Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-30-2018, 07:36 AM - 2 Likes   #481
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by str8talk83 Quote
This is the first I've heard of this. I love the images the K3 II produces up to ISO 1600, so I'd hate to lose any of that IQ and can understand your issue. Have you tried more than one KP?
No, I sold my K3, that had stability issues like locking up and mirror flapping and spells of unreliable AF. I bought the KP new.
The KP is a very nice camera, véry stable and reliable, and some may even prefer its files to that of the K3(II), but after working with the KP images for two months, I find that I simply preferred the K3 images due to more natural clarity and better fine detail rendering. It's not due to the settings, not due to AF and I don't believe there was something wrong with the KP I had either. It is however, with a lens like the DA560, that resolves very fine detail when AF is spot-on, obvious that there is some kind of heavy image processing going on that ends up in the Raw file. Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but for me it was reason enough to return to the K3II, which I picked up this morning, brandnew in box.

I will most likely be using the K3II for as long as I keep my DA560. A K3 successor that also features the heavy image processing of the KP would not be appealing to me at all. It's a bit hard to quantify the IQ difference, and I would say the KP is 50% better than the K3, ánd 50% worse. The KP images have far less noise, "thicker" color, and at times tend to look almost as paintings, very pretty, but slightly artificial. The K3 in contrast has objectionable noise from iso 800 upwards, but produces very natural looking images with great clarity and detail between iso 100-800.
I don't care so much for silky smooth, very pretty and colorful looking images. I do care about natural images with great clarity and detail.

Of course I exaggerate here, I hope that is clear to anyone contemplating the KP. It is not a bad camera that produces artificial images, far from it.
But at the same time, those with an aging K3 that are looking to replace it with a KP, I would advice to try one out extensively if possible. You áre giving something up regarding IQ when it comes to very fine detail and a natural clarity (or transparency).

Although this heavy image processing may improve over time, I certainly hope that what I have seen with the KP is not the future for all Pentax cameras. Truly, a wildlife, birding camera needs to build on the IQ of the K3 series, and not try to artificially squeeze performance out of a sensor that is not there inherently. I'd MUCH rather see Pentax get hold of a BSI sensor, because a BSI sensor inherently produces lower noise and better color. I have seen it with the Sony A7RII that I have been using for two years while also having had the A7R. Thát is the way to go for a superb wildlife, birding camera not the heavy handed image processing of the KP.

Chris


Last edited by Chris Mak; 04-30-2018 at 07:43 AM.
04-30-2018, 08:58 AM   #482
Pentaxian
MMVIII's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EU
Posts: 1,121
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
No, I sold my K3, that had stability issues like locking up and mirror flapping and spells of unreliable AF. I bought the KP new.
The KP is a very nice camera, véry stable and reliable, and some may even prefer its files to that of the K3(II), but after working with the KP images for two months, I find that I simply preferred the K3 images due to more natural clarity and better fine detail rendering. It's not due to the settings, not due to AF and I don't believe there was something wrong with the KP I had either. It is however, with a lens like the DA560, that resolves very fine detail when AF is spot-on, obvious that there is some kind of heavy image processing going on that ends up in the Raw file. Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but for me it was reason enough to return to the K3II, which I picked up this morning, brandnew in box.

I will most likely be using the K3II for as long as I keep my DA560. A K3 successor that also features the heavy image processing of the KP would not be appealing to me at all. It's a bit hard to quantify the IQ difference, and I would say the KP is 50% better than the K3, ánd 50% worse. The KP images have far less noise, "thicker" color, and at times tend to look almost as paintings, very pretty, but slightly artificial. The K3 in contrast has objectionable noise from iso 800 upwards, but produces very natural looking images with great clarity and detail between iso 100-800.
I don't care so much for silky smooth, very pretty and colorful looking images. I do care about natural images with great clarity and detail.

Of course I exaggerate here, I hope that is clear to anyone contemplating the KP. It is not a bad camera that produces artificial images, far from it.
But at the same time, those with an aging K3 that are looking to replace it with a KP, I would advice to try one out extensively if possible. You áre giving something up regarding IQ when it comes to very fine detail and a natural clarity (or transparency).

