[surfar]

Harriett

Is she a newby?

[reh321]

Is she a newby?

My wife uses that wording to make a list more inclusive; otherwise women seem to be excluded.

[Nicolas06]

I'll ask again, though I know the answer is a no: did anyone believing this claim actually tried it?

I hope we all agree the KP's sensor is a newer generation and not "propaganda".

I belivied and tried because of all the people going with not so good KP jpeg and saying it was wonderfull. Because basically, I always use raw, good or bad habit and I knew I got better result with my older gear. I don't have Jpeg performance in mind but raw performance after noise removal. because this is how I work. Again good or bad.

I got the raw of K3-II & KP, I checked the Jpeg too and the performance is for me quite rougly as I said. KP is better at high iso, yes. Not by 2EV or more like some says, more like 1EV. Difficult to says exactly as it depend of the photo too.

Still this isn't the silver bullet one may think. A faster lens typically give 1,2 or even 4 EV depending from where you start. Good noise removal it seems 2EV.

Counting all that, I find the camera a bit on expensive side. I do think that if one is ready to spend that much, the price of an entry level FF body basically or previous Pentax flagship at introduction there shall be a bit more... Like flagship features, maybe other improvements like better AF.

I hope and think theses thing will come with the next iteration. The true replacement to the K3 familly whom basically KP is still part of.

[Nicolas06]

It is not "propaganda". It is news! Running fast and low power on the camera is very good news.

Not really all camera and smartphone do exactly that. Because people do not accept to have to plug their camera permanently to a power source.

Nobody cares how fast it could run on the computer back home - this unit is getting the job done in the field, before they ever get home. Nobody is disputing that.

When Tom, Dick or Harriett returns home and unloads images from camera to computer, there is negligible noise despite having using higher ISO values. Nobody is disputing that. It is happening in real time. Nobody is disputing that.

Actually result are a bit better with the newer camera alone. The result are much better when Tom, Dick or Harriett don't forget to use the proper lenses, optimize their setting for such scenes and also shoot in raw and use NR removal on their slow computer.

[reh321]

Not really all camera and smartphone do exactly that. Because people do not accept to have to plug their camera permanently to a power source.

Nobody cares how fast it could run on the computer back home - this unit is getting the job done in the field, before they ever get home. Nobody is disputing that.

Actually result are a bit better with the newer camera alone. The result are much better when Tom, Dick or Harriett don't forget to use the proper lenses, optimize their setting for such scenes and also shoot in raw and use NR removal on their slow computer.

This is all great news!!

Why don't I hear more happiness around here???

[Winder]

My wife uses that wording to make a list more inclusive; otherwise women seem to be excluded.

That's hilarious. I guess it's important to be included into a group of nobodies? I could understand if it was a reference to a group of important people, but every "Tom, Dick, & Harry" is a generalized reference to a group of people so unimportant that you don't actually care what their real names are. Its derogatory. Why do people want to include themselves in such a group? I really don't want to know. It was good for a laugh after a long day.

[reh321]

That's hilarious. I guess it's important to be included into a group of nobodies? I could understand if it was a reference to a group of important people, but every "Tom, Dick, & Harry" is a generalized reference to a group of people so unimportant that you don't actually care what their real names are. Its derogatory. Why do people want to include themselves in such a group? I really don't want to know. It was good for a laugh after a long day.

Look back at where I used that phrase. By implication there is nothing special about these persons, but their {both male and female persons} needs, and their {both male and female persons} willingness to spend money satisfying their needs, are what will eventually cause the high-ISO initiative to pay off. Most here are willing to fix noise issues in PP, but there is a whole market out there that will never be drawn in by what can be done in PP - if the camera cannot deliver a credible product, then they aren't interested. But these Pentax products are going to delivery credible images, and they {both male and female persons} will be interested. That is why I don't understand the constantly gloomy negative atmosphere here.

[Kunzite]

I belivied and tried because of all the people going with not so good KP jpeg and saying it was wonderfull. Because basically, I always use raw, good or bad habit and I knew I got better result with my older gear. I don't have Jpeg performance in mind but raw performance after noise removal. because this is how I work. Again good or bad.

