[RockvilleBob]

Check out Imaging Resource "Comparometer" for side by side comparisons of cameras including K-3 with firmware 1.0 versus just about any other camera.

---

Last edited by RockvilleBob; 10-29-2013 at 11:25 PM. Reason: added K-3

[Adam]

This is neither news nor a rumor. Please post K-3 related threads in our K-3 forum. Thanks!

[Caat]

I had a quick glance over a few images comparing the K-3 to the K-01 (as I have a K-01).

There's clearly significantly more detail in the K-3 shot at ISO 100. Looking at ISO 1600 and I think the K-01 is just a little bit ahead TBH. It's hard to tell because I was looking at 100% for each camera.

So not too bad, but not a step forward in terms of noise control. Although having said this I did only take a quick look.

edit: however with 3200 there are areas where the K-3 looks better - I think there's a bit too much focus variance between them.

[southlander]

I've just done a quick comparison between the K-3 and the K-5IIs as these would be the two cameras in contention for a step up from my K-x. The K-3 looks to be a little warmer in colour balance and the image looks to be fractionally darker overall at ISO100. This may contribute to why the blacks look more impressive (as in more deeply black) in the K-3. Overall, when it is considered that 100% enlargement on the K-3 is much higher magnification that the K-5IIs at 100%, there is a real step up in detail and edge definition.

At ISO1600, the K-5IIS seems to have the edge in noise at the pixel level, but again considering the difference in magnification at 100% viewing, I imagine the K-3 would probably give a less noisy outcome for a given print size or file down-sizing. The noise in the K-3 looks a little more blotchy though which may be a negative.

I agree the ISO3200 shoots have some focus variation (or camera alignment to the still life scene varies slightly??) which limits the detail comparison somewhat. Noise doesn't seem materially different at ISO3200 with the K-3, so should be superior for a given print size.

[RockvilleBob]

This is neither news nor a rumor. Please post K-3 related threads in our K-3 forum. Thanks!

Thanks for the note and moving the item Adam.

[RockvilleBob]

I did a comparison versus Nikon D600 and D610 versus the K-3 - I am pleased with my purchase of the K-3 and just hope the auto-focus shows significant improvement.

[goubejp]

I have had a comparison between the K5iis and the K3 at 800 iso - I never go beyond 1250 iso for my usage which is essentially birding - and observed less chrona noise in the dark areas (black parts of bottles in the imatest and shadows) in the K3 images than in the K5 - despite higher magnification. I have used NR0 shots which means noise reduction off I think ? The K3 is impressive !

[JinDesu]

Please do not use the comparometer. The comparometer sometimes uses images with Noise Reduction turned on - for example if you select the Canon 5D Mark 3.

Go directly to the individual camera pages to select the correct images to compare.

Also - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240948-pentax-k-3-studio-s...ml#post2558311
I've processed the ISO 6400 RAW files to show the differences between the k-3, k-5IIs, D7100, and D600.

[rawr]

And of course now, with the K-3, you have to check whether the AA filter is turned off or on in any test images

Plus deal with the camera specific default JPG setting issues (image tone, file size settings etc) that are another factor to consider in comparing pictures across cameras models via the Comparometer. As JinDesu suggests, RAW is really the only way to go to look into what various cameras can do, especially cameras with similar specs to start with.