What's the deal with K-3 poor high ISO performance

RonHendriks1966 · 08-19-2014, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Stavri

I too prefer not to use flash when shooting wildlife unless I really have too. Thank you for all you contribution. I made up my mind and bought the K-3 today.
-Regards

enjoy it.

**savoche** · 08-19-2014, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Stavri

I too prefer not to use flash when shooting wildlife unless I really have too. Thank you for all you contribution. I made up my mind and bought the K-3 today.
-Regards

I don't think you'll regret it. Enjoy!

**Eric Auer** · 08-19-2014, 04:14 PM

Little late to this, But I see no reason not to buy a K-3 unless youre on a budget.

Sandy Hancock and I had a little High ISO shootout between the two of us and His K-3 is at least as good as my K-5 IIs.

But.....

If you are upgrading from a Lower then K-5 IIs, Then the K-5 IIs is certainly an option for low light shots.

amoringello · 08-19-2014, 04:30 PM

The K3 seems to loose color in the highlights faster than with the K5, but if its more grainy then the K5 I cannot really tell.
What I do notice is that the K5 would likely never have captured this in such low light... I've got only a few keepers from this event over the past few years.
The K3's low light focusing allowed me to keep dozens. The K5 could not even pre-focus on a spot in this light, let alone on a moving subject.
I still lost a lot of moving subjects because of the lens being dirt slow, but at least it could focus.

I'd rather have a mildly grainy yet sharp photo, than a blurry mess with slightly less noise.

Dunno why the link doesn't work when embedded...
http://moringello.smugmug.com/Personal/Pennsic43-2014/Pennsic43-2014-FireDan...AMP3355-X3.jpg

Last edited by amoringello; 08-19-2014 at 06:13 PM.

audiobomber · 08-19-2014, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by amoringello

http://moringello.smugmug.com/Personal/Pennsic43-2014/Pennsic43-2014-FireDan...AMP3355-X3.jpg

"The webpage cannot be found"

stevebrot · 08-19-2014, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by amoringello

Dunno why the link doesn't work when embedded...

There seems to be a missing leading "a"

Steve

**southlander** · 08-19-2014, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

There seems to be a missing leading "a"

Well spotted!

**MJSfoto1956** · 08-20-2014, 10:49 AM

Here is a simple test I did @ ISO 2500:

and here is a link to the full sized image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/12277658235/sizes/o/

To my eye, the K-3 noise is very well controlled @ ISO 2500

YMMV

Michael

tim60 · 08-20-2014, 11:06 AM

When I first saw the high ISO performance of K3 (I started using it mainly at 100 and 200 because of prior experience withK100DS and the light being suitable), I was disappointed and used noise reduction. Then I started using no noise reduction. I found the aesthetic of no noise better.

\I think we have gotten used to the aesthetic of very smooth rendering and so are disappointed with the apparent graininess. But I remember film. Kodachrome 64 had very small grain, not obvious on any size wall I projected onto. Ilford HP5 at 400 (design speed) was often grainy and if cropped prints were made the grain was obvious. But I liked the speed over smaller grain.

So with K3 I have a choice available: use low ISO for clean images (and compromise with wide apertures and longer shutter speeds) or up the ISO and accept the grain.

I have noticed that the noise looks less in the bright parts of the picture (this is because of the causal physics and differs from my memory of film) and if the dark parts are left dark or darkened usingthe tone curves the apparent noise decreases too. If dark parts are lightened with exposure slider noise visibility increases.

JinDesu · 08-20-2014, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by MJSfoto1956

Here is a simple test I did @ ISO 2500:

and here is a link to the full sized image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/12277658235/sizes/o/

To my eye, the K-3 noise is very well controlled @ ISO 2500

YMMV

Michael

Just a comment Michael - your flickr must be set to either full-size locked from public, or you may not have it activated at all. The largest resolution available to us is 2000xsomething.

To provide the full size image independently of your flickr settings, right click the full size image and copy the image link directly to share it.

normhead · 08-20-2014, 11:55 AM

ISO 8000

Good enough for snapshots..

**MJSfoto1956** · 08-20-2014, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Just a comment Michael - your flickr must be set to either full-size locked from public, or you may not have it activated at all. The largest resolution available to us is 2000xsomething.

To provide the full size image independently of your flickr settings, right click the full size image and copy the image link directly to share it.

no, that is the "correct" URL alright (the "/o" tells you that this is the original). Sorry about that.

Michael

JinDesu · 08-20-2014, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by MJSfoto1956

no, that is the "correct" URL alright (the "/o" tells you that this is the original). Sorry about that.

Michael

If so, it's redirecting me to /l instead. I can't get the /o.

**MJSfoto1956** · 08-20-2014, 12:56 PM

guess I had it set so that only flickr members could download originals. I changed it so that anyone can. Should work now.

M

amoringello · 08-20-2014, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

There seems to be a missing leading "a"
Steve

Weird. I copied and pasted from the viewable image (not the normal display page), and I verified it worked on my end at the time. I wonder if the URL is periodically or otherwise randomized. Oh well, probably not really adding much value to the discussion anyway.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
f/2.8 zooms and new sensors with good high-ISO performance	cyberjunkie	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	06-09-2014 08:51 AM
People Playing with the K5's high ISO's	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	7	08-20-2013 02:53 PM
K-r vs. K-x in high ISO performance	bwDraco	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	12-11-2010 11:10 AM
K-7 high ISO Performance RAW	shang	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	07-04-2010 12:27 PM
Visit to the Zoo. K10D, SR and poor High ISO	VaughnA	Post Your Photos!	10	08-17-2009 12:28 AM

08-19-2014, 12:10 PM	#16
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Stavri I too prefer not to use flash when shooting wildlife unless I really have too. Thank you for all you contribution. I made up my mind and bought the K-3 today. -Regards enjoy it.

