, and D7000: Nikon D600, D7100 and D7000 Comparison. I found it interesting and it gives another comparison to consider.

[Grokh]

Now I am thinking about this a bit and just wondering to myself - I am comparing resolution to resolution by looking at photos of a nice LCD screen on my very old low-res and low contrast LCD screen and I'm not sure how valid that would be.

I think for yourself (ourself) we can use any test object which is passed for us. Important is the lighting which shold be very similar from test to test. I have found long time ago that the LCD screen is very nice test object for the sharp/resolution control.

[Grokh]

Now I own three cameras from Pentax - K-3, K-5IIs and original K-5 and can also to compare them side to side on the "normal" objects too. But the LCD screen shootings are very presentable in my opinion. The difference is very great.

I second JinDesu's comments above. Thanks for sharing, Grokh. Now I am thinking about this a bit and just wondering to myself - I am comparing resolution to resolution by looking at photos of a nice LCD screen on my very old low-res and low contrast LCD screen and I'm not sure how valid that would be. Nonetheless, I found this article from Ken Rockwell comparing D600, D7100, and D7000: Nikon D600, D7100 and D7000 Comparison. I found it interesting and it gives another comparison to consider.

I have a hard time to take anything Ken Rockwell says seriously. He has stated so many stupid and, in my opinion, faulty things so I take anything he says with a grain of salt
.
Statements like "Raw is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for. " The list goes on...

Just needed to say that.

[sholtzma]

Grokh,

The test I am interested in is between the K-3 and K-5iis. Take the same shot (same lens, settings, etc) at high ISOs, such as 1600, 3200, 6400, and 12,800. Then import them into the noise reduction program of your choice (many folks use Lightroom). How much noise reduction does it take to get rid of noise for the K-3 shots versus the K-5iis shots?

If you are willing to run that test, I'd be grateful.

[Grokh]

OK, I will do it.

[Grokh]

Well, OK. I shoot one similar object with the same ISO settings: 12 800. The same lens, the same FL, the same opening. But I did not develop the pictures in any kind of NR software. Here are the full-size samples and everybody can develop both pictures himself.
K-3:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3776/11611850334_21fa79fc6c_o.jpg

K-5IIs:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/11611464085_1e83db7ae7_o.jpg

In my opinion K-3 has a much more better color rendering. Also look please on the part of the blue flag between the admiral's arm and sail. Huge difference, isn't?