4 cameras, 6400 iso

j2photos · 02-05-2014, 11:51 PM

We will find out tomorrow, I do feel it will be a moot point. The extra resolution of the K-3 puts it at an advantage anyway. Doing a little PP noise reduction is not an issue. Im going to sit here and tap my foot until it comes tho because I am going to be buying one or the other in two weeks or so.

saladin · 02-06-2014, 12:21 AM

i'll throw in another variable by saying the iis would have more detail than the classic k5, lol. just to further smudge things.

pinholecam · 02-06-2014, 12:30 AM

Interesting....

I did not expect the K3 to be so good.
It manages to cling on to detail even on the textured grip area.
Its grainier, but I don't care much about it, preferring that to a noise re,duced 'painting'

K5 seems to have lost quite a bit of detail, but less grainy o/p.
I am surprised that it 'lost' to the K3 despite the claims about the 24mp sensor being noisier.
Ok.. it is, but the details captured allow the user to adjust to taste later.

Q?
Ha..ha.. Normal viewing and/or B/W, I still think its ok to get to 6400 if its the only camera with me.

D800, better, but so close to K3, which is the biggest surprise here.
As I said, I don't care much about the graininess, so those who do will have a different interpretation of the results.

audiobomber · 02-06-2014, 12:55 PM

It is a known fact that the K-5 has non-defeatable NR at ISO's above 1600. To even the playing field, you have to add NR to the K-3 photo.

Last edited by audiobomber; 02-06-2014 at 06:00 PM.

JinDesu · 02-06-2014, 01:15 PM

The grip is kinda a terrible spot to compare between the k-5 and the k-3. Look at the lens, specifically the ribbed ring. They both retain very similar amounts of information (and look how sharp that text is on the lens on the k-5).

The D800 is a bit less splotchier than the k-5 and k-3. That's about it.

tuco · 02-06-2014, 01:16 PM

Noise in high ISO is a secondary consideration for me. I'm more interested in the dynamic range you can capture at high ISO.

**Rondec** · 02-06-2014, 01:21 PM

I think it is hard to compare, as the k5 is focused on the lens and the k3 is focused on the grip. K3 does have more noise in the out of focus areas, but hard to say more than that. D800 is the best.

These comparisons are hard. Thanks for sharing.

j2photos · 02-06-2014, 03:00 PM

Just googling around a little and I found a side by side k-5 vs k-3 ISO 100-1600 and the results are similar. While the K-5 handles the noise better it seems to wash out detail.

Linky
I Don't Test Cameras, So Don't Complain

j2photos · 02-06-2014, 10:26 PM

@Wired did you ever have a chance to retest?

Wired · 02-06-2014, 10:32 PM

Sorry bud, haven't made it home today yet.

j2photos · 02-06-2014, 10:33 PM - **1 Like**

All good I will knit a sweater or ascots while I wait.

Wired · 02-06-2014, 11:17 PM

images added to original post.

j2photos · 02-06-2014, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Wired

images added to original post.

With the new pics its harder to tell, I still think the k-3 renders more detail but it is far less significant in this test. Thank you @Wired for taking the time to do this test.

Wired · 02-06-2014, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by j2photos

With the new pics its harder to tell, I still think the k-3 renders more detail but it is far less significant in this test. Thank you @Wired for taking the time to do this test.

I totally agree. The light change and the subject change made a huge difference. I also think stopping down to f2 also helped keep the image in better shape. I added images upto 12,800 just for poops and giggles... and to be honest I think both cameras are fairly usable at web size especially if one were to add some NR to the image in post. I do think at the end of the day, the K5 wins. Look at the 12,800 image, the serial number on the DA*55 is almost visible still, the out of focus green highlights on the DA* zooms in the background (left) are better controlled, and the focus ring on the Ziess 50mm (the lens to the left of the M zoom) has retained it's detail.

