K-3 Mark III -- Images across the full range of ISO settings

**c.a.m** · 04-18-2021, 12:18 PM - **1 Like**

Here's a recent video that walks through a series of night-time shots taken across the full range of ISO settings. Also shows some comparisons to the K-1 II at identical ISO settings.

The author is Shinichi Hanawa, one of the Ambassadors featured in the K-3 Mark III 'Impressions' series.

From the author (translated): We checked the image quality of the soon-to-be-released Pentax K-3 Mark III DSLR camera. In this article, we explain the high-sensitivity image quality, color reproduction, and resolution.

- Craig

You Tube

Last edited by c.a.m; 04-18-2021 at 12:26 PM.

gatorguy · 04-18-2021, 12:33 PM

Even 51200 looks usable, and with the noise reduction software available now from DxO and Topaz I think in a pinch I'd be pretty comfortable pushing it that far.

I'm impressed.

**robbiec** · 04-18-2021, 01:49 PM

Looks impressive, might be a couple of stops over the K-3.

**Belnan** · 04-18-2021, 04:15 PM

Looks very good, to me the K1 mark ii looks better at 12800 still. That's to be expected but I was just watching on my phone.

SimplyCreativePhotography · 04-18-2021, 05:21 PM - **1 Like**

I must admit that after watching all of these Japanese reviews, I'm starting to understand bit and pieces of the language. (like when he says "Mark 3") But the pictures are worth 1,000 words. Thanks for sharing.

JTninja · 04-18-2021, 05:21 PM

Looking forward to being able to use over 3200 in low light conditions and still have good shots.

mtkeller · 04-18-2021, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Belnan

Looks very good, to me the K1 mark ii looks better at 12800 still. That's to be expected but I was just watching on my phone.

I watched on my iPad this morning, and the thing that I was struggling with was that the exposure between the K-3 iii and the K-1 ii kept appearing different to me, with the K-3 iii being the one that was brighter. I don't have full frame, and I don't want full frame, so comparisons to the K-1 ii don't mean a lot to me. What I can tell is that it's going to be very, very good through 6400, 12800 is going to be often usable, and 25600 will be passable when I really need to get a shot. Also, the 1.6M image is completely laughably useless. But hey, why not?

robjmitchell · 04-18-2021, 08:15 PM

Slightly better than my K3

gatorguy · 04-19-2021, 06:38 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Ofer Hadas

Impressive low light images - After SO many years with Pentax - Real straggle - staying with "Old" technology of DSLR or Start all over again and move to mirrorless

if the "new" technology doesn't do anything more for you than the "old" why bother, Just because it's new?

For me personally the low light capabilities of the K3 III along with the bright and large VF and new focus modes and abilities pretty much negates any benefit I'd see from changing to "new" , but would introduce a whole batch of negative's. I'd never be able to replace my carefully purchased selection of excellent Pentax glass at anywhere close to what I've invested already. I'd still need to carry two camera's, so either keeping Pentax and adding another brand or buying two completely new cameras and an entire range of lenses to go along with them. Plus various accessories. And still won't be as comfortable to use as my Pentax's.

Without some good reason to swap to something else, and an economically viable one, I don't see myself ditching Pentax, Particularly now with the huge jump in DSLR tech the K3 III appears to be bringing to the brand.

**c.a.m** · 04-19-2021, 06:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mtkeller

What I can tell is that it's going to be very, very good through 6400, 12800 is going to be often usable, and 25600 will be passable when I really need to get a shot.

This is my impression also. With my K-3 II, I'm comfortable with ISO settings to about 2000, and can produce good results at ISO 3200 with some careful post processing in RawTherapee. I'm expecting very good results from the K-3 Mark III up to ISO 6400 and perhaps 12800. That's at least 2 stops advantage over the K-3 II.

- Craig

mtkeller · 04-19-2021, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by c.a.m

This is my impression also. With my K-3 II, I'm comfortable with ISO settings to about 2000, and can produce good results at ISO 3200 with some careful post processing in RawTherapee. I'm expecting very good results from the K-3 Mark III up to ISO 6400 and perhaps 12800. That's at least 2 stops advantage over the K-3 II.

- Craig

With the K-70, I don't think twice about going up to 3200. 6400 is fine almost always (although the scene does sometimes mean it's going to take extra work in post). Looking forward to doing my own stress tests on the K-3 iii when it arrives, since what each of us can handle depends on our shooting style to great extent.

Ishpuini · 04-19-2021, 08:13 AM

Not sure I understood from reading the autotranslated subtitles, and not sure YouTube shows all the noise in the images even full screen.

But I seem to understand Shinichi Hanawa saying that he considers ISO1600 to be the highest noise free ISO and noise only becomes visible from ISO3200? Or was there another reason for him to mention ISO1600 as a basic reference so many times?

