[lambros]

The comment was more of shock that it was that noisy at screen res...out of a K-3 which should be decent after you scale the image down. It looked more like my K20D when I push to ISO1600 or higher in dim light :-(
I have seen FF images at higher ISOs in dim light w/o that much noise...friends have D700/D800's so it's not pure speculation that FF has less noise.

And no, the comment had nothing to do w/ subject matter. It really was a reaction of "wow...that's a lot of noise"....nothing more...nothing less and definitely not meant to offend :-P

Hi there. I recently bought a Canon 6D with 24-105 f4 bundle as an upgrade to the K5. Felt I should share my experience, and point of view to give you another perspective. It's true when people say "only you know what you need" in a camera system. "Pick up the body and see how it feels". Did I need full frame ? Probably not, but the price seemed right and it was an intro to full frame with a body that worked in my hands. I think the K5 felt better, but the Canon wasn't so bad. It felt much better in hand than the Nikon 610. Yes there are some plastic bits but it wasn't as cheap as I originally had thought. The focus was quick, despite the 9 point focus system. On paper it seems lacking , but in reality if your not shooting sports, it works well. Canon does a good job at picking the nearest object to focus on. High ISO capabilities are so good. So smooth at high ISO's. I thought it was a nice camera, and has potential of producing some great images as you can see from flikr. Haven't said all that , I returned it and bought a K3. For me , the weather sealing on the K3 blows the Canon away. I did not feel confident taking the camera out in the rain. My K5 has been to a rainforest , snow, rain, sand with no issues to report. I felt confident it would withstand the elements and it did. I feel the same about the K3. Canon did not give me that confidence. The 24-105 is a versatile lens but I didn't excite me the way the Pentax primes and 18-135 did . In general, I found the Canon did not motivate me to pick up the camera and shoot. Looked great , felt good but was missing something. I wasn't blown away by the image quality although the combo can produce some fantastic images. They seemed a bit flat to me .. they didn't have that 3d effect or "pixie dust" that Pentax lenses are known for. My opinion of course… So now I have the K3. What can I say.. I love it. I would of liked the focus to be a bit faster but not sure if the lens' are the limiting factor or not. There is no perfect camera, but you need to happy with the system you buy into. For me the K3 images are so sharp, so life like. The Pentax primes produce some outstanding images. There unique, small and portable. Color rendition is something special, something unique that has kept me anchored to Pentax even after trying the 6D. Go out and try the Canon, see if it fits your needs, your style. For me I wanted to like it more than I actually did. The K3 has it's limitations. At high iso's its not as smooth as the Canon and the focusing ability is still a bit behind ..not by much though. Both are great cameras. The K3 gives me everything I value and need. Build quality, image quality, portability, and those amazing Pentax prime lenses. Most importantly .. it moves me to pick up the camera and shoot. To learn more, to get better , push my limits. What more can I ask for. Hope this helped. Good luck. Let us know what you ended up with.

[normhead]

Well I agree with you there. I have yet to discard my K-5. I'd like to find out if it's just my K-3 or everyones, but I never had noise like this on my K20D or K-5. I bought the K-3 for higher resolution in cropped wildlife images at low ISOs and it's great for that, but I expected an improvement in noise and high ISO performance as well, improving technology and all that, and that hasn't been there. It would seem that sensor technology is finally reached the point where the rules of optical physics can't be compensated for with better tech. At this point I almost wish I could get a K5IIs with the K-3 AF system. And I'm not yet sold that the K-3 is a better landscape camera than the K-5IIs because of the smaller dynamic range, and the apparent much heavier noise in the low end of the dynamic range. My K-5 was such an improvement over my K-20D, maybe I was spoiled, but it's going to take some side by side shooting with both cameras to convince me the K-3 is better for landscapes. K20D to K-5, it was immediately apparent.

[tittermary]

Well I agree with you there. I have yet to discard my K-5. I'd like to find out if it's just my K-3 or everyones, but I never had noise like this on my K20D or K-5. I bought the K-3 for higher resolution in cropped wildlife images at low ISOs and it's great for that, but I expected an improvement in noise and high ISO performance as well, improving technology and all that, and that hasn't been there. It would seem that sensor technology is finally reached the point where the rules of optical physics can't be compensated for with better tech. At this point I almost wish I could get a K5IIs with the K-3 AF system. And I'm not yet sold that the K-3 is a better landscape camera than the K-5IIs because of the smaller dynamic range, and the apparent much heavier noise in the low end of the dynamic range. My K-5 was such an improvement over my K-20D, maybe I was spoiled, but it's going to take some side by side shooting with both cameras to convince me the K-3 is better for landscapes. K20D to K-5, it was immediately apparent.

do you shoot raw? do you make prints?. Could you post up a sample of this noise that seems to affect your k3? I haven't run into it my self and I shoot 3200-6400 and higher all the time.
http://500px.com/photo/53480016
this was 1250 pushed a full stop in post

[clackers]

Love the party pic, Zorza!

