just got my K3 II

pentasonic49 · 06-12-2015, 12:53 PM - **1 Like**

Went into Bristol cameras today to pick up my new K3 II. Their special deal included a 16gb card, a Hahnel battery, screen protectors and a case, big enough to squeeze in the camera with a 16-50 fitted. I was surprised that raw files will take up 56mb and jpeg's are 19mb. I had better get a few large SD cards. Still, cards are cheap nowadays. When I bought my first Pentax is't ds and 18-125 Sigma, I could only afford a 256mb card.

amoringello · 06-12-2015, 01:04 PM

Wow. Raw files generally should not be 56MB. Was this a high ISO/noisy image?
Should be more around 30MB.
Even PEF compression is finally decent and is pretty close to (and sometimes better than) DNG, unlike older cameras where PEFs were quite a bit larger.

But yeah, memory is cheap. Load up. :-) :-) :-)

pentasonic49 · 06-12-2015, 01:29 PM

I just did rough maths for number of shots available for a card. However, I took the 16gb out and put it into my pc which gave a formatted size of 14.4gb. Assuming 1024mb per gig, then 292 raw files may be in the region of 50.5mb, and 861 jpegs about 17mb.

Sagitta · 06-12-2015, 01:43 PM

AFAIK, the K-3 II has the same size sensor as the K-3, and the average DNG file is roughly 30MB. Unless I'm mistaken and the K-3 II sports a bigger sensor, you must have done your math wrong somehow, or the camera is being overly frugal with the number of shots it thinks you will be able to take.

Last edited by Sagitta; 06-12-2015 at 01:51 PM.

Fenwoodian · 06-12-2015, 01:48 PM

I too have a new K3ii. I just got back from a trip where I shot about 600 images.

my jpg files were from 9 - 14 mb in size.
my dng files were from 26.7 to 28.6 mb
my pef fiels were from 28 - 32.5 mb
my "shifted pixel files were all around 127 and 128 mb

I keep 2 64 gb cards in my k3ii. each one holds 899 raw+ images (raw and jpg for each image).

Dave

pentasonic49 · 06-12-2015, 01:55 PM

Well, when I switch the camera on with a formatted 16gb card, it tells me 861 jpegs or 292 raw. The sensors are certainly the same, and I haven't switched on the pixel shift yet.

---------- Post added 06-12-15 at 02:10 PM ----------

Hi Fenwoodian, I noticed that your 64gb cards hold 899 raw+, which means each raw and jpeg combined are about 73mb, without allowing for formatting losses. This tallies nicely with my estimate of 17+50.5mb= 67.5mb. Of course, formatting losses vary somewhat with card capacity.

Sagitta · 06-12-2015, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by pentasonic49

Well, when I switch the camera on with a formatted 16gb card, it tells me 861 jpegs or 292 raw. The sensors are certainly the same, and I haven't switched on the pixel shift yet.

---------- Post added 06-12-15 at 02:10 PM ----------

Hi Fenwoodian, I noticed that your 64gb cards hold 899 raw+, which means each raw and jpeg combined are about 73mb, without allowing for formatting losses. This tallies nicely with my estimate of 17+50.5mb= 67.5mb. Of course, formatting losses vary somewhat with card capacity.

My 32GB cards read as having a capacity of only 598 shots (straight DNG, no JPG).

This is very much not the case in practice, as my average DNG winds up somewhere in the 30MB range.

The camera is obviously lowballing its numbers to avoid people running out of card space.

I just checked the shots I took yesterday (and I took a lot - went to a carnival) and my largest DNG for the day is 37MB (a shot where I blew my exposure with my flash by about 3 stops), and the smallest is 27MB (a darkish, underexposed shot of my son with some very uniform colors in the background from a wide-striped tarp). Interestingly, the largest and smallest DNGs don't correspond with the largest and smallest JPGs (I shoot DNG + JPG), The largest JPG is 14.4MB and is basically a wildly colorful crowd shot with a slew of colors all mixed together. The smallest JPG is the next shot in the series of the "Crap, I overposed" flash shots (that resulted in the largest DNG) and is almost uniformly white. Its a measly 4.89MB.

EDIT: It should also be mentioned that my 32GB cards only have 29.7GB of usable storage - you lose a bit of data space due to the formatting of the card itself.

amoringello · 06-12-2015, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by pentasonic49

I just did rough maths for number of shots available for a card. However, I took the 16gb out and put it into my pc which gave a formatted size of 14.4gb. Assuming 1024mb per gig, then 292 raw files may be in the region of 50.5mb, and 861 jpegs about 17mb.

Never trust what the camera says. I don't know what math it uses (maybe un-compressed sizes?) but it always under-estimates. I guess that is better than over-estimating.