Although this heavy image processing may improve over time, I certainly hope that what I have seen with the KP is not the future for all Pentax cameras. Truly, a wildlife, birding camera needs to build on the IQ of the K3 series, and not try to artificially squeeze performance out of a sensor that is not there inherently. I'd MUCH rather see Pentax get hold of a BSI sensor, because a BSI sensor inherently produces lower noise and better color. I have seen it with the Sony A7RII that I have been using for two years while also having had the A7R. Thát is the way to go for a superb wildlife, birding camera not the heavy handed image processing of the KP.

Chris
Hi, interesting position. I can somehow understand this POV, even if it stays very vague. Clarity and transparency are two, how should I say, quite hard to evaluate qualities. Do you still think it might be possible to illustrate it with some examples? I fully acceppt if you say that you don't want to waste time with technical comparative testshots and don't think your points are less valid. I just noticed that an emotional aspect seems to play a big role when analysing and assesing images, especially these very subtle and vague qualities. Like pixie dust. And in this context it also might not be by chance that some of these observations or feelings come up when the technology is disputed for the k-1 II, and obviously it did not became observable or noticable in the years before, this sensor/processing already exists for some time.
I think it might be an interesting observation, but I also think that it is so slight that it might have never become an issue to almost all photographers and never noticed by any observer of the images.
04-30-2018, 09:31 AM - 2 Likes   #483
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by MMVIII Quote
Hi, interesting position. I can somehow understand this POV, even if it stays very vague. Clarity and transparency are two, how should I say, quite hard to evaluate qualities. Do you still think it might be possible to illustrate it with some examples? I fully acceppt if you say that you don't want to waste time with technical comparative testshots and don't think your points are less valid. I just noticed that an emotional aspect seems to play a big role when analysing and assesing images, especially these very subtle and vague qualities. Like pixie dust. And in this context it also might not be by chance that some of these observations or feelings come up when the technology is disputed for the k-1 II, and obviously it did not became observable or noticable in the years before, this sensor/processing already exists for some time.
I think it might be an interesting observation, but I also think that it is so slight that it might have never become an issue to almost all photographers and never noticed by any observer of the images.
I just finished setting up the new K3II and took some test shots.
Immediately, the familiar look to the images is back, and I can concentrate on taking images again, with a short trip waiting next week.
I can undertsand what you are saying. At the same time, I have gone through quite a few camera's and got very familiar with their RAW files. I went from Sony (A100- A700) to Olympus (E3, E5), to Pentax (K5, K5IIs, K3, KP and now K3II). Next to that I shoot Sony FE mirrorless and went from the A7R to the A7RII.

So I am quite familiar with a (sometimes drastic) change in RAW quality and "look", and am also quite familiar with different RAW converters like Adobe Camera Raw, Capture one (all the way from v4 up to the current v11), DxO optics, all of which I have owned and used extensively.

I was not all that happy e.g. going from the Pentax K5IIs to the K3 initially: losing some DR and a certain "look". I wás immediately very happy to go from the Sony A7R to the Sony A7RII. I was not happy with the Olympus E5.
But I never returned a camera before and switched back to the previous model. So believe me, the loss of very fine detail and image clarity going from the K3 to the KP is very real for me, and I gave my eyes two months to absorb around 1000 KP images, so as to know whether I will enjoy using the KP with the DA560.
You are absolutely right that it is a subjective decision, which I try to nuance, but it is far from an emotional decision.

In short: to me, the road Pentax is on with the increased use of heavy RAW image processing, is not one that wildlife/birding shooters will only benefit from. And I really do hope that they will take a different approach with the next coming K3 successor.
For general, landscape, cityscape shooting, and especially low light shooting, the image processing in the KP may be very welcome.

B.t.w. my reason for posting this, is because it may be of help for users looking to replace an aging K3 or such. I lost some money going the KP route, which I could have put into saving up for a good lens. It is not about proving the KP is a bad or worse than K3II camera, which it is not. But in my view, it is certainly not an optimal wildlife, birders camera.
My new K3II is much more responsive than the troubled K3 I had, AF is snappy and secure with the DA560, so ultimately, the switch K3 > K3II is a good one. I could have saved quite a bit of money if I had directly switched.
On the other hand, I now am no longer waiting for a K3 successor. Not until I know what Pentax has in mind regarding IQ for the next flagship. If they optimize it for rich landscape, cityscape and low light shooting similar as the KP, then I'm out.

