[antoniominturnino]

Hi all,
I've an Pentax K-3 and usually I shot to max Iso800 to limit the luminance noise.
I ask to the Pentax KP and K-3 (both) owners if the Pentax KP at ISO 800/1600 has less noise respect/than K-3.
Many thanks to the community.
(excuse me to my imperfect english)
Bye
Antonio

[howieb101]

The KP is approximately 1 1/2 stops better than the K3. I have a K3, KP and a K1. My current favourite is the KP. It's that good.

[Caribe]

The K3 is a great camera. But for 90% of the time I'm using the KP. Better IQ and less weight makes it more enjoyable for me. Try to test drive one if possible because they have significant ergonomic and style differences.

[microlight]

If you’re shooting JPG and not post-processing RAWs, then in-camera noise reduction is of course important. If you’re shooting RAW then good technique with Photoshop/Camera Raw or equivalent software will allow the use of ISOs a lot higher than 800 with the K-3 - I’ll happily go up to 6400 or even higher in a pinch.

[newmikey]

May I also recommend checking out the K-70? At up to ISO 6400 there's not a lot that separates it from the K-P but at a much nicer pricepoint.

[antoniominturnino]

Many thanks to the help

---------- Post added 10-10-18 at 03:59 PM ----------

just to be sure ... 1, 1/2 or 1 and 1/2 stop?
Can do you indicate me some web site where explain this advantage of 1 stop or more?
Thanks

---------- Post added 10-10-18 at 04:03 PM ----------

The KP is approximately 1 1/2 stops better than the K3. I have a K3, KP and a K1. My current favourite is the KP. It's that good.

Excuse me I've posted in wrong posizion without -quote your post-
just to be sure ... 1, 1/2 or 1 and 1/2 stop?
Can do you indicate me some web site where explain this advantage of 1 stop or more?
Thanks

[normhead]

Go to this page compare images at different ISO's. You can see for yourself.
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ? Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

Ai 5120 K-3 then KP


More resolution, K-3, less noise, KP. You pays your money and you takes your pick.

I'd be interested in someone downloading the raws and showing us that they can do as good with software as the KP does. The raws are downloadable. It should be a snap, if it's true.

[howieb101]

just to be sure ... 1, 1/2 or 1 and 1/2 stop?
Can do you indicate me some web site where explain this advantage of 1 stop or more?
Thanks

1.5 stops. This is from my real life experience rather than DXO or some technical measurement.

Your tolerance to noise seems a bit different to mine but with the K3 I could use iso 4000 in a pinch, really iso 3200 was my maximum. On the KP in auto iso I am willing to use iso 10,000. From iso 4000 that's 1.5 stops improvement. This is of course subjective and your mileage will vary. In fact in dim light I'm just as likely to use my KP as the K1 as I much prefer the size and weight of the KP.

[microlight]

Here's an example from the link that you posted above, Norm. (Incidentally, the originals posted on the site seem to be JPGs not RAWs.) Anywho, here's a direct comparison at ISO6400, which is as high as I would go under normal circumstances - I've limited my auto ISO range in TAv to 12800.
Comparison at ISO6400, K-3II on the left and KP on the right. Not a world of difference.


Then after a smidge of PP work in ACR; again, K-3II on the left.


The real test is in the field, so I'll post a couple taken on the Otago peninsula in New Zealand this year, and as these were at around 8.30pm, I went higher than I would normally go:

Just before he charged me! K-3II/55-300PLM at 70mm, TAv f6.3, 1/640 second, ISO 8000


Moulting yellow-eyed penguin, not amused. PLM at 300mm, TAv f6.3, 1/640 ISO 12800:

[normhead]

Here's an example from the link that you posted above, Norm. (Incidentally, the originals posted on the site seem to be JPGs not RAWs.) Anywho, here's a direct comparison at ISO6400, which is as high as I would go under normal circumstances - I've limited my auto ISO range in TAv to 12800.
Comparison at ISO6400, K-3II on the left and KP on the right. Not a world of difference.


Then after a smidge of PP work in ACR; again, K-3II on the left.


The real test is in the field, so I'll post a couple taken on the Otago peninsula in New Zealand this year, and as these were at around 8.30pm, I went higher than I would normally go:

Just before he charged me! K-3II/55-300PLM at 70mm, TAv f6.3, 1/640 second, ISO 8000


Moulting yellow-eyed penguin, not amused. PLM at 300mm, TAv f6.3, 1/640 ISO 12800:

Well we got you pointed in the right direction,, that's the main thing. Good to see you making use of it. I'm not even going to contemplate the amount of time I've spent on those pages. Not so much recently, but whenever I'm looking for a new camera. Some people want to quote stats, I need to see the images.

