Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

fstop18 · 10-30-2015, 12:06 PM

I am asking this because I did a recent side by side compare of my K10 (28-80mm) with just a UV & warming filter, to my brand new K-3, which had a warm PL, greenfield, & enhanser on a Tamron, 18-200mm. (Don't call me crazy for too many filters, I'm still experimenting). I basically stayed in the same spot and switched lens, but the K10 really took some beautiful rich looking pics, and this camera had a rough life(another story). I can't believe that the K10's pic seemed much better. The K3, is basically set up 'out of the box', and I'm not knocking it at all, it's faster at everything! So I'm wondering if any of you feel that the K3 has to be used more, or maybe I have some bad settings: WB is set at normal. Any ideas? thanks.

enoeske · 10-30-2015, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by fstop18

I am asking this because I did a recent side by side compare of my K10 (28-80mm) with just a UV & warming filter, to my brand new K-3, which had a warm PL, greenfield, & enhanser on a Tamron, 18-200mm. (Don't call me crazy for too many filters, I'm still experimenting). I basically stayed in the same spot and switched lens, but the K10 really took some beautiful rich looking pics, and this camera had a rough life(another story). I can't believe that the K10's pic seemed much better. The K3, is basically set up 'out of the box', and I'm not knocking it at all, it's faster at everything! So I'm wondering if any of you feel that the K3 has to be used more, or maybe I have some bad settings: WB is set at normal. Any ideas? thanks.

Well, you are comparing CCD against CMOS, so there are some differences to be expected.

**bkpix** · 10-30-2015, 12:24 PM

Well, I'd say any actual differences between the sensors have been completely masked by the use of different lenses and filters. Try the same shot with the same lens on both cameras, no filters.

And what do you mean by "better"? You might post example photos.

**MJSfoto1956** · 10-30-2015, 12:46 PM

I think if you process your RAW images via a tool like DxO Optics Pro you will find that your K10 and K3 images will have end up having the same "look and feel" even though the sensors are night and day.

Michael

**jpzk** · 10-30-2015, 12:49 PM

I always thought that my son's K10 (which I gave to him a few years ago) renders better "tone" and colours than my K5.
That's what I find when he shows his portrait and landscape shots anyway .... jus me maybe.

stevebrot · 10-30-2015, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by fstop18

Do you think sensors have to be 'seasoned'?

No...Though I do believe that photographers eventually adapt to their gear.

Steve

**jatrax** · 10-30-2015, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

No...Though I do believe that photographers eventually adapt to their gear.

So photographers have to be 'seasoned'?

Originally posted by fstop18

Do you think sensors have to be 'seasoned'?

And, no. You have so many variables in this 'test' that nothing can really be determined. In particular you are comparing CCD and CMOS sensors, different sensor generations by a lot, different jpeg settings (assuming you were shooting jpeg) and then completely different lenses and filters.

Originally posted by fstop18

So I'm wondering if any of you feel that the K3 has to be used more,

I will agree with that. The k-3 is perhaps a little less forgiving than earlier cameras, you cannot be as 'casual' about shooting it demands more attention. Sort of like a high performance car, it does great things but only if you pay attention.
As to settings, if you are shooting jpeg, there is an enormous number of tweaks you can do in the camera settings to change the final jpeg. If shooting RAW, then you need to build a develop preset that suits you.

reeftool · 10-30-2015, 01:13 PM

I love the ISO 100 output of my K10D. I think the colors render a little better. There is zero noise. I don't have a K3 but compared to my K5, the K10D holds its own very well at low ISO. The K5 has noticeable noise at ISO 100 but that noise level doesn't change a whole lot as the ISO goes up. The K10D gets noisy at ISO 400 and 800 is about the limit I use most of the time. I will shoot with my K5 up to ISO 12800. The K5, with it's higher resolution, will hold up better to pixel peeping.