Chris

Last edited by Chris Mak; 04-30-2018 at 09:55 AM.
04-30-2018, 11:01 AM   #484
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
the loss of very fine detail and image clarity going from the K3 to the KP is very real for me
Strange, on the image comparison between Pentax KP and Pentax K3II , the Pentax KP images resolve more details. Could be a bad combination between the lens and the camera, or simply a perception bias from having some initial beliefs that influence perception. Also, when you shot with the KP you did not have the K3II at hand to compare sharpness in the exact same situation, you evaluated sharpness based on your memory of what was the K3II was, it was not rigorous.

04-30-2018, 11:55 AM   #485
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Strange, on the image comparison between Pentax KP and Pentax K3II , the Pentax KP images resolve more details. Could be a bad combination between the lens and the camera, or simply a perception bias from having some initial beliefs that influence perception. Also, when you shot with the KP you did not have the K3II at hand to compare sharpness in the exact same situation, you evaluated sharpness based on your memory of what was the K3II was, it was not rigorous.
Interesting, is this with the same lens and at low iso values?
Certainly, with the DA560 this is not the case in real world shooting. Images with the KP look definitely less crisp and less clear (meaning that they have a flatter appearance in rendering of light and lightfall vs. the K3II).
The KP is supported in my Raw converter of use: CO1v11. Support may not be optimal, but the images look like suffering from smoothing at 100%, and quite a bit of sharpening is needed to get the images to look as crisp at 100% as the K3II images, and then the artifacts kick in, and the detail is still less fine. This is especially visible in bird feathers or plumage.
Common sense would lead me to think that the smoothing is connected with some sort of (fairly heavy) noise reduction, but I am open to be shown otherwise....
In any event, the 24mp sensor being essentially the same (other than upgraded specs for video and readout speed for video) as the one used in the K3II, the significant reduction of noise should point at some heavy kind of image processing. It is not normal for a current 24mp sensor (other than when it is a BSI sensor) to show noise levels as low as the one implemented in the KP, I guess we can all agree about that.
But really: thoughts like that did not get me to switch back to the K3II, it was less satisfaction with the KP images. Also, the great cropping latitude with the K3II at low iso values was not as great with the KP due to the reasons I mentioned. Cropping is standard practice for me, often to 50%.

Chris

Last edited by Chris Mak; 04-30-2018 at 12:06 PM.
04-30-2018, 12:23 PM   #486
Senior Member
xmeda's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brno
Posts: 295
K70 hardware in KP boosted by additional noise reduction co-processor simply is not a miracle. I know that mayn KP users here are wet when they talk about their camera. But just deal with that. It is not K5/K3 line camera in many things including image processing. Only the noise reduction reached another step above K3/K3II which basically is 5-6 years older camera compared to KP (development of K3 went on full scale arounf 2010, while KP around 2015).

Still hope that they manage to create something usable soon.. in past weeks I saw so many new advertisements of guys selling whole pentax gear... pretty sad to see that. Mostly K5, K3 and also some K1.. and mostly due to system switch to competitors.
04-30-2018, 12:26 PM - 1 Like   #487
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
Interesting, is this with the same lens and at low iso values?
Well, same iso yes, same lens I don't know. For sure, if the KP accelerator process raw files like the K1 II does, then we may not necessarily want it, depending on lighting. For example, shooting high iso when the light is good is not the same at all as shooting high iso in dim lighting condition. When the light is good, there is no need to reduce noise because there is plenty of signal, but if the noise is filtered , some of the details are lost. I would much prefer if the raw noise processing was an option of the user interface.


---------- Post added 30-04-18 at 21:51 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
in past weeks I saw so many new advertisements of guys selling whole pentax gear... pretty sad to see that.
Yes, that's because they are buying a Pentax K1 mark II. A lot of post remind me that G.A.S or L.B.A are addictive like drugs, no new products means Pentax owners infected by GAS get a headache when no new gear is release, apparently.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-30-2018 at 12:55 PM.
04-30-2018, 01:10 PM - 1 Like   #488
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,037
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
The KP is supported in my Raw converter of use: CO1v11. Support may not be optimal, but the images look like suffering from smoothing at 100%, and quite a bit of sharpening is needed to get the images to look as crisp at 100% as the K3II images, and then the artifacts kick in, and the detail is still less fine
The raw converter could be a factor. Have you tried the Silkypix (or whatever it is called these days) software that came with both cameras to see what they produce?

