[LightSpeed]

One of my main concerns is noise in images. As all of you know, noise ruins images.
Yes it can be processed out in lightroom at the expense of losing sharpness and overall image quality.
The k5 does very very good at ISO 80, but it is not what I call a great camera for low light when ISO ranges between 400-800 or more,
I have also considered a Nikon D3X on the used market.I doubt that I will sell my K5 because I paid a lot more for it than 200 bucks 8 years ago and at last count it only has like 2000 actuation's.
I would take 400 for it but I doubt I can get that. So I keep it.

I already compared the D3X to the K1-II .
Yes it has less MP's coming in at 24.4, but they seem to be incredible in low light, high ISO.
Probably due to larger pixel size.

I do not know how well the k1 does against the D3 in higher iso levels and low lighting.
It has been said that the D3 is the king of low light.

Also there are things I really don't need. Like GPS.
Although , pentax shake reduction does indeed work well. the D3 has no shake reduction, or you must have in lens shake reduction.

I WANT low noise imaging, at higher ISO - low light.
I hate to switch systems to obtain a full frame camera..........I have 0 lenses for Nikon cameras.


What do you guys think?
The comparisons online are fine and dandy, but they don't always tell all. I like to get it from the horses mouth.
I know for a fact that the D3 is top of the line as low light high ISO, or at least it used to be, and is probably still very very good today.

[mikesbike]

For the best available Pentax answer to lower noise at higher ISO, the ultimate would be the K-1 II. The other issue to address is the kind of photography you do, you will get a wider angle of view using the same FL. For example, if you are into mostly wider angle shots, landscape, etc. there are a number of lenses that are excellent, manageable for field use, as well as not too costly. What lenses do you have now?

The KP, on the other hand can produce quite close to the low noise of the K-1 II. So if you also do a lot of telephoto shooting, and you get around on foot for considerable distances, that might be your best option. For example, carrying a DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 with the KP is far easier to manage when hiking, at a fraction of the size, weight, and cost compared to a DFA 70-200mm f/2.8 with the K-1 II. That is the way I went, though at some point I might get into FF mainly to use some very fine FF (shorter) lenses I have in their intended FOV.

I too have a K-5, and a K-5 IIs, which I really like and will not sell at this point, and which like all current Pentax bodies does not have the AA filter, so fine detail is not smeared in images. Coming from the original K-5, you would be in for a pleasant surprise with the KP.

[biz-engineer]

Lower mega pixel count appear to be lower noise simply because zooming in doesn't magnify the image as much. When images are downsized to the same size, the difference in noise performance at equal sensor size is minimal. What lower pixel count is better at is faster burst rate and more frames in buffer, that's it.

[LightSpeed]

I wanted to add , that when I started all of this years ago, I bought a k7 just for snap shots and whatnot. Something to take pictures with to sell on ebay and stuff.
I did not know that I would be doing things like the below photo.

It;s just somethin that kinda happened along the way.

This was not captured with a k5. Or any Pentax.
I did this with a drone. It has a tiny sensor, but it is a tiny up to date sensor with Sony processing.
I never got a full frame because I thought many times that I was not ready for a full frame and not good enough to take advantage of it.
And I still may not be.

I want to buy once and cry once.

[mikesbike]

For that shot, a FF body would be just fine, even within practical terms as well as cost. Looks like you could get that shot with the FA HD 35mm f/2 or even one of the fast 50mm lenses on the K-1 II.

I just noticed you have another thread regarding the same issue but more oriented towards your interest in macro. Some comments added there should be pertinent to your decision-making.

[LightSpeed]

Yes, I do more than one thing.
Landscape when the opportunity presents itself.........macro is filled with opportunity,
I just don't do people/portrait.

I have considered the other thread too and decided to keep my k5 aps-c.

I always wanted the D3X but at the time , that thing was 8000.00.
I will happily stick with Pentax and the K1 for my next camera, but I need to know if the k1 beats it out.

Less features, I know,.,.......but image quality and low noise are a big deal to me.

