[wicked1]

I posted the "focus issues " thread.
There's a 2nd issue I mentioned there, maybe you all can help figure out.
Even when focus is perfect (or, good enough for me), there still seems to be a lack of detail.
It doesn't seem to be resolution, though.. I took shots of a resolution chart, and the k3iii can see finer details than the k5iis. (On the raw, I can see lines down to 4.5 on the k3, while the k5 is just gray)



But, detail is always missing. Here are a couple 200% crops on a leaf, to show the issue. On the k5 shot, you can see veins and details on the top right side of the leaf, which just aren't there on the k3 shot. The settings are the same on the screen caps I took here (screen caps of the raw file w/out any processing in my photo editing program). I can't get that detail out of the image in PP.. It's just not there. (The image which appears less zoomed in is the k5).

I think I've seen this lack of detail in every comparison shot between the k3iii and the k5iis, as well as a few other older cameras. But I've only seen several, other than my own. What is missing here, if it's not actually the ability to pick up details? Perhaps contrast? (but like I said, turning up contrast in PP doesn't bring the missing details back).

I guess, I'm mostly wondering if this is normal for this camera. Maybe a consequence of smaller pixels on the sensor?
The k3 images here are definitely better in most ways, other than this lack of detail or contrast or color.. whatever it is...

Attached Images

   

[clackers]

You said it yourself, Wicked, the K-3 III shows more details than the K-5.

As for those two sample pictures,I can see smoothing and sharpening artefacts in both, I think it's best if you link to the two RAW images, keeping the EXIF intact.

Then I'll happily examine them for you.

[AstroDave]

Are your shots from the same distance, with the same lens? Same lighting/white balance?

Highest quality JPEG? or RAW, but processed the same way?

Any in-camera processing? such as "custom image"

Image stabilization as appropriate? Or, a good solid tripod?

The K-3 III has 1.26 times as many pixels in X or Y as the K-5.

[wicked1]

In this case, both handheld, same lens, same distance, same white balance (well, auto..). It's the raw DNG, so I don't think any in camera processing.
I opened the raw file RawTherapee (I'm on linux), w/ the only setting applied being the color profile.. No smoothing or sharpening as Clackers thinks. Every setting has a 'power button' in this program, and the only one enabled is color. I'll post the raw files later, though. (If the program is still applying some sort of smoothing or something, it's not something I can control)
But it doesn't matter.. None of these fine details matter. I can have a blurry image w/ bad light from the k5, and still, you can see more texture detail. In every situation, you can see more texture detail. I don't need a lab quality demonstration to show this. I'd upload my SD cards from the last few days, heh.. hundreds of photos of different subjects, all different settings, and always.. when zoomed in, txtures don't show up on the k3, while they are there on the k5.
To me the k3iii shots do indeed look like heavy noise reduction or other smoothing has been applied... but it is just the raw file.
I guess that's what I'm wondering here.. Are there any settings which could affect the detail like this, even on a raw file?

--I just remembered I noticed the new camera came w/ highlight and shadow compensation enabled by default, while it is not on, on my k5. But that wouldn't affect raw, would it? (I'm working today so can't test this.. but will later). I just looked at that leaf photo again, and it does seem like maybe the difference between them is the k5 has more highlights and shadows.

[Bob 256]

Can you take a couple of comparison shots using Liveview critical focusing (magnification if possible) in manual focus mode? That would allow you to eliminate camera sensors as the source of the softness. It just might be the AF systems in the cameras differ in the way they focus and there could be some issues with the AF systems. Also, the fact that the shots are handheld might implicate shutter speed as a culprit. To get really sharp up-close photos usually requires a tripod (and careful focusing) as well as a good shutter speed if the subject is moving (even slightly). If you're using a larger aperture, focusing becomes more important because the depth of field decreases and overall lens sharpness can decrease at the largest apertures. I'm just throwing out some things to consider.