If you're comparing the 2 cameras, you want to make sure you have similar settings. You're comparing a K3 with factory default settings. Make sure your K10D is also at defaults or better yet, match the settings on your K3. Contrast, saturation and make sure your image tone (bright or natural) is the same. You do have two different cameras with different sensors so the shots won't look exactly alike. You can make adjustments in the settings. I shoot Raw and really don't bother with the camera settings.

AquaDome · 10-30-2015, 01:22 PM

I saw something similar when I got my K-3 and compared it to my K-50. I began to get better images out of my K-3 when I learned to use it like a K-3 instead of like a K-50.

mikeSF · 10-30-2015, 03:02 PM

way too many variables to know for sure. can you snap a few side by sides without the filters and let's see what you are seeing. When I switched from K10D CCD to the K20D CMOS, i did notice this less lively looking image, but very quickly adapted in my processing workflow. I do have the CCD sensor in my 645D and I really like the rendering as well. But hey, the sensor is but a single component in a single tool within your art form, so move forward and embrace that change!! good luck

nomadkng · 10-30-2015, 03:04 PM

I started with a K10, then a K20 followed by a K5iis and now a K3 so my portfolio has a mix of bodies that produced the images. I shoot exclusively raw and have had essentially the same workflow for the past ten years. I predominantly shoot landscapes at iso 100. All images have been post processed through Photoshop CS3 or CS5.5 (current). All results are viewed and judged on a calibrated 4k monitor.

If we take out the mechanical differences, such as fps, buffer, focusing etc, based on my experience, I preferred the K10 over the K20 and the jump in MP with the K20 didn't offset the "depth" the CCD produced color wise. I felt I needed to tweak the k20 images "harder" in pp to match the K10. BUT as the iso crept up, beyond about 400 the K10 really lagged behind. Still anything over about 800 I really didn't like for either sensor.

The K5iis was at least 2 steps of an improvement over the K20 and was the first time I felt comfortable marketing some images as large as 5400x3600 pixels at 300 ppi. (The K10 and K20 really started to suffer above 3600x2400 pixels at 300ppi.) With the K5iis the noise envelope was pushed to about iso 1000.

The K3 is giving me really nice images at 7500x5000 ppi and I could probably go higher. I've had to be a little more conscious of black points and tone curves in pp to get the feel of my personal style but I can really "work" the files if needed because of all the extra bit depth. When I get everything just right, there's a wow factor that even my best K10 images can't touch. When I compare my K10 images to what I can do with a K3, I start making plans to return to those old locations to reshoot. The K3 is just THAT much better.

So, no, sensors are sensors with their own unique characteristic right out of the box.

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-30-2015, 05:28 PM

My K10D gave wonderfully rich colours at ISO 100. I bought the K3 knowing full well that I would have to tweak the output from the K3 to compensate for the CMOS rendering. I find that a very small price to pay for being able to use my M 400 at ISO 3200 and still get usable pictures. (For those who don't know the K10, the maximum ISO is 1600 and noise starts getting annoying at 400 ISO.

jkomp316 · 10-30-2015, 05:28 PM

i needed to season myself after switching from ccd to cmos. post processing is just a bit different.

**pasorro** · 10-31-2015, 01:03 PM

On Spanish forum I wrote a thread about it. I got much better pictures with my k100d vs k5. You can see pictures here.

k100dsuper dando ca

**Rondec** · 10-31-2015, 01:18 PM

The K3 is just a different camera. It has a lot more megapixels and a little different rendering. If you use the same presets and editing on it that you use on a K10, you may not get the best results. Lack of AA filter means that you need less sharpening. I found this to be true going from a K5 to a K3, I can't imagine there would be less adjustment going from a K10 to a K3.