Grain and noise can make an image look like there is more detail when in fact there isn't. That should be obvious to everyone here and I take your word you're seeing something else.

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
K70 hardware in KP boosted by additional noise reduction co-processor simply is not a miracle
Nobody here knows the nature of exactly what is happening in the co-processor. I don't recall anyone saying it was a miracle either.

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
It is not K5/K3 line camera in many things including image processing
Let's stick to the facts. Image processing is more advanced than the K-3/K-5 line, as is AF, and SR. Other things are not, like FPS, 1/8000 shutter, and shutter life.

QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
Only the noise reduction reached another step above K3/K3II which basically is 5-6 years older camera compared to KP
You seem to be forgetting dynamic range and color depth.
04-30-2018, 01:36 PM - 1 Like   #489
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
Still hope that they manage to create something usable soon.. in past weeks I saw so many new advertisements of guys selling whole pentax gear... pretty sad to see that. Mostly K5, K3 and also some K1.. and mostly due to system switch to competitors.
Every one of Pentax's cameras is way more than simply useable. They're excellent... but not perfect. Whether they're the right choice for certain photographers is down to those people. Chris Mak has given very clear reasons why the KP isn't for him, and that's fine. I believe his findings. Maybe the current Pentax cameras aren't for you either, nor indeed for several others. The same subjective assessments are made by all of us for a whole bunch of cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oympus, Fujfilm, Panasonic etc. There are plenty of us who don't like certain aspects of cameras from any and all of those manufacturers. Pentax is no different in that respect.

I've never tried a KP except for very briefly at a show. I have recently spent a great deal of time looking at RAW image comparisons for the K-1II vs the original K-1, and I can clearly see the results of the image accelerator. For me personally, given my general photographic requirements, I really like the look of the K-1II's files, especially at higher ISO settings (which matters to me) - but I can completely understand why others might not.

I suspect Ricoh / Pentax will quietly listen to feedback from the market and either release firmware updates to existing products, or fine tune future products so that customers remain largely satisfied. A few customers will be lost in the mean-time, and others will be gained. It's all good
04-30-2018, 01:41 PM - 1 Like   #490
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by caliscouser Quote
The raw converter could be a factor. Have you tried the Silkypix (or whatever it is called these days) software that came with both cameras to see what they produce?

Grain and noise can make an image look like there is more detail when in fact there isn't. That should be obvious to everyone here and I take your word you're seeing something else.
I have used Adobe camera raw, DXO and CO1v11. They all look essentially the same.
I mean to refer to (very fine detail) smoothing of images at lower iso values: iso 100-400. Noise should not play a role at those iso values when properly exposed.
QuoteOriginally posted by caliscouser Quote


Nobody here knows the nature of exactly what is happening in the co-processor. I don't recall anyone saying it was a miracle either.



Let's stick to the facts. Image processing is more advanced than the K-3/K-5 line, as is AF, and SR. Other things are not, like FPS, 1/8000 shutter, and shutter life.



You seem to be forgetting dynamic range and color depth.


---------- Post added 04-30-18 at 08:53 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Every one of Pentax's cameras is way more than simply useable. They're excellent... but not perfect. Whether they're the right choice for certain photographers is down to those people. Chris Mak has given very clear reasons why the KP isn't for him, and that's fine. I believe his findings. Maybe the current Pentax cameras aren't for you either, nor indeed for several others. The same subjective assessments are made by all of us for a whole bunch of cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Oympus, Fujfilm, Panasonic etc. There are plenty of us who don't like certain aspects of cameras from any and all of those manufacturers. Pentax is no different in that respect.

I've never tried a KP except for very briefly at a show. I have recently spent a great deal of time looking at RAW image comparisons for the K-1II vs the original K-1, and I can clearly see the results of the image accelerator. For me personally, given my general photographic requirements, I really like the look of the K-1II's files, especially at higher ISO settings (which matters to me) - but I can completely understand why others might not.

I suspect Ricoh / Pentax will quietly listen to feedback from the market and either release firmware updates to existing products, or fine tune future products so that customers remain largely satisfied. A few customers will be lost in the mean-time, and others will be gained. It's all good
A very balanced response Mike, and you are absolutely right about the role of user feedback to Ricoh/Pentax.
My impression is, that they currently want to offer the best IQ possible for landscape, general shooting and perhaps portraiture, in all circumstances, including low light.
Since they do not have access to a BSI sensor, I guess they are hard pressed looking for other ways to increase IQ.

