K3 vs Fuji X-E2 on Photography Blog?

IchabodCrane · 02-02-2014, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by EssJayEff

Is this advisable? There's more to work with using the RAW file. JPEGs are already altered, plus you're more likely to introduce JPEG artifacts. Working with RAW from the start seems like better advice.

Agree it wouldn't be advisable if the JPEG images are the ones to be altered. However, I think dansamy if writing about is customizing the camera's presets for JPEG output. Fundamentally, that's just setting up the camera's JPEG engine to do a RAW conversion in a specific way. Nothing wrong with that.

IchabodCrane · 02-02-2014, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

I find that far too many testers use the camera defaults. Noise Reduction blurs images; that's how it works. I turned mine off permanently.

The noise reduction settings issue seems rather important on the K-3 as reported by several posters. However, from the comparison shots the Fujifilm JPEG image has lower noise anyway so that can't be what's at play here. OTOH, when you toggle back and forth between the two magnified shots, you quickly realize the Pentax image is magnified more (due to it being from a 24 MP sensor I suppose) so our eyes aren't really seeing an apples-to-apples comparison.

IchabodCrane · 02-02-2014, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by DSims

I think Fuji is creating a nice system. It's worth considering.

Just make sure it's what you want. They obviously have some very nice lenses, based on the photos I've seen.

But they're also 1 1/2 or 2 years from having a few lenses that I think are critical for having a viable system. Of course, it's taken most Pentaxians at least that long to build up our lens kits to where we want. So it may be OK with you. But just be prepared to wait for a few of them.

So make sure you take a good look at Fuji's lens roadmap before making a decision.

We've all seen the opinions that Fujifilm, Olympus, and Panasonic (lesser extent) make great bodies for high quality travel cameras because they are a bit more portable than mid to high end DSLRs. But here's the problem... a proper travel camera needs a proper travel zoom. Pentax has an outstanding travel zoom in the DA 18-135 WR with the 17-70 and 18-270 being two more great options. What comparable lenses exist in X-mount? None. The situation is a little better on the m43 side but still not a good as in K-mount.

tittermary · 02-02-2014, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by jhux1972

Hi all I just found this forum as I'm in the market for a camera and have all but sold myself on the K3 for price/performance/features da da da. But in my pixel peeping I came across photography blog and in comparing the high iso shots taken of the magazines/books with the fuji x-e2 and the K3 the fuji appears to blow away the K3 especially up around 6400 and above. I'd like to think that the test shots they did with the K3 are slightly out of focus or the lens they used is a dud? Or is the fuji actually that incredible at high iso? Check out the 2 links and especially look at the little ELSEVIER logo at the top of the red Photoshop CS2 For Photographers book.

Fujifilm X-E2 Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG

Pentax K-3 Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG

you can't compare, they are using jpgs I believe. The fuji (I have one) has one of the best if not the best jpg engines/output of any camera. Its so good I don't even shoot raw with mine. If you're not going to shoot raw and you don't need the benefits of a pro body and autofocus then get the fuji.

**DDoram** · 02-02-2014, 03:34 PM

Yes the Fuji has good IQ but it is 16 MP vs 24 MP and how often do you shoot at ISO 6400? For me >1% of photos are at that ISO.

Dale

kosmoejtg · 02-02-2014, 03:39 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DDoram

Yes the Fuji has good IQ but it is 16 MP vs 24 MP and how often do you shoot at ISO 6400? For me >1% of photos are at that ISO.

Dale

I hope you meant <1%. I would agree, I rarely use anything above 1600.

**MJSfoto1956** · 02-02-2014, 04:13 PM

Ok. Enough of that damn pixel peeping. Here is a real-world shot of my dog yesterday, taken with a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 @ ISO 2500 and processed in DxO Optics Pro. Full resolution image available on flickr. What noise is there? Practically none.

you can see the full res here: All sizes | What Noise??? | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Michael

kenyee · 02-02-2014, 04:24 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MJSfoto1956

Ok. Enough of that damn pixel peeping. Here is a real-world shot of my dog yesterday, taken with a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 @ ISO 2500 and processed in DxO Optics Pro. Full resolution image available on flickr. What noise is there? Practically none.

You have to make people aware that DxO's noise cleanup is probably the best out there right now.
A lot of people will see this post, and assume that it comes out of the camera that way

**RGlasel** · 02-02-2014, 04:35 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by kenyee

assume that it comes out of the camera that way

Well, think of DxO (or a Lightroom & Topaz combo) as a $170 filter set that can turn ordinary cameras and lenses into great ones. Software is just another accessory, and those that know when and how to use it don't need to feel that their images are somehow inferiour to those of photographers who like their images "au naturel." Post-processing is not inherently good or bad, it all depends on the skill of the operator.

**MJSfoto1956** · 02-02-2014, 04:38 PM

and this image is not sharpened in any way. So clearly, there is still much more you can do with it.

Michael

P.S. DxO only supports cameras that user Bayer arrays. And in case you were wondering, Fuji does't use Bayer arrays in their sensors -- they have their own custom chips and algorithms.