When you put the card in the PC, look at the actual sizes. Actual file size will vary on how well compression works (noisy images compress less well as, lets say, a solid color.).

dakight · 06-12-2015, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Sagitta

...
EDIT: It should also be mentioned that my 32GB cards only have 29.7GB of usable storage - you lose a bit of data space due to the formatting of the card itself.

It's more insidious than that. In the digital world, a gigabyte is defined as 1024 Megabytes; a megabyte is 1024 kilobytes and a kilobyte is 1024 bytes. It's this way because the computer works in binary and numbers are manipulated in powers of 2. When the marketers got into the act they discovered that by counting in increments of 1000 instead of 1024 they made their products appear to have higher capacity. Thus a 32 gb memory card has 32x1000x1000x1000 bytes, or 32 billion in the usual base ten scheme. If it were expressed in the binary system it would be 29.8 (true) GB. There is some formatting loss to be sure, but not that much. Most of the "loss" is due to the formatting program reporting the capacity in the commonly accepted convention for binary capacities rather that the inflated base ten scheme that the marketers like to use.

**Mikesul** · 06-16-2015, 05:39 AM - **1 Like**

Too much specuation. Why don't you just take a picture and see how large the raw file is?

pentasonic49 · 06-16-2015, 01:19 PM

Iv'e taken a few snaps in raw and they vary from 30-38mb using the supplied S-SW160 software. The 38mb was at 51200 iso. My pixel shift attempts have not yet been successful, i'm not too impressed with the operating manual.

kain · 06-16-2015, 06:20 PM

For a good pixel shift shot, you are going to very much need a strong tripod for vibration absorption -- dont forget that the SR device is being used to do the pixel shift, so things like freehand shooting in pixel shift are basically a non-starter, in terms of picture quality.

pentasonic49 · 06-17-2015, 10:55 AM

As I said, my attempt at pixel shift failed. I set the camera to manual focus, manual exposure, 2 second timer and pixel shift. My tripod is sturdy enough especially without the thin sections of the legs extended. ISO100 with an F50-1.7@ f5.6. The camera seemed to take a long time processing for each of three exposures at one stop variations. I used the supplied software not Photoshop.

06-12-2015, 12:53 PM - 1 Like	#1
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395	just got my K3 II Went into Bristol cameras today to pick up my new K3 II. Their special deal included a 16gb card, a Hahnel battery, screen protectors and a case, big enough to squeeze in the camera with a 16-50 fitted. I was surprised that raw files will take up 56mb and jpeg's are 19mb. I had better get a few large SD cards. Still, cards are cheap nowadays. When I bought my first Pentax is't ds and 18-125 Sigma, I could only afford a 256mb card.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Black & White Just got a k3, enjoying it so far.	photosbyspeed	Post Your Photos!	5	07-21-2018 08:52 AM
I just got my GR! My impressions.	drypenn	Ricoh GR	4	06-02-2015 04:58 PM
K3 deal just got better?	jaz	Pentax Price Watch	4	11-20-2014 11:36 PM
Misc Finally got my K3 and this is my very first picture!	ghiaauto	Post Your Photos!	10	10-10-2014 01:08 PM
Got my K3 today!	Tom S.	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	12	12-04-2013 10:07 PM

06-12-2015, 01:04 PM	#2
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Wow. Raw files generally should not be 56MB. Was this a high ISO/noisy image? Should be more around 30MB. Even PEF compression is finally decent and is pretty close to (and sometimes better than) DNG, unlike older cameras where PEFs were quite a bit larger. But yeah, memory is cheap. Load up. :-) :-) :-)

06-12-2015, 01:29 PM	#3
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395 Original Poster	I just did rough maths for number of shots available for a card. However, I took the 16gb out and put it into my pc which gave a formatted size of 14.4gb. Assuming 1024mb per gig, then 292 raw files may be in the region of 50.5mb, and 861 jpegs about 17mb.

06-12-2015, 01:43 PM	#4
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	AFAIK, the K-3 II has the same size sensor as the K-3, and the average DNG file is roughly 30MB. Unless I'm mistaken and the K-3 II sports a bigger sensor, you must have done your math wrong somehow, or the camera is being overly frugal with the number of shots it thinks you will be able to take. Last edited by Sagitta; 06-12-2015 at 01:51 PM.

06-12-2015, 01:48 PM	#5
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	I too have a new K3ii. I just got back from a trip where I shot about 600 images. my jpg files were from 9 - 14 mb in size. my dng files were from 26.7 to 28.6 mb my pef fiels were from 28 - 32.5 mb my "shifted pixel files were all around 127 and 128 mb I keep 2 64 gb cards in my k3ii. each one holds 899 raw+ images (raw and jpg for each image). Dave

06-12-2015, 01:55 PM	#6
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395 Original Poster	Well, when I switch the camera on with a formatted 16gb card, it tells me 861 jpegs or 292 raw. The sensors are certainly the same, and I haven't switched on the pixel shift yet. ---------- Post added 06-12-15 at 02:10 PM ---------- Hi Fenwoodian, I noticed that your 64gb cards hold 899 raw+, which means each raw and jpeg combined are about 73mb, without allowing for formatting losses. This tallies nicely with my estimate of 17+50.5mb= 67.5mb. Of course, formatting losses vary somewhat with card capacity.

