[MikeV]

Question about the noise in my new K3's pictures.
While I don't know everything about these cameras, I have had and gotten good pictures out of DSLR's (mostly various Canon's) for many years.

I took a few shots with my new K3 getting used to it and to set the camera parameters for what I like to see. While the pictures look just fine at full screen on my 20" monitor, blown up to 100%, there seems to be a lot of noise.
I've adjusted the anti-aliasing filter, off, 1 and 2. Off is the best. I've messed with the noise settings also. While I don't want to mute the pictures with too much noise reduction, I still have too much noise even as low as ISO400.
Also, I know the lens I have is no where near the "top-o-the line"...it's the Pentax/Tamron 18-270. While I know it's sharpness has something to be desired, I don't think it's the cause of the noise. Also, its sharpness is better than I expected..!

I know it's gotta be me/my adjustments that allowing this to happen. I know I haven't given you much to go on, here, but any ideas, something I'm forgetting...would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Mike

---------- Post added 11-07-15 at 09:54 PM ----------

P.S. -

The above pictures are taken between 11am and 3pm, mostly cloudless day.

Mike

[ppppsssstttt]

i don't have a k3, but i think the consensus i've seen is that it's due to the higher resolution sensor. if you view at the same dimensions as an image from a 16mp sensor, you should have similar noise. so 100% crop might not be your best friend in this situation.

[Adam]

Question about the noise in my new K3's pictures.
While I don't know everything about these cameras, I have had and gotten good pictures out of DSLR's (mostly various Canon's) for many years.

I took a few shots with my new K3 getting used to it and to set the camera parameters for what I like to see. While the pictures look just fine at full screen on my 20" monitor, blown up to 100%, there seems to be a lot of noise.
I've adjusted the anti-aliasing filter, off, 1 and 2. Off is the best. I've messed with the noise settings also. While I don't want to mute the pictures with too much noise reduction, I still have too much noise even as low as ISO400.
Also, I know the lens I have is no where near the "top-o-the line"...it's the Pentax/Tamron 18-270. While I know it's sharpness has something to be desired, I don't think it's the cause of the noise. Also, its sharpness is better than I expected..!

I know it's gotta be me/my adjustments that allowing this to happen. I know I haven't given you much to go on, here, but any ideas, something I'm forgetting...would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Mike

---------- Post added 11-07-15 at 09:54 PM ----------

P.S. -

The above pictures are taken between 11am and 3pm, mostly cloudless day.

Mike

Can you post some samples?

Also, I wouldn't pixel-peel photos shot with the 18-270mm.

Effective noise reduction should yield fairly clean images at ISO 400, especially in RAW.

[6BQ5]

I have gotten very, very clean images at ISO 800 and made beautiful 18" x 24" prints from them. Good light is an absolute "must-have" - not just lots of light. I also Expose To The Right (ETTR) by +0.3 or +0.7 and compensate during post processing. When I lower the exposure I also lower the noise along with it. Or, I simply recover highlights and leave the shadows and midtones alone. The intensity of these tonal ranges ends up overwhelming any noise. Without seeing sample and understanding your exposure it's hard to understand if these ideas here would help. I also shoot in RAW and bypass any deficiencies in the camera's JPG engine. The JPG engine isn't necessarily bad but it leaves a lot to be desired.

Images at lower ISO like 400 and all the way down to 100 are practically noise-free in my book as long as there is good light with the right exposure.

[Murfy]

it would help to see pictures, I was pretty impressed with my images at 1600 with the pentax 55-300 I took yesterday at my daughter's soccer game. There is noise, but I tend to overexpose the shots now, and it took me a while to figure that out. I used to under expose from the film days, so I have to figure which times that would be better. But this is conjecture without seeing pictures :-)

[slip]

Using raw, I turn off all noise reduction in camera and reduce the noise with photoshop

Cheers

Randy

[Canada_Rockies]

I'm with Randy. I have all noise reduction turned off, and get fine images at ISO 9000 in crappy light hand held using an AFA 1.7X on the DA 55-300. There is a sample in the sample K3 thread. Just look for my posts, there are several.

[MikeV]

I'm using JPG.
I did have the noise reduction turned "off" at the lower ISO. I tried a few more things without good results.
THEN...I turned the noise reduction "on" to the lowest level for all ISO (except the highest couple of settings)...wha-la...nice pictures..! I also have the anti-aliasing filter "off" to try to keep as much of the detail as possible.

Thanks all for the ideas.

Mike

P.S. - The photo site I've been using has gone to a different setup, and I haven't made the change yet, so no pictures until I make the change. But in any case, noise is noise !

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Mike, my experience with earlier Canon vs. Pentax indicates that Canon tends to soften output (both RAW and JPEG) considerably more from 800 ISO upwards. So, you are seeing both a lot of sharpness and noise from a densely packed sensor. Rule of thumb, as others have suggested, is allow the noise to preserve sharpness. If you find the noise objectionable, handle it in post process. To the extent you don't care for post processing, or want to eliminate in the first place, play with your parameters to satisfy your wishes.

