Tried a new way to compare cameras - got a decent surprise

**caliscouser** · 04-13-2017, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by OldPentaxFan

Upper left K-3ii
Upper right D750
Lower left K-P
Lower Right K-70

This, or possibly the last two flipped around.

leekil · 04-13-2017, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by OldPentaxFan

Upper left K-3ii
Upper right D750
Lower left K-P
Lower Right K-70

I say this as well.

biz-engineer · 04-13-2017, 09:30 PM

Top left, Pentax K3
Top right, Pentax K70
Bottom right, Pentax KP
Bottom left, Nicron.

**newmikey** · 04-13-2017, 10:32 PM

Top-left is the K3 II, top-right the D750, bottom-right is the K-70 end bottom-left the KP

My surprise was how close the D750 and the KP really are and how far behind the K3 II is at this ISO. I'd been eyeing the K-70 as an upgrade to my K-5 IIs but now that I've seen this, there can be only one. Simple detail, price is still a bit too high for me so I'm going to give it 6 months to a year.

starbase218 · 04-14-2017, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by newmikey

Top-left is the K3 II, top-right the D750, bottom-right is the K-70 end bottom-left the KP

My surprise was how close the D750 and the KP really are and how far behind the K3 II is at this ISO. I'd been eyeing the K-70 as an upgrade to my K-5 IIs but now that I've seen this, there can be only one. Simple detail, price is still a bit too high for me so I'm going to give it 6 months to a year.

Be aware that the KP applies noise reduction to its files at higher ISO, even its RAW files. I would not rule out the K-70.

tromboads · 04-14-2017, 12:52 AM - **1 Like**

Doesn't matter.

Looking at those samples, one could make art with any of them.

**newmikey** · 04-14-2017, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by starbase218

Be aware that the KP applies noise reduction to its files at higher ISO, even its RAW files. I would not rule out the K-70.

Well, I can't undo the NR performed prior to writing the file to the SD card in-camera and there's no need to. All I wanted is to rule out any differences due to PP, with all of the different variations of software available and the crappy raw conversion of Photoshop/Lightroom taken out of the equation. With other words: what is our common starting point with the various raw files?

On your K-70 remark: it still looks very decent indeed and I have a strong preference for the fully articulated screen versus the somewhat limited way of the KP, especially for portrait format. If I would be forced to upgrade today, I'd go for the K-70 indeed as the price difference in NL is now almost 100% with the K-70 at €699 and the KP at a whopping €1299! I occasionally do high-ISO stuff, not enough to justify such a huge price difference.

But my K-5 IIs is still going strong and I can afford to wait and see whether the KP price drops to a more reasonable level. I've in the past always purchased a new body when it dropped from the introduction price somewhere around the €1100-1200 mark to about €800 (sometimes with a €100 cashback). The write-off of buying a new body at- or just after release just makes no economic sense at all.

Simen1 · 04-14-2017, 01:30 AM

I expect K-3II to be the most noisy one (upper left), but the three rest are so similar I don't have a clue. (Assuming no pixel shift tricks)

Giklab · 04-14-2017, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by starbase218

Be aware that the KP applies noise reduction to its files at higher ISO, even its RAW files. I would not rule out the K-70.

Every Pentax does that anyway, but with current pricing, I'd say the K-70 is the better choice from a purely objective standpoint.

Originally posted by tromboads

Doesn't matter.

Looking at those samples, one could make art with any of them.

I love how there's one such comment in every gear thread. Completely off-topic, and doesn't even add anything to the thread.

beholder3 · 04-14-2017, 03:17 AM

It's quite interesting to see how far Nikon has fallen back with image quality that their current FF does not show better noise performance than a current Pentax APSC.

Especially since we know how much Nikon is cheating on ISO in their raw data. For a fair comparison you need to push the Nikon ISO 19.242 image by +0,41 stops to the real ISO 25.600 (increasing its noise).

Medex · 04-14-2017, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by newmikey

Well, I can't undo the NR performed prior to writing the file to the SD card in-camera and there's no need to. All I wanted is to rule out any differences due to PP, with all of the different variations of software available and the crappy raw conversion of Photoshop/Lightroom taken out of the equation. With other words: what is our common starting point with the various raw files?

On your K-70 remark: it still looks very decent indeed and I have a strong preference for the fully articulated screen versus the somewhat limited way of the KP, especially for portrait format. If I would be forced to upgrade today, I'd go for the K-70 indeed as the price difference in NL is now almost 100% with the K-70 at €699 and the KP at a whopping €1299! I occasionally do high-ISO stuff, not enough to justify such a huge price difference.

But my K-5 IIs is still going strong and I can afford to wait and see whether the KP price drops to a more reasonable level. I've in the past always purchased a new body when it dropped from the introduction price somewhere around the €1100-1200 mark to about €800 (sometimes with a €100 cashback). The write-off of buying a new body at- or just after release just makes no economic sense at all.

maybe you would like to include Pentax K-5IIs at ISO 25600 in this comparison test?

