Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-29-2017, 10:46 AM - 1 Like   #46
Pentaxian
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,066
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
even though I have never used such high ISOs and have no intention of ever doing so
Some of us do.
Here's 12800 with my KP.


03-29-2017, 11:10 AM   #47
Pentaxian
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,806
To me at least, the KP looks like my next upgrade coming from the K-5 IIs which is nearing the 4 year mark and 40K clicks(even though I had been eyeing the K-70). Just out of curiosity, I downloaded the raw files off the Dpreview test for the K-3 II, K-70 and KP and performed the totally unscientific and ridiculous test. As all three of these cameras have the same resolution and all three have testfiles available of the same scene under identical lighting, the simple filesize says something about the amount of noise due to the fact jpeg compression works the way it does.

I did this once on a simple straightforward DT conversion with minimal noise reduction applied and repeated this after having run all 9 files through NeatImage, allowing NI to profile the noise in each image individually. The outcome is below.

RAWs converted to jpeg:
[mike@MikeArch darktable_exported]$ ls -lh *dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 27M mrt 29 19:00 IMGP0290-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 25M mrt 29 19:01 IMGP0293-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 27M mrt 29 19:01 IMGP0296-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 21M mrt 29 18:53 IMGP0759-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 33M mrt 29 18:54 IMGP0763-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 44M mrt 29 18:55 IMGP0768-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 25M mrt 29 18:56 IMGP1372-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 38M mrt 29 18:56 IMGP1376-dt.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 47M mrt 29 18:57 IMGP1380-dt.jpg

JPEGs obtained above out of Neatimage:
[mike@MikeArch darktable_exported]$ ls -lh *dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 19M mrt 29 19:00 IMGP0290-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 17M mrt 29 19:01 IMGP0293-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 18M mrt 29 19:01 IMGP0296-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 19M mrt 29 18:53 IMGP0759-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 26M mrt 29 18:54 IMGP0763-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 37M mrt 29 18:55 IMGP0768-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 18M mrt 29 18:56 IMGP1372-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 26M mrt 29 18:56 IMGP1376-dt_filtered8.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 34M mrt 29 18:57 IMGP1380-dt_filtered8.jpg


The IMGP0290-6 files are K-3 II, the IMGP0759-68 are KP files and the IMGP1372-80 came of the K-70

Again I say, this has nothing to do with being scientific but what I can say is that the KP files are noticeable less noisy straight out of the raw conversion. Seeing the slight reversion in the NI-treated files I did take a look at the images in great detail and simply noticed that noise levels after profiled noise reduction are almost equal between the K-70 and KP but the KP files simply retained more detail and more color.

Do with the info what you will, reject it, ridicule it or accept it. My subjective feeling is that the KP is a huge step forward but the objective figures seem to support that. After noise-reduction, I suppose the objectivity is no longer there and I need to rely on my eyes and they say the same as the figures on the straight jpeg output seem to suggest.

Different from others, I do indeed have a use for output up to ISO25600 at times where now I am limited to around ISO8000 so to me there is a clear benefit but as to the rest: YMMV!
03-29-2017, 04:54 PM - 1 Like   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,994
This KP review represents the quickest response I have ever seen by dpreview for any Pentax product, even faster then that of the K-10D, which was a breakthrough for Pentax. After only 1 month on store shelves and already their full review? They obviously found the unique design and niche of the KP to be of special intrigue. It has indeed attracted a lot of attention. They have often simply ignored a new Pentax model as they did the K-S2, giving it only the preliminary overview, no full review, even though it was the first Pentax with an articulating screen, was increased to 20mp from 16, had weather sealing with a 100% view glass pentaprism VF, and 2-dial operation in a relatively compact well-made body, still at entry-level price point. But it was just a Pentax, so why bother. Maybe the Pentax status was elevated after the K-1 FF model came out, so the K-70 was given better treatment.

I think this dpreview review is overall a very good one in favor of the KP. It is with some grain of salt to be taken when it comes to certain negative findings, as it was with The Camera Shop's review. Their job is to give a potential buyer a heads-up for possible shortcomings when they find any, so there are no unpleasant surprises, but sometimes they overdo it a bit. And reviews themselves contradict one another. The Camera Shop didn't like the KP's grip and handling at all, so much so they recommended the K-70 over it. But dpreview gave the KP very high marks for ergonomics and handling. They praised the grip, the 3-grip concept, having an optional high-capacity battery grip available, and referred to its unique controls as "brilliant". I felt in view of such exceptional findings, and in other areas as well, the rating could have made 1 more point for gold.