10-30-2015, 12:06 PM	#1
fstop18 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 139	Do you think sensors have to be 'seasoned'? I am asking this because I did a recent side by side compare of my K10 (28-80mm) with just a UV & warming filter, to my brand new K-3, which had a warm PL, greenfield, & enhanser on a Tamron, 18-200mm. (Don't call me crazy for too many filters, I'm still experimenting). I basically stayed in the same spot and switched lens, but the K10 really took some beautiful rich looking pics, and this camera had a rough life(another story). I can't believe that the K10's pic seemed much better. The K3, is basically set up 'out of the box', and I'm not knocking it at all, it's faster at everything! So I'm wondering if any of you feel that the K3 has to be used more, or maybe I have some bad settings: WB is set at normal. Any ideas? thanks.

10-30-2015, 03:04 PM	#11
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	I started with a K10, then a K20 followed by a K5iis and now a K3 so my portfolio has a mix of bodies that produced the images. I shoot exclusively raw and have had essentially the same workflow for the past ten years. I predominantly shoot landscapes at iso 100. All images have been post processed through Photoshop CS3 or CS5.5 (current). All results are viewed and judged on a calibrated 4k monitor. If we take out the mechanical differences, such as fps, buffer, focusing etc, based on my experience, I preferred the K10 over the K20 and the jump in MP with the K20 didn't offset the "depth" the CCD produced color wise. I felt I needed to tweak the k20 images "harder" in pp to match the K10. BUT as the iso crept up, beyond about 400 the K10 really lagged behind. Still anything over about 800 I really didn't like for either sensor. The K5iis was at least 2 steps of an improvement over the K20 and was the first time I felt comfortable marketing some images as large as 5400x3600 pixels at 300 ppi. (The K10 and K20 really started to suffer above 3600x2400 pixels at 300ppi.) With the K5iis the noise envelope was pushed to about iso 1000. The K3 is giving me really nice images at 7500x5000 ppi and I could probably go higher. I've had to be a little more conscious of black points and tone curves in pp to get the feel of my personal style but I can really "work" the files if needed because of all the extra bit depth. When I get everything just right, there's a wow factor that even my best K10 images can't touch. When I compare my K10 images to what I can do with a K3, I start making plans to return to those old locations to reshoot. The K3 is just THAT much better. So, no, sensors are sensors with their own unique characteristic right out of the box. Last edited by nomadkng; 10-30-2015 at 03:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
You have 1100 to spend...what do you do?	rzarector	Pentax DSLR Discussion	51	03-16-2018 10:55 AM
What do you think the Pentax FF kit lens will be?	Sagitta	Pentax Full Frame	70	02-16-2015 10:47 AM
Not Work-Safe You don't have to be size 0 to be a sexy Model.	Ed n Georgia	Post Your Photos!	4	12-04-2014 10:40 AM
What do you think the K70 is going to have?	Painter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	49	07-10-2014 12:55 AM
Landscape Do you think my sensor might be dirty?	rrstuff	Post Your Photos!	7	05-12-2014 04:31 PM

10-30-2015, 12:23 PM	#2
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by fstop18 I am asking this because I did a recent side by side compare of my K10 (28-80mm) with just a UV & warming filter, to my brand new K-3, which had a warm PL, greenfield, & enhanser on a Tamron, 18-200mm. (Don't call me crazy for too many filters, I'm still experimenting). I basically stayed in the same spot and switched lens, but the K10 really took some beautiful rich looking pics, and this camera had a rough life(another story). I can't believe that the K10's pic seemed much better. The K3, is basically set up 'out of the box', and I'm not knocking it at all, it's faster at everything! So I'm wondering if any of you feel that the K3 has to be used more, or maybe I have some bad settings: WB is set at normal. Any ideas? thanks. Well, you are comparing CCD against CMOS, so there are some differences to be expected.

10-30-2015, 12:24 PM	#3
bkpix Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Creswell, Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 570	Well, I'd say any actual differences between the sensors have been completely masked by the use of different lenses and filters. Try the same shot with the same lens on both cameras, no filters. And what do you mean by "better"? You might post example photos.

10-30-2015, 12:46 PM	#4
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	I think if you process your RAW images via a tool like DxO Optics Pro you will find that your K10 and K3 images will have end up having the same "look and feel" even though the sensors are night and day. Michael

10-30-2015, 12:49 PM	#5
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	I always thought that my son's K10 (which I gave to him a few years ago) renders better "tone" and colours than my K5. That's what I find when he shows his portrait and landscape shots anyway .... jus me maybe.