[wicked1]

I know, I know.. But, it doesn't matter.. Both cameras are handheld in this case. I took 20 shots from each. And all have slightly different focus points, slightly different exposure, etc.. But in every case, that detail is visible on the k5 image, while not on the k3.
This particular shot was handheld.. But I have others of a brick wall across the street, on a tripod, stabilization turned off, 12 second timer. And same.. Bricks from the k5, even though lower resolution, can see texture details. lighter and darker spots. While the k3 is just a solid color for each brick. Same w/ shingles on the house across the street. And it's every shot. Regardless of focus. Obviously, at some point things get so out of focus that becomes the issue. But in general, this issue is noticeable on all shots, regardless of the technical details.
BUT.. I will later. I'll post raw images of the best possible setup I can do.

Do others here have an older camera as well as their k3iii? I've seen shots from k5iis, and kp, and perhaps a couple other older cameras, which all show the same 'symptoms'. Should be an easy test. Find something that will show moderate texture detail when looking at a 100% crop of the image. And that's it.. Take the shot. Zoom in. Compare. (It's easy to notice on wood grain, leaf details, distant bricks and shingles, etc.. something flat w/ some color detail differences)


I've got to say.. It was constant questions like this that made me second guess myself w/ my bad k-7. People kept asking about details that don't really matter.. Maybe my test shot wasn't perfect enough. Maybe that one fstop difference caused a difference. Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention to some fine detail.... Then my warranty expired. Then I tested another camera, and it was obvious.. I had a bad camera the entire time. At some point you have to believe, I know what I'm seeing here. I am an engineer. Setting up technical tests is something I do every day. And yeah, these tests I'm doing w/ the camera aren't absolutely scientifically perfect. But I can assure you, I'm doing enough to present the thing I'm concerned with accurately. I've done enough testing here, that I'm not posting the images from, to be able to confidently say none of the little details your asking about matter. This difference is obvious under many conditions.

Someone else go try it.. Just takes a minute to get a shot from 2 different cameras and look at them.

-But to answer your question.. In this case of those images above, both are the same fstop, f4. Both 1/100th second shutter. Both auto focus, but like I said, I took 20 shots from each, all w/ slightly different focus results, and all have more of that color/texture detail on the k5.. even obviously blurry shots.

[UncleVanya]

I know, I know.. But, it doesn't matter.. Both cameras are handheld in this case. I took 20 shots from each. And all have slightly different focus points, slightly different exposure, etc.. But in every case, that detail is visible on the k5 image, while not on the k3.
This particular shot was handheld.. But I have others of a brick wall across the street, on a tripod, stabilization turned off, 12 second timer. And same.. Bricks from the k5, even though lower resolution, can see texture details. lighter and darker spots. While the k3 is just a solid color for each brick. Same w/ shingles on the house across the street. And it's every shot. Regardless of focus. Obviously, at some point things get so out of focus that becomes the issue. But in general, this issue is noticeable on all shots, regardless of the technical details.
BUT.. I will later. I'll post raw images of the best possible setup I can do.

Do others here have an older camera as well as their k3iii? I've seen shots from k5iis, and kp, and perhaps a couple other older cameras, which all show the same 'symptoms'. Should be an easy test. Find something that will show moderate texture detail when looking at a 100% crop of the image. And that's it.. Take the shot. Zoom in. Compare. (It's easy to notice on wood grain, leaf details, distant bricks and shingles, etc.. something flat w/ some color detail differences)


I've got to say.. It was constant questions like this that made me second guess myself w/ my bad k-7. People kept asking about details that don't really matter.. Maybe my test shot wasn't perfect enough. Maybe that one fstop difference caused a difference. Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention to some fine detail.... Then my warranty expired. Then I tested another camera, and it was obvious.. I had a bad camera the entire time. At some point you have to believe, I know what I'm seeing here. I am an engineer. Setting up technical tests is something I do every day. And yeah, these tests I'm doing w/ the camera aren't absolutely scientifically perfect. But I can assure you, I'm doing enough to present the thing I'm concerned with accurately. I've done enough testing here, that I'm not posting the images from, to be able to confidently say none of the little details your asking about matter. This difference is obvious under many conditions.