[C_Jones]

I have a Pentax K-1 II. It has always shown me excellent performance, and is a wonderful camera. The images, detail, color, and AF are all amazing.

[ChristianRock]

If the question is K-1II vs D3X the answer is obvious, the K-1II will have lower noise.

For ultra-noise-free picttures, use the pixel shift functionality and a tripod...

But I don't get this obsession with low noise, when some of the greatest, most iconic images of all time were done with 35mm film (much noisier than any digital camera today) and sometimes a little or a lot out of focus. People still look to those pictures and go "wow!" but then worry about noise at ISO 25600 and extreme corner sharpness at f/1.4... i don't get it but I'm probably rambling now

[mikesbike]

If the question is K-1II vs D3X the answer is obvious, the K-1II will have lower noise.

For ultra-noise-free picttures, use the pixel shift functionality and a tripod...

But I don't get this obsession with low noise, when some of the greatest, most iconic images of all time were done with 35mm film (much noisier than any digital camera today) and sometimes a little or a lot out of focus. People still look to those pictures and go "wow!" but then worry about noise at ISO 25600 and extreme corner sharpness at f/1.4... i don't get it but I'm probably rambling now

Yeah, I understand. Composition or being able to nail just the right capture at the right time, can make for a very special photograph, over and above technical considerations. That said, I'd rather be without the noise in my own efforts.

Good point about pixel shift. The K-5 does not have that advantage either.

The KP has both this feature and is also outstanding for low noise capability. It is also especially well-suited for the type of macro shooting demonstrated in the other thread.

There is another APS-C flagship model coming sometime this year. It will be the most advanced model so far. It will cost more than the KP and will be around the same body style as the K-5, except it most likely will have an upgraded rear screen and most likely a top-side set of controls like the KP and K-1 II. With patience, the wait should be worth having this as an option to consider.

[LightSpeed]

I just got finished scouring youtube for k1 comparisons where I found a comparison to the Sony A7III and the Nikon 850D
The K1 blew the other two away in image quality and higher ISO noise.

There were other factors such as pixel shift in camera processing producing a dng file easily readable with lightroom.
Sony pixel shift limited to sony software.
The Nikon has has more MP's but the K1 Shamed the Nikon.

I think Im gonna buy a KI-ii

[leekil]

K-1 beats D3X in the DXO ratings listed on this page

Pentax K-1 vs Nikon D3X Detailed Comparison

[JerzyJ]

If high ISO is what you want, go for K1II, it is amazing in that field. It also goes beyond ISO 6400, which is max Value on d3x.
There is also one Polish site where you can compare high ISO in K1, K1mkII and d3x:
https://www.optyczne.pl/398.7-Test_aparatu-Pentax_K-1_II_Szumy_i_jakość_obrazu_w_RAW.html P
here in the middle of this chapter of K1mkII review you can choose cameras to compare in terms of various ISO performance.

[LightSpeed]

If high ISO is what you want, go for K1II, it is amazing in that field. It also goes beyond ISO 6400, which is max Value on d3x.
There is also one Polish site where you can compare high ISO in K1, K1mkII and d3x:
https://www.optyczne.pl/398.7-Test_aparatu-Pentax_K-1_II_Szumy_i_jakość_obrazu_w_RAW.html P
here in the middle of this chapter of K1mkII review you can choose cameras to compare in terms of various ISO performance.

Nah, not high ISO.
The ability to go to say, ISO 1600 without murdering the image with noise.

[JerzyJ]

Nah, not high ISO.
The ability to go to say, ISO 1600 without murdering the image with noise.

Ok, then still K1 and K1mkII is great choice. I usually go up to 3200 without any fear of noise levels. Shake reduction allows me to go easly up to 1/10s handheld (i did some 1/4s and even 2s lap supported) if you don’t want to push ISO. Some example from K1mkII with home lightning (f2.8, 1/50s ISO 3200)

[Smoke665]

I have both the K3II and the K1MII, at ISO levels below 6400, IMO the K3II has less noise, above that they're fairly equal up to 12800, where the K1MII starts to pull away. In both, the 5 Axis shake