**MJSfoto1956** · 02-02-2014, 04:41 PM

one last thing: I've been a professional photographer for over 35 years, and for most of that time, ISO 800 was consider "high ISO". Which is to say, if you can't take a decent photo at ISO 2500, then perhaps the problem is not the camera...

Michael

jhux1972 · 02-02-2014, 06:15 PM

I appreciate all the discussion and am soaking it all up. Good stuff here for sure.

kenyee · 02-02-2014, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by twitch

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the big problem with comparing ISO shots between different cameras is that ISO in the EXIF is simply a claim made by a camera, it's not necessarily an accurate ISO at all. Camera manufacturers tend to fudge the ISO's, in particular Fuji and Olympus, such that an Olympus ISO3200 is in fact a ISO1600 shot as measured by DXO. No wonder Olympus looks good against Pentax who don't tend to fudge their ISO's anywhere near as much.

That's not to say Pentax doesn't either....IIRC Pentax's ISO1600 is more like ISO1100 according to DxO.

kenyee · 02-02-2014, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by MJSfoto1956

one last thing: I've been a professional photographer for over 35 years, and for most of that time, ISO 800 was consider "high ISO". Which is to say, if you can't take a decent photo at ISO 2500, then perhaps the problem is not the camera...

Ditto the part about the ISO800. I remember the old film days when Fuji came out w/ a nearly grainless ISO400 and everyone was ecstatic. My K20D does a good enough ISO800 so anything above that is icing on the cake for me. I'm really looking forward to a K-3 upgrade but I want to see what Panasonic does w/ the GH 4K video first

kosmoejtg · 02-02-2014, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by twitch

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the big problem with comparing ISO shots between different cameras is that ISO in the EXIF is simply a claim made by a camera, it's not necessarily an accurate ISO at all. Camera manufacturers tend to fudge the ISO's, in particular Fuji and Olympus, such that an Olympus ISO3200 is in fact a ISO1600 shot as measured by DXO. No wonder Olympus looks good against Pentax who don't tend to fudge their ISO's anywhere near as much.

I didn't realize that ISO could be so different between manufacturers. I read a thread earlier bashing DXO, I guess they do serve a purpose if they expose this like this.

02-02-2014, 04:35 PM - 1 Like	#39
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,227	Originally posted by kenyee assume that it comes out of the camera that way Well, think of DxO (or a Lightroom & Topaz combo) as a $170 filter set that can turn ordinary cameras and lenses into great ones. Software is just another accessory, and those that know when and how to use it don't need to feel that their images are somehow inferiour to those of photographers who like their images "au naturel." Post-processing is not inherently good or bad, it all depends on the skill of the operator. Last edited by RGlasel; 02-02-2014 at 09:08 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-01 vs Fuji X-Pro 1 vs Olympus OM-D	Winder	Pentax K-01	749	06-14-2014 03:42 PM
Fujifilm X-e2 and its 16Mp revolutionary image sensor	QCdude	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	12-16-2013 08:29 AM
Blog poster trys out K3 in UK, (pre-prod)	solar1	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	3	10-13-2013 06:51 AM
K-5 vs Fuji X-Pro 1	Qwntm	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	17	04-16-2012 08:12 AM

02-02-2014, 08:22 AM	#31
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by EssJayEff Is this advisable? There's more to work with using the RAW file. JPEGs are already altered, plus you're more likely to introduce JPEG artifacts. Working with RAW from the start seems like better advice. Agree it wouldn't be advisable if the JPEG images are the ones to be altered. However, I think dansamy if writing about is customizing the camera's presets for JPEG output. Fundamentally, that's just setting up the camera's JPEG engine to do a RAW conversion in a specific way. Nothing wrong with that.

02-02-2014, 08:26 AM	#32
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies I find that far too many testers use the camera defaults. Noise Reduction blurs images; that's how it works. I turned mine off permanently. The noise reduction settings issue seems rather important on the K-3 as reported by several posters. However, from the comparison shots the Fujifilm JPEG image has lower noise anyway so that can't be what's at play here. OTOH, when you toggle back and forth between the two magnified shots, you quickly realize the Pentax image is magnified more (due to it being from a 24 MP sensor I suppose) so our eyes aren't really seeing an apples-to-apples comparison.

02-02-2014, 08:38 AM	#33
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by DSims I think Fuji is creating a nice system. It's worth considering. Just make sure it's what you want. They obviously have some very nice lenses, based on the photos I've seen. But they're also 1 1/2 or 2 years from having a few lenses that I think are critical for having a viable system. Of course, it's taken most Pentaxians at least that long to build up our lens kits to where we want. So it may be OK with you. But just be prepared to wait for a few of them. So make sure you take a good look at Fuji's lens roadmap before making a decision. We've all seen the opinions that Fujifilm, Olympus, and Panasonic (lesser extent) make great bodies for high quality travel cameras because they are a bit more portable than mid to high end DSLRs. But here's the problem... a proper travel camera needs a proper travel zoom. Pentax has an outstanding travel zoom in the DA 18-135 WR with the 17-70 and 18-270 being two more great options. What comparable lenses exist in X-mount? None. The situation is a little better on the m43 side but still not a good as in K-mount.