I'm shooting a band at the end of the month....and really I have no idea which camera to use out of the three... the K5 has been my music work horse since it came out. The D800 proved itself very well last August, but the K3 and the K5 failed me at the one I did in November... but now that I know I can ramp it up past iso 1200 (which is the highest I used to go) and still get workable images... the K3 may need to get tested again.

j2photos · 02-06-2014, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Wired

I totally agree. The light change and the subject change made a huge difference. I also think stopping down to f2 also helped keep the image in better shape. I added images upto 12,800 just for poops and giggles... and to be honest I think both cameras are fairly usable at web size especially if one were to add some NR to the image in post. I do think at the end of the day, the K5 wins. Look at the 12,800 image, the serial number on the DA*55 is almost visible still, the out of focus green highlights on the DA* zooms in the background (left) are better controlled, and the focus ring on the Ziess 50mm (the lens to the left of the M zoom) has retained it's detail.

I'm shooting a band at the end of the month....and really I have no idea which camera to use out of the three... the K5 has been my music work horse since it came out. The D800 proved itself very well last August, but the K3 and the K5 failed me at the one I did in November... but now that I know I can ramp it up past iso 1200 (which is the highest I used to go) and still get workable images... the K3 may need to get tested again.

Is it just me or once you got to 12,000 ISO doesnt the K-3 image look more usable? Is this due to the higher resolution sensor? Frankly I am not seeing the K-5 spank the K-3 in Noise handling. You have the in camera NR turned off I assume. I would like to see what kind of results you get in a real world situation with iso 1600-6400 with the K-3.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Black & White K-5 IIs ISO 6400	Eric Auer	Post Your Photos!	3	11-14-2013 10:07 AM
Night 6400 iso	westmill	Post Your Photos!	7	10-17-2012 02:06 PM
K-30 ISO 6400 shots	treebeard	Pentax K-30 & K-50	15	09-25-2012 03:44 PM
Photos: K-5 at ISO 6400 AND ISO 12,800	PeterKBurian	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	01-07-2011 07:01 AM
Black & White Portrait of Stripes (Super-Takumar 50/1.4 @ ISO 6400)	Dubesor	Post Your Photos!	2	09-17-2010 05:56 AM

02-05-2014, 11:51 PM	#16
j2photos Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Manteca, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,653	We will find out tomorrow, I do feel it will be a moot point. The extra resolution of the K-3 puts it at an advantage anyway. Doing a little PP noise reduction is not an issue. Im going to sit here and tap my foot until it comes tho because I am going to be buying one or the other in two weeks or so.

02-06-2014, 12:21 AM	#17
saladin Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia Posts: 427	i'll throw in another variable by saying the iis would have more detail than the classic k5, lol. just to further smudge things.

02-06-2014, 12:30 AM	#18
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Interesting.... I did not expect the K3 to be so good. It manages to cling on to detail even on the textured grip area. Its grainier, but I don't care much about it, preferring that to a noise re,duced 'painting' K5 seems to have lost quite a bit of detail, but less grainy o/p. I am surprised that it 'lost' to the K3 despite the claims about the 24mp sensor being noisier. Ok.. it is, but the details captured allow the user to adjust to taste later. Q? Ha..ha.. Normal viewing and/or B/W, I still think its ok to get to 6400 if its the only camera with me. D800, better, but so close to K3, which is the biggest surprise here. As I said, I don't care much about the graininess, so those who do will have a different interpretation of the results.

02-06-2014, 12:55 PM	#19
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	It is a known fact that the K-5 has non-defeatable NR at ISO's above 1600. To even the playing field, you have to add NR to the K-3 photo. Last edited by audiobomber; 02-06-2014 at 06:00 PM.

02-06-2014, 01:15 PM	#20
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	The grip is kinda a terrible spot to compare between the k-5 and the k-3. Look at the lens, specifically the ribbed ring. They both retain very similar amounts of information (and look how sharp that text is on the lens on the k-5). The D800 is a bit less splotchier than the k-5 and k-3. That's about it.

