K-3/k-3 ii iso

pentasonic49 · 06-17-2015, 12:27 PM

Check out the prices. the K3 II, if within your budget is the one to go for. My old K10 was sold to a friend and still gives great results.

Dr. Zee · 06-17-2015, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by pentasonic49

Check out the prices. the K3 II, if within your budget is the one to go for. My old K10 was sold to a friend and still gives great results.

I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while.

Dr. Zee · 06-19-2015, 12:41 AM - **1 Like**

Just bought a K-3 II body from B&H, a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 and a m42 adapter off of eBay.

And now for the wait.

pentasonic49 · 06-19-2015, 01:21 PM

Since the value of the K10 is so low now, it would be a good idea to keep it as a second body is always nice to have.

Dr. Zee · 06-20-2015, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by pentasonic49

Since the value of the K10 is so low now, it would be a good idea to keep it as a second body is always nice to have.

It's been through the wringer. Viewfinder cracked up from a bike wreck, takes a pen to open the memory card slot, needs a cleaning. it works fine but, I bet I'd get $50 for it.

Nicolas06 · 06-23-2015, 12:07 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Dr. Zee

Shooting RAW, primarily color.

---------- Post added 06-15-15 at 01:01 PM ----------

Yeah, when I say noise, I'm not talking about anything Raw processing can weed out. I'm talking NOISE.

You brought a K3 so I think you go at least 2EV gain from your old camera... Now if you denoise with good software like a recent lightroom version of DxO, you should gain at least 1-2EV more. With DxO prime that yet another EV to gain.

Here an example at 2500iso, processed with prime:

Another on the same serie at 6400 iso, processed with prime... We start to be at the limit, but still look good to me:

iso 8000, in a pub:

iso 1250, outdoor

Nicolas06 · 06-23-2015, 12:17 AM

That being said, a flash well used do more to improve many low light pictures than ultimate iso performance. It just do not add more light, it improve the lighting

Here a few tries with my cobra, a small softbox attached to it, flash, deported to the left (with a wire). I did it handled, 1 hand with the flash, 1 hand with the camera.

iso 800, f/5.6, 1/80, flash

iso 800, f/5.6, 1/80, flash

Ideally you want to have both good high iso performance and a good flash to improve the light quality (rather than necessarily quantity).

TheOneAndOnlyJH · 06-23-2015, 03:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Dr. Zee

I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while.

If you're looking for a general use lens, I would highly recommend the Pentax-A 35-105 F/3.5 (link) with a constant f/3.5 aperture (not the FA version with variable aperture). I bought one half broken for $25 just to see how the image quality was and loved it so much I ended up stalking eBay until I found a fully functioning one for a good price. Some people call this a stack of primes, and I would agree. It might not be as fast as a kit of primes, but it's very decent wide open, and stopped down to f/4 I'm extremely happy with the bokeh, sharpness, and color. It takes a little bit to get used to focusing, but the results are worth it.

Unless you're used to calculating or adjusting exposure settings on your own, I would recommend sticking to Pentax-A lenses for the auto-aperture control. I bought a few full manual and Pentax-M lenses, but you can't use Av or TAv mode (which I'm quite fond of indoors).

After trying my hand at a few different manual focus legacy lanses I've come to believe that in terms of image quality and color rendition, Pentax lenses are worth the little extra they cost over other brands. I have a Sears 50mm f/2 that performs well, but I also have a Vivitar Series 1 lens which is said to have qreat image quality and sharpness, but the color is much too warm and always needs adjustment. I'm happy with color and auto white balance on my Pentax-A lenses without having to play with any settings.

Just keep in mind when buying old glass that you need to watch out for oily apertures and fungus or haze on the lens elements.

Nicolas06 · 06-24-2015, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Zee

I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while.