**ffking** · 04-14-2017, 07:59 AM

Back in the days when Nikon were popularly thought to produce the sharpest lenses (film era, late 1980, early 1990s maybe) some discerning folk said that they weren't actually sharper, they were just more contrasty. Looking at these samples, I'd say that they were continuing that tradition - though I've no idea now whether the difference is in the lens or the way the sensor data are rendered.

**newmikey** · 04-14-2017, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Medex

maybe you would like to include Pentax K-5IIs at ISO 25600 in this comparison test?

Would be nice but Dpreview used a different target back in those days which makes it hard to compare in any meaningful way. Also, the resolution is different which brings in the element of either scaling the K-5 IIs images up to 24Mp or the others down to 16Mp. The result would say absolutely nothing IMHO.

From the experience gained by others I'm assuming the K-5 IIs is about on-par or very slightly better than the K-3 II so it would sit in between the latter and the K-70 with the K-70 showing a much better result. The highest I can reasonably go with my K-5 IIs, using profiled NR with NeatImage, is ISO10000 - anything above that is a bloody mess really.

Still, we've come a long, long way if I were to consider the 8Mp Canon Powershot Pro1 I had over 10 years ago - it started showing horrible noise at ISO200 with ISO400 pretty useless

leekil · 04-14-2017, 08:49 AM

Although, if you don't plan to use a significant crop of a photo taken at ISO 25600, this might not be the #1 criteria to use to make your decision.

starbase218 · 04-14-2017, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

It's quite interesting to see how far Nikon has fallen back with image quality that their current FF does not show better noise performance than a current Pentax APSC.

Especially since we know how much Nikon is cheating on ISO in their raw data. For a fair comparison you need to push the Nikon ISO 19.242 image by +0,41 stops to the real ISO 25.600 (increasing its noise).

The D750 was announced in september 2014. The K-3 II was announced in april 2015. The KP is really new. Most of what you're seeing here is sensor technology development (even though admittedly Nikon is cheating more than Pentax is).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cameras cameras cameras	Lurch	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	04-14-2013 02:54 AM
How does the Q compare to my other cameras	hnikesch	Pentax Q	4	11-11-2012 03:46 PM
How does magnification of lenses compare to P&S cameras?	mojoe_24	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	01-12-2011 08:54 PM
Decent looking cameras on the way	cbaytan	General Talk	38	10-16-2009 01:55 PM
Surprise! Surprise!	Bramela	General Talk	6	10-10-2008 05:38 AM

04-13-2017, 07:55 PM	#16
caliscouser Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,037	Originally posted by OldPentaxFan Upper left K-3ii Upper right D750 Lower left K-P Lower Right K-70 This, or possibly the last two flipped around.

04-13-2017, 09:28 PM	#17
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	Originally posted by OldPentaxFan Upper left K-3ii Upper right D750 Lower left K-P Lower Right K-70 I say this as well.

04-13-2017, 09:30 PM	#18
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Top left, Pentax K3 Top right, Pentax K70 Bottom right, Pentax KP Bottom left, Nicron.

04-13-2017, 10:32 PM	#19
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287 Original Poster	Top-left is the K3 II, top-right the D750, bottom-right is the K-70 end bottom-left the KP My surprise was how close the D750 and the KP really are and how far behind the K3 II is at this ISO. I'd been eyeing the K-70 as an upgrade to my K-5 IIs but now that I've seen this, there can be only one. Simple detail, price is still a bit too high for me so I'm going to give it 6 months to a year.

04-14-2017, 12:41 AM	#20
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by newmikey Top-left is the K3 II, top-right the D750, bottom-right is the K-70 end bottom-left the KP My surprise was how close the D750 and the KP really are and how far behind the K3 II is at this ISO. I'd been eyeing the K-70 as an upgrade to my K-5 IIs but now that I've seen this, there can be only one. Simple detail, price is still a bit too high for me so I'm going to give it 6 months to a year. Be aware that the KP applies noise reduction to its files at higher ISO, even its RAW files. I would not rule out the K-70.

04-14-2017, 12:52 AM - 1 Like	#21
tromboads Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Melbs Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,239	Doesn't matter. Looking at those samples, one could make art with any of them.