Someone else go try it.. Just takes a minute to get a shot from 2 different cameras and look at them.

-But to answer your question.. In this case of those images above, both are the same fstop, f4. Both 1/100th second shutter. Both auto focus, but like I said, I took 20 shots from each, all w/ slightly different focus results, and all have more of that color/texture detail on the k5.. even obviously blurry shots.

Several recent threads have had k3iii “focus” issues. The thing I haven’t seen is people testing for shutter shock. Try 1/500 and 1/1000 and 1/2000 etc in manual mode on the k3iii - and see if the results sharpen up. This type of softness can be an issue in some cameras and I think it bears testing.

[Kobie]

I know, I know.. But, it doesn't matter.. Both cameras are handheld in this case. I took 20 shots from each. And all have slightly different focus points, slightly different exposure, etc.. But in every case, that detail is visible on the k5 image, while not on the k3.
This particular shot was handheld.. But I have others of a brick wall across the street, on a tripod, stabilization turned off, 12 second timer. And same.. Bricks from the k5, even though lower resolution, can see texture details. lighter and darker spots. While the k3 is just a solid color for each brick. Same w/ shingles on the house across the street. And it's every shot. Regardless of focus. Obviously, at some point things get so out of focus that becomes the issue. But in general, this issue is noticeable on all shots, regardless of the technical details.
BUT.. I will later. I'll post raw images of the best possible setup I can do.

Do others here have an older camera as well as their k3iii? I've seen shots from k5iis, and kp, and perhaps a couple other older cameras, which all show the same 'symptoms'. Should be an easy test. Find something that will show moderate texture detail when looking at a 100% crop of the image. And that's it.. Take the shot. Zoom in. Compare. (It's easy to notice on wood grain, leaf details, distant bricks and shingles, etc.. something flat w/ some color detail differences)


I've got to say.. It was constant questions like this that made me second guess myself w/ my bad k-7. People kept asking about details that don't really matter.. Maybe my test shot wasn't perfect enough. Maybe that one fstop difference caused a difference. Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention to some fine detail.... Then my warranty expired. Then I tested another camera, and it was obvious.. I had a bad camera the entire time. At some point you have to believe, I know what I'm seeing here. I am an engineer. Setting up technical tests is something I do every day. And yeah, these tests I'm doing w/ the camera aren't absolutely scientifically perfect. But I can assure you, I'm doing enough to present the thing I'm concerned with accurately. I've done enough testing here, that I'm not posting the images from, to be able to confidently say none of the little details your asking about matter. This difference is obvious under many conditions.

Someone else go try it.. Just takes a minute to get a shot from 2 different cameras and look at them.

-But to answer your question.. In this case of those images above, both are the same fstop, f4. Both 1/100th second shutter. Both auto focus, but like I said, I took 20 shots from each, all w/ slightly different focus results, and all have more of that color/texture detail on the k5.. even obviously blurry shots.

I had this issue on the DA 50 1.8. It didn't matter if I used a slow or fast shutter speed, Live View or OVF. It just always looked softer than what I'd get with my K-3 on the shot (tripod mounted for both cameras). I ended up resetting the Mark III back to defaults in the menu, then zeroed the AF fine adjustment and for whatever reason, it became tack sharp.

[wicked1]

Thanks for the replies.. you're all super helpful! Despite my post earlier saying a lot of these settings details don't matter for this situation.. I do appreciate you all thinking of all the possibilities and making suggestions.

I'll test for shutter shock later. I'll get very slow, very fast, and electronic shutter.

Resetting the settings didn't help, unfortunately.