In all honesty, K3-II vs K3 make sense only if you are fond of astrotracing or object photography or still landscape (without wind/water) on a tripod. K3 make sense vs K50 mostly for much better autofocus and added resolution. Even modern DSLR make sense mostly if you use AF as their viewfinder is not optimized for manual focus and they don't offer as great MF experience as an hybrid like Sony Nex or Fuji hydrids can provide...

There no point to spend a lot on a body whom price will decrease and that will be replace by better bodies at fast rate but neglect the lense part... Their price doesn't move that much. It is advisable to at least spend half of your budget on lenses and many have much more money invested on lenses than body.

I don't say that you should not use MF lenses, many primes are quite great, but then there little interrest to pay a premium for a body optimized for AF lenses. It would make much more sense to have some budget for lenses from the begining. The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is quite innexpensive (and is f/2.8) and can be coupled with a 70-300 or a used 55-300... Otherwise you can take your body in kit with 18-135 and add maybe a DA35f/2.4 and/or DA50 f/1.8 for indoor low light situations.

It would make much more sense then to have one of these combo with a K3 or even a K50 than a K3-II with some old MF zoom. If you still think you need K3-II in the long run, buy a used K30/K5 for maybe 300$ with some great lenses and when you have some money resell the body again (or use it as second body in case of emergency) and this K3-II.

It doesn't mean of course you can't or should not buy a few MF lenses in addition.

Dr. Zee · 06-24-2015, 08:50 AM

Got my K-3 II body and 50mm manual yesterday. Did some throwaway shots last night. Frankly, it's spooky. I can take shots now that look just like the old shots, (color tone, composition, highlights, shadows), but while the old shots were totally unusable, these are sharp and fine grained.
The funny thing is, I think I have an aversion to shots like these from years of shooting with the K10D. They're usually orange from incandescent or sodium lamps, or a mix of orange, green and red from competing color temp bulbs, have saturated colors and heavy shadows. I usually import them, push them as far as I can in RAW, get them to the point that they're technically presentable but repulsively artificial. By then I'm convinced that they're irredeemable and I delete them and move on.
I see these shots, and I'm still sort of repulsed out of habit. It seems wrong somehow that they look just like my throwaways but are now perfectly usable.
I guess I expected the quality of the capture or the quality of the light to be different somehow, But it's not. They're the same photos but better rendered. This'll take some getting used to.

I also got a 95mbps memory card. That coupled with this incredibly nimble shutter... I can't believe the speed.

TheOneAndOnlyJH · 06-24-2015, 02:41 PM - **1 Like**

I had the same thought on my first few pictures with my K-3. Try changing the image setting from 'Bright' (the default) to 'Natural' using the right button on the 4-way section (with a white hexagon in front of a rectangle). This alters JPEG color settings, but these same settings are used as a starting point in many RAW viewers and post processing programs. I found that 'natural' did a better job of accurately reproducing what I saw while the default 'bright' over-saturated reds and oranges, especially in wood trim and furniture.

Dr. Zee · 06-24-2015, 03:47 PM

Will do. Thanks for the tip.

Nicolas06 · 06-24-2015, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Zee

Got my K-3 II body and 50mm manual yesterday. Did some throwaway shots last night. Frankly, it's spooky. I can take shots now that look just like the old shots, (color tone, composition, highlights, shadows), but while the old shots were totally unusable, these are sharp and fine grained.
The funny thing is, I think I have an aversion to shots like these from years of shooting with the K10D. They're usually orange from incandescent or sodium lamps, or a mix of orange, green and red from competing color temp bulbs, have saturated colors and heavy shadows. I usually import them, push them as far as I can in RAW, get them to the point that they're technically presentable but repulsively artificial. By then I'm convinced that they're irredeemable and I delete them and move on.
I see these shots, and I'm still sort of repulsed out of habit. It seems wrong somehow that they look just like my throwaways but are now perfectly usable.
I guess I expected the quality of the capture or the quality of the light to be different somehow, But it's not. They're the same photos but better rendered. This'll take some getting used to.