Wim

cgchang · 04-19-2021, 01:02 PM

I wonder what the high ISO noise reduction settings were.

mtkeller · 04-19-2021, 01:40 PM

Hadn't even realized that those were JPEGs.

gatorguy · 04-19-2021, 03:13 PM

I very seriously believe that in a pinch I can capture usable RAW images in a club or concert setting at 51200 based on those initial samples. Noise reduction software has become that good and the low-light K3 III photos themselves are relatively (!) clean already at those high ISO's. Jonesing to try it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What to expect from K3 iii and various processing programs?	Paul the Sunman	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	17	04-06-2021 08:22 PM
Live view (HDMI out) ISO to bypass Video ISO limitations?	someasiancameraguy	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	7	10-25-2020 08:48 AM
Mark I vs Mark II ISO Comparison Plus Files	SirTomster	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	64	07-31-2018 01:06 PM
Sony A7s vs Canon 5D Mark III at ISO 25600	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	06-05-2014 06:02 AM
5D Mark III vs GH2 vs NEX 7 in video mode	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	04-03-2012 06:02 AM

04-18-2021, 12:33 PM	#2
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,094	Even 51200 looks usable, and with the noise reduction software available now from DxO and Topaz I think in a pinch I'd be pretty comfortable pushing it that far. I'm impressed.

04-18-2021, 01:49 PM	#3
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	Looks impressive, might be a couple of stops over the K-3.

04-18-2021, 04:15 PM	#4
Belnan Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,090	Looks very good, to me the K1 mark ii looks better at 12800 still. That's to be expected but I was just watching on my phone.

04-18-2021, 05:21 PM - 1 Like	#5
SimplyCreativePhotography Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Drayton, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 264	I must admit that after watching all of these Japanese reviews, I'm starting to understand bit and pieces of the language. (like when he says "Mark 3") But the pictures are worth 1,000 words. Thanks for sharing.

04-18-2021, 05:21 PM	#6
JTninja Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 176	Looking forward to being able to use over 3200 in low light conditions and still have good shots.

04-18-2021, 06:37 PM	#7
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	Originally posted by Belnan Looks very good, to me the K1 mark ii looks better at 12800 still. That's to be expected but I was just watching on my phone. I watched on my iPad this morning, and the thing that I was struggling with was that the exposure between the K-3 iii and the K-1 ii kept appearing different to me, with the K-3 iii being the one that was brighter. I don't have full frame, and I don't want full frame, so comparisons to the K-1 ii don't mean a lot to me. What I can tell is that it's going to be very, very good through 6400, 12800 is going to be often usable, and 25600 will be passable when I really need to get a shot. Also, the 1.6M image is completely laughably useless. But hey, why not?

04-18-2021, 08:15 PM	#8
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Slightly better than my K3

04-19-2021, 06:38 AM - 2 Likes	#9
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,094	Originally posted by Ofer Hadas Impressive low light images - After SO many years with Pentax - Real straggle - staying with "Old" technology of DSLR or Start all over again and move to mirrorless if the "new" technology doesn't do anything more for you than the "old" why bother, Just because it's new? For me personally the low light capabilities of the K3 III along with the bright and large VF and new focus modes and abilities pretty much negates any benefit I'd see from changing to "new" , but would introduce a whole batch of negative's. I'd never be able to replace my carefully purchased selection of excellent Pentax glass at anywhere close to what I've invested already. I'd still need to carry two camera's, so either keeping Pentax and adding another brand or buying two completely new cameras and an entire range of lenses to go along with them. Plus various accessories. And still won't be as comfortable to use as my Pentax's. Without some good reason to swap to something else, and an economically viable one, I don't see myself ditching Pentax, Particularly now with the huge jump in DSLR tech the K3 III appears to be bringing to the brand.

04-19-2021, 06:45 AM - 1 Like	#10
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,193 Original Poster	Originally posted by mtkeller What I can tell is that it's going to be very, very good through 6400, 12800 is going to be often usable, and 25600 will be passable when I really need to get a shot. This is my impression also. With my K-3 II, I'm comfortable with ISO settings to about 2000, and can produce good results at ISO 3200 with some careful post processing in RawTherapee. I'm expecting very good results from the K-3 Mark III up to ISO 6400 and perhaps 12800. That's at least 2 stops advantage over the K-3 II. - Craig

04-19-2021, 07:07 AM	#11
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	Originally posted by c.a.m This is my impression also. With my K-3 II, I'm comfortable with ISO settings to about 2000, and can produce good results at ISO 3200 with some careful post processing in RawTherapee. I'm expecting very good results from the K-3 Mark III up to ISO 6400 and perhaps 12800. That's at least 2 stops advantage over the K-3 II. - Craig With the K-70, I don't think twice about going up to 3200. 6400 is fine almost always (although the scene does sometimes mean it's going to take extra work in post). Looking forward to doing my own stress tests on the K-3 iii when it arrives, since what each of us can handle depends on our shooting style to great extent.

04-19-2021, 08:13 AM	#12
Ishpuini Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Antwerp, Belgium Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,727	Not sure I understood from reading the autotranslated subtitles, and not sure YouTube shows all the noise in the images even full screen. But I seem to understand Shinichi Hanawa saying that he considers ISO1600 to be the highest noise free ISO and noise only becomes visible from ISO3200? Or was there another reason for him to mention ISO1600 as a basic reference so many times? Wim

04-19-2021, 01:02 PM	#13
cgchang Senior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Delta, British Columbia Posts: 148	I wonder what the high ISO noise reduction settings were.

04-19-2021, 01:40 PM	#14
mtkeller Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Location: Sioux City, IA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	Hadn't even realized that those were JPEGs.

04-19-2021, 03:13 PM	#15
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,094	I very seriously believe that in a pinch I can capture usable RAW images in a club or concert setting at 51200 based on those initial samples. Noise reduction software has become that good and the low-light K3 III photos themselves are relatively (!) clean already at those high ISO's. Jonesing to try it.