[normhead]

do you shoot raw? do you make prints?. Could you post up a sample of this noise that seems to affect your k3? I haven't run into it my self and I shoot 3200-6400 and higher all the time.
500px / Untitled by david tittermary
this was 1250 pushed a full stop in post

I shoot RAW, and Apple Aperture hasn't released the import profile yet, so that may be an issue, I don't know.

The print posted in this thread is a perfect example... shot at 1600 ISO, I expected less noise. Here's another...



The noise in the bird image meant that I didn't shoot 1600 ISO again until the the other image... so while I find 800 quite useable, I find 1600 to be iffy. I have examined a few other images, and as a general statement, I find that when there is good light, and I'm using a higher ISO to achieve a high shutter speed, noise seems to be minimal. But when there is low light, and I am using high ISO just to get an exposure, noise seems to be a factor, even sometimes at 800 ISO. As in this image...



Where as most, I'd guess 95%, of 800 ISO images are pretty clean and quite useable. Like the one below.



Once in a life time opportunities with no chance of retakes, with a possibility of prints I can sell, I really like 400 ISO. No chance of noise, usually gets me a pretty good shutter speed and decent Dynamic Range. Having to use 800 would cause me stress, until I was able to confirm the pictures didn't fall into the 5% of the pictures taken at that ISO that have too much noise for the types of prints I do.

400 ISO, f4, 1/2000 sec shutter speed,and the K-3's AF and tracking ability = absolutely no worries.

[bxf]

I'm never quick to give anybody here any technical, let alone artistic, advice. However, this touches on something that I've been struggling with for quite some time, and that is hardly ever mentioned.

We talk all the time about noise with respect to ISO, but rarely with respect to lighting and underexposure. Having a black wife, I see lots of shadow noise in images that would not necessarily be considered vastly underexposed, even at not-too-highish ISO (some at 800, and definitely at 1600). Boosting exposure by a stop changes things quite a bit.

I believe your first shot above fits this description.

Edit: I'm using a K-5, and given better lighting and/or exposure selection, I can get cleaner images at ISO 3200 than some of my problematic shots at 800.

[lister6520]

I shoot RAW, and Apple Aperture hasn't released the import profile yet, so that may be an issue, I don't know.

The print posted in this thread is a perfect example... shot at 1600 ISO, I expected less noise. Here's another...



The noise in the bird image meant that I didn't shoot 1600 ISO again until the the other image... so while I find 800 quite useable, I find 1600 to be iffy. I have examined a few other images, and as a general statement, I find that when there is good light, and I'm using a higher ISO to achieve a high shutter speed, noise seems to be minimal. But when there is low light, and I am using high ISO just to get an exposure, noise seems to be a factor, even sometimes at 800 ISO. As in this image...



Where as most, I'd guess 95%, of 800 ISO images are pretty clean and quite useable. Like the one below.



Once in a life time opportunities with no chance of retakes, with a possibility of prints I can sell, I really like 400 ISO. No chance of noise, usually gets me a pretty good shutter speed and decent Dynamic Range. Having to use 800 would cause me stress, until I was able to confirm the pictures didn't fall into the 5% of the pictures taken at that ISO that have too much noise for the types of prints I do.

400 ISO, f4, 1/2000 sec shutter speed,and the K-3's AF and tracking ability = absolutely no worries.

That's looking odd to me as I don't seem to be getting anywhere near that amount of noise at 1600 unless I do some extreme pulling up of shadows or boosting the exposure in PP. This picture I took a few days ago at ISO 1600. As shown here it is cropped and has the shadows boosted considerably but still not showing any significant noise. You can click the image to download the original dng raw file for a closer look.

Just to see if it is the PP software could you post the DNG of the first bird picture so I give it a try in Lightroom, and maybe you can do the same with the RAW I posted on Aperture? Lightroom doesn;t have a K-3 profile yet either but possibly its default profile happens to be closer than Aperture's.

Are you getting that noise only sometimes at 1600 or always? I ask because I do occasionally get a picture that is inexplicably much noisier than what I expect for a given ISO, but that is quite rare and not something that happens only with my K-3 soI just file it under 'Odd Things'.

[normhead]

I'm never quick to give anybody here any technical, let alone artistic, advice. However, this touches on something that I've been struggling with for quite some time, and that is hardly ever mentioned.

We talk all the time about noise with respect to ISO, but rarely with respect to lighting and underexposure. Having a black wife, I see lots of shadow noise in images that would not necessarily be considered vastly underexposed, even at not-too-highish ISO (some at 800, and definitely at 1600). Boosting exposure by a stop changes things quite a bit.

I believe your first shot above fits this description.

Yes, the first shot was just trying to get something in a very low light situation, where it would have been hard to boost the exposure, and in that sense it is an extreme case. Most days in light like that I don't even go out to shoot. But I had a new K-3 and it was dark. Was I really supposed to wait for better light? And I really wanted to know if the K-3 was a better low light camera than my K-5. The K-5 was so much better than the K20D, I was expecting big things.