Other reviews I have seen did acknowledge the AF tracking and the video performance to be somewhat beneath the best out there, but as still being useful and usable, which many of us have found to be very true, then went on to acknowledge the KP's excellent performance in other areas, its unique and outstanding design, its outstanding features and value. I think if they'd had a more comprehensive set of AF tests, this would have also been the case with dpreview.

I agree, their tests used to be more in-depth and more revealing in some respects. But that did require more of their time and resources. Some of their other findings leave questions. For instance, one of the categories they give a grade for is "metering and focus accuracy" but those are actually two very different aspects of function! And the AF should itself be broken down into speed and accuracy. Tracking accuracy should be differentiated from non-tracking accuracy. I rarely shoot in burst mode, for instance, but I am otherwise interested in accurate AF in my use of it. It should also be taken into account that Pentax offers AF fine adjustment for individual lenses in their cameras, where other brands do not- at least at the same price point. Popular Photography announced about a year ago they stopped their testing of AF speed per se (not tracking), because they found at the present state of development, since all brands have now come within a tiny fraction of a second of each other, the testing has become, for all practical purposes, meaningless.

What does dpreview's grading category "performance" really mean in the real world? For me, when I am shooting in Program mode with the Pentax Hyper System I can grab a different shutter speed or a different aperture on the fly without having to change the mode dial or take my eye from the viewfinder. That might well allow me to get a shot another brand camera would have missed. To me, that is a real plus for "performance", but that is not tested for. So in my case, the Pentax Hyper System definitely has more meaning in terms of "performance". The well-regarded KP's unique control layout should also contribute to "performance".

Of course, all grades in all categories would have to be with the cameras at default. So if their recommendation regarding sharpness settings, +1 and "fine" setting for JPEGs were to be implemented, the grade for JPEG image quality would be higher also. As to the prices given, I believe the KP was first announced at $1,199 USD, but soon it was dropped by $100 to $1,099. Most of their top APS-C models have been introduced at around $1,200-$1,500 USD. the actual cost of manufacturing the KP with its extra controls, tilt LCD screen, and multi-grip alternatives, might be close to that of a K-3 or K-3 II for all I know. The reason for the current price drop of the K-3 II is its being an outgoing model, to clear stock for the next replacement.

The design intent of the KP, we should keep in mind, is for an APS-C DSLR, of very high quality construction and as the centerpiece of a high-quality small lens kit for light-carrying by serious photographers doing a lot of trekking. At the same time, being expandable to accommodate larger lenses for other uses, and to provide image quality fairly close to that expected in a full-frame DSLR, but in a compact, high-quality APS-C body at a comparatively moderate price, and also offering an innovative control set. To be sure, an ambitious undertaking- and it looks like they have succeeded!

Last edited by mikesbike; 03-29-2017 at 08:31 PM.
03-30-2017, 12:32 AM - 1 Like   #49
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,360
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
This KP review represents the quickest response I have ever seen by dpreview for any Pentax product, even faster then that of the K-10D, which was a breakthrough for Pentax. After only 1 month on store shelves and already their full review? They obviously found the unique design and niche of the KP to be of special intrigue. It has indeed attracted a lot of attention. They have often simply ignored a new Pentax model as they did the K-S2, giving it only the preliminary overview, no full review, even though it was the first Pentax with an articulating screen, was increased to 20mp from 16, had weather sealing with a 100% view glass pentaprism VF, and 2-dial operation in a relatively compact well-made body, still at entry-level price point. But it was just a Pentax, so why bother. Maybe the Pentax status was elevated after the K-1 FF model came out, so the K-70 was given better treatment.

I think this dpreview review is overall a very good one in favor of the KP. It is with some grain of salt to be taken when it comes to certain negative findings, as it was with The Camera Shop's review. Their job is to give a potential buyer a heads-up for possible shortcomings when they find any, so there are no unpleasant surprises, but sometimes they overdo it a bit. And reviews themselves contradict one another. The Camera Shop didn't like the KP's grip and handling at all, so much so they recommended the K-70 over it. But dpreview gave the KP very high marks for ergonomics and handling. They praised the grip, the 3-grip concept, having an optional high-capacity battery grip available, and referred to its unique controls as "brilliant". I felt in view of such exceptional findings, and in other areas as well, the rating could have made 1 more point for gold.

... [snip] ...
Great overview. I agree.