I also got a 95mbps memory card. That coupled with this incredibly nimble shutter... I can't believe the speed.

Hello,

There several possibilities to fix that for me:

- The white balance is likely wrong in your case (even through K3-II does a far better job at it). You can correct it manually or just remember to take a grey paper on the field and adjust the white balence with it (the last one is what the pro are doing.

- Even on RAWs, one must understand there a "base" rendering. This rendering give the default value for contrast, relative exposure of different colors etc. You might need to work a lot just ot get the kind of rendering/mood you need because you may need to shift very far from it and then your picture might look unnatural if your are not post-processor ninja... Or you can change the base rendering to already match more or less what you want. In DxO, by default you can choose between the rendering of maybe 50 camera from different brands or to a default neutral, softer rendering... or use DxO film pack to choose from more than 1 hundred base rendering that emulate the rendering of old films, including the grain if you want. On lightroom I must admit I don't know what you can do, but I'am sure there some possibilities and that you can find interresting plugins too.

- It is also likely if you are honest that the original scene has harsh, bad lighting to begin with. Your brain somewhat improve it, but still the lighting is bad. Likely there shadow in wrong place, the light is so-so... There is nothing arround first to take a shoot in good condition, good lighting, interresting place and so on... And if you can't change the place, to add lighting off your on. This come with flashs... Just a single cobra flash that you bounce on ceiling or that you use with a small diffused slightly deported with your hand improve the lighting dramatically.

Just look how different the colors tone are with or without flash:

With flash:

Without flash:

06-24-2015, 08:50 AM	#25
Dr. Zee New Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Got my K-3 II body and 50mm manual yesterday. Did some throwaway shots last night. Frankly, it's spooky. I can take shots now that look just like the old shots, (color tone, composition, highlights, shadows), but while the old shots were totally unusable, these are sharp and fine grained. The funny thing is, I think I have an aversion to shots like these from years of shooting with the K10D. They're usually orange from incandescent or sodium lamps, or a mix of orange, green and red from competing color temp bulbs, have saturated colors and heavy shadows. I usually import them, push them as far as I can in RAW, get them to the point that they're technically presentable but repulsively artificial. By then I'm convinced that they're irredeemable and I delete them and move on. I see these shots, and I'm still sort of repulsed out of habit. It seems wrong somehow that they look just like my throwaways but are now perfectly usable. I guess I expected the quality of the capture or the quality of the light to be different somehow, But it's not. They're the same photos but better rendered. This'll take some getting used to. I also got a 95mbps memory card. That coupled with this incredibly nimble shutter... I can't believe the speed. Last edited by Dr. Zee; 06-24-2015 at 12:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Battery Grip on K-3 and K-5 II Problem	morph00	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	02-03-2015 01:55 AM
K-3 / K-5 II / K-50: Don't forget the extended warranty!	Adam	Pentax Price Watch	69	01-07-2015 12:56 AM
Sensor noise on the K-5 II vs K-3	groovyg	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	12-18-2014 03:45 PM
Pentax K-3 vs K-30 on AF & high ISO	samuelyuen3	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	8	12-05-2013 10:13 PM
K-5 ii/iis or Pentax k-3 for me	kricha6431	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	22	11-01-2013 11:42 AM

06-17-2015, 12:27 PM	#16
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395	Check out the prices. the K3 II, if within your budget is the one to go for. My old K10 was sold to a friend and still gives great results.

06-17-2015, 11:08 PM	#17
Dr. Zee New Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Originally posted by pentasonic49 Check out the prices. the K3 II, if within your budget is the one to go for. My old K10 was sold to a friend and still gives great results. I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while.

06-19-2015, 12:41 AM - 1 Like	#18
Dr. Zee New Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Just bought a K-3 II body from B&H, a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 and a m42 adapter off of eBay. And now for the wait.

