Originally posted by HopelessTogger Barry, even the best monitors will only resolve 15 megapixels (iMac 5K screen). You won't notice much difference on screen.
But you would notice the noise introduced in high DR situations when pushed ...
---------- Post added 09-03-16 at 06:22 PM ----------
Originally posted by biz-engineer And how the images render overall? I had the impression that the K3 had more micro-contrast which contributed to good looking images. The K1 on the other hand produced slightly less colorful images but less sensitive to clipping of the high lights (clouds). Once processed to enhance micro-contrast, I found K1 images including out of focus to render better than my K3.
You may be right there. The subtly may well be better, when a more considered viewing, especially when printed. But not the step change thet had been suggested, I suggest.
Please be aware I was well aware that the differences would probably not be as big as the hype suggested, and I went into this with my eyes open. It's just that the K-3 is so very competent (at low ISO)
---------- Post added 09-03-16 at 06:25 PM ----------
Originally posted by Nuno Almeida Share the same opinion, it's not in "easy" situations that the advantages of the K1 shine, it's when you push the gear to the extremes
I have been pushing it at low ISO. I work at low ISO all the time, allowing the shutter speeds to slow down to very long at times. The DR shots I took included strong highlights and dark shadows, designed to test the response of each camera.
I'm sure there are qualities there that the K_1 will reveal, but at low ISO ? Maybe not. It will allow me to change style, though and this is is what I am looking forward too.