Any review is a crude instrument. Compare a one-page book review to the complete novel. You aren't going to get more than a short overview with a general sense of the novel's place in the larger order of things and a pretty brief look at its competency and handling of character, plot and description. And that's if the reviewer knows their trade, of course. On the internet this has been muddied a great deal by the term "review" being used being used for what are no more than run-through's of the manufacturer's spec sheets with little sense the item has been handled or tested at all. In some cases, the item probably never came out of its box. Or the whole thing is a "Rockwell" - a cut-and-paste job from a previous or similar item offered by the same manufacturer. This is the review co-opted as advertising, especially when the manufacturer supplies a free loaner but with be-nice strings attached. I think we generally expect far too much from reviews. And with something as complex as a modern camera, it is almost impossible to cover every nuance in a short space of time. Probably long-term tests by a fully experienced photographer are the better way but they don't sell advertising on websites or pay the bills because everyone wants the skinny now. I think DPR generally do a good job with their equipment reviews. One can argue over details and no one always gets it right, but usually DPR are broadly on target.

Some of the points you make could be remedied if Pentax offered website tutorials on things like the best AF settings for various scenarios or how to vary jpeg settings depending on the effect you want. It's a great pity that they don't (or if they do I have yet to find them).


Last edited by mecrox; 03-30-2017 at 01:48 AM.
03-30-2017, 05:25 AM - 1 Like   #50
Pentaxian
robtcorl's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,066
There is a new KP review on Amazon by a fellow Pentaxian.
The reviewer has owned several top of the line Pentax DSLR cameras and gives high praise to the AF, better high ISO performance, IQ, and other features.
Worth a read for potential KP buyers.
03-30-2017, 05:51 AM   #51
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,658
QuoteOriginally posted by solar1 Quote
I don't agree. There are many times Pentax cameras either freeze or simply miss focus.
I don't see posters showing a simple bike riding weaving back and forth setup going toward the lens on either PF or DPR using similar tests.

Other brand cameras can do the very same test without a hitch
How do you know this.

Ian Forsythe our favourite forum Nikon shooter and I once go into a huge "discussion" about this where we both ran out and shot images of our dogs running at us. I don't remember what his keeper rate was but he may not have missed and images, it was a very good keeper rate. I had 100% keepers until the dog started getting close to the camera, then theAF motor couldn't keep up. So just as a guess, he had 9/10 in focus, I had maybe 6/10, 6/6 at distance.

So to me, posts like this are nonsense. I'm sure the Nikon lens is faster focusing, I don't think Pentax has paid a lot of attention to the focussing speed of their lenses before the 18-135 with the first DC motor. Since then, everything is faster. So, I'd dispute this nonsense. Show us the side by side tests demonstrating some actual facts. What cameras were used in your tests, how were they set up? How many trials, what success rate? Then you have some numbers.

There is simply no camera that can even nail focus every time on a bench using a stationary target. You claim there are other cameras that can nail focus every time on a moving target.

Your post can be disproved in so many different ways, I have to assume you have zero experience in such things.

Either that or you are admitting on a public forum for 60,000 people that you can't do what others do on a regular basis.

Last edited by normhead; 03-30-2017 at 05:56 AM.
03-30-2017, 06:38 AM - 1 Like   #52
bxf
Pentaxian
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,358
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
The camera appears to be taking photos upside down, though. Surely that's a negative point against the KP?!
Yes, perhaps, but easily corrected in post...
03-30-2017, 07:21 PM   #53
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,070
QuoteOriginally posted by deadcandance Quote
Yes. As for me, I use ISO80-400, not above, but 80% of photos are ISO80-200.
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Well, up early this morning and it looks as if it will be a lovely day. Here's an idea, I'm going to spend today with my magnifying glass seeing which camera offers slightly less blotchines at very high ISOs even though I have never used such high ISOs and have no intention of ever doing so ......
Before I got my K-30, I never shot above 400, because the aged Canon Rebel I was using just wasn't up to it. In recent months I been somewhat involved in Rupert's squirrel thread; taking pictures in their native habitat often forces me into ISO values of 1600 or even 3200, and my K-30 struggles. I'm guessing if I had a camera that did well at even higher ISO settings, I would see new opportunities that I've implicitly ignored simply because I knew it was hopeless.

And, then we come to indoor sports. Every January, the photo discussion sites where I'm a regular get several posts from family asking how to take a picture of indoor high school basketball / volleyball, and every year people go away sad because they aren't willing to buy a $$$$ constant f/2.8 long lens for that purpose only. I am quite certain that cameras like the K-70 are going to open lots of opportunities in these areas very soon.

03-30-2017, 10:46 PM   #54
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,980
Though I haven't read the full review yet, I've been through most of it and am very happy to see that DPR's cherished "The Pentax XX is only worth buying if you're an existing Pentax user" statement has finally disappeared from their reviews.