08-19-2014, 01:10 PM	#17
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by Stavri I too prefer not to use flash when shooting wildlife unless I really have too. Thank you for all you contribution. I made up my mind and bought the K-3 today. -Regards I don't think you'll regret it. Enjoy!

08-19-2014, 04:14 PM	#18
Eric Auer Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	Little late to this, But I see no reason not to buy a K-3 unless youre on a budget. Sandy Hancock and I had a little High ISO shootout between the two of us and His K-3 is at least as good as my K-5 IIs. But..... If you are upgrading from a Lower then K-5 IIs, Then the K-5 IIs is certainly an option for low light shots.

08-19-2014, 04:30 PM	#19
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	The K3 seems to loose color in the highlights faster than with the K5, but if its more grainy then the K5 I cannot really tell. What I do notice is that the K5 would likely never have captured this in such low light... I've got only a few keepers from this event over the past few years. The K3's low light focusing allowed me to keep dozens. The K5 could not even pre-focus on a spot in this light, let alone on a moving subject. I still lost a lot of moving subjects because of the lens being dirt slow, but at least it could focus. I'd rather have a mildly grainy yet sharp photo, than a blurry mess with slightly less noise. Dunno why the link doesn't work when embedded... http://moringello.smugmug.com/Personal/Pennsic43-2014/Pennsic43-2014-FireDan...AMP3355-X3.jpg Last edited by amoringello; 08-19-2014 at 06:13 PM.

08-19-2014, 06:23 PM	#20
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by amoringello http://moringello.smugmug.com/Personal/Pennsic43-2014/Pennsic43-2014-FireDan...AMP3355-X3.jpg "The webpage cannot be found"

08-19-2014, 06:41 PM	#21
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by amoringello Dunno why the link doesn't work when embedded... There seems to be a missing leading "a" Steve

08-19-2014, 07:30 PM	#22
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	Originally posted by stevebrot There seems to be a missing leading "a" Well spotted!

08-20-2014, 10:49 AM	#23
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	Here is a simple test I did @ ISO 2500: and here is a link to the full sized image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/12277658235/sizes/o/ To my eye, the K-3 noise is very well controlled @ ISO 2500 YMMV Michael

08-20-2014, 11:06 AM	#24
tim60 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 8,756	When I first saw the high ISO performance of K3 (I started using it mainly at 100 and 200 because of prior experience withK100DS and the light being suitable), I was disappointed and used noise reduction. Then I started using no noise reduction. I found the aesthetic of no noise better. \I think we have gotten used to the aesthetic of very smooth rendering and so are disappointed with the apparent graininess. But I remember film. Kodachrome 64 had very small grain, not obvious on any size wall I projected onto. Ilford HP5 at 400 (design speed) was often grainy and if cropped prints were made the grain was obvious. But I liked the speed over smaller grain. So with K3 I have a choice available: use low ISO for clean images (and compromise with wide apertures and longer shutter speeds) or up the ISO and accept the grain. I have noticed that the noise looks less in the bright parts of the picture (this is because of the causal physics and differs from my memory of film) and if the dark parts are left dark or darkened usingthe tone curves the apparent noise decreases too. If dark parts are lightened with exposure slider noise visibility increases.

08-20-2014, 11:07 AM	#25
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by MJSfoto1956 Here is a simple test I did @ ISO 2500: and here is a link to the full sized image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/12277658235/sizes/o/ To my eye, the K-3 noise is very well controlled @ ISO 2500 YMMV Michael Just a comment Michael - your flickr must be set to either full-size locked from public, or you may not have it activated at all. The largest resolution available to us is 2000xsomething. To provide the full size image independently of your flickr settings, right click the full size image and copy the image link directly to share it.

08-20-2014, 11:55 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	ISO 8000 Good enough for snapshots..

08-20-2014, 12:29 PM	#27
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	Originally posted by JinDesu Just a comment Michael - your flickr must be set to either full-size locked from public, or you may not have it activated at all. The largest resolution available to us is 2000xsomething. To provide the full size image independently of your flickr settings, right click the full size image and copy the image link directly to share it. no, that is the "correct" URL alright (the "/o" tells you that this is the original). Sorry about that. Michael

08-20-2014, 12:34 PM	#28
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by MJSfoto1956 no, that is the "correct" URL alright (the "/o" tells you that this is the original). Sorry about that. Michael If so, it's redirecting me to /l instead. I can't get the /o.

08-20-2014, 12:56 PM	#29
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	guess I had it set so that only flickr members could download originals. I changed it so that anyone can. Should work now. M

08-20-2014, 01:29 PM	#30
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Originally posted by stevebrot There seems to be a missing leading "a" Steve Weird. I copied and pasted from the viewable image (not the normal display page), and I verified it worked on my end at the time. I wonder if the URL is periodically or otherwise randomized. Oh well, probably not really adding much value to the discussion anyway.