[UncleVanya]

Too bad you did not snag the 18-135 at that price.

On your first shot you suggested that you couldn't get the shot with a faster shutter speed due to lighting. I doubt then that any camera would do much better without a very fast lens attached.

Try shooting some daylight shots at f5.6 or f8 with shutter speeds of 1/focal length as a minimum just as an experiment. Also I don't recommend the two second self timer for hand held shots - first it makes composition hard, second the shake reduction is turned off when you use it. Lastly night scene shots like those building ones work best on a tripod. Raw also helps to permit more manipulation of light (bring dark areas up, keep highlights from blowing out) but it can be tough to get great results from if you are new to it.

[normhead]

Tha is just way too many images, so I'm going to focus on the last one.



First, why do you think it isn't sharp? I'm reading "Pentax M 1:1.4" etc with no problem. It looks decently sharp. So the problem is not with the sharpness of the lens.

Now look at the marble under the camera. You can see exactly where your DoF (Depth of Field) is, That would be the area where the marble appears to be in focus. Some of your DoF is in front of the camera. You need to focus on something a little further back in your frame, moving the in focus area so that the writing on the lens was at the front of the area in acceptable focus...and as much of the camera was in focus as possible. ( This is called a hyper-focal focus point). With such a narrow DoF it's questionable if you could even have the large letters spelling Pentax in focus but you almost certainly could have the lettering on the flash in focus.

This is not a Pentax issue. This is an any camera issue. It's your job as the photographer to understand how much DoF you have and to consciously place it where it will produce the result you want. In this case, if you wanted the whole camera sharp, 1/3 of your DOF is wasted on the space in front of the camera, and you needed to shoot a a higher ƒ stop to increase your DOF, or move back a little and crop. That being said, people take this kind of image thinking they are kind of artsy. People buy 1.2 and 1.4 lenses just to take this type of image. As far as I can tell, the image is sharp. Your understanding of Depth of Field might be a little lacking.

Incidentally, if you are coming from a smaller sensor than APS-c you won't have experienced this type as issue as much. As your sensor size gets larger, Depth of Field management becomes more and more critical. And if you go to a larger sensor like a k-1 it will be even more pronounced. Learning DoF management is pretty much a compulsory part of learning a DSLR system.

[CarlJF]

But in the light conditions that I took that particular photo in, 1/100th shutter speed would've given me nothing but pitch black.

It just means you have to either use a higher ISO, open the aperture, or some combination of both. In this specific case, you were at ISO 100, meaning you had a lot a leeway to play with for this parameter. For example, 1/100 at ISO800 or, even better, 1/200 at 1600 would have take care or any movement blur from the subject. Yes, it will be slightly noisier than ISO100, but ISO noise is much less of a problem than a blurred shot. With a good denoiser and PP from the DNG, you can get really good results from ISO 1600 shots, and even quite acceptable ones up to 6400...

[Bewatek]

1. Pentax SMC Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR
2. SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.4
3. Soligor 24mm f2.5
4. SMC Pentax-M 28mm F2.8

I also have a K3 and have or had these lenses but the soligor. These cheap lenses are sharp enough for general use but just dont expect too much. Still these are excellent lenses for what they are.

Its definitely not the cameras fault, with a DA*300mm f4 for example its sharp to the last pixel, so sharp that sometimes you cant even apply unsharp masking in postprocessing because it would start to look artificial. There are some lenses that will outresolve the K3s sensor but they will of course cost X-times more than all your current lenses together. The 20-40 limited stopped down a bit was probably the sharpest normal lens i used.

In my opinion you just have to shoot raw and postprocess with a K3, the JPG engine is just ok but there is just so much more potential in its RAW files.
Still the K3s JPGs look better than the horrible artificial dirt especially Canon JPG engines produce (I once had a canon setup and almost gave up photography). Problem is that people are so used to it many even do like Canon JPGs better than Fujifilm or Olympus.

Adding to that, as the others said, all images are troubled by user error in regard of maximum sharpness, but in my opinion that does not hurt the images at all. If there is just one thing that will make an image look cheap and artificial then its too much sharpness.

[othar]

It just means you have to either use a higher ISO, open the aperture, or some combination of both. In this specific case, you were at ISO 100, meaning you had a lot a leeway to play with for this parameter. For example, 1/100 at ISO800 or, even better, 1/200 at 1600 would have take care or any movement blur from the subject. Yes, it will be slightly noisier than ISO100, but ISO noise is much less of a problem than a blurred shot. With a good denoiser and PP from the DNG, you can get really good results from ISO 1600 shots, and even quite acceptable ones up to 6400...

+1
For this image increasing the ISO would have done the trick.
But if your subject is moving and there is even less light available you would have to add some lightsources yourself to get fast enough shutter speeds. By using one or more flashes for instance (if you go for a certain mood or look like in your example you will need some equipment to position your flashes accordingly in the room because with your onbord flash your picture will usually look flat and boring).

[Murfy]

Thanks!

Will definitely look into the NR settings as I am pretty sure its on Auto right now. And how does one calibrate a lens?.

Here is another forum post on micro adjusting the lens. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/172572-af-lens-calibration-help.html. And a pentaxforum article This would only be if you have shots that seem slightly off focus by a small amount. You could easily make yourself crazy trying to micro adjust (I know I have) but I have dropped my camera a few times, so I check it every time that happens. For my images, if I focused on an eye, some other part of the image was in focus, like the side of the head. I have one lens that is +8 and one that is +10.

[JimJohnson]

A couple suggestions:
Read the review on the K-3, and then use the recommending settings as a starting point:
Pentax K-3 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Use the free version of Camera Simulator to get a better handle on the interaction of a dSLR's controls:
The original DSLR camera simulator | CameraSim

I've been shooting SLR & TLR gear since the 70's and I still find myself playing with the simulator from time to time to check out a 'what if' thought from time to time.

[redcat]

As promised, I did a quick shot with a 20$ lens straight out of the K3 (no retouching whatsoever) :


100% crop to see the texture of the bow tie (again, this is a 20$ lens, wide open) :


---------- Post added 11-02-16 at 01:48 PM ----------

and if you want to see how a better lens could resolve on the K3 (please click on the image go to the 100% size) :


It has a lot more to do with the lens (and focus) than with the K3

[Adam]

I am looking for the sharpest lenses that are available on the k-mount, if the 16-85 is a good lens, I'll definitely look into it!

Yup, it's a very good lens. If it didn't have a variable aperture it could pretty much be labeled as a star lens, in my opinion.

The list I linked is only for K-mount lenses, but you can indeed expand to other mounts via the buttons on the page.

To be honest, I have no idea, what are the common problems that arise in the K-3, I had read that there was a recall for K3 camera's back when they were relatively new.

There really aren't any major/recurring issues. The K-3 II did have a service advisory due to an improperly-implemented GPS module, but after that was fixed it was smooth sailing.

If your body has a high shutter count, or if it has been subject to abuse, components are more likely to fail with time. It may also be in need of cleaning. Ironically, the most common problem has probably been a sticky shutter button...but you also get the occasional main board failure, shutter failure, etc. that can affect just abut any DSLR.

As for your photos, first of all there's a high degree of JPEG compression which seems to be degrading the image quality. Second, the lens doesn't seem to be too happy to render hot spots, and you're getting low contrast/ghosting as a result. That kind of performance is to be expected of older coatings. You should be able to clean up the shots fairly nicely in post, however.

The first photo looks fine- just a bit soft (likely due to camera shake).