This kind of statement was present in their Pentax reviews for many years and they were always completely unable to back it up, it was a product of simple anti-Pentax bias.
03-31-2017, 02:45 AM - 2 Likes   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
rod_grant's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wangaratta, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,954
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
The camera appears to be taking photos upside down, though. Surely that's a negative point against the KP?!
Obviously, apete got the model that was made for the Australian market.
03-31-2017, 06:15 AM   #56
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,658
SInce I acquired my K-1 and can now take advantage of ISO's up to 3200 without worry, I've taken 99 keepers, 2500 ISO and above, out of 7300 keepers. That is .013%. And while I kept the photos, the loss of dynamic range and resolution means none will ever be printed, except of maybe one or two of a fireworks display. As I always suspected before I got my K-1, high ISO performance is one of those things like fast AF that people claim is essential, but is actually insignificant. After one of the threads the other day, I also thought, in my 60 years of photography, I have never once taken an image of a bicycle coming straight at me but weaving back and forth across the road. How a camera performs on such a test is pretty much irrelevant to me.Yet it seems to be the cause of endless discussion.

I would love to see a forum rule where people have to present the stats on the frequency at which they use these features before they start the "blah, blah blah" about how important they are.
03-31-2017, 06:36 AM   #57
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,360
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
SInce I acquired my K-1 and can now take advantage of ISO's up to 3200 without worry, I've taken 99 keepers, 2500 ISO and above, out of 7300 keepers. That is .013%. And while I kept the photos, the loss of dynamic range and resolution means none will ever be printed, except of maybe one or two of a fireworks display. As I always suspected before I got my K-1, high ISO performance is one of those things like fast AF that people claim is essential, but is actually insignificant. After one of the threads the other day, I also thought, in my 60 years of photography, I have never once taken an image of a bicycle coming straight at me but weaving back and forth across the road. How a camera performs on such a test is pretty much irrelevant to me.Yet it seems to be the cause of endless discussion.

I would love to see a forum rule where people have to present the stats on the frequency at which they use these features before they start the "blah, blah blah" about how important they are.
Yes, it's not just noise which is only one metric but DR, resolution, colour, WB and so forth. I don't think I've ever taken a pic at more than 6400 and maybe only once at that. In practice my limit is 1600 though I might go to 3200 in an emergency. I just prefer better light. Last night I was using flash at a family party indoors and getting good results at up to 1600. I wouldn't print those large in colour though they'd be fine in BW with some PP but for web use and emailing to the family the quality is first class. I'd be perfectly happy with any camera which said up to 3200 OK but after that you are in Indian country but then I am not shooting say sports in an indoor arena. I can commend using DxO Optics Pro for higher ISO images because their Prime denoising system is very good, better than LR in my view (at lower ISOs there is no difference because not enough noise to worry about). It's partly an arms race caused by marketing claims from the big companies which don't really reflect actual daily use. Once one gets to a certain level it is dancing dog syndrome or as the man said, "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." And perhaps even more surprised to find some improbably huge ISO listed as a marketing plus
03-31-2017, 07:23 AM   #58
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,658
One of my favourite high ISO images, where I didn't need dynamic range, the DR preset in the scene was somewhat restricted, I don't need a lot of resolution, I was close enough that the subject resolution wouldn't have been different even if more was present in the image. The high ISO gave me a faster shutter speed.

You can't say it's totally worthless, high ISO gets you some images different than what you might get otherwise, just IMHO, not very often.



K-1 unkown lens
3200 ISO, ƒ7.1, 1/320s
No noise reduction was applied apart from the default set by Aperture when importing.

I know this image would suffer taken with a K-3. My only question is how would it have looked taken with a KP. Although I used about an APS-c size crop with the K-1 so even if the KP matches the K-1 noise at 3200, it's still harder to get the shot you want with it. The actual focus point wa on the feeder, not the bird. The image crops out the whole left side of the frame. You need the MP and sensor size to make that a good crop, as well as the high ISO performance.

I have one shot like this out of probably 15,000 K-1 exposures, so it's kind of the exception that proves the rule. It was a total fluke. I was shooting in burst made, the AF is pointed at the feeder, the bird just happens to come into the focal plane when the shutter fired, planned loosely as a remote possibility, If someone were to say I'll give you a million bucks but I want it just like that but with the end of the wingtip in the frame, I probably wouldn't get the million bucks.

Last edited by normhead; 03-31-2017 at 08:06 AM.
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!
kp, pen-f, pentax, pentax kp, pentax kp review, photography, price, review, situations
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Pentax KP? Para que la Pentax KP? ZeaFoto Pentax KP 16 06-14-2018 08:53 AM
Wex Photography hands on review on Pentax KP superpowerpinger Pentax KP 5 03-19-2017 03:32 PM
KP Review by The Digital Story howieb101 Pentax KP 2 03-16-2017 08:48 PM
TCS TV review of Pentax KP is out paulzhere Pentax KP 4 03-12-2017 06:14 PM
Pentax KP Review from the Camera Store Saltwater Images Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-11-2017 05:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 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