Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-08-2014, 01:20 AM   #16
Zav
Pentaxian
Zav's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,336
Any little shake and blur is much more noticeable with sensors without AA filter. It is something that i have noticed with my GR as well. These cameras are less forgiving. I have started to use the TAv mode since i have my K-3.
I have the feeling that the more capable is the camera, the more discipline you must have to get the best out of it.

12-08-2014, 02:37 AM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 904
Have you tried to AF tune the lenses? I had BF/FF issues on my K3 and once I tuned the lenses I owned, they are now pin sharp.

Last edited by photolady95; 12-08-2014 at 03:04 AM.
12-08-2014, 03:16 AM   #18
Senior Member
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 221
The K-3 is easily the sharpest and also otherwise most satisfying photographic tool I've ever owned. And I used to enjoy the K-7, my entry into the Pentax world, a lot. RAW IQ-wise the difference between the two is significant enough to make it feel like a real upgrade, as it should with models that are four years apart. The 24MP sensor is certainly data-hungry. Resolution differences between lenses will be exposed, which means that my DA Limiteds (15 and 35 Macro) really shine, yet even my consumer-level DA55-300 seems to perform slightly better on the K-3 than I remember having seen before.

Obviously, there is a price for this level of sophistication. The K-3 has invited but also forced me to step up my technique as well, to enjoy the IQ it can deliver, much as Nikon's Technical Guide (aptly quoted above) cautions first-time users about handling their phenomenal 36MP FF sensor. Which doesn't mean that I've seen constantly blurred images before I got used to the K-3. But it does mean when I screw up - and that happens, more often than I'd like to admit in fact - it will show. Would I like to return to my K-7, which (without SR) was more forgiving in terms of camera shake? Emphatically no. Apart from so many other advantages, the K-3 is more spot-on with exposure, and its marvellous DNGs will let me tease more shadow/highlight detail and generally more microcontrast out of them ...

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 12-08-2014 at 06:47 AM. Reason: erratic spelling
12-08-2014, 03:19 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
... or at least a shutter speed minimum of 1/250th.

12-08-2014, 03:51 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,948
I shoot handheld, for the most part and have not seen any particular issues with the K3. I guess it depends on how shaky your hands are and just set your shutter speed with TAV mode to fastest enough to minimize shake.

I do shoot with a tripod when I want maximum quality -- mainly because it allows me to use lower isos in lower light situations than I can hand held.

12-08-2014, 04:41 AM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Formby, Merseyside
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7
Shutter speed

Hi, I'm afraid that i don't have a K3, wish I did have your problem. I have found hand holding to be a problem generally, although being a little lazy it is usually my first recourse. The limiting factor always seems to be shutter speed and conversely whilst using a shutter speed sufficient for your shot (hand-held) whatever the situation then all the other factors come into play and become limiting e.g noise because of the need for a higher ISO, which in turn is needed because you want a smaller f-stop which again is impacted by available light.

I use a GX10 and it is difficult to get above ISO 200 without introducing noise, hence it teaches me to improve technique. However, that can only take you so far i.e. when hand-holding shutter speed (Tv) ultimately becomes the limiting factor if conditions are against you. With the K3 you should be able to raise the ISO to attain sufficient Tv for hand holding. However as one reply points out that with the far greater resolution and image size, then any slight error is picked up/magnified.

Generally they say as a minimum use the inverse of your lens focal length x crop factor as the minimum shutter speed required for hand held shots e.g 100mm lens crop 1.5 therefore minimum shutter speed of 1/150th sec. Though as a rule I would treble that (1/450th sec). If you are using a zoom then use its longest focal length.

Therefore, I would suggest you try using the above formula and multiply by factors (x2, x3, x4 etc) to find your shooting ideal, as everyone is different. Then from there you should be able to get a feel for what you can get away with at specific apertures and ISO's.

I tend to use a mono-pod a lot as an interim solution especially for macro shots, but until I can afford a K3 with its increased versatility at higher ISO's and superior tonal range not to mention sharpness, I will just have to keep using sub-optimal shutter speeds and keep honing my technique.

Who knows, by the time I can afford a K3, Pentax may have brought out the Full frame model.

Regards

Rod
12-08-2014, 07:27 AM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 819
QuoteOriginally posted by HomeMadeSin Quote
Just curious if others are experiencing what I am - image blur whenever I take hand held pictures with the K-3. It's slight, but enough to be annoying and doesn't matter if it's the 18-55 kit lens, 43mm ltd or 40XS. Also, it doesn't seem to matter if it is with SR on or off.

I hesitated on pulling the trigger on the K-3 over the K-5IIs but did. As much as I felt the K-01 was an odd duck, I'm starting to feel it takes as good if not better pics (hand held anyway). Am I crazy? Maybe I'm expecting too much...

Z
To make it short, I have been wondering the same thing. I have two k3s. I previously had a k5iis. The blurred images happened with both below a certain shutter speed. The shutter minimum is different depending on the focal length. However, the minimum shutter speeds needed to get non blurred images are much higher than I expected. I previously had Canons. As you know, their stabilization is in the lens, my minimum shutter speeds were generally much lower than my K3's. My guess is that the in body stabilization's effectiveness is perhaps exaggerated. For instance for in lens IS system you could comfortably get 3 stops, perhaps more. For in body SR my guess is that even two stops is exaggerated. I have had blurred images on my Pentax bodies one two many times for this to be a coincidence. And I have been shooting way too long for this to be user error.

You are not imagining things my friend. I can concur with you. I guess we dial up the shutter and the ISO so that we get non blurry images.
12-08-2014, 07:51 AM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 418
You definitely must use greater care with the K-3. I'm using mirror lock-up more, and with remote IR trigger and a long wait between raising the mirror and tripping the shutter. My concern is thus with noise and artifacts rather than blur. Here's one at 25%, and then a 100% crop of the waterfall mist. Does anyone see the same type of artifacts as in the center of that crop?