I think this 'details' thing is separate from focus.. I think I've got the focus figured out.. I can get the shots to be as in focus as my k5 now. And I can have a clear shot from the k3iii, and a slightly blurry one from the k5iis, and the k5 still has more of this color/texture detail I'm looking at now.

Well... I'll post some new shots later.
And, I guess I should decide if this matters or not, heh.

[clackers]

Well... I'll post some new shots later.

Yeah, do make them RAW files, or it'll be about postprocessing instead of the images.

You can't post the directly here, but you can put a link to wherever you put them ... Dropbox, Drive, OneDrive, whatever.

[Kobie]

Thanks for the replies.. you're all super helpful! Despite my post earlier saying a lot of these settings details don't matter for this situation.. I do appreciate you all thinking of all the possibilities and making suggestions.

I'll test for shutter shock later. I'll get very slow, very fast, and electronic shutter.

Resetting the settings didn't help, unfortunately.

I think this 'details' thing is separate from focus.. I think I've got the focus figured out.. I can get the shots to be as in focus as my k5 now. And I can have a clear shot from the k3iii, and a slightly blurry one from the k5iis, and the k5 still has more of this color/texture detail I'm looking at now.

Well... I'll post some new shots later.
And, I guess I should decide if this matters or not, heh.

I was talking about resetting the camera entirely.

[wicked1]

I was talking about resetting the camera entirely.

That's what I meant.. I did.

And because of that... My last session was only JPEG's! forgot to switch it back to raw.. oops.
But.. I think we might have found it. at least part of it.


This first image is from live view and electronic shutter. Fast mechanical shutter looked similar. 1/500, for example. I took several different photos and all were acceptable. Long shutter was alright, but not quite as good.

All my 1/100 - 1/200 shots look a bit like the less detailed pic.


I'm not super confident in these results yet. Need to take some shots of the brick walls and other things tomorrow and compare.

[Kobie]

You are doing these on a tripod with 12 second timer correct? Unless you have very smooth delicate shutter button press and extremely stable technique handheld (zero sway, zero movement from pressing the shutter etc), you'll never figure it out.

[wicked1]

You are doing these on a tripod with 12 second timer correct? Unless you have very smooth delicate shutter button press and extremely stable technique handheld (zero sway, zero movement from pressing the shutter etc), you'll never figure it out.

Yes. Tripod. 12s timer.

BUT BUT BUT!!!!!!!!!!! I can just grab my k5 and take a shot w/out any thought, and it's great!

So I get you all want very technical scientific comparisons..(which YES this is. those shots were set up exactly the same (although admittedly I did move the tripod between shots a little when I adjusted settings)). But in the end, if I can grab one cam and get a clear shot w/ its built in image stab, while I'm walking down a trail.. And grab the next camera and do the exact same thing and get a complete shit shot...


Which camera is better?


(Having said that.. heh... This k3iii is better than the k5iis in many.. probably most ways. I just care about actually sharp shots, when zoomed to 100%)

[Kobie]

Yes. Tripod. 12s timer.

BUT BUT BUT!!!!!!!!!!! I can just grab my k5 and take a shot w/out any thought, and it's great!

So I get you all want very technical scientific comparisons..(which YES this is. those shots were set up exactly the same (although admittedly I did move the tripod between shots a little when I adjusted settings)). But in the end, if I can grab one cam and get a clear shot w/ its built in image stab, while I'm walking down a trail.. And grab the next camera and do the exact same thing and get a complete shit shot...


Which camera is better?


(Having said that.. heh... This k3iii is better than the k5iis in many.. probably most ways. I just care about actually sharp shots, when zoomed to 100%)

I'm curious as to what ISO these are being shot in.
Try adding light (flashlight, phone light, whatever you have) onto the subject. I find my K-3 III is flat/soft when it's not ideal light (flat/dull) but does represent the ambiance of a flat/dull lit scene pretty accurately.