Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-10-2014, 08:38 AM   #1
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
K3 vs K5 high ISO noise.

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.






Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 10:59 AM.
01-10-2014, 08:58 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Kozlok's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,793
Most of the comparisons I've seen post 1:1 for both, so they are at different effective magnifications. This is the first I've seen at the same "print size". Looks promising!
01-10-2014, 08:58 AM   #3
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,417
Just out of curiousity have you done any 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, and 51200 comparisons too?
01-10-2014, 09:11 AM   #4
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
I think taht up to iso2500 the differences are small, but the advantage for the K-5 only starts there.

01-10-2014, 09:37 AM   #5
Junior Member
Alfie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 45
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I won't tell which is which, but I'm sure the exif will give it away if anyone cares to look.
Nice comparison. exifttool 9.4.5.0 tells me both are from a K-5.
01-10-2014, 10:27 AM   #6
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
Original Poster
I better check that

You're right, I can't bel;I've I did that, ok, I'll go back and get the K-3 image... the first image was the K5 but not on the 2 second delay..

And the K-3 is out of focus, have to reshoot...
01-10-2014, 10:29 AM   #7
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
They both look good to me
01-10-2014, 10:53 AM   #8
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,329
I compared the ISO between K-3 and K-5 when I got the K-3 and my conclusion is that up til ISO1600 they look the same with a finer grain in the K-3. At ISO3200 the K-5 starts to get much harsher grain and loosing a little more detail. At ISO12800 the K-5s harsh grain makes it a clear looser. I made two sets, first on my girlfriend and second on two stuffed animals and with more light on the first set.

01-10-2014, 10:54 AM   #9
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
Original Poster
OK try again....

K-5 1600


K-3 1600


K-5 6400


K-3


Ok, now there's a difference, using the K-3 at 6400 there is enough noise to produce sharpening artifacts. Also in the K-3 at 1600 but not as distinct. So this is what I was observing.. the K-3 is going to be more dependent on noise reduction software, or mean I have to use less sharpening than I'm accustomed to on the whole image. Much of this can be reduced by turning down the sharpening... but this is my fairly standard level of sharpening using the K-5.

Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 11:03 AM.
01-10-2014, 11:07 AM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
But the fact that the K3 does not have an AA filter means that you should sharpen quite a bit less than with the K5. In particular, I don't sharpen high iso (more than iso 1600) images on either camera, or if I do, I do it very selectively. Otherwise you end up with significantly worse noise.
01-10-2014, 11:23 AM   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
Original Poster
Reprocessed, this time no sharpening - noise reduction applied...

K-5 1600


K-3 1600


K-5 6400


K-3 6400


So, my conclusion is, you can crop, but you'll have to deal with more noise. For those of us planning on using the larger file size to crop images, say to use a shorter lens for BiFs to make framing less critical, there is a price to pay for that.
01-10-2014, 11:34 AM   #12
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
Original Poster
The four images again... this time uncropped with both sharpening and NR turned on but no brush effects, only global effects..









To my eye, even cropped to the same size, at 1600 the k-3 is noisier, and since 1600 on the k-5 was my upper limit, and the K-3 goes beyond that, for me personally, 800 ISO will be the top for using the K-3, although I have been sneaking up to 1000 lately in critical situations.
01-10-2014, 01:06 PM   #13
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,417
Thanks for this informative post. Looks like as long as the lighting is good the K3 will beat the K5, but the K5 will do better in lower light situations. I do shots at anime conventions, and am generally running ISO 800-3200 inside at them. Looks like the K3 might not be the best for me for that. I guess my next photographich purchase will be the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and I will see what happens with any firmware updates.
01-10-2014, 01:32 PM   #14
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Did you put off hi-iso noise reduction inside the camera? Since your K-5 imgae looks a little smeared with the K-5.

Simply to say: The 16 megapixelsensor is a little better on hi-iso then the 24 megapixelsensor, but could expect that.
01-10-2014, 01:34 PM   #15
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Did you put off hi-iso noise reduction inside the camera? Since your K-5 imgae looks a little smeared with the K-5.

Simply to say: The 16 megapixelsensor is a little better on hi-iso then the 24 megapixelsensor, but could expect that.
Does that make a difference in RAW? I usually never pay attention to the jpeg settings.

Some people expect it, some people argue that it's not true...
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, images, k-3, k3, k3 vs k5, k5, k5 high iso, pentax k-3
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New K3 vs K5ii high iso RAW tests ihasa Pentax K-3 8 11-04-2013 09:15 AM
DR/Noise performance: pushing exposure vs high ISO HSV Photographic Technique 8 03-12-2013 06:51 PM
K-R VS X100 High Iso Noise Comparison Ryan Cole Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 02-01-2013 02:36 PM
K5 High ISO Noise Reduction Setting daphnejohn Pentax K-5 2 11-06-2011 07:45 PM
High ISO Noise vs. Underexposure Correction yoon395 Photographic Technique 7 08-27-2011 06:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 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