[Wingincamera]

I am asking if anyone has moved from the K-S2 to the KP and can comment about ISO advantages. I know the KP has much higher ISO numbers, but for usable settings, how higher can the stops go above the K-S2 for low light photography? I have seen different reviews for comparison of the two cameras with high ISO's but the photos are different in each camera test. It appears the KP is maybe only one step higher, I am hoping for more.

[Adam]

I'd expect about a stop. That's essentially the advantage between the K-3 and KP. But since the latter 2 also have 14 bit RAW, there's more data to work with in edge scenarios. Certainly an upgrade in the image quality department. If you want more, there's always FF

[mikesbike]

I also have the nice little K-S2, which performs quite well at higher ISO. The KP runs with it close to the same, from what I've seen, to around ISO 6400, where the KP is just slightly better in detail preservation with very good noise control. Beyond that, the KP is definitely better.

Check the images on Imaging Resource. They haven't yet completed all their test shots with the KP, or their full review. But the most important still-life test shots are done. Go to "compare images" on their home page or include "comparameter" in your google search to perhaps get that page right away. From the first column, select your Pentax K-S2, and from the 2nd column select the KP. In the K-S2 column you'll have to scroll down to the still-life section. Select the same ISO for each camera with this image. After each ISO image comes up, click again on each to get the blowup. You can move the images around to get to the same spot. The lighting is not exactly identical, so just check shadowed areas where the darkness is about the same to compare the degree of noise. The noise grains may be a little larger with the KP because the image is a bit larger due to its 24mp vs 20mp. Also check for loss of fine detail and loss of edge sharpness due to noise and noise suppression. For this, compare the fiddler image on the fiddler ale bottle, the Greek figure on the Hellas wine vinegar bottle, and the writing on the Samuel Adams beer bottle, as well as the edges of bottles, etc. You will see a difference at ISO 6400, and large differences at ISO 12800 and 25600.

These are JPEG images right out of the cameras at default settings. Noise could be further reduced by running images through programs like neat image 8 with little or no further detail loss, but any detail already lost is not recovered. If you want to compare other camera models with your K-S2 that have been discontinued, you must select "all cameras"at the top of that column.

[Wingincamera]

Thank you for the information. Now I have to determine for myself if it's worth the cost if I move to the KP. I like my K-S2, there are a few more advantages with the KP (more resolution, 14 bit file and more controls) but my main focus is interior low light situations where using flash is not possible.
Decision, decisions.

[mikesbike]

I will be keeping my little K-S2, for its smaller size when I need that, general snap shots at parties, etc. and its fully articulating screen which can be very useful at times. Also the fact I got such a capable, well-built camera at such a reasonable price! With a small Ltd prime or even with the little kit lens I bought with it (for about $30!) I can actually fit it into an extra-large jacket pocket!

Although they are just fine used with the KS2, your excellent, superbly-made Limited lenses would simply be more at home on a compact, advanced, superbly-made body! The KP was designed with this in mind. I like my Limiteds on my K-S2 for the extra compactness when I need that, but they are definitely a better quality match on my K-5 IIs, where I often use them.

I plan to buy the KP as well, mainly for the low light reason you bring up, but also as a serious advanced compact camera for trekking or biking about (although the K-S2 does well there too). It is only about 1 ounce more than the K-S2, though of slightly larger dimensions. I often do after-sunset shots where low light performance is quite important, and the more demanding subject matter is likely to benefit from the extra high quality low noise performance. I also often do indoor lighting event shots.

Actually, even at ISO 3200 the KP is a little cleaner for those shots where getting the best quality quickly is needed. You can see it in the color chart shown in the still-life scene. For most uses and viewing with a moderate-size device or print, that difference may not be easily noticeable, but when needing to get very high quality quickly, it's another matter. One more advantage the KP offers is a much quieter shutter, which can be important during certain indoor events, and other conditions where a distracting "click" is best avoided.

[mikesbike]

Whether using the K-S2, the KP, or another Pentax DSLR, best results will be achieved by setting to "fine" sharpening in the custom image modes (but not in the "portrait" category), especially when shooting JPEGs.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I don't have a K-S2 nor a KP, but I have played with a few high ISO RAW files from both of those cameras in RawTherapee. Having said that, if I were to own a K-S2, I'd set the auto ISO from 100 to 6400 & use up to ISO 12800 in a pinch. With the KP, I'd set the auto ISO from 100 to 25600 & use 51200 in a pinch. It's that good. I haven't compared OOC jpeg quality, though, but I'm fairly certain that the KP does a lot better in that respect too.