06-19-2015, 01:21 PM	#19
pentasonic49 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: weston-super-mare Posts: 395	Since the value of the K10 is so low now, it would be a good idea to keep it as a second body is always nice to have.

06-20-2015, 09:08 PM	#20
Dr. Zee New Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Originally posted by pentasonic49 Since the value of the K10 is so low now, it would be a good idea to keep it as a second body is always nice to have. It's been through the wringer. Viewfinder cracked up from a bike wreck, takes a pen to open the memory card slot, needs a cleaning. it works fine but, I bet I'd get $50 for it.

06-23-2015, 12:07 AM - 1 Like	#21
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Dr. Zee Shooting RAW, primarily color. ---------- Post added 06-15-15 at 01:01 PM ---------- Yeah, when I say noise, I'm not talking about anything Raw processing can weed out. I'm talking NOISE. You brought a K3 so I think you go at least 2EV gain from your old camera... Now if you denoise with good software like a recent lightroom version of DxO, you should gain at least 1-2EV more. With DxO prime that yet another EV to gain. Here an example at 2500iso, processed with prime: Another on the same serie at 6400 iso, processed with prime... We start to be at the limit, but still look good to me: iso 8000, in a pub: iso 1250, outdoor

06-23-2015, 12:17 AM	#22
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	That being said, a flash well used do more to improve many low light pictures than ultimate iso performance. It just do not add more light, it improve the lighting Here a few tries with my cobra, a small softbox attached to it, flash, deported to the left (with a wire). I did it handled, 1 hand with the flash, 1 hand with the camera. iso 800, f/5.6, 1/80, flash iso 800, f/5.6, 1/80, flash Ideally you want to have both good high iso performance and a good flash to improve the light quality (rather than necessarily quantity).

06-23-2015, 03:05 PM - 1 Like	#23
TheOneAndOnlyJH Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 351	Originally posted by Dr. Zee I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while. If you're looking for a general use lens, I would highly recommend the Pentax-A 35-105 F/3.5 (link) with a constant f/3.5 aperture (not the FA version with variable aperture). I bought one half broken for $25 just to see how the image quality was and loved it so much I ended up stalking eBay until I found a fully functioning one for a good price. Some people call this a stack of primes, and I would agree. It might not be as fast as a kit of primes, but it's very decent wide open, and stopped down to f/4 I'm extremely happy with the bokeh, sharpness, and color. It takes a little bit to get used to focusing, but the results are worth it. Unless you're used to calculating or adjusting exposure settings on your own, I would recommend sticking to Pentax-A lenses for the auto-aperture control. I bought a few full manual and Pentax-M lenses, but you can't use Av or TAv mode (which I'm quite fond of indoors). After trying my hand at a few different manual focus legacy lanses I've come to believe that in terms of image quality and color rendition, Pentax lenses are worth the little extra they cost over other brands. I have a Sears 50mm f/2 that performs well, but I also have a Vivitar Series 1 lens which is said to have qreat image quality and sharpness, but the color is much too warm and always needs adjustment. I'm happy with color and auto white balance on my Pentax-A lenses without having to play with any settings. Just keep in mind when buying old glass that you need to watch out for oily apertures and fungus or haze on the lens elements.

