[maxgroebel]

Hi,

Last week I bought a K3II. The idea was that it should five me better resolution, better autofocus and better low light performance than my old K20D. I also wanted to get some video capacity.

Now I have taken a few hundred shots, about hundred of them with both cameras. Same lenses, same motives, same conditions, same sensitivity, same white balance. To my great surprise I find that my old K20Dwas better in most respects:

The resolution is generally worse on K3II (I shot largely with my old A-lenses in catch-in focus, and with a couple of F- and FA-zooms.)
Contrast was clearly lower.
The colours were considerably colder.

The only thing in favour of the K3II was somewhat lessfocus hunting, and a less noisy shutter.

So what went wrong? I had expectedbetter with substantially pixel and later technology. Did I do anything? Is itthe that the pixels are smaller in the K3II? Should I have gone for a K1?

No, I don't thing it would help much to post anyphotos.

Max

[MarkJerling]

No, I don't thing it would help much to post any photos.

Yes it will Max. Without photos to compare, no-one here can help you determine the cause(s) of your problem.

[BigMackCam]

I very much doubt anything is wrong with your K-3II, Max. The default colour profile of the two cameras is different, as is contrast and sharpening (if you're shooting JPEG rather than RAW) but can be adjusted. And it's possible your AF lenses require AF fine adjustment on the K-3II. The higher resolution will tend to show flaws and lack of critical focus to a far greater extent. What I'm really saying is, a combination of settings / adjustments and technique may be required - at which point you will get *way* better results from the K-3II (I guarantee it). The K-3II is less forgiving.

As Mark says, post some shots - ideally those you're most unhappy with, along with EXIF data or settings. We'll be able to help quite easily with those

[pepperberry farm]

I know when I moved from my K-50 to my K-3, I was frustrated for a bit with my lack of ability to simply FOCUS, let alone anything else...

after working with the new body for several weeks, reading the e-book for the K-3, and setting up the defaults to my taste, I finally started to see results...

[Parallax]

Try the tests again without using catch in focus.
I've never been able to get a properly focused photo using it on a K10D, K20D, or K5IIs.

[monochrome]

The resolution is much higher than my K10D was - so much so that I had to work on handholding skill to eliminate camera shake. Took a few weeks and maybe 1000 releases.

[hcc]

I did move from the K-7 to the K-3. And it was a huge step, albeit it took me 2-3 weeks to get the best settings in the K-3. I would expect that the step from K-20 to K-3ii would be even bigger.

For once, I found the in-depth review at PF very very helpful:
Pentax K-3 II Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

You may also read the Recommended settings for the K-3:
Pentax K-3 Review - Recommended Settings | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Very, very helpful section, still valid for the K-3ii IMHO.

Previous posts gave you excellent hints also.

There are many improvement from the K-7/K-20 to K-3/K-3ii, and one in particular the High ISO. The K-20/K-7 continue to holds some ground at low ISO (eg 100), but they were poor at ISO above 800.....

I hope that the comment may help.

[C_Jones]

quote "better resolution, better autofocus and better low light performance than my old K20D. I also wanted to get some video capacity." endquote

I have a K-3II. I also had a K-20D. I was able to get very nice images using my K-20D, and am able to get very nice images with my K-3II. In order to get the images on both, the user settings had to be appropriate for the image type I wanted. The K-3II is capable of the advanced levels of the characteristics you mentioned only if applied with the settings that will allow them to perform the way the user desires.

AF mode set to "Continuous", AF area mode set to "Spot", Metering set to "Spot", along with a mode such as TAV in a normal light setting outdoors might be a good test for imagery. Also, testing in Manual mode with the necessary settings for the conditions would be a good way to test. If you are shooting in low light, facilitating a flash would be a help, or if not shooting action, using a tripod for a longer exposure would allow you to use a higher number F stop for depth/detail with an exposure time that would provide the necessary light. These are just suggestions.

[caliscouser]

** this thread is useless without pictures **

[stevebrot]

The resolution is much higher than my K10D was - so much so that I had to work on handholding skill to eliminate camera shake. Took a few weeks and maybe 1000 releases.