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
12-08-2014, 08:03 AM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 819
QuoteOriginally posted by Marktax Quote
You definitely must use greater care with the K-3. I'm using mirror lock-up more, and with remote IR trigger and a long wait between raising the mirror and tripping the shutter. My concern is thus with noise and artifacts rather than blur. Here's one at 25%, and then a 100% crop of the waterfall mist. Does anyone see the same type of artifacts as in the center of that crop?
Oh yes. Artifacts galore. I checked the EXIF. At ISO 100 you should not have any artifacts. It looks like JPEG compression artifacts. I am curious as to the cause.

---------- Post added 12-08-14 at 07:07 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by btnapa Quote
Oh yes. Artifacts galore. I checked the EXIF. At ISO 100 you should not have any artifacts. It looks like JPEG compression artifacts. I am curious as to the cause.
I just noticed that the posted image is very small in size. This is JPEG compression artifacting. Do you shoot in RAW? Does the original RAW show the same artifacts? If the RAW image has the same artifacts then we have problem here. My guess is that the posted image is compressed too much and it shows.
12-08-2014, 08:10 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,735
I left home for a 6 day trip without a plate for my tripod. I went back to doing what I used to do. Bracing my elbows, leaning against rocks and trees. I did just fine.



Canoe-trip-Allan-Amy-Brian-Jennifer-Mike-Norm Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket
12-08-2014, 08:22 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,287
QuoteOriginally posted by Marktax Quote
You definitely must use greater care with the K-3. I'm using mirror lock-up more, and with remote IR trigger and a long wait between raising the mirror and tripping the shutter. My concern is thus with noise and artifacts rather than blur. Here's one at 25%, and then a 100% crop of the waterfall mist. Does anyone see the same type of artifacts as in the center of that crop?
That looks like oversharpening to me and/or to high compression. Not noise.
12-08-2014, 08:26 AM   #27
Pentaxian
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,285
I'm finding Petax's in-body stabilization (SR) to be very accurate. While I pretty much ALWAYS bring a tripod with me, I find that except for low light situations I rarely use a tripod anymore. Here is an example of handheld low-light 1/15th second with the K-3:



and a link to the full-res image:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/12420549643_ef76411310_o_d.jpg

If your images are blurry, it is more likely a focus issue rather than an SR issue.

YMMV

Michael
12-08-2014, 08:27 AM   #28
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Tjompen1968 Quote
That looks like oversharpening to me and/or to high compression. Not noise.
Oversharpening and bumping the contrast, definitely bumps up the noise. The first thing we do with a noisey shot, is turn the sharpening off and start again from zero, in pixel peeping mode, then we turn it up until we start to see artifacts , then dial it back a notch. Sharpening emphasizes noise. As does contrast.

Last edited by normhead; 12-08-2014 at 08:50 AM.
12-08-2014, 08:32 AM - 3 Likes   #29
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The first thing we do with a nosey shot, is turn the sharpening off and starting again from zero, in pixel peeping mode, then we turn it up until we start to see artifacts , then dial it back a notch. Sharpening emphasizes noise.
I usually work per channel using luminosity layers for each RGB channel for sharpening, I use a global luminosity layers of all channels combined for contrast adjustment. When it comes to sharpening there is always one channel that is noisier than others, I generally leave that channel untouched. If you shoot lots of green foliage the blue channel will be noisier than someone opening a poorly stacked Tupperware cupboard and the inevitable avalanche that follows. The trick to luminosity sharpening is to isolate the noisiest channel and sharpen it the least: If you have a lot of blue skies in your images sharpening the red channel is a bad idea. There are a few situations where the green channel can get a bit messy: but due to the reduced amount of interpolation and increased SNR because of the greater number of green sensitive pixels on bayer matrix sensors, the green channel noise isn't quite as bad as the other channels can get.

Most lenses are designed to produce their highest resolution in the green spectrum - to which human eyes are particularly sensitive.

Just to illustrate the channel sharpening technique, I use the channel mixer to create the luminosity layers - I keep colour information in a separate channel which I can split into two additional channels for corrections (if needed) this is all done in 16 BIT TIFF.


Last edited by Digitalis; 12-08-2014 at 08:46 PM.
12-08-2014, 08:44 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,287
QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
I'm finding Petax's in-body stabilization (SR) to be very accurate. While I pretty much ALWAYS bring a tripod with me, I find that except for low light situations I rarely use a tripod anymore. Here is an example of handheld low-light 1/15th second with the K-3:



and a link to the full-res image:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/12420549643_ef76411310_o_d.jpg

If your images are blurry, it is more likely a focus issue rather than an SR issue.

YMMV

Michael
One thing to keep in mind is that you need to wait a bit at half way press before pushing the shutter button all the way. The hand symbol must light up, i.e wait for the SR to get ready.
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!
artifacts, cause, compression, crop, dslr, exif, galore, hand, image, iso, jpeg, k-3, k-3 owners, k3, matter, pentax k-3, yes
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any K-3 owners use the DA 17-70? IchabodCrane Pentax K-3 6 11-08-2014 05:48 PM
Any NYC-area K-3 owners want to come out and play? frogoutofwater Pentax K-3 11 12-03-2013 06:30 PM
Ever feel like you were born too late to get the good shots? PPPPPP42 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 22 07-22-2012 10:11 PM
Wanted to know if their is any way to get back the deleted photos? caedmon General Talk 4 01-25-2012 08:50 AM
Is there any way to convert K-7 movie to a series of jpgs? raider Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 21 04-15-2010 08:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:07 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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