06-24-2015, 04:01 AM	#24
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Dr. Zee I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while. In all honesty, K3-II vs K3 make sense only if you are fond of astrotracing or object photography or still landscape (without wind/water) on a tripod. K3 make sense vs K50 mostly for much better autofocus and added resolution. Even modern DSLR make sense mostly if you use AF as their viewfinder is not optimized for manual focus and they don't offer as great MF experience as an hybrid like Sony Nex or Fuji hydrids can provide... There no point to spend a lot on a body whom price will decrease and that will be replace by better bodies at fast rate but neglect the lense part... Their price doesn't move that much. It is advisable to at least spend half of your budget on lenses and many have much more money invested on lenses than body. I don't say that you should not use MF lenses, many primes are quite great, but then there little interrest to pay a premium for a body optimized for AF lenses. It would make much more sense to have some budget for lenses from the begining. The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is quite innexpensive (and is f/2.8) and can be coupled with a 70-300 or a used 55-300... Otherwise you can take your body in kit with 18-135 and add maybe a DA35f/2.4 and/or DA50 f/1.8 for indoor low light situations. It would make much more sense then to have one of these combo with a K3 or even a K50 than a K3-II with some old MF zoom. If you still think you need K3-II in the long run, buy a used K30/K5 for maybe 300$ with some great lenses and when you have some money resell the body again (or use it as second body in case of emergency) and this K3-II. It doesn't mean of course you can't or should not buy a few MF lenses in addition.

06-24-2015, 02:41 PM - 1 Like	#26
TheOneAndOnlyJH Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 351	I had the same thought on my first few pictures with my K-3. Try changing the image setting from 'Bright' (the default) to 'Natural' using the right button on the 4-way section (with a white hexagon in front of a rectangle). This alters JPEG color settings, but these same settings are used as a starting point in many RAW viewers and post processing programs. I found that 'natural' did a better job of accurately reproducing what I saw while the default 'bright' over-saturated reds and oranges, especially in wood trim and furniture.

06-24-2015, 03:47 PM	#27
Dr. Zee New Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 22 Original Poster	Will do. Thanks for the tip.

06-24-2015, 11:54 PM	#28
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Dr. Zee Got my K-3 II body and 50mm manual yesterday. Did some throwaway shots last night. Frankly, it's spooky. I can take shots now that look just like the old shots, (color tone, composition, highlights, shadows), but while the old shots were totally unusable, these are sharp and fine grained. The funny thing is, I think I have an aversion to shots like these from years of shooting with the K10D. They're usually orange from incandescent or sodium lamps, or a mix of orange, green and red from competing color temp bulbs, have saturated colors and heavy shadows. I usually import them, push them as far as I can in RAW, get them to the point that they're technically presentable but repulsively artificial. By then I'm convinced that they're irredeemable and I delete them and move on. I see these shots, and I'm still sort of repulsed out of habit. It seems wrong somehow that they look just like my throwaways but are now perfectly usable. I guess I expected the quality of the capture or the quality of the light to be different somehow, But it's not. They're the same photos but better rendered. This'll take some getting used to. I also got a 95mbps memory card. That coupled with this incredibly nimble shutter... I can't believe the speed. Hello, There several possibilities to fix that for me: - The white balance is likely wrong in your case (even through K3-II does a far better job at it). You can correct it manually or just remember to take a grey paper on the field and adjust the white balence with it (the last one is what the pro are doing. - Even on RAWs, one must understand there a "base" rendering. This rendering give the default value for contrast, relative exposure of different colors etc. You might need to work a lot just ot get the kind of rendering/mood you need because you may need to shift very far from it and then your picture might look unnatural if your are not post-processor ninja... Or you can change the base rendering to already match more or less what you want. In DxO, by default you can choose between the rendering of maybe 50 camera from different brands or to a default neutral, softer rendering... or use DxO film pack to choose from more than 1 hundred base rendering that emulate the rendering of old films, including the grain if you want. On lightroom I must admit I don't know what you can do, but I'am sure there some possibilities and that you can find interresting plugins too. - It is also likely if you are honest that the original scene has harsh, bad lighting to begin with. Your brain somewhat improve it, but still the lighting is bad. Likely there shadow in wrong place, the light is so-so... There is nothing arround first to take a shoot in good condition, good lighting, interresting place and so on... And if you can't change the place, to add lighting off your on. This come with flashs... Just a single cobra flash that you bounce on ceiling or that you use with a small diffused slightly deported with your hand improve the lighting dramatically. Just look how different the colors tone are with or without flash: With flash: Without flash: