[audiobomber]

Is this also true of the K-5 IIs?

Yes, according to DXOMark, as depicted by hollow dots on the measurement graphs.

[mikemike]

What happened to the side of the book case in the retests with the k5 yikes.

[Jonathan Mac]

Having only ever used a K200D, I'm surprised that all of these cameras are so noisy, I thought they'd all be better. Then I noticed you state all NR was turned off, so that explains it.

The D800 is certainly the cleanest, followed by the K5 and then a considerable gap to the K3, which is a shame as it's the newest model.

[gazonk]

Having only ever used a K200D, I'm surprised that all of these cameras are so noisy, I thought they'd all be better. Then I noticed you state all NR was turned off, so that explains it.

What? I haven't used the K200D, but it's high ISO is like the K10D, isn't it? I.e. max ISO, which is only ISO 1600, is noisier than K-5/K-3 ISO 6400... I've only used 1600 if nothing else was possible on the K10D, already ISO 1250 is a visible improvement. ISO 1250 on the K-5, on the other hand, is almost noise free.

[saladin]

again, in terms of detail retention, there are focus issues. the "pentax 55" is clearly closer to focus plane in the k5 shots.

but surely the thing to take from these shots is that the K3 "noise" has a different feel to it than the k5, but both are eminently usable?

[Ex Finn.]

That K5 looks mighty good.

[audiobomber]

The first set was confusing because of the wide variation in focal points. The K-3 is the clear winner over the K-5 in the second set; sharper, less colour noise, way better WB.

[interested_observer]

Thanks for the comparison. I still like my K5 and see no need to move.

There is a side by side comparison utility that you can use. Its located at...

• Image scraper and comparator - a BackroomWebDesign.com experiment

Using Firefox, you can right click and grab the image location and past it into the utility.

[j2photos]

Thanks for the comparison. I still like my K5 and see no need to move.

There is a side by side comparison utility that you can use. Its located at...

• Image scraper and comparator - a BackroomWebDesign.com experiment

Using Firefox, you can right click and grab the image location and past it into the utility.

okay, ya thats really awesome

[MJSfoto1956]

Inspired by this thread, I just now took this image using a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 kit lens @ f/5.6 @ 1/15th sec (handheld), RAW file processed in DxO Optics Pro v9 with PRIME conversion. Saved as TIFF. Opened in Photoshopt to add text, saved at JPEG (medium). No sharpening.

My take: shooting with Tungsten light is a worse-case scenario. The K-3 did exceptionally well in this test. Natural lighting should be even better.

Link to the full-resolution file: http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/download/_IMG1141_DxO.text.jpg



Note: the feint blue light reflecting on the glass table is the dusk light coming in from our picture window.

Michael

[danny09]

If anything I find the K3 retains surprising amount of details at 12K ISO and beyond compared to K5. Could you post a noise cleaned up images of K3 and K5 @12K ISO? With the exact same NR applied to both images. Would be fun to see which one is better. But I know we are splitting hairs here K3 has so many things going, kind of a no-brainer now

[JinDesu]

Inspired by this thread, I just now took this image using a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 kit lens @ f/5.6 @ 1/15th sec (handheld), RAW file processed in DxO Optics Pro v9 with PRIME conversion. Saved as TIFF. Opened in Photoshopt to add text, saved at JPEG (medium). No sharpening.

My take: shooting with Tungsten light is a worse-case scenario. The K-3 did exceptionally well in this test. Natural lighting should be even better.

Link to the full-resolution file: http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/download/_IMG1141_DxO.text.jpg



Note: the feint blue light reflecting on the glass table is the dusk light coming in from our picture window.

Michael

Oh wowee, that's pretty awesome, looking at the detail on the back of the camera and the crinkle finish on the lens. Thanks for sharing.

[Wired]

Inspired by this thread, I just now took this image using a K-3 + 50mm f/1.8 kit lens @ f/5.6 @ 1/15th sec (handheld), RAW file processed in DxO Optics Pro v9 with PRIME conversion. Saved as TIFF. Opened in Photoshopt to add text, saved at JPEG (medium). No sharpening.

My take: shooting with Tungsten light is a worse-case scenario. The K-3 did exceptionally well in this test. Natural lighting should be even better.

Link to the full-resolution file: http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/download/_IMG1141_DxO.text.jpg



Note: the feint blue light reflecting on the glass table is the dusk light coming in from our picture window.

Michael

wait wait wait.... is that a Nikon F mount to PK mount converter? Is this a converter to take Nikon glass and throw it on the Pentax? if so... I need to know more.

[j2photos]

wait wait wait.... is that a Nikon F mount to PK mount converter? Is this a converter to take Nikon glass and throw it on the Pentax? if so... I need to know more.

Quick someone get him a towel before he soaks the keyboard!

[john5100]

You know, I honestly don't understand the criticism of the K3 at high ISO.

This is at ISO 12,800 running the LR4 noise reduction. Very poor light and modest PP.


This is at ISO 12,800 running the LR4 noise reduction. Very poor light and modest PP.
Back stage with Martha Davis of The Motels


You just need to learn how to use your camera. Here is my K200D at ISO1600. It did just fine.