02-02-2014, 03:31 PM	#34
tittermary Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 35	Originally posted by jhux1972 Hi all I just found this forum as I'm in the market for a camera and have all but sold myself on the K3 for price/performance/features da da da. But in my pixel peeping I came across photography blog and in comparing the high iso shots taken of the magazines/books with the fuji x-e2 and the K3 the fuji appears to blow away the K3 especially up around 6400 and above. I'd like to think that the test shots they did with the K3 are slightly out of focus or the lens they used is a dud? Or is the fuji actually that incredible at high iso? Check out the 2 links and especially look at the little ELSEVIER logo at the top of the red Photoshop CS2 For Photographers book. Fujifilm X-E2 Review - Sample Images \| PhotographyBLOG Pentax K-3 Review - Sample Images \| PhotographyBLOG you can't compare, they are using jpgs I believe. The fuji (I have one) has one of the best if not the best jpg engines/output of any camera. Its so good I don't even shoot raw with mine. If you're not going to shoot raw and you don't need the benefits of a pro body and autofocus then get the fuji.

02-02-2014, 03:34 PM	#35
DDoram Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada Posts: 632	Yes the Fuji has good IQ but it is 16 MP vs 24 MP and how often do you shoot at ISO 6400? For me >1% of photos are at that ISO. Dale

02-02-2014, 03:39 PM - 1 Like	#36
kosmoejtg Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Dundee Illinois Photos: Gallery Posts: 103	Originally posted by DDoram Yes the Fuji has good IQ but it is 16 MP vs 24 MP and how often do you shoot at ISO 6400? For me >1% of photos are at that ISO. Dale I hope you meant <1%. I would agree, I rarely use anything above 1600.

02-02-2014, 04:13 PM	#37
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	Ok. Enough of that damn pixel peeping. Here is a real-world shot of my dog yesterday, taken with a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 @ ISO 2500 and processed in DxO Optics Pro. Full resolution image available on flickr. What noise is there? Practically none. you can see the full res here: All sizes \| What Noise??? \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Michael

02-02-2014, 04:24 PM - 1 Like	#38
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by MJSfoto1956 Ok. Enough of that damn pixel peeping. Here is a real-world shot of my dog yesterday, taken with a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 @ ISO 2500 and processed in DxO Optics Pro. Full resolution image available on flickr. What noise is there? Practically none. You have to make people aware that DxO's noise cleanup is probably the best out there right now. A lot of people will see this post, and assume that it comes out of the camera that way

02-02-2014, 04:38 PM	#40
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	and this image is not sharpened in any way. So clearly, there is still much more you can do with it. Michael P.S. DxO only supports cameras that user Bayer arrays. And in case you were wondering, Fuji does't use Bayer arrays in their sensors -- they have their own custom chips and algorithms.

02-02-2014, 04:41 PM	#41
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	one last thing: I've been a professional photographer for over 35 years, and for most of that time, ISO 800 was consider "high ISO". Which is to say, if you can't take a decent photo at ISO 2500, then perhaps the problem is not the camera... Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2014, 06:15 PM	#42
jhux1972 New Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 11 Original Poster	I appreciate all the discussion and am soaking it all up. Good stuff here for sure.

02-02-2014, 08:38 PM	#43
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by twitch Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the big problem with comparing ISO shots between different cameras is that ISO in the EXIF is simply a claim made by a camera, it's not necessarily an accurate ISO at all. Camera manufacturers tend to fudge the ISO's, in particular Fuji and Olympus, such that an Olympus ISO3200 is in fact a ISO1600 shot as measured by DXO. No wonder Olympus looks good against Pentax who don't tend to fudge their ISO's anywhere near as much. That's not to say Pentax doesn't either....IIRC Pentax's ISO1600 is more like ISO1100 according to DxO.

02-02-2014, 08:40 PM	#44
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by MJSfoto1956 one last thing: I've been a professional photographer for over 35 years, and for most of that time, ISO 800 was consider "high ISO". Which is to say, if you can't take a decent photo at ISO 2500, then perhaps the problem is not the camera... Ditto the part about the ISO800. I remember the old film days when Fuji came out w/ a nearly grainless ISO400 and everyone was ecstatic. My K20D does a good enough ISO800 so anything above that is icing on the cake for me. I'm really looking forward to a K-3 upgrade but I want to see what Panasonic does w/ the GH 4K video first

02-02-2014, 09:04 PM	#45
kosmoejtg Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Dundee Illinois Photos: Gallery Posts: 103	Originally posted by twitch Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the big problem with comparing ISO shots between different cameras is that ISO in the EXIF is simply a claim made by a camera, it's not necessarily an accurate ISO at all. Camera manufacturers tend to fudge the ISO's, in particular Fuji and Olympus, such that an Olympus ISO3200 is in fact a ISO1600 shot as measured by DXO. No wonder Olympus looks good against Pentax who don't tend to fudge their ISO's anywhere near as much. I didn't realize that ISO could be so different between manufacturers. I read a thread earlier bashing DXO, I guess they do serve a purpose if they expose this like this.