Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-25-2014, 06:06 AM   #241
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
How about a hand hold, taken seconds apart comparison shots, using shake reduction, keeping composition as equally as possible, lowest ISO for each camera,same Av and equivalent Tv. Using the same lens on both bodies such as F28, DA40 or DA70 which I believe are all quite sharp edge to edge. I`ll look for a high dynamic range scene.
That would be nice. Shoot something with plenty of detail throughout the frame, including the corners - top of the palm trees and the hi-rises behind ? Probably with the DA70, but watch out for focus differences, the DA40 might be easier to do. Also watch out for any AF tuning differences between the two bodies.

The same lens on both cameras. It may be a good idea to turn SR off on both or try it with and without just to see if this makes any difference. A few shots with at least a part of the frame in deep shadow would also be useful but not essential. Shoot RAW preferably and if at all possible post these somewhere such as GDrive etc. so that people could play with their own post-processing and scaling.

As I'd said at the start of this thread, the idea is to get some feel of how much difference the extra resolution of the K-3 makes in real life.

Have fun !

10-25-2014, 10:50 AM   #242
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Shoot something with plenty of detail throughout the frame, including the corners
Throw in a few non-scaled (or up-scaled) full-resolution crops at ISO 3200 (bright interior lighting with lit and open shadow areas and detail in both). The recent comparison tests with the 645Z, K-3, and K-50 were a real eye-opener in regards to actual noise-related resolution loss and it would be interesting to see how the K-5 IIs measures up without having down-scaling muddy the waters.

Review: Pentax 645Z - Detail and Moire | PentaxForums.com Reviews

For those not willing to wade through it, the K-50 equaled or bettered the K-3 above ISO 800 in the ability to resolve detail. Big surprise, eh?


Steve
10-25-2014, 11:07 AM   #243
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Throw in a few non-scaled (or up-scaled) full-resolution crops at ISO 3200 (bright interior lighting with lit and open shadow areas and detail in both). The recent comparison tests with the 645Z, K-3, and K-50 were a real eye-opener in regards to actual noise-related resolution loss and it would be interesting to see how the K-5 IIs measures up without having down-scaling muddy the waters.

Review: Pentax 645Z - Detail and Moire | PentaxForums.com Reviews

For those not willing to wade through it, the K-50 equaled or bettered the K-3 above ISO 800 in the ability to resolve detail. Big surprise, eh?


Steve
Not to me... I'm happy with the K-3 for the increased resolution fro ISO 100-400 which is the best for dynamic range in any case, noise considered or not considered. ISO 640 is as high as I like to go on my K-3. But...

at 1000 ISO you can deal with the noise if you have to.... a lot of people seem to think the noise is something you can't deal with, that the picture is ruined.. not so fast, my friends, a lot depends on the picture...
In this image, the booked noise is cleaned up, but the NR is removed from the subject. So, I'm keeping my resolution on the subject.. but eliminating nice where solutions isn't required. You can argue I've lost resolution, but having pixel peeped the image, I'd dispute that. It's not a loss of resolution, you can see that clearly in the feather detail, it's just the resolution has a noise element to it.

Last edited by normhead; 10-26-2014 at 10:56 AM.
10-25-2014, 11:57 AM   #244
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Throw in a few non-scaled (or up-scaled) full-resolution crops at ISO 3200 (bright interior lighting with lit and open shadow areas and detail in both). The recent comparison tests with the 645Z, K-3, and K-50 were a real eye-opener in regards to actual noise-related resolution loss and it would be interesting to see how the K-5 IIs measures up without having down-scaling muddy the waters.

Review: Pentax 645Z - Detail and Moire | PentaxForums.com Reviews

For those not willing to wade through it, the K-50 equaled or bettered the K-3 above ISO 800 in the ability to resolve detail. Big surprise, eh?


Steve
One of the reasons I sold my K-3. My trusty old K-5 is simply better at iso 1600 and above (also better then K-01).

10-25-2014, 12:02 PM   #245
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
not so fast, my friends, a lot depends on the picture...
Absolutely! Some subjects clean up nicely with available tools. Other subjects, not so nicely It all depends on the type of detail that has been lost to noise. Eyelashes with gaps are so annoying...