10-30-2015, 12:53 PM	#6
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by fstop18 Do you think sensors have to be 'seasoned'? No...Though I do believe that photographers eventually adapt to their gear. Steve

10-30-2015, 01:08 PM	#7
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by stevebrot No...Though I do believe that photographers eventually adapt to their gear. So photographers have to be 'seasoned'? Originally posted by fstop18 Do you think sensors have to be 'seasoned'? And, no. You have so many variables in this 'test' that nothing can really be determined. In particular you are comparing CCD and CMOS sensors, different sensor generations by a lot, different jpeg settings (assuming you were shooting jpeg) and then completely different lenses and filters. Originally posted by fstop18 So I'm wondering if any of you feel that the K3 has to be used more, I will agree with that. The k-3 is perhaps a little less forgiving than earlier cameras, you cannot be as 'casual' about shooting it demands more attention. Sort of like a high performance car, it does great things but only if you pay attention. As to settings, if you are shooting jpeg, there is an enormous number of tweaks you can do in the camera settings to change the final jpeg. If shooting RAW, then you need to build a develop preset that suits you.

10-30-2015, 01:13 PM	#8
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	I love the ISO 100 output of my K10D. I think the colors render a little better. There is zero noise. I don't have a K3 but compared to my K5, the K10D holds its own very well at low ISO. The K5 has noticeable noise at ISO 100 but that noise level doesn't change a whole lot as the ISO goes up. The K10D gets noisy at ISO 400 and 800 is about the limit I use most of the time. I will shoot with my K5 up to ISO 12800. The K5, with it's higher resolution, will hold up better to pixel peeping. If you're comparing the 2 cameras, you want to make sure you have similar settings. You're comparing a K3 with factory default settings. Make sure your K10D is also at defaults or better yet, match the settings on your K3. Contrast, saturation and make sure your image tone (bright or natural) is the same. You do have two different cameras with different sensors so the shots won't look exactly alike. You can make adjustments in the settings. I shoot Raw and really don't bother with the camera settings.

10-30-2015, 01:22 PM	#9
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	I saw something similar when I got my K-3 and compared it to my K-50. I began to get better images out of my K-3 when I learned to use it like a K-3 instead of like a K-50.

10-30-2015, 03:02 PM	#10
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	way too many variables to know for sure. can you snap a few side by sides without the filters and let's see what you are seeing. When I switched from K10D CCD to the K20D CMOS, i did notice this less lively looking image, but very quickly adapted in my processing workflow. I do have the CCD sensor in my 645D and I really like the rendering as well. But hey, the sensor is but a single component in a single tool within your art form, so move forward and embrace that change!! good luck

10-30-2015, 05:28 PM	#12
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	My K10D gave wonderfully rich colours at ISO 100. I bought the K3 knowing full well that I would have to tweak the output from the K3 to compensate for the CMOS rendering. I find that a very small price to pay for being able to use my M 400 at ISO 3200 and still get usable pictures. (For those who don't know the K10, the maximum ISO is 1600 and noise starts getting annoying at 400 ISO.

10-30-2015, 05:28 PM	#13
jkomp316 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 227	i needed to season myself after switching from ccd to cmos. post processing is just a bit different.

10-31-2015, 01:03 PM	#14
pasorro Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 132	On Spanish forum I wrote a thread about it. I got much better pictures with my k100d vs k5. You can see pictures here. k100dsuper dando ca

10-31-2015, 01:18 PM	#15
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,666	The K3 is just a different camera. It has a lot more megapixels and a little different rendering. If you use the same presets and editing on it that you use on a K10, you may not get the best results. Lack of AA filter means that you need less sharpening. I found this to be true going from a K5 to a K3, I can't imagine there would be less adjustment going from a K10 to a K3.