Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2014, 12:21 PM   #256
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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!
Yeah but you know this is better than you might think, look to theses 6400ISO crops of K3 & K50:

K50, DFA50 f/2.8, IS0 6400, f/5.6, 1/2500



K3, DFA50 f/2.8, IS0 6400, f/5.6, 1/2500, reduced to K50 size.



The color deph of the K50 shoot is better, mostly due again to the blur. But the contrast and sharpness of K3 shoot is better. This also why it show more noise, due to more default contrast. And also why it look more pleasing overall if you see it from some distance.

Still overall, there more visible detail on the K3 shoot, even at 6400isos. It is because the sample for the 645Z concentrated on a shadow part where the K3 struggle more but as if to know if a well exposed 6400isos shoot is good or not or overall better/worse than K50, I would say it highly depend of the shoot itself. If the shoot has lot of mid tones/highlight, I'd say the K3 does a better job. If the shoot has lot of shadows, I'd say the K50 does a better job.

The K50 adventage might expend as you get higher and higher in isos, likely that 25600ISO and more the K3 is only noise, even in highlights but at 6400ISO (and even more the 3200/1600isos) the response is more "it depends", at least to me. Sometime you'd be better with a K50, sometime better with a K3.

Still the overall better AF on K3 could really make the difference. It is better to have more noise in shadows than to miss the focus on the eye on a portrait ! K5-II can at least focus in dim light consistently (K5 & K50 can't) and I think K5-II also get more precise focus as K3 for fast lenses (thanks to f/2.8 AF sensors) but off-centered AF point are too big in K50/K30/K5/K5-II to easily achieve a very shallow deph of field shoot (like a portrait), even more in dim light. I would be more confident to get a nice shallow deph of field shoot at 3200isos with my K3 than with a K50 !

In the end, there many factor and I would say to be carefull to not take just an example, just one crop and conclude that the new sensor is really that bad. If many where in fact really surprised by the results it is also because it didn't fully reflex real world usage. I mean yes you could take the same shoot, get the same noise on the shadow (as you could remove most of it by bumping luminance noise removal) but on many shoots there not just shadows and nothing else!

10-26-2014, 06:49 PM   #257
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,415
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
In the end, there many factor and I would say to be carefull to not take just an example, just one crop and conclude that the new sensor is really that bad.
My K-3 is not capable of clean output at ISO 6400 such as you posted, not even when downsampled.


Steve
10-26-2014, 07:56 PM   #258
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,415
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
My K-3 is not capable of clean output at ISO 6400 such as you posted, not even when downsampled.


Steve
I take that back. The conditions for the example photo appear to be about EV 14(100) (camera settings + three stops to bring the whites up). That is equivalent to diffuse sunlight. Most cameras supporting high ISO will give a credible showing at that light level. I did a test exposure with my K-3 at that light intensity and the same aperture, shutter, and ISO and yes, the results were very clean with little visible noise and great detail.

A pair of example photos taken at about EV 8(100) would be a more representative use case.


Steve
10-26-2014, 11:43 PM   #259
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I take that back. The conditions for the example photo appear to be about EV 14(100) (camera settings + three stops to bring the whites up). That is equivalent to diffuse sunlight. Most cameras supporting high ISO will give a credible showing at that light level. I did a test exposure with my K-3 at that light intensity and the same aperture, shutter, and ISO and yes, the results were very clean with little visible noise and great detail.

A pair of example photos taken at about EV 8(100) would be a more representative use case.


Steve
I would agree that typically high isos are better with more light and faster shutter speed. This typically show on all bodies/sensors.

Still when I look at the exif for 645Z/K3/K50/D810 I get for 6400iso shoot:

K3: 6400 isos, 1/2000s, f/5.6, exposure bias -0.7EV, focal lens 31mm
K50: 6400 isos, 1/1000s, f/5.6, exposure bias: 0EV, focal lens 31mm
D810: 3200 isos, 1/800s, f/8, exposure bias: 0EV, focal lens 50mm
645Z: 6400 isos, 1/640s, f/10, exposure bias: -0.3EV, focal lens 55mm

First I'am really surprised we compare all camera at 6400 isos, except the D810 that is only 3200 isos ! I suppose this is an error.

Second point when I look at the crops, we can see the overall lighting level is not the same. The K3 & 645Z shoot appear much more bright while the K50 & D810 shoot look much more dark (with K50 shoot beeing the darkest shoot). I really don't know what to think from theses exifs. We are in similar condition for the K3 as for my shoot. We concentrate only on dark shadows that are a little pushed.

