[JohnBee]

Imaging Resource just posted an interesting comparison between the K-3 II and other very high resolution cameras (full frame and medium format). In pixel shift mode the K-3 II seems to outpace the D810 in terms of image quality and sharpness. Interested to see what you guys think of that...

Pentax K-3 II Review: First Shots - Tech2

While there's no denying the advantages of the multiframe resolution advantages, I'd question the validity of this given that other manufacturers could potentially follow suite quite easily. ie, Nikon could just as well release a firmware to match the K-3 II's pixel shift feature.

That said, given the very narrow range of use, I'm hoping this type of technology could seem improvements as time goes on, in terms of multi-frame speeds, so as to reduce the effects of motion blur etc. Which I feel is the biggest deterrent atm.

As for the sample comparison, I would have loved to see the pixel shift images put up against the 5DSr as well. Though one of the problems I'm having with the K-3 II pixel shift samples is the lack of RAW files to compare with with the competition. Whatever the case, despite all the limitations, I'm finding pixel shift to be nothing short of amazing when it works. Though a part of me feels as though the limited range that comes with this won't appeal to a very large market.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 06-07-2015 at 01:51 AM.

[Rondec]

Boy, pixel-shift must be the holy grail I'm just not getting. Gotta agree with Max on this. How often are you going to be shooting a static subject throughout the frame with absolutely no wind? I suspect we're going to get a lot of shooters producing less-clear images than if they had settled from a single 24mp image in the first place. If I was doing a ton of high-end product photography, I would very much understand the need. For regular shooting, not at all.

I think it would not be that hard to combine shots, using the combined image where it worked and substituting with a single exposure where it didn't work due to artifacts.

[lister6520]

Boy, pixel-shift must be the holy grail I'm just not getting. Gotta agree with Max on this. How often are you going to be shooting a static subject throughout the frame with absolutely no wind? I suspect we're going to get a lot of shooters producing less-clear images than if they had settled from a single 24mp image in the first place. If I was doing a ton of high-end product photography, I would very much understand the need. For regular shooting, not at all.

Regular shooting means different things for different people. The two types of subject I can think of that will benefit most are macro and architecture.

Of course it would always be better to use a 645Z if you can afford it and don;t mind carrying the weight but even for occasional use having a better resolution for some of your shots is always better than having it for none.

[Cyril_K5]

I'm afraid that Pentax users won't buy a Pentax full frame anymore, due to the fact that the K-3II will deliver more resolution, thanks to pixel shift, than the more expensive full frame.

If the K-3 II outpaces the best FF in terms of resolution (and noise, one shouldn't forget that), I am of the opinion that the new Full-Frame will be a major leap forward against any other existing camera as I have read it will also have pixel shift technology, which will make a lot of photographer move to it. The only down is that there isn't any current Pentax Lens that wouldn't be outresolved by its unbeatable sharpness... They will have to notch up quite a bit in terms of glass...
Another thing to mention is that the pixel-shift only works on a tripod without any moving object in the frame so it doesn't apply to all styles of photography

---------- Post added 06-05-15 at 10:03 PM ----------

While there's no denying the advantages of the multiframe resolution advantages, I'd question the validity of this given that other manufacturers could potentially follow suite quite easily. ie, Nikon could just as well release a firmware to match the K-3 II's pixel shift feature.

That said, given the very narrow range of use, I'm hoping this type of technology could seem improvements as time goes on, in terms of multi-frame speeds, so as to reduce the effects of motion blur etc. Which I feel is the biggest deterrent atm.

As for the sample comparison, I would have loved to see the pixel shift images put up against the 5DSr as well. Though one of the problems I'm having with the K-3 II pixel shift samples is the lack of RAW files to compare with with the competition.

Whatever the case, despite all the limitations, I'm finding pixel shift to be nothing short of amazing when it works. Though a part of me feels as though the limited range that comes from this, won't be very appealing for many people.

No I don't think Nikon or Canon would be able to release a similar technology before long. The reasons of my belief are the following:
- All their marketing approach has been based in "in-lens" OS systems and most new lens have been designed in that way
- Moving to a pixel shift sensor would also mean putting "in-body" stabiliser, which would threaten the sale of all the lenses previously mentioned and we all know that most DSLR manufacturer make most of their profit not on DSLR body sales but lenses
- The technology required at least 24 months of R&D from Ricoh (I even believe Pentax started searching before being acquired), which means there is now some lead time from Pentax
- The most impressive part will when Pentax release their new FF camera, as there was a recent leak that said that pixel-shift will be included in the FF as well, which will be a unique differentiator for them.

As for the motion/blur, for photographers like me focused in Landscape, this is less of a problem as most shoots are on tripod with longer exposures (apart from forest shoots with leaves, but even then...)

Have a look at this article: https://fstoppers.com/editorial/new-superhero-could-pentax-k-3-ii-how-nikon-...-and-why-69009

---

Last edited by Cyril_K5; 06-05-2015 at 02:07 PM.

[biz-engineer]

For Pentax users, we like to think it is true... but for Canikon users, it is likely not true. At the end of the day, most existing Canikon APS-C users will still upgrade to a D750 or D810 or 5DIII for their money.

Another thing to mention is that the pixel-shift only works on a tripod without any moving object in the frame so it doesn't apply to all styles of photography

Ah sorry, I was not aware of this. Indeed pixel shift is practically very limited , lets say usable 5% of cases. D810 would still out-resolve the K-3II 95% of cases then. Actually, pixel shift seem adequate for landscapes with a sharp lens and a tripod. Ok, now I understand.

[batmobile]

Its a great feature, but its not the same thing as high res in single shot mode. I shoot the majority of my work hand-held, or outdoors (and doesn't there always seem to be wind?). I think this is a great feature, that I am sure will also be on the forthcoming FF, not to mention the eventual 645Z replacement, but it is not fair to say it trumps regular 36MP FF from a practical point of view, because it is limiting in use. Its a wonderful additional feature.

[aleonx3]

I guess that I must be the exception then. This DX Nikon guy just purchased a K3II instead of upgrading to a Nikon full frame

Yes. you are the exception and probably takes better photos than the Canikon users that I know. Welcome to the world of Pentax and the forum; hope you like your new K-3 II and have lots of fun using it and producing great images.

[stevebrot]

I shoot the majority of my work hand-held, or outdoors (and doesn't there always seem to be wind?).

The same here, though wind is usually an issue even with a single exposure. My main concern is for subjects with moving water and long exposures (say 1/10s). The potential for artifact is huge. I am really interested in seeing example photos for that kind of shot.


Steve