02-06-2014, 01:16 PM	#21
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Noise in high ISO is a secondary consideration for me. I'm more interested in the dynamic range you can capture at high ISO.

02-06-2014, 01:21 PM	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I think it is hard to compare, as the k5 is focused on the lens and the k3 is focused on the grip. K3 does have more noise in the out of focus areas, but hard to say more than that. D800 is the best. These comparisons are hard. Thanks for sharing.

02-06-2014, 03:00 PM	#23
j2photos Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Manteca, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,653	Just googling around a little and I found a side by side k-5 vs k-3 ISO 100-1600 and the results are similar. While the K-5 handles the noise better it seems to wash out detail. Linky I Don't Test Cameras, So Don't Complain

02-06-2014, 10:26 PM	#24
j2photos Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Manteca, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,653	@Wired did you ever have a chance to retest?

02-06-2014, 10:32 PM	#25
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519 Original Poster	Sorry bud, haven't made it home today yet.

02-06-2014, 10:33 PM - 1 Like	#26
j2photos Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Manteca, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,653	All good I will knit a sweater or ascots while I wait.

02-06-2014, 11:17 PM	#27
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519 Original Poster	images added to original post.

02-06-2014, 11:25 PM	#28
j2photos Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Manteca, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,653	Originally posted by Wired images added to original post. With the new pics its harder to tell, I still think the k-3 renders more detail but it is far less significant in this test. Thank you @Wired for taking the time to do this test.

02-06-2014, 11:34 PM	#29
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519 Original Poster	Originally posted by j2photos With the new pics its harder to tell, I still think the k-3 renders more detail but it is far less significant in this test. Thank you @Wired for taking the time to do this test. I totally agree. The light change and the subject change made a huge difference. I also think stopping down to f2 also helped keep the image in better shape. I added images upto 12,800 just for poops and giggles... and to be honest I think both cameras are fairly usable at web size especially if one were to add some NR to the image in post. I do think at the end of the day, the K5 wins. Look at the 12,800 image, the serial number on the DA55 is almost visible still, the out of focus green highlights on the DA zooms in the background (left) are better controlled, and the focus ring on the Ziess 50mm (the lens to the left of the M zoom) has retained it's detail. I'm shooting a band at the end of the month....and really I have no idea which camera to use out of the three... the K5 has been my music work horse since it came out. The D800 proved itself very well last August, but the K3 and the K5 failed me at the one I did in November... but now that I know I can ramp it up past iso 1200 (which is the highest I used to go) and still get workable images... the K3 may need to get tested again.

02-06-2014, 11:40 PM	#30
j2photos Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Manteca, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,653	Originally posted by Wired I totally agree. The light change and the subject change made a huge difference. I also think stopping down to f2 also helped keep the image in better shape. I added images upto 12,800 just for poops and giggles... and to be honest I think both cameras are fairly usable at web size especially if one were to add some NR to the image in post. I do think at the end of the day, the K5 wins. Look at the 12,800 image, the serial number on the DA55 is almost visible still, the out of focus green highlights on the DA zooms in the background (left) are better controlled, and the focus ring on the Ziess 50mm (the lens to the left of the M zoom) has retained it's detail. I'm shooting a band at the end of the month....and really I have no idea which camera to use out of the three... the K5 has been my music work horse since it came out. The D800 proved itself very well last August, but the K3 and the K5 failed me at the one I did in November... but now that I know I can ramp it up past iso 1200 (which is the highest I used to go) and still get workable images... the K3 may need to get tested again. Is it just me or once you got to 12,000 ISO doesnt the K-3 image look more usable? Is this due to the higher resolution sensor? Frankly I am not seeing the K-5 spank the K-3 in Noise handling. You have the in camera NR turned off I assume. I would like to see what kind of results you get in a real world situation with iso 1600-6400 with the K-3.