I don't know why the K50 is still 6400 isos as per metering value and speed the K3 would have managed 3200 isos for the same time. Why the K3 did only got half the expore time of K50 with same lens and same iso? For sure we can expect the noise to be higher ! K3 had half the light as K50 !

If one want to conclude anything on the topic I would say new tests are really necessary and I would not trust the 645Z test as it is to conclude anything on K3 vs K50 low light performance !


Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-27-2014 at 12:02 AM.
10-27-2014, 02:25 AM   #260
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
Okay, but the K-3 is capable of making stunning images. Also at hi iso when the light is very optimal for such a situation. When iso goes up because of subnormal light then the K-3 starts to degrade faster then K-5 or any of the current FF camera's.

K-3 with DA*300mm at iso3200, f4.5 and 1/500th (no cropping) in The Amsterdam Arena, wich is currently our national soccer stadium.
10-27-2014, 06:14 AM   #261
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
Are they playing twister?
10-27-2014, 06:53 AM   #262
cpk
Site Supporter
cpk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 234
I can't speak to the K-3 noise performance at low light levels because I don't have one. When I did upgrade, I chose the K-5 II over the K-3 for several reasons: price, commonality with my K-5 and K-7 (same grip and feel, a new grip being an added cost of going to a K-3), and the fact that the reviews indicated that the viewfinder autofocus capabilities of the K-5 II, better than those of the K-5, were comparable to those of the K-3 (live view autofocus was not a factor for me). I do a lot of nightclub photography of flamenco dancers where low light autofocus speed and accuracy is important to me. The real noise test for me would be a comparison of photographs taken at 1/60" and f2 at ISO 6400, not some higher shutter speed and f-stop where the shooter has some flexibility in the camera's settings. Has anyone tested in that or a comparable situation?

Last edited by cpk; 10-27-2014 at 09:31 AM.
10-27-2014, 07:27 AM   #263
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,415
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Are they playing twister?
Football (soccer)


Steve

10-27-2014, 07:46 AM   #264
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Are they playing twister?
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Football (soccer)


Steve
Could have been twister, but in the stadium we play soccer.
10-27-2014, 07:50 AM   #265
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
I would just say that high iso is equivalent between K5 and K3 (I don't know about the K50). I don't see any more detail in one than the other, nor more noise. I do think that maybe there is some RAW high iso noise reduction built in to the K50 images that isn't present on the K3 (DXO Mark indicates that this is the case on their graphs by using an open circle on the K50/K5 graphs as compared to a solid circle on the K3 graphs).

They are both APS-C sensors and you certainly aren't going to see dramatic differences between them, although at low iso, there will be a little more detail with the K3 than with the 16 megapixel sensor cameras.
10-27-2014, 03:46 PM   #266
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I would just say that high iso is equivalent between K5 and K3 (I don't know about the K50). I don't see any more detail in one than the other, nor more noise. I do think that maybe there is some RAW high iso noise reduction built in to the K50 images that isn't present on the K3 (DXO Mark indicates that this is the case on their graphs by using an open circle on the K50/K5 graphs as compared to a solid circle on the K3 graphs).

They are both APS-C sensors and you certainly aren't going to see dramatic differences between them, although at low iso, there will be a little more detail with the K3 than with the 16 megapixel sensor cameras.
This is also my conclusion.
10-27-2014, 05:25 PM   #267
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,231
I am not disappointed with my K5iis. I doubt that many K3 owners are really too disappointed with theirs. They are not the same but both are very good cameras.
10-27-2014, 06:41 PM   #268
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
This is also my conclusion.
Thats a good conclusion.... as far as I can tell.
10-27-2014, 11:54 PM   #269
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
I am not disappointed with my K5iis. I doubt that many K3 owners are really too disappointed with theirs. They are not the same but both are very good cameras.
I'am very satisfyed, biggest improvement for me being the autofocus ! I get more consistently in focus, sharp images from my K3 than I did with my K5 !
10-29-2014, 06:29 AM   #270
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by cpk Quote
The real noise test for me would be a comparison of photographs taken at 1/60" and f2 at ISO 6400, not some higher shutter speed and f-stop where the shooter has some flexibility in the camera's settings. Has anyone tested in that or a comparable situation?
I hope someone addresses/answers this excellent question.
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 02:16 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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