[MyTZuS]

Meaning, I know that NR is miles ahead of the K3 II when in FF mode. But is it just as good when the crop mode is used?

Thanks.

[Adam]

Meaning, I know that NR is miles ahead of the K3 II when in FF mode. But is it just as good when the crop mode is used?

Thanks.

The image quality is still good, but you're pretty much taking away the whole advantage of shooting FF if you crop...the K-3 would give you more detail than the K-1 in crop mode.

[RonHendriks1966]

In crop you will find a similar IQ as in the original K-5.

[clackers]

In crop you will find a similar IQ as in the original K-5.

I think the one without an AA filter ... K-5 II?

[Fogel70]

In crop you will find a similar IQ as in the original K-5.

And as K5 II(s) is similar to K3/K3II, there will not be much difference between K1 in crop mode vs K3 II.

K5/K5II has ISO 80 which K1 and K3II do not have, so at ISO80 K5/K5II will most likely have slightly better DR/SNR than both K1 (in crop mode) and K3II as they are limited to ISO100.
The higher resolution on K3II may give more advantage over the other two, than the difference in DR.

[clackers]

And as K5 II(s) is similar to K3/K3II.

Different pixel sizes. 😊

[Fogel70]

Different pixel sizes. 😊

Yes, as I mentioned, K3II has higher resolution.

But it was about IQ, and K5II and K3II performs similar in most IQ parameters (except for resolution).

[fs999]

In crop you will find a similar IQ as in the original K-5.

That's not true. It is better than K-5IIs !

[UncleVanya]

That's not true. It is better than K-5IIs !

Can you post some comparison shots showing this?

[MyTZuS]

Thanks everyone. Guess that heartens me since I just sold a K3 II (and trying to sell a K5 IIs). So effectively I'm replacing both cameras with added benefit of FF hmm? Meaning in the K1 I have 2 cameras. Nice.

[Caat]

The image quality is still good, but you're pretty much taking away the whole advantage of shooting FF if you crop...the K-3 would give you more detail than the K-1 in crop mode.

That's very true. However, I think the new 1:1 crop mode has more utility. With some DA lenses nearly covering FF the crop mode takes the hassle out of manually cropping later on.

But this only really applies if you already own crop lenses. I can't see the point of buying crop lenses specifically for use on the K-1. I suppose the exception might be things like the DA 15 ltd - because that's still wider than any production Pentax FF primes even after the field of view conversion.

[normhead]

The K-1 is better for noise at high ISO and Dynamic Range. But was using my K-5 as a back up to my K-3, and the K-1 in crop is perfect for that. Honestly, there are a lot of images that will never be anything but web images or at the most 8x10s. Shooting in crop mode allows you to use your APS-c lenses and process quicker, says the man who hasn't actually tried it yet. I used to carry a K-01 or K-5 with the 18-135 and the K-3 with a long lens. The K-1 is going to have to do K-5 duty with the 18-135, unless pentax comes up with a 27-200 for the K-1, that's about the same size.

[Na Horuk]

Wasn't there some thread when someone compared K-3 and K-5IIs and K-1? At lowest ISO, they found, the K-3 has slightly more noise, but the K-5IIs (at ISO 80) and K-1 were not very different. Makes sense, similar pixel density and such. But the K-1 still offers you a lot of extra area outside of APSC, and it has PS. Once you start resizing full size photos, you remove some noise and such aberrations, so the K-1 becomes even more impressive.

Simply put, if I had a K-1, I would avoid crop mode. It offers you no advantage, except in cases where you need a high burst mode or have a lens that is absolutely unusable in FF mode.

The noise of the K-1 sensor will not change if you switch FF to APSC mode. The K-3 is an older model and has higher pixel density, so it will have slightly more noise than K-1 in crop mode. K-5IIs might be able to rival the K-1 in ASPC mode (sensor performance; features are still quite different)
At low ISO, all of these are amazing. And even up to ISO 800 the differences are rather small, unless you are doing very specific kind of work. Once you go to ISO 6400 or use PS, then the little differences become more apparent.

[clackers]

Yes, as I mentioned, K3II has higher resolution.

But it was about IQ, and K5II and K3II performs similar in most IQ parameters (except for resolution).

Definitely not.


When DxoMark measured the SNR at, for instance, ISO3200, the K-5 IIs has 24.5dB, the K-3 II only 21.5dB.


The dynamic range of the K-5 IIs at ISO 200 is 12.62 eV versus 11.85 eV. Tonal range at the same ISO is 8.03 bits vs 7.66, and colour sensitivity is 21.2 bits vs 19.9.


https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-II-versus-Pe...IIs___1026_830

[Fogel70]

Definitely not.


When DxoMark measured the SNR at, for instance, ISO3200, the K-5 IIs has 24.5dB, the K-3 II only 21.5dB.


The dynamic range of the K-5 IIs at ISO 200 is 12.62 eV versus 11.85 eV. Tonal range at the same ISO is 8.03 bits vs 7.66, and colour sensitivity is 21.2 bits vs 19.9.


https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-II-versus-Pe...IIs___1026_830

Oh no, not this again!

You still do not seem to understand the difference between pixel level noise and image level noise.
You are still looking at the "screen" graph on dxomark which compare noise at pixel level. As K3II has smaller pixels the comparison of DR and SNR in the screen graph is of a smaller portion of the K3II sensor vs a larger portion of the K5IIs sensor.

I'm not writing this to try to convince you, as I do not think you want to know the difference. But to let others understand what you are saying.
The "print" graph compare the same area of the sensor on both and show that they perform similar.

Below images illustrate the difference, but as dpreview do not have any K5 in their studio shot database so I used K50 instead.