Originally posted by Chris Mak Here is an example of an image "look and feel" that I could not reproduce with the KP.
Originally posted by Chris Mak Here two images of a blue heron from the K3 and from the KP. Although incomparable (the KP rendering cán look very beautiful), nonetheless these show something of what is to my eyes the more natural rendering of the K3 opposed to the slightly artificial and "plasticky" look of the KP.
Originally posted by photoptimist To my eye, the differences in the images are entirely caused by the huge in differences in lighting and weather conditions. In both shots, the bird's bill is nicely colorful so both cameras are handling color well and in the same way. But everything in the rest of the second scene looks much drier and dustier.
Firstly, I'll agree - very nice shots
Honestly, I really like the rendering from both cameras here. I agree with @photoptimist that the lighting is a huge contributor to the overall look, but I suspect you're seeing something at 50 - 100% reproduction levels that we can't see with the images fitted to our monitors.
In any case, I'm probably not a good assessor of the IQ here. I frequently shoot older 6 & 10MP Pentax / Samsung-rebranded cameras plus 24MP Sony A & E-mount (with all of Sony's "wonderful" processing) alongside my K-5, K-3 and K-3II. I see differences in
all of the RAW files - detail, noise reduction, sharpening etc. - but nothing that really affects what I do. I understand why that wouldn't be the case for everyone, though