BTW...my comment and the linked article specifically called out the range of ISOs above 800. The low ISO performance with the K-3 is quite nice.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-25-14 at 12:14 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
One of the reasons I sold my K-3. My trusty old K-5 is simply better at iso 1600 and above (also better then K-01).
I was frankly shocked by the comparison images for the 645Z test and I think the reviewers were too. I had heard that the high ISO performance on the K-30 and K-50 were good, but I did not know the gap with the K-3 was that wide. Mind you, the comparison images were up-sized and the intent was to show comparative loss of detail not the relative graininess. But that is the important part isn't it? Lost detail cannot be created out of thin electrons. You can copy over the false color specs in PP, but cannot recreate what was not recorded. By the time you finish cleaning things up at ISO 3200, you have a softer photo than the same subject, cleaned and up-sized, shot with the K-50.

I will have to do a few comparison shots the next time my friend with the K-50 is in town. Depending on the results, I may have to pick one up (or a K-5 IIs) just for high ISO work. In the mean time, I am still enjoying the low ISO capabilities of my K-3, including the headroom for cropping.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 10-25-2014 at 12:15 PM.
10-25-2014, 01:53 PM   #246
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,000
So, I am sitting here in the process of trying to come to a long drawn out conclusion - based on all of this (this thread along with several others). I decided to get a 60-250 this Thanksgiving (Black Friday or Cyber Monday) on sale (I need to put the A*300/f4 up on the marketplace). To really drive it (and my 8-16, 12-24, 31Ltd), I am figuring that I really should upgrade from my K5 (which is perfectly fine and I really like) to either the K5IIs (my initial choice) or the K3 (wanting the improved AF and WB). I don't feel the overwhelming need for more pixels. Image Quality, Dynamic Range along with accurate AF with a minimum of hunting - primarily at low ISO (under 400, usually at 80) are my main drivers (90%). I also do wide field astro with the O-GPS1 and that has been at ISO 1600 - 3200 (5%). I mainly shoot sunrise/sunset, evenings and nights - also in heavy shadows.

I am ping ponging between the two now. I think that it will probably come down to the K3. What I really want is the new / updated features of the K3, with the body size and sensor of the K5IIs.

I am going up to Flagstaff tomorrow morning to shoot Walnut Canyon. I might return down through Oak Creek Canyon on the way back for some more shots - perhaps the fall colors will be out. I am taking everything with me - including the kitchen sink. I want to try out a number of ideas I have had.... Also to ponder on this decision.
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
One of the reasons I sold my K-3. My trusty old K-5 is simply better at iso 1600 and above (also better then K-01).
Now you have me rethinking everything all over again...
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
...

I was frankly shocked by the comparison images for the 645Z test and I think the reviewers were too. I had heard that the high ISO performance on the K-30 and K-50 were good, but I did not know the gap with the K-3 was that wide. Mind you, the comparison images were up-sized and the intent was to show comparative loss of detail not the relative graininess. But that is the important part isn't it? Lost detail cannot be created out of thin electrons. You can copy over the false color specs in PP, but cannot recreate what was not recorded. By the time you finish cleaning things up at ISO 3200, you have a softer photo than the same subject, cleaned and up-sized, shot with the K-50.

I will have to do a few comparison shots the next time my friend with the K-50 is in town. Depending on the results, I may have to pick one up (or a K-5 IIs) just for high ISO work. In the mean time, I am still enjoying the low ISO capabilities of my K-3, including the headroom for cropping.

Steve
What did I miss on the 645Z/K-3 ISO performance?

10-25-2014, 07:16 PM   #247
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
What did I miss on the 645Z/K-3 ISO performance?
Follow the link I posted above. The section on image detail compared the 645Z, D810, K-3, and K-50 at various ISO with the intent of determining the ability to capture detail.

Edit: Here it is again...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-645z-review/detail-moire.html


Steve
10-25-2014, 08:01 PM   #248
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,000
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Follow the link I posted above. The section on image detail compared the 645Z, D810, K-3, and K-50 at various ISO with the intent of determining the ability to capture detail.

Edit: Here it is again...