What he said ^ ^ ^

In the first several months after the K-3 release, this site was peppered with posts complaining that users could not get sharp or pleasing results. Here are a few points:

• Make sure you did not inadvertently choose a "dull" custom mode. The 4-way dial allows easy accidental change to such wonderful custom types as "muted" and "cross-processed" and "bleach bypass".
• Pay careful attention to technique. All those extra pixels come with the burden of greater demand for camera stability. Despite the SR feature, the K-3/K-3II demands a steady hold.
• Pay careful attention to technique. Yes, I am repeating myself, though this time in regards to accurate focus. Before tossing the camera, try using magnified live view for manual fine focus (camera on tripod with 2s delay). That should allow the quality of the lens and camera to show.
• Remember that all those pixels make it easier to find fault. When you get discouraged, try shooting "M" resolution 14 Mpx JPEG for awhile. Those should look a little closer to what you are used to on the K20D
• While most quality lenses do quite nicely at 24 Mpx, a lens that is moderately soft at 14 Mpx will not look better at higher resolution. I bragged about my DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 on the K10D, but never use it with the K-3...waste of electrons.

Steve

[stevebrot]

AF mode set to "Continuous", AF area mode set to "Spot", Metering set to "Spot",

I personally set my AF area to "Spot" because I prefer to designate the point of focus. The other two settings I seldom use unless appropriate for the subject. At the risk of sounding critical, I offer these observations:

• AF-C is a good match for moving subjects, but allows shutter release when focus has not been attained. If one intends a simple frame-focus-capture flow with a stationary subject, AF-S is more sure.
• Spot metering is not more accurate, more sure, more cool or appropriate for general use. It is a specialized tool and good results require advanced knowledge in order to properly place exposure.* For most users and most subjects, multi-segment (matrix) metering is preferred for consistent results.

As noted in another comment above, the in-depth K-1 review on this site provides a good selection of recommended settings, most of which I also recommend.

Pentax K-3 Review - Recommended Settings | PentaxForums.com Reviews


Steve

* Several times a month, users post troubleshooting requests where inconsistent exposure is traceable to careless use of spot metering. Another common cause is having the exposure follow the point of focus.

[JimJohnson]

I've never mastered Catch In Focus as a way of manually focusing the lens and having the shutter trip when focus is obtained. Note, this is different from pre-focusing and waiting for a subject to move to the focus point.

My reasoning for not using CIF as a focusing aid is two-fold:
First, it is much harder to hold the camera steady when actively turning the focus ring.
Second, it is near impossible to freeze focusing right as the shutter trips. My reaction time is not that fast.

The higher resolution of the K-3 (II) will pick up the movement of the camera and the focus ring every time. The only way to even come close to this working is with a small aperture for extended depth of field and a high shutter speed to freeze motion. You need a lot of light or high ISO to achieve that combination.

[maxgroebel]

Thanks a lot all of you, for comments and tips.
Strangely enough, resolution seemed somewhat betterwhen I viewed the images in another software. What worries my more is thecolder colour balance and some tendency to overexposure, despite 2/3compensation.
Anyway, my conclusion is that I should mainly my MFlenses on K20D, and only the best, and AG, on K3II. Maybe I should also get ridof one of two lenses.I beg to disagree about CIF. It works well on K20D. TheK3II on the other hand is far too trigger-happy. It fires away at almost anyfocus, almost as if i wore MF.
I will continue to study the settings.
If you insist I will try to add a few pix, even if I don'tthink it would make you any wiser. Never mind the rsoultion, look at thecolours. I mainly shoot views (it would be presumptuous to call it landscapes,but that's what I am interested in). In these pairs, the first one is K3II, thesecond K20D. They were all handheld JPEG, at ISO 100. The two first pairs withTamron adaptall 90mm f2.5 (with A-adapter), the last with F35-105 at 105. Exposure was 1/640 f8, 1/640 f4, 1/630 f6.3. Cropped to about 40%.
Max

[GodsPetMonkey]

Looks like the K3II is over exposing compared to the K20 (or the K20 is underexposing?), but you can see the better dynamic range of the K3II in how well the highlights are controlled.

Are these out of camera JPEGs? If so, a lot of the difference could be down the the shadow recovery setting on the K3II. If you want out of camera JPEGs to look more like the K20 play around with the image quality settings - in particular, shadow/highlight correction and increase the contrast. Also look at one of the more punchy colour settings (bright or vibrant).

[caliscouser]

I always found that the K20d produced very pleasant JPEG's from the Samsung sensor.
By default they may possibly be a little warmer and more saturated than later cameras. Again tweak the K3-ii JPEG settings to your taste and possibly warm up the AWB a touch.
In terms of dynamic range, the newer bodies are far superior. No question about that.

Also the older manual lenses may not be showing you the maximal capabilities of the K3-ii sensor, certainly in terms of resolution.