06-12-2015, 02:36 PM	#7
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Originally posted by pentasonic49 Well, when I switch the camera on with a formatted 16gb card, it tells me 861 jpegs or 292 raw. The sensors are certainly the same, and I haven't switched on the pixel shift yet. ---------- Post added 06-12-15 at 02:10 PM ---------- Hi Fenwoodian, I noticed that your 64gb cards hold 899 raw+, which means each raw and jpeg combined are about 73mb, without allowing for formatting losses. This tallies nicely with my estimate of 17+50.5mb= 67.5mb. Of course, formatting losses vary somewhat with card capacity. My 32GB cards read as having a capacity of only 598 shots (straight DNG, no JPG). This is very much not the case in practice, as my average DNG winds up somewhere in the 30MB range. The camera is obviously lowballing its numbers to avoid people running out of card space. I just checked the shots I took yesterday (and I took a lot - went to a carnival) and my largest DNG for the day is 37MB (a shot where I blew my exposure with my flash by about 3 stops), and the smallest is 27MB (a darkish, underexposed shot of my son with some very uniform colors in the background from a wide-striped tarp). Interestingly, the largest and smallest DNGs don't correspond with the largest and smallest JPGs (I shoot DNG + JPG), The largest JPG is 14.4MB and is basically a wildly colorful crowd shot with a slew of colors all mixed together. The smallest JPG is the next shot in the series of the "Crap, I overposed" flash shots (that resulted in the largest DNG) and is almost uniformly white. Its a measly 4.89MB. EDIT: It should also be mentioned that my 32GB cards only have 29.7GB of usable storage - you lose a bit of data space due to the formatting of the card itself.

06-12-2015, 03:33 PM	#8
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Originally posted by pentasonic49 I just did rough maths for number of shots available for a card. However, I took the 16gb out and put it into my pc which gave a formatted size of 14.4gb. Assuming 1024mb per gig, then 292 raw files may be in the region of 50.5mb, and 861 jpegs about 17mb. Never trust what the camera says. I don't know what math it uses (maybe un-compressed sizes?) but it always under-estimates. I guess that is better than over-estimating. When you put the card in the PC, look at the actual sizes. Actual file size will vary on how well compression works (noisy images compress less well as, lets say, a solid color.).

06-12-2015, 05:16 PM	#9
dakight Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Albums Posts: 1,216	Originally posted by Sagitta ... EDIT: It should also be mentioned that my 32GB cards only have 29.7GB of usable storage - you lose a bit of data space due to the formatting of the card itself. It's more insidious than that. In the digital world, a gigabyte is defined as 1024 Megabytes; a megabyte is 1024 kilobytes and a kilobyte is 1024 bytes. It's this way because the computer works in binary and numbers are manipulated in powers of 2. When the marketers got into the act they discovered that by counting in increments of 1000 instead of 1024 they made their products appear to have higher capacity. Thus a 32 gb memory card has 32x1000x1000x1000 bytes, or 32 billion in the usual base ten scheme. If it were expressed in the binary system it would be 29.8 (true) GB. There is some formatting loss to be sure, but not that much. Most of the "loss" is due to the formatting program reporting the capacity in the commonly accepted convention for binary capacities rather that the inflated base ten scheme that the marketers like to use.

06-16-2015, 05:39 AM - 1 Like	#10
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Too much specuation. Why don't you just take a picture and see how large the raw file is?

06-16-2015, 01:19 PM	#11
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395 Original Poster	Iv'e taken a few snaps in raw and they vary from 30-38mb using the supplied S-SW160 software. The 38mb was at 51200 iso. My pixel shift attempts have not yet been successful, i'm not too impressed with the operating manual.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-16-2015, 06:20 PM	#12
kain Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 162	For a good pixel shift shot, you are going to very much need a strong tripod for vibration absorption -- dont forget that the SR device is being used to do the pixel shift, so things like freehand shooting in pixel shift are basically a non-starter, in terms of picture quality.

06-17-2015, 10:55 AM	#13
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395 Original Poster	As I said, my attempt at pixel shift failed. I set the camera to manual focus, manual exposure, 2 second timer and pixel shift. My tripod is sturdy enough especially without the thin sections of the legs extended. ISO100 with an F50-1.7@ f5.6. The camera seemed to take a long time processing for each of three exposures at one stop variations. I used the supplied software not Photoshop.