Most of us old Pentaxians are huge tinkerers and many of us go back to the days when we'd push Tri-X to the extreme - 1600 ASA (ISO), and not flinch at the grainy results. Pentax recognizes that old perspective - Canon, not so much.

[jack002]

Are you sure this is noise and not a dirty sensor?

[Canada_Rockies]

Mike, my experience with earlier Canon vs. Pentax indicates that Canon tends to soften output (both RAW and JPEG) considerably more from 800 ISO upwards. So, you are seeing both a lot of sharpness and noise from a densely packed sensor. Rule of thumb, as others have suggested, is allow the noise to preserve sharpness. If you find the noise objectionable, handle it in post process. To the extent you don't care for post processing, or want to eliminate in the first place, play with your parameters to satisfy your wishes.

Most of us old Pentaxians are huge tinkerers and many of us go back to the days when we'd push Tri-X to the extreme - 1600 ASA (ISO), and not flinch at the grainy results. Pentax recognizes that old perspective - Canon, not so much.

I took amateur hockey pictures to 3200 in the early 1960's. Golf ball sized grain, but pictures.

[MikeV]

Scooter -
Yea, on one hand, my main camera is a 6D Canon. I'm able to get very clean, detailed shots with almost any lens. Even the big 28-300L that some think is garbage. I've bought a Nikon (D5200), a Sony (A77II), now the Pentax (K3) to see what I like. In my opinion, one "cannot" berate one brand or raise the level of one brand over another...without actually seeing what the other brands "actually" have to offer. NOT...just what they read about..! Not that I put down a camera in any form, BUT I can now, talk somewhat intelligently on the good bad and indifferent on the various brands when people ask.
I like the Sony except for the electronic view finder... The Pentax, I'm really beginning to like. All these adjustments to play with..! The Nikon, while it's the lowest class of the bunch, it still tells me a lot about the brand. Not including the full frame versions obviously.
I'm looking for "detail" in my pictures. Interesting to see the detail of things now that I have things better worked out with the K3 now. Some things are nice and crisp, clean looking and some are a bit less detailed..!?
I've tried from F6.3 to F11 with this lens, finding F8 to be the clearest, best detailed... Taking a picture of the same thing, from the same (within reason!) distance.
I can see dust on one part, and a part about 2" away (sideways), about 1/2" farther back/away, the dust is clear and obvious, but the threads on a fastener are not nearly as clean, detailed. But other parts around the fastener are nearly as clean as the dust on the fitting..!?
Ok...I'm probably being too picky now, and trying to compare APS-C to full frame pictures..! Use and more experimentation will tell me what I can see and what I can.
As noted, so far the K3 is doing well against the other cameras I have.


Jack -
Funny..!
Sorry but yes, I do know the difference.

Mike

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I'm not intending to bash Canon. In several respects, it is the standard of the industry. My 200L f/2.8 is a great lens - the best I own. My Canon 5D was great at 100 ISO, but the obvious smoothing at high ISO was frustrating for a high-end camera in its day. My Canon 20D has superior AF performance to any Pentax that came for eight years after it. Finally, the K-3 surpassed it for AF (but clearly none of the previous Pentax models achieved as consistent and quick performance).

Ultimately, I'm back with Pentax for a number of reasons related to camera handling, choice of optics, and overall sensor performance - which is far superior to Canon. If I was shooting action for a living, I'd go Canon.

For what it is, the 18-270 is a nice lens when shot in bright sunlight. However, no 15:1 zoom lens is going to give you great detail, and this is especially so regarding JPEG output. So, if you want the most detail and least amount noise possible, you will need to adjust your approach. When you look at the various reviews, Pentax tends to fall behind others in straight default JPEG output vs. Raw - where it excels. I believe most of the problem is related to the default "Bright" setting resulting in blown red channel details. Try using "Natural" setting to better preserve detail. Do play with the other JPEG output settings - they make a difference. Pay special attention to the choice between S and FS (fine sharpening). In my experience, increasing the FS setting by one or two notches can greatly improve results. My guess is the 18-270 needs more sharpening than most optics.

To get the most out of the camera, work with the RAW files...

[Canada_Rockies]

Scooter, I have found that setting JPEG to "Natural" with the K3 does result in the best output. I also turn off all noise reduction. All of it. That brings up the JPEG to a pretty good output. The small amount of noise is easily handled in post processing. I have both Lightroom 6.2 and DxO 10, and I find I only need DxO Prime when the ISO gets over 12800 - an astonishing result. Check the K3 High ISO album in my Flickr account. The flag shot with the AFA 1.7x + DA 55-300 is eye opening for me. Your moves may vary, as we say.
I'll try the FS setting and see if it gets even better.