[ScooterMaxi Jim]

At least with Capture One v8 using RAW at ISO 3200 with no in-camera NR, the combination of software controls available to not only reduce noise very nicely but also adjust micro-contrast ("structure") and add just a bit of fine granularity with good film grain variables yields amazing results - at least based on my initial impressions. This shot of a shivering 19-year old dog (eye and nose areas show no dog shake) taken with a zoom nearly twice that age (the 35-105 f/3.5 shot at f/4.5) beats anything I could have done with one of the 16mp cameras:

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 12-11-2014 at 04:04 PM. Reason: lens isn't quite twice as old as dog - did the math

[danny09]

At least with Capture One v8 using RAW at ISO 3200 with no in-camera NR, the combination of software controls available to not only reduce noise very nicely but also adjust micro-contrast ("structure") and add just a bit of fine granularity with good film grain variables yields amazing results - at least based on my initial impressions. This shot of a shivering 19-year old dog (eye and nose areas show no dog shake) taken with a zoom nearly twice that age (the 35-105 f/3.5 shot at f/4.5) beats anything I could have done with one of the 16mp cameras:

Stunning shot Jim! When I see some of these cleaned up High ISO shots I being to wonder what the fuss about Full Frame sensors is about

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Thank you, Danny!

If I wanted to lug a big camera again - and cost wasn't an issue, I also can't help but notice that you don't seem to get a whole lot more IQ until you reach 645. You wouldn't think that, but that's my conclusion based on the images I've seen. I might mention that I also did a mask in the background area (very quick and easy to do with Capture One) that allowed for lower contrast and reduction in clarity. Just a bit of these changes really adds depth even though the aperture was a relatively slow f/4.5. In other words, an OoC full frame image would have had very similar appearance of DoF - or more. Getting around the whole DoF comparison between crop and FF really is pretty easy in most situations.

[danny09]

Thank you, Danny!

If I wanted to lug a big camera again - and cost wasn't an issue, I also can't help but notice that you don't seem to get a whole lot more IQ until you reach 645. You wouldn't think that, but that's my conclusion based on the images I've seen. I might mention that I also did a mask in the background area (very quick and easy to do with Capture One) that allowed for lower contrast and reduction in clarity. Just a bit of these changes really adds depth even though the aperture was a relatively slow f/4.5. In other words, an OoC full frame image would have had very similar appearance of DoF - or more. Getting around the whole DoF comparison between crop and FF really is pretty easy in most situations.

I came to the same conclusion. I hope FF doesnt imply that APSC or Micro 4/3rds are dead. But remember K10D ISO1600? Worst than my K3's OOC ISO 6400!! IMO APSC is a pretty decent compromise. My colleague just yesterday purchased a Sony A7. He is a nikon FF shooter.Got tired of lugging that gorilla. IQ is very good on FF. But boy does is it heavy! DOF, crop factor etc all these arguments suddenly become irrelevant once you dont feel like carrying the FF body+lenses to a nearby trail hike. And I am not even talking $$$

---------- Post added 12-11-14 at 06:24 PM ----------

Thank you, Danny!

If I wanted to lug a big camera again - and cost wasn't an issue, I also can't help but notice that you don't seem to get a whole lot more IQ until you reach 645. You wouldn't think that, but that's my conclusion based on the images I've seen. I might mention that I also did a mask in the background area (very quick and easy to do with Capture One) that allowed for lower contrast and reduction in clarity. Just a bit of these changes really adds depth even though the aperture was a relatively slow f/4.5. In other words, an OoC full frame image would have had very similar appearance of DoF - or more. Getting around the whole DoF comparison between crop and FF really is pretty easy in most situations.

BTW I still have hard time believing your image of the dog is shot at ISO 3200, 60mm focal length, 1/60 sec. In this image you overcame 2 technical challenges 1-> High ISO noise 2--> Shake Reduction. You were at the cusp of introducing image shake. (remember the rule Shutter Speed = 1/Focal length). Very well done Jim. Keep those shots coming!

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Other than cheap P&S bowing out to phone tech, nothing looks like it will die. Pentax easily could have had small mirrorless FF cornered, but Sony eventually got there - and their rather unimpressive, late arriving (sorry, but true) domination of the segment with almost no good lenses to match showed just how disorganized Pentax has been (due to corporate tradition and then the Hoya then Ricoh transitions). Pentax remains the master of old tech - and does it very well.

Photographic technology has never been so fragmented and figuratively illuminating. Arguments can be made for pretty much every current technology (well, Sony SLT assuredly will die a deserved and ugly death in a decade or so). DSLR, economical MF, mirrorless, FF, crop, retro, GoPro - all have a good claim.

---------- Post added 12-11-2014 at 09:17 PM ----------

BTW I still have hard time believing your image of the dog is shot at ISO 3200, 60mm focal length, 1/60 sec. In this image you overcame 2 technical challenges 1-> High ISO noise 2--> Shake Reduction. You were at the cusp of introducing image shake. (remember the rule Shutter Speed = 1/Focal length). Very well done Jim. Keep those shots coming!

Thanks again, Danny. Lots of photo practice on dogs (now only one - the younger one died suddenly last month). This old Joe (cocker) doesn't like photos, even though I never use flash on him, so slower shutter speeds really show his shaking. Not sure about the focal length, as the stated zoom length is arbitrary - but it was close to 60mm (the lens is best from about 60 to 90mm). In any event, I'm fairly steady but the dog certainly is not. I'm a longtime LR user (from version 3 upwards especially), but the latest Capture One program does make a difference in terms of speed, sharpness, micro-contrast and color precision. Not that LR isn't good, but it is also very clear that the best Adobe camera profiles are not reserved for Pentax by any means.

My early conclusions: the K-3 really rewards lenses that render well with few aberrations - even if they lack "modern" ultra sharpness; an occasional old zoom can make the grade at favorable apertures.

Good software can bring out the best qualities in this sensor. Compared to the previous generation of sensors, avoid the usual higher sharpness settings combined with aggressive noise reduction; reduce sharpness, reduce overall noise reduction and clarity settings, but you still have some freedom with micro-contrast sharpening (or fine sharpness, or "structure," both of which are similar). This was a dim room. In fact, the photo was underexposed by at least 2/3rds of a stop, and I even saved the JPEG at 25% of original knowing that posting here required a small upload. I didn't process the photo from RAW for a week because I assumed that the underexposure couldn't be brought up properly. (The hair on the dog that hasn't turned white is still very black after all; the old fart is like shooting a darn bride and groom all in one!)