Review: Pentax 645Z - Detail and Moire | PentaxForums.com Reviews


Steve
Thanks!! For some reason I read right through the link.... I also see that it was there multiple times.

I'll wander off tapping my white cane.

10-26-2014, 08:04 AM   #249
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Follow the link I posted above. The section on image detail compared the 645Z, D810, K-3, and K-50 at various ISO with the intent of determining the ability to capture detail.

Edit: Here it is again...

Review: Pentax 645Z - Detail and Moire | PentaxForums.com Reviews


Steve

The comparison doesn't match what I get in practice... and indeed there for sure a problem in the bench settings:

- No crop show any chromatical noise and you can be sure a K50 does exhibit quite a bit of it a 6400 or even 1600 isos. K3 too. There not even a bit of it. Contrary to what the test said, there is noise removal applyed. If there was no noise removal at all, there would be quite visible chromatic noise.

- K50 has a blur algorithm applyed at the RAW level to reduce noise starting 1600 isos like all the K5 familly. It make the picture quite blured but remove a big part of the noise, including the lunminance noise we see even on the 645Z shoot. There more luminance noise on the D645Z than on the K50 despite the pixel size on the sensor being almost the same. That a hint of this blur at work. If one want to compare K50 shoot to other bodies, one need to consider that it is normal and necessary to apply heavier noise removal simply because the K50 got more to begin with. It is not that thoses K50 shoots are better, but just they are more processed than others shoots.

What this comparison show it just the default setting of lightroom noise removal applyed to the different raws. It doesn't adapt to the body characteristics. (Like K50 need less because is already blurred). One should just add more luminance noise removal to all other bodies to compensate the K50 cheating.

---------- Post added 10-26-14 at 04:15 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Not to me... I'm happy with the K-3 for the increased resolution fro ISO 100-400 which is the best for dynamic range in any case, noise considered or not considered. ISO 640 is as high as I like to go on my K-3. But...

at 1000 ISO you can deal with the noise if you have to.... a lot of people seem to think the noise is something you can't deal with, that the picture is ruined.. not so fast, my friends, a lot depends on the picture...
Just for the sake of the terrible K3 high iso performance:

K3, 2500ISO, DA15 f/4, 1/10s



K3, 6400ISO, DA15 f/4, 1/5s (I used a polariser filter to remove some reflexion. This car was really terrible on this aspect):



K3 3200iso, DA15 f/4, 1/13s



I totally agree K3 is not that good in high iso perf, but there is far less practical difference than one might think !

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-26-2014 at 08:22 AM.
10-26-2014, 08:24 AM   #250
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
I don't know what is wrong with you folks, he said no noise removal was applied, reading between the lines that would be, by him. He wasn't investigating the internal workings of the camera, or the internal working of the computer.

All of these complaints make little sense to the guy using the camera. I don't care what happens behind my back, I care about my workflow. I know, because Apple released the K-3 profile so late, exactly what my images look like before the Apple raw importer gets them. I don't care.

QuoteQuote:
It make the picture quite blured but remove a big part of the noise,
Ya, whatever....
10-26-2014, 08:42 AM   #251
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I don't know what is wrong with you folks, he said no noise removal was applied, reading between the lines that would be, by him. He wasn't investigating the internal workings of the camera, or the internal working of the computer.

All of these complaints make little sense to the guy using the camera. I don't care what happens behind my back, I care about my workflow. I know, because Apple released the K-3 profile so late, exactly what my images look like before the Apple raw importer gets them. I don't care.



Ya, whatever....
I mean if one isn't even motivated to move a single slider in his post processing tool to remove the noise properly but take the time to complain of high iso noise performance of a camera, there a problem for me !

As for the testers, for sure they didn't intend to get noise removal and have been caught by the software doing it anyway. That can happen, I agree and I would prefer the software apply it by default than the contrary. But then the methodology of their test of comparing the raw result without any noise removal is not applyed and it is also not sound if we have some processed raw from the K50...

I mean for a 645Z review we don't really care as the 645Z is so better than it go far beyond that. But for a K3 vs K50 it is misleading.