Kengoh who is the premier bird photographer (IMHO) often shoots the background at low ISO and the birds at high ISO then pastes the bird onto the clean back ground. Noise on the birds is often hidden by feather detail etc. and you definitely get more detail without noise reduction. So the K-P would eliminate that workflow and possibly lead to less interesting images. This is a decision that needs to be considered in terms of shooting style. If you're going to do noise reduction in any case, you might as well go with a KP. Personally I try and shoot at ISOs where noise reduction isn't necessary. 400-800 if possible. As soon as you get into noise reduction, you lose detail whether or not it's inside the camera.

[microlight]

Detail vs noise has always been a balance, and there’s no doubt that lower ISO is the way to go whenever you can - but sometimes it’s not possible, and I’d rather shoot at high ISO and rescue it rather than have no photo, especially when PP can be effective. Remember the days when pushing an ASA400 film to ASA1600 was at the hairy edge! We don’t know we’re born these days.

Pasting a high ISO bird onto a low ISO background is surely not reducing the workload, but just shifting the workflow in a different direction!

[normhead]

Detail vs noise has always been a balance, and there’s no doubt that lower ISO is the way to go whenever you can - but sometimes it’s not possible, and I’d rather shoot at high ISO and rescue it rather than have no photo, especially when PP can be effective. Remember the days when pushing an ASA400 film to ASA1600 was at the hairy edge! We don’t know we’re born these days.

Pasting a high ISO bird onto a low ISO background is surely not reducing the workload, but just shifting the workflow in a different direction!

But, it produces a better result. Having the camera do in camera noise reduction reduces overall IQ in this case.

One of Ken Goh's images. I never argue with this type of result. But if you want to tell Ken he should do it some other way.... I myself don't work as hard as he does. But that doesn't mean I won't want to try it someday, and I'd like a camera that will let me experiment with that technique. A KP or K-70 takes that away from you. Photographers without similar concerns, which I suspect is 99.9% of the shooting population, won't have that kind of concern. They just want the best off camera shots for what they do. You can argue you can do it in PP< but do you really want to, if you can get it right, straight off the camera.

[microlight]

Wow. I wouldn’t presume to tell Ken anything; this image says it all.

Getting images straight out of the camera is certainly one way of doing it, but doing stuff in post that it would be difficult to achieve at the time adds to the photographic fun, certainly for me. Otherwise it could be like shooting Polaroids back in the film days; there’s your photo, warts and all, and nothing further you can do about it. 😜

[antoniominturnino]

I want to thank everyone for the precious help you have given me. I also thought not to change the camera and invest the difference in price for the transition from K-3 to K-P in brighter lenses, trying, therefore, to work at low Iso.
Thanks again and have a nice day.
Antonio from Italy

[mikesbike]

Wow. I wouldn’t presume to tell Ken anything; this image says it all.

Getting images straight out of the camera is certainly one way of doing it, but doing stuff in post that it would be difficult to achieve at the time adds to the photographic fun, certainly for me. Otherwise it could be like shooting Polaroids back in the film days; there’s your photo, warts and all, and nothing further you can do about it. ��

It depends also on one's idea of fun. In shooting film, I did not do my own darkroom work. Rather than such a setup, I prefer to use a good film processing outfit. I am into other hobbies that also take up my time.

So I shoot RAW+JPEG only when I am extra-picky about certain images, especially when there is an extra-high contrast situation also. Then I save the RAW file as a TIFF instead of JPEG. If the camera can usually deliver as good visually as I can generally manage with RAW (or better!) I'll take it! The KP I have found is exceptionally good at delivering outstanding JPEG results. Also, there is some very good software out there which has been shown good for noise reduction, even for JPEG images. I have done other post-process work with JPEG images on occasion. JPEGa have less latitude for correction than RAW, but if the image is not that far off it works fine.

The K-3, however, is a very fine camera. It has a great set of controls, and handles well. I like my KP for its more slim, compact design, especially for carrying with smaller lenses, along with its exceptional low light/higher ISO performance. But I also keep my older K-5 IIs for the same advantages as the K-3, since it has a similar set of controls, handling with larger lenses, etc. Not that the KP is bad in these regards, but just not quite as good. The KP's controls, however, along with its build quality, are much better than that of the K-S-2 or the K-70.