04-14-2017, 01:22 AM	#22
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287 Original Poster	Originally posted by starbase218 Be aware that the KP applies noise reduction to its files at higher ISO, even its RAW files. I would not rule out the K-70. Well, I can't undo the NR performed prior to writing the file to the SD card in-camera and there's no need to. All I wanted is to rule out any differences due to PP, with all of the different variations of software available and the crappy raw conversion of Photoshop/Lightroom taken out of the equation. With other words: what is our common starting point with the various raw files? On your K-70 remark: it still looks very decent indeed and I have a strong preference for the fully articulated screen versus the somewhat limited way of the KP, especially for portrait format. If I would be forced to upgrade today, I'd go for the K-70 indeed as the price difference in NL is now almost 100% with the K-70 at €699 and the KP at a whopping €1299! I occasionally do high-ISO stuff, not enough to justify such a huge price difference. But my K-5 IIs is still going strong and I can afford to wait and see whether the KP price drops to a more reasonable level. I've in the past always purchased a new body when it dropped from the introduction price somewhere around the €1100-1200 mark to about €800 (sometimes with a €100 cashback). The write-off of buying a new body at- or just after release just makes no economic sense at all.

04-14-2017, 01:30 AM	#23
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	I expect K-3II to be the most noisy one (upper left), but the three rest are so similar I don't have a clue. (Assuming no pixel shift tricks)

04-14-2017, 02:16 AM	#24
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	Originally posted by starbase218 Be aware that the KP applies noise reduction to its files at higher ISO, even its RAW files. I would not rule out the K-70. Every Pentax does that anyway, but with current pricing, I'd say the K-70 is the better choice from a purely objective standpoint. Originally posted by tromboads Doesn't matter. Looking at those samples, one could make art with any of them. I love how there's one such comment in every gear thread. Completely off-topic, and doesn't even add anything to the thread.

04-14-2017, 03:17 AM	#25
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	It's quite interesting to see how far Nikon has fallen back with image quality that their current FF does not show better noise performance than a current Pentax APSC. Especially since we know how much Nikon is cheating on ISO in their raw data. For a fair comparison you need to push the Nikon ISO 19.242 image by +0,41 stops to the real ISO 25.600 (increasing its noise).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2017, 07:44 AM	#26
Medex Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Vilnius Posts: 1,020	Originally posted by newmikey Well, I can't undo the NR performed prior to writing the file to the SD card in-camera and there's no need to. All I wanted is to rule out any differences due to PP, with all of the different variations of software available and the crappy raw conversion of Photoshop/Lightroom taken out of the equation. With other words: what is our common starting point with the various raw files? On your K-70 remark: it still looks very decent indeed and I have a strong preference for the fully articulated screen versus the somewhat limited way of the KP, especially for portrait format. If I would be forced to upgrade today, I'd go for the K-70 indeed as the price difference in NL is now almost 100% with the K-70 at €699 and the KP at a whopping €1299! I occasionally do high-ISO stuff, not enough to justify such a huge price difference. But my K-5 IIs is still going strong and I can afford to wait and see whether the KP price drops to a more reasonable level. I've in the past always purchased a new body when it dropped from the introduction price somewhere around the €1100-1200 mark to about €800 (sometimes with a €100 cashback). The write-off of buying a new body at- or just after release just makes no economic sense at all. maybe you would like to include Pentax K-5IIs at ISO 25600 in this comparison test?

04-14-2017, 07:59 AM	#27
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	Back in the days when Nikon were popularly thought to produce the sharpest lenses (film era, late 1980, early 1990s maybe) some discerning folk said that they weren't actually sharper, they were just more contrasty. Looking at these samples, I'd say that they were continuing that tradition - though I've no idea now whether the difference is in the lens or the way the sensor data are rendered.

04-14-2017, 08:02 AM	#28
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287 Original Poster	Originally posted by Medex maybe you would like to include Pentax K-5IIs at ISO 25600 in this comparison test? Would be nice but Dpreview used a different target back in those days which makes it hard to compare in any meaningful way. Also, the resolution is different which brings in the element of either scaling the K-5 IIs images up to 24Mp or the others down to 16Mp. The result would say absolutely nothing IMHO. From the experience gained by others I'm assuming the K-5 IIs is about on-par or very slightly better than the K-3 II so it would sit in between the latter and the K-70 with the K-70 showing a much better result. The highest I can reasonably go with my K-5 IIs, using profiled NR with NeatImage, is ISO10000 - anything above that is a bloody mess really. Still, we've come a long, long way if I were to consider the 8Mp Canon Powershot Pro1 I had over 10 years ago - it started showing horrible noise at ISO200 with ISO400 pretty useless

04-14-2017, 08:49 AM	#29
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	Although, if you don't plan to use a significant crop of a photo taken at ISO 25600, this might not be the #1 criteria to use to make your decision.

04-14-2017, 11:41 AM	#30
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by beholder3 It's quite interesting to see how far Nikon has fallen back with image quality that their current FF does not show better noise performance than a current Pentax APSC. Especially since we know how much Nikon is cheating on ISO in their raw data. For a fair comparison you need to push the Nikon ISO 19.242 image by +0,41 stops to the real ISO 25.600 (increasing its noise). The D750 was announced in september 2014. The K-3 II was announced in april 2015. The KP is really new. Most of what you're seeing here is sensor technology development (even though admittedly Nikon is cheating more than Pentax is).