[RonHendriks1966]

Does K-3 still do the Dark Frame distraction?

[Rondec]

Does K-3 still do the Dark Frame distraction?

I believe you can turn it off if you want to.

[Sailor]

Which camera settings are imported depends on the raw program. DCU5 shows the raw view with all camera settings. Lightroom imports white balance, noise reduction and sharpness. Some raw programs ignore the camera settings. In all cases though, all raw settings can be manipulated with loss, whether they were read by the raw program, or not.

Hey thanks, Dan. I've labored for years under the illusion that camera settings (other than exposure) invariably have no influence on RAW files, regardless of PP software. For my K-3, I'm currently importing DNG files (converted from PEF with Adobe's free software) into Aperture, which has yet to be updated for the K-3. Now I wonder whether I'll have to re-learn my PP approach once that update occurs - I've no idea what camera setting Aperture may drag in.

Jer

[normhead]

Hey thanks, Dan. I've labored for years under the illusion that camera settings (other than exposure) invariably have no influence on RAW files, regardless of PP software. For my K-3, I'm currently importing DNG files (converted from PEF with Adobe's free software) into Aperture, which has yet to be updated for the K-3. Now I wonder whether I'll have to re-learn my PP approach once that update occurs - I've no idea what camera setting Aperture may drag in.

Jer

Even I am starting to get irritated by Apple's slowness here Jer. I can post the images in the thread to show what I'm seeing, but the K-5 images are imported through an Aperture profile, the K-3s are not. It could be that the Aperture profile will bring these images back to a level playing field. It's also possible that it won't. The only thing I can say is that the software that came with my K-3 didn't do any better. So maybe Pentax didn't do a custom profile for the camera either? Armed with this information, I'll probably do a couple of test shots later today to see if there is any difference with NR on and off.

I don't want to give folks the impression, I can't clean up the noise... I can, but I'd rather not have to.

K-3 800 ISO image, cleaned up to look nice.

[audiobomber]

In all cases though, all raw settings can be manipulated with loss, whether they were read by the raw program, or not.

I just noticed that I made a typo that turns this 180 degrees from what I meant to say. Here's the corrected sentence: "In all cases though, all raw settings can be manipulated without loss, whether they were read by the raw program, or not."

I corrected this error in the original post. Sorry for any confusion.

[audiobomber]

I've labored for years under the illusion that camera settings (other than exposure) invariably have no influence on RAW files, regardless of PP software.

Strictly speaking, your statement is correct. A raw file is unaffected by camera settings. What is affected is the raw conversion software's interpretation of how the image should look.

Every software will give a different interpretation of contrast, saturation, hue, sharpness, NR, WB, etc., and some attempt to incorporate the camera settings when they import. But none of these settings are written to the file until you convert to jpeg. They can be changed without loss, whereas any changes made in jpeg will cause some loss of quality.

Note that DCU5 and LR5 for example will import NR, WB and sharpness settings from the camera, but how they show these in the raw viewer, and how they convert will differ, because each is using its own algorithms.

[IchabodCrane]

I finally got around to comparing images today.

I've been under the impression that K-3 images were a bit noisier than k5 images were, so I finally got around to comparing them today, using the same camera settings a 2 sec. delay, and cropping to produce a 1:1, approx 500x400 section.

With the same processing (the curves were almost identical) these are the results. Sometimes I think one is better , sometimes the other. It's pretty much a saw off. Go down further in the thread for the correct comparison.

Oops I made a mistake. the first is the K-5 on a tripod, but no delay at 1600 the second is on a tripod, but with a 3 second delay.

What I've been seeing in several comparison photos is color is not identical in the K-3 vs other Pentax bodies. Norm, to your eyes which hass the more accurate shade of orange in the feeder?

[normhead]

Holding up an un-opened package to the next to the screen to compare, the K-5 is the more accurate. But I'm sure I could alter my presets to make them the same. This is going to require having K-3 presets.

[john5100]

Okay, I re-edited my photos from Friday and they turned out much better...see these photos.

Last night I shot the 80's band, The Motels, using TAV mode and the K3 rocked. The venue was super dark and the camera chose ISO 16,000 which I was very nervous about. No need to be...wow I am so impressed. This K3 is wonderful in low light. I tried using my previous concert camera, my KX, it wouldn't focus in that light. The K3 never had any trouble.