[normhead]

That's looking odd to me as I don't seem to be getting anywhere near that amount of noise at 1600 unless I do some extreme pulling up of shadows or boosting the exposure in PP. This picture I took a few days ago at ISO 1600. As shown here it is cropped and has the shadows boosted considerably but still not showing any significant noise. You can click the image to download the original dng raw file for a closer look.

Just to see if it is the PP software could you post the DNG of the first bird picture so I give it a try in Lightroom, and maybe you can do the same with the RAW I posted on Aperture? Lightroom doesn;t have a K-3 profile yet either but possibly its default profile happens to be closer than Aperture's.

Are you getting that noise only sometimes at 1600 or always? I ask because I do occasionally get a picture that is inexplicably much noisier than what I expect for a given ISO, but that is quite rare and not something that happens only with my K-3 soI just file it under 'Odd Things'.

I definitely get images as good as the one you posted as well... at 1600, I'm showing you the worst of my 1600 images. You definitely don't have the ability to go into the shadows and draw out details you do at lower ISO.

I would be really interesting to know if a 6D or any other camera is any better.

[tittermary]

I definitely get images as good as the one you posted as well... at 1600, I'm showing you the worst of my 1600 images. You definitely don't have the ability to go into the shadows and draw out details you do at lower ISO.

I would be really interesting to know if a 6D or any other camera is any better.

to be be blunt you have something going on, k3 is as clean if not cleaner the the old k5 cams, post up the raw files, I'd be glad to help

[kenyee]

I
The print posted in this thread is a perfect example... shot at 1600 ISO, I expected less noise. Here's another...

That first bird photo is another "wow, that's a lot of noise"
and I'm not commenting on subject matter to avoid any other misunderstandings in this thread.

Unless it's 100% cropped which might be understandable, you're downsizing to screen resolution...if that's fullsize downsized to what's probably 800x600, the noise is pretty blocky and there is craploads of it
It's almost like the sensor decided to stop collecting and then the firmware tried pulling it up to the intended exposure.

Does this happen often? And have you seen this kind of behavior w/ your K-5 in similar conditions?

[normhead]

It doesn't happen often, I think I've defined the situation.. low light, just hoping for any kind of image, because shutter speed, aperture etc are already maxed out, and there's no where to go but ISO, and even then, slightly under-exposed...

post up the raw files, I'd be glad to help

I've already created a cleaned up image of this version (for my own amusement) , and it's not an image I want cleaned up particularly, I have lot's of better images taken in better light... I'm just saying from time to time I see this.. and for that reason, I wouldn't shoot, looking for a keeper at 1600 ISO, unless it were absolutely necessary. Looking at the Christmas pictures, of the 20 or so images taken in trying conditions, maybe 5 came out like this. And some were noise free.I think the K-5 is better in these conditions, but I'd have to do a side by side test to know for sure.

[tittermary]

It doesn't happen often, I think I've defined the situation.. low light, just hoping for any kind of image, because shutter speed, aperture etc are already maxed out, and there's no where to go but ISO, and even then, slightly under-exposed...



I've already created a cleaned up image of this version (for my own amusement) , and it's not an image I want cleaned up particularly, I have lot's of better images taken in better light... I'm just saying from time to time I see this.. and for that reason, I wouldn't shoot, looking for a keeper at 1600 ISO, unless it were absolutely necessary. Looking at the Christmas pictures, of the 20 or so images taken in trying conditions, maybe 5 came out like this. And some were noise free.I think the K-5 is better in these conditions, but I'd have to do a side by side test to know for sure.

the point is k5 isn't better, that's why id love to see the raw to see what you have going on.

[JimmyDranox]

I saw on DPReview that the new comparison tool, has a setting for daylight and low light. And the cameras tested in this way includes many Nikons, and Pentax K-3. Also Canon 6D, and 5D III. And jpeg and RAW.

In low light, and high ISO, almost every camera perform worst. And I was surprised that Nikon D610 is almost as week in low light as K-3. Canon 6D and 5D III are better in those condition, and in jpeg the difference is quiet big in terms of noise. But they also loose more details that other cameras.

[jeanpierre]

For comparison take a sd-Card in the shop. Take a picture with ONLY RAW. Menu settings ALL to Zero! Do that with K-3 and other DSLR. Do it with prime and zoom-lens! After that you can compare it with Lightroom, Photoshop or other Raw-Converter Software. Only in this way you will see, what you have done from A-Z!
All review on the web are not 100% right! It is only for information for a good start opinion!
And last but not least. The Digicam has to go on YOUR hand! That is much important then having the "best" DSLR!
I use my K-3 ONLY in RAW (DNG) and all Menu settings to Zero!!! My workflow ist Photo-Ninja - export TIFF16bit - finishing with Photoshop CS6!! And it is great sometime to sharp images. I even see the pimple of my son in puverty on a print 10 x 15 cm, omg!!! And this with the DA* 16-50/2.8mm zoom-lens.
Happy New Year and good light!