I mean I don't care it doesn't prevent me from getting good high iso shoot from my camera... But that can be misleading to the prospective buyer making him think that the K3 is a terrible camera for high iso. It is not the best, but it is certainly not terrible.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-26-2014 at 08:49 AM.
10-26-2014, 08:45 AM   #252
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Just for the sake of the terrible K3 high iso performance:
My K-3 results are congruent with those posted on the 645Z test. I occasionally have access to a K-50 and will do a comparison to post here on PF if I get a chance.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-26-14 at 08:48 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I mean if one isn't even motivated to move a single slider in his post processing tool to remove the noise properly but take the time to complain of high iso noise performance of a camera, there a problem for me !
Nobody is complaining. To use the (eventual) automobile analogy. A loud muffler is a loud muffler regardless of the quality of your earplugs.

Your car photos look great, though there is no metric to determine how much detail was lost due to noise at capture. The graininess is incidental. it can be mitigated in post. The lost detail is the real concern.


Steve
10-26-2014, 09:23 AM   #253
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
My K-3 results are congruent with those posted on the 645Z test. I occasionally have access to a K-50 and will do a comparison to post here on PF if I get a chance.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-26-14 at 08:48 AM ----------



Nobody is complaining. To use the (eventual) automobile analogy. A loud muffler is a loud muffler regardless of the quality of your earplugs.

Your car photos look great, though there is no metric to determine how much detail was lost due to noise at capture. The graininess is incidental. it can be mitigated in post. The lost detail is the real concern.


Steve
OK, I'm curious, why is that the real concern? How are you determining that some shots don't have enough detail because of NR? I'm not aware of any prerequisites as to the amount of detail required to make a good image.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/203024-who-took...hotograph.html
10-26-2014, 09:38 AM   #254
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,189
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
OK, I'm curious, why is that the real concern? How are you determining that some shots don't have enough detail because of NR? I'm not aware of any prerequisites as to the amount of detail required to make a good image.
Every noise pixel is one less data pixel. If the noise is high enough, whole elements of the subject simply are not part of the capture. Portions of a spider web or the fine texture of weathered wood or a wisp of hair. Granted, the same thing may happen on a downsample (say photos for the Web), but loss at capture compounds later loss.

Mind you...The use cases for detail work and high ISO work are usually mutually exclusive, but I remember well my day at the LeMay auto museum where tripods were disallowed and K10D ISO 800 noise ruined a fair number of my shots.

I am not saying that the K-3 sucks because of its high ISO behavior. What I am saying is that it appears to give up its resolution advantage relative to its little sister (K-50) when things get dim. At low ISO (the majority of my work) the results are spectacular and I am thrilled with the camera's performance.*


Steve

* No kidding! I swoon every time I shoot with it!
10-26-2014, 10:00 AM - 1 Like   #255
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
QuoteQuote:
Mind you...The use cases for detail work and high ISO work are usually mutually exclusive, but I remember well my day at the LeMay auto museum where tripods were disallowed and K10D ISO 800 noise ruined a fair number of my shots.
A word for you, Monopod... use it like a walking stick except when you need it. No one complains about canes. It would be anti-disabled. Even places like Birdland and Butterly World who don't allow tripods have never complained ( about my tripod) if I go in the off season during a slow time. The complaint with tripods is the amount of floor area required. With a monopod, it fits into your expected personal space.

The guy I know who shoots for Ontario Outdoors, uses a monopod for all his outdoor shots. When tracking moving wildlife a tripod is just too cumbersome, unless it's something slow moving where you can set up in a blind.

Last edited by normhead; 10-26-2014 at 10:52 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
4k, auto, camera, comparison, computer, course, dslr, filter, head, image, jpg, k-3, k-5, k3, k5, lens, lenses, life, medium, megapixel, people, photography, pictures, post, quality, resolution, steve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough? dmnf Photographic Technique 10 05-15-2013 09:43 AM
Pentax WG-2 Waterproof 16-Megapixel Fl_Gulfer Pentax Price Watch 3 03-10-2013 12:35 PM
is 16-45 mm wide enough? boone Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 01-26-2011 12:56 PM
[Auto-ISO] so, is the K5 and Kr brave enough to use max iso? Reportage Pentax K-5 13 10-24-2010 03:30 PM
Is the 16-50mm sharp enough? lbenac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-09-2009 03:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top