ISO 12,800


ISO 10,000


ISO 10,000

[Ash]

John, those are some of the cleanest ISO 10,000+ images I have seen to date. Well done with these results.

[Sailor]

Even I am starting to get irritated by Apple's slowness here Jer. I can post the images in the thread to show what I'm seeing, but the K-5 images are imported through an Aperture profile, the K-3s are not. It could be that the Aperture profile will bring these images back to a level playing field. It's also possible that it won't. The only thing I can say is that the software that came with my K-3 didn't do any better. So maybe Pentax didn't do a custom profile for the camera either? Armed with this information, I'll probably do a couple of test shots later today to see if there is any difference with NR on and off.

I don't want to give folks the impression, I can't clean up the noise... I can, but I'd rather not have to.

Yeah, Norm, it's time Apple updates the program for us so we can compare our K-5s and K-3s starting at the same baseline. Not that I'm displeased with my K-3; on the contrary I love its operational improvements over the K-5, I'm enjoying the increased cropping latitude of the new camera, and - in truth - probably 90% of the photos I take are done so below ISO 1200. Also, for the few photos I've taken at ISO 3200 with the K-3, I've found that after applying PP they don't look far different from those I would get from my K-5. However, I've shot few of these and what I've done may not be representative. Anyway, I used the link provided by a forum member to ask Apple for a K-3 update; also, I have some Apple shares so maybe I can complain as one of the company's owners .

Do you use Aperture's NR tool, or do you employ some plug-in or other software?

Thanks,

Jer

[Sailor]

Strictly speaking, your statement is correct. A raw file is unaffected by camera settings. What is affected is the raw conversion software's interpretation of how the image should look.

Every software will give a different interpretation of contrast, saturation, hue, sharpness, NR, WB, etc., and some attempt to incorporate the camera settings when they import. But none of these settings are written to the file until you convert to jpeg. They can be changed without loss, whereas any changes made in jpeg will cause some loss of quality.

Note that DCU5 and LR5 for example will import NR, WB and sharpness settings from the camera, but how they show these in the raw viewer, and how they convert will differ, because each is using its own algorithms.

Thanks again, Dan. I'm relieved that my basic understanding of RAW files and their manipulation was on target, but I'm startled and a bit embarrassed after all this time to discover that different converters would present a "biased" view of the RAW file on my screen.

Jer

[saladin]

Those look great, john. And noise issues aside anyway, those pics are a fantastic example of why we should view camera bodies as complete "tools". The K3 got wonderful results where my K5 could not possibly have nailed focus. Which would have rendered the noise argument entirely moot.

[normhead]

Okay, I re-edited my photos from Friday and they turned out much better...see these photos.

Last night I shot the 80's band, The Motels, using TAV mode and the K3 rocked. The venue was super dark and the camera chose ISO 16,000 which I was very nervous about. No need to be...wow I am so impressed. This K3 is wonderful in low light. I tried using my previous concert camera, my KX, it wouldn't focus in that light. The K3 never had any trouble.

ISO 12,800


ISO 10,000


ISO 10,000

Amazing images.... now if I was there with you, I'd have more idea, if it's just my camera, or it was my shooting conditions were not as favourable. Your shooting situation had bright lights and high contrast, mine the whole histogram filled half to 3/4s of the window, so very low contrast. The contrast function I used ( About +10) accentuated the noise, where as I'm guessing you had all the contrast you needed in your original image, just a guess, so probably much lower contrast setting.

[john5100]

Normhead, Ash, and saladin, Thank you

Just the opposite. It was extremely dark with moving subjects. It was so dark that my KX had a hard time focusing and at some points it didn't focus. The K3 just powered forward and didn't slow down.

I shot another show last night where many of my photos were at ISO 16,000 in TAV mode. I have spend so much time in the dark shooting shows that I think I have LR4 noise reduction down. I edited 900 photos in 2 hours.

Saladin - you are right. It is a complete system that makes the difference. As some of you have seen, my KX has rocked as a concert camera but my K3 is leaps and bounds ahead of it.