Wildlife shooters and birders may not be their priority so much at the moment, and they may choose to optimize their cameras for a different user base.
I am glad that I could still get hold of a brandnew K3II. My old K3 had nasty stability and performance issues in the unresponsiveness and mirror flapping as well as locking up areas. I am relieved to be able to say that the newly bought K3II appears much better, with swift and decisive auto focus. It was a bit of a U-turn, but I can enjoy my DA560 again.

Looking forward at the coming K3 successor, I can only hope that somehow Pentax addresses the need for very fine detail rendering at low iso values for birders and wildlife shooters. A K3 successor with upgraded hardware but the same IQ of the KP would not be interesting to me personally.

Chris
04-30-2018, 03:30 PM   #491
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
It was a bit of a U-turn, but I can enjoy my DA560 again.
Quite a journey but glad you found a combo that works for you. My K-3II does not get much use now that I have the K-1 but when I go out with both I have the longer lens on the K-3II and an quite happy with the results.
It will be very interesting to see what Ricoh brings us as a replacement. I am going to hope it is a new sensor and new tech, a clean break break from the current technology. As you say, it is time for a new sensor I think they have maxed out what they can do with the K-3 one.
04-30-2018, 04:06 PM   #492
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
Chris, could you post some examples of how bad it is with the KP, and how it should look (how it is with the K-3)? So we'll all know what you're talking about.
Thanks.

I see no reason why Pentax would apply smoothing from base ISO. Your findings are very curious.
04-30-2018, 04:38 PM   #493
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,506
I have been following this discussion with great interest.
I am a serious bird photographer, using K-3 II, K-1 and DFA 150-450.
Image quality from the K-3 II, at low iso (100-800) is really good, but I am not satisfied with IQ above iso 800.
The K-1 though is noticeably better, to my eye, even at low iso values, and much better at high iso.
I had been quietly waiting for a K-3 II successor that delivered IQ closer to what I'm getting with my K-1, but with all the other features of the K-3 II that suit bird photography.
This discussion has dampened my ardour a tad.
Thanks for bringing your observations to the forum.

Cheers,
Terry
04-30-2018, 10:02 PM   #494
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,001
Let's remember that KP and K3/K3II have different sensors.
The right way (only partially applicable here for obvious reasons) as K1 vs K1II. Same sensor (which doesn't mean the result will be either way).
05-01-2018, 02:51 AM   #495
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by tduell Quote
I have been following this discussion with great interest.
I am a serious bird photographer, using K-3 II, K-1 and DFA 150-450.
Image quality from the K-3 II, at low iso (100-800) is really good, but I am not satisfied with IQ above iso 800.
The K-1 though is noticeably better, to my eye, even at low iso values, and much better at high iso.
I had been quietly waiting for a K-3 II successor that delivered IQ closer to what I'm getting with my K-1, but with all the other features of the K-3 II that suit bird photography.
This discussion has dampened my ardour a tad.
Thanks for bringing your observations to the forum.

Cheers,
Terry
I went in openminded, and really wanted to give the KP a try, especially for the high iso 800-3200. For me it did not work out, and as said: if the sensor is not better, less noise at any setting should come at a price. It is not just the apparent lack of very fine detail, it is also the overall look of the images. I prefer a natural and transparent starting point from a high end camera, regarding detail, but also color and tonality.

An option might be, for Pentax to make the image processing user selectable.

Chris
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
announcement, business, cheers, companies, customer, details, discussion, dslr, feedback, folks, k-1, k-3, k-3 line, k3, kp, lens, line, mirrorless, model, noise, pentax, pentax k-3, pentax news, pentax rumors, replacement, sound, sr, successor, thanks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You command line, I command line, we all command line for Linux. (^o^ ) <3 The Squirrel Mafia General Talk 74 10-27-2018 06:20 AM
Will Ricoh continue with APS Bophoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 179 01-04-2017 08:13 PM
Ricoh appears to confirm that Q will continue Mikesul Pentax Q 37 10-07-2016 01:03 PM
Pentaxians, are we willing to be called Ricoh, assuming they continue the K mount? Clinton Pentax News and Rumors 34 07-06-2011 02:52 PM
Continue to like DA 50-200 hinman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 08-13-2007 10:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top