I got the raw of K3-II & KP, I checked the Jpeg too and the performance is for me quite rougly as I said. KP is better at high iso, yes. Not by 2EV or more like some says, more like 1EV. Difficult to says exactly as it depend of the photo too.

Still this isn't the silver bullet one may think. A faster lens typically give 1,2 or even 4 EV depending from where you start. Good noise removal it seems 2EV.

Counting all that, I find the camera a bit on expensive side. I do think that if one is ready to spend that much, the price of an entry level FF body basically or previous Pentax flagship at introduction there shall be a bit more... Like flagship features, maybe other improvements like better AF.

I hope and think theses thing will come with the next iteration. The true replacement to the K3 familly whom basically KP is still part of.

So there is a definite improvement in image quality (high ISO, but low to mid-ISO leaves little room to improvement IMO) which can't be attributed to software processing? Thanks, you've made my point.

There is no silver bullet, any software engineer could tell you that

[Lord Lucan]

That's hilarious. I guess it's important to be included into a group of nobodies? ... "Tom, Dick, & Harry" is a generalized reference to a group of people so unimportant that you don't actually care what their real names are. Its derogatory. Why do people want to include themselves in such a group? I really don't want to know.

I don't think that Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Harriett) ever did want to be included. I tend to say "Tom, Dick and Sally", which rolls off the tongue better, and I am no feminist; if I were, I might say "Thomasin, Dianne and Rupert" or something like that. Or keep it PC with Beverly, Leslie and Val.

[normhead]

This is all great news!!

Why don't I hear more happiness around here???

DO those guys ever express happiness?

What are the odds of that happening?

[Winder]

but there is a whole market out there that will never be drawn in by what can be done in PP - if the camera cannot deliver a credible product, then they aren't interested. But these Pentax products are going to delivery credible images, and they {both male and female persons} will be interested. That is why I don't understand the constantly gloomy negative atmosphere here.

Absolutely. This has been one of Fuji's biggest selling points is the OOC JPEGs. I think the KP is a great camera and I have said nothing negative about it. I hope its a huge success for the company. I hope Ricoh continues to make big improvements in the image processing and OOC JPEGs. Sony has made major improvements in its color profiles, but they still make people look like they have bad spray tans. I don't have an issue with Ricoh cooking its RAW files for better results. I don't have an issue with Fuji cooking theirs or with Sony.

I know a wedding photographer who shoots with Fuji and uses OOC JPEGS fro most of the work he delivers to his clients. There are real advantages to doing this. OOC JPEGs save him a whole lot of time and his work/portfolio is very uniform and consistent. I see a lot of people who shoot RAW deliver work where the processing is all over the place. Their portfolio looks like a bag of Skittles. Its like they go through each RAW file and ask "Which Topaz preset should I use on this one."

[surfar]

Absolutely. This has been one of Fuji's biggest selling points is the OOC JPEGs

I know a wedding photographer who shoots with Fuji and uses OOC JPEGS fro most of the work he delivers to his clients

And why not if the images are good,if they arent process the raw.

[Winder]

And why not if the images are good,if they arent process the raw.

There is nothing wrong with it. When I first went digital with the Canon 5D I was using JPEG. My RAW processing skills were poor at best and I don't think Lightroom had come out yet. If LR was around I wasn't using it. OOC JPEGs were better than what I could do at my skill level at that time.

[surfar]

OOC JPEGs were better than what I could do at my skill level at that time.

Many who shoot Fuji have remarked that they dont bother with PP,due to the fact that the camera does a pretty good job.As an amatuer i dont bother with raw in my Fujis.
For a Pro i'd imagine that saving time in post is a big thing.

[Rondec]

I have no idea if the KP has a new sensor or not, but I can definitely say that it gets results that I could only get from my K3 with a large amount of effort post processing and even then I'm not sure. I don't use DXO Prime noise reduction so maybe with that, I would be at the KP's level. Regardless, whatever tricks Ricoh has pulled to get these results on the K70 and K-P, it would be nice to see a K3 II sequel with a deeper buffer, top end auto focus tracking, and maybe better video performance. Clearly it would be priced between the K-P and K-1, but it feels like there is plenty of room there for another camera.

However, this isn't news. I don't know anything, but it does feel like eventually there will need to be another camera in that slot. (and it would go well with the new DA *11-16 lens too).