[Gold Coast]

I have been doing a lot of reading of reviews on the K3 II. Most say that the JPEG photos have a tendency to clip its colors causing ugly distortion in JPEG and in hues. I was looking at this camera but if this is a problem that is not good. Is this a fact there are JPEG image wows? I do not want to deal with problems when I spend quite a few dollars for a new camera. They say to correct them in PP which I do not do. I want all my photos just how they come out of the camera with no PP. Feedback greatly appreciated Thanks


Bill

[Adam]

There are plenty of full-size samples here for you to play with:
Pentax K-3 Review - Sample Photos | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Generally-speaking, the Pentax JPEG engine gives you a lot of flexibility and it has numerous settings to help you optimize out-of-camera files, such as shadow/highlight correction, lens corrections, and a multitude of custom image profiles and parameters. You also get a number of cool digital filters, which photographers often overlook (they can actually spice up photos nicely!). Oftentimes the camera's colors are better than what you'd get out of RAW unless you put in considerable effort/expertise.

That said, there are some weaknesses. Pentax tends to over-saturate reds (this has recently been addressed in the K-1/K-70 with a special portrait mode) and over-sharpen details (turning down the sharpness slider helps). If you take a picture of a bunch of trees in the distance, details can get unnecessarily fuzzy compared to the RAW file. For most this isn't a problem, though, since you have to pixel-peep and/or scale with sharpening for the issue to manifest itself.

The only true solution, and this goes for any advanced camera, is to shoot in RAW+. Use the JPEG if you're happy with it, and fall back to the RAW file if you aren't. There are certain situations where shooting in RAW will always give you a better image, especially at night. If I had limited myself to JPEG for shooting the moon the other day, the photos wouldn't have turned out.

The K-3 II is a very capable body that can give you wonderful results if you know how to set it up

Hope this helps!

[stevebrot]

Most say that the JPEG photos have a tendency to clip its colors causing ugly distortion in JPEG and in hues.

Most? Can you provide an example review, preferably with example photos? I have been shooting with the K-3 (same processor engine) for almost three years and can't say that I have seen what you describe in real-world shooting.

The closest I can find to what you describe is red channel clipping at ISO 1600 and above in the still-life fabric swatch comparison images at Imaging Resource LINK. Yes, those look pretty dismal by comparison for that section of the image. I would suggest comparing the rest of the image and the other IR test images before drawing conclusions about JPEG fidelity.

Imaging Resource: Image Comparator


Steve

[stevebrot]

They say to correct them in PP which I do not do. I want all my photos just how they come out of the camera with no PP. Feedback greatly appreciated Thanks

Continuing on from my comment above regarding the technical perspective, I thought this statement requires separate comment. I have done a fair amount of digital photography in the last decade or so and to be honest with you, the only photos that I share without post-processing are those I take with my phone and in all fairness, my phone is capable of some really great photos. Of those that I take with the K-3, only about 5%-10% are worth publishing to the Web and even less worth the ink and paper to print. ALL of those photos have been taken as RAW captures and ALL require PP before I am happy with them.

If you are wanting a camera that provides striking high-quality JPEGs from an APS-C sensor with little need for processing, I would suggest something like the Fujifilm X-T1 or maybe the Canon EOS M5.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 11-15-2016 at 04:57 PM.

[jayman_1975]

I like the jpegs from my K5IIs better than my K3 so I sold it.

[Doundounba]

I think a lot of it comes down to taking control of the JPEG engine. IMHO, Pentax JPGs are reviewed unduly harshly because of the color profile that the cameras default to out of the box ("Bright"). Also, the "issue" with blown reds is common to most digital imaging sensors, and not at all specific to Pentax - see this discussion, for instance. BTW, some people feel the Fuji sensors have a problem with greens, but I couldn't say whether that is really the case or not.

If you intend to not shoot raw - a completely legitimate decision, IMHO - you should explore the very wide customization options available in the various color profiles that Pentax offers, as well as the options for highlight and shadow correction (under D-Range Settings in the menus, at least on my K-3). Find something that works for you. I shoot a slightly tweaked Natural profile, with highlight correction on and the lowest level of shadow correction. Personally, I'm super happy with Pentax's JPEG engine, and most of my shots only go through some light tweaking once out of the camera. I suppose I'll eventually move to RAW, but so far my attempts at RAW postprocessing have not equaled the results I get from my customized camera settings plus a modicum of tweaking in post. There's a real skill involved in RAW processing, and although there's undoubtedly value in acquiring that skill, you should, I believe, feel free to decide if and when you decide to head down that particular path as you progress as a photographer. I feel that the vast customization options that the Pentax JPG engine provides give you that freedom, and provide excellent OOC images.

p.s.: If you shoot a lot indoor, you might also want to change the default for white balance under Tungsten light from Subtle to Strong Correction.

[C_Jones]

I have the K-3II. It shoots high quality JPEGS without a problem. If you buy the camera you will not regret it and the investment is a wise one. Don't be fooled by a false review or baseless comment, the K-3II is a performance leader including JPEG or Raw image quality.

[SpecialK]

I want all my photos just how they come out of the camera with no PP. Feedback greatly appreciated Thanks


Bill

If you spend the money then you should PP your images to make them the best you can. This will involve more than just the color - such as contrast, exposure, cropping as cloning. You are not going to get it all consistently right from any camera.

The basics are pretty easy and is only a small percentage of the total time of handling the image.

If you have some philosophical reason to only shoot jpg that is your choice, but it will likely be a limiting factor.

[SpecialK]

I want all my photos just how they come out of the camera with no PP. Feedback greatly appreciated Thanks


Bill

If you spend the money then you should PP your images to make them the best you can. This will involve more than just the color - such as contrast, exposure, cropping and cloning. You are not going to get it all consistently right from any camera.

The basics are pretty easy and is only a small percentage of the total time of handling the image.

If you have some philosophical reason to only shoot jpg that is your choice, but it will likely be a limiting factor.

[JohnX]

Any and every camera comes from the factory pre-set to deliver what they believe to be the best compromise.

I have always needed to make changes to the settings to achieve what I want to see straight out of camera, including my K3II.

Reviews are ok for certain things, in particular objective opinions on, for example, control layout, but are in my opinion useless when it comes to something as subjective as the colours, etc, in a jpeg.

[Rondec]

I would generally shoot RAW, because I can get a little extra out of them, but Pentax jpegs are fine. I don't shoot in Bright mode though (I shoot in Natural) and I turn down sharpening a notch and find that the jpegs come out very nice with natural colors and minimal over saturation.

You do have to be a little careful of reds, but I find that is true for most digital cameras.

[Blacknight659]

Funny I just watched this video this morning.

Overall, I agree with their subjective findings. Pentax doesn't offer great jpegs. While Fuji has the most street cred right now, this video seems to suggest when compared to other brands it doesn't keep up with Nikon / Canon.

At any rate, I like to shoot Raw and in this case Pentax provides wonderful files to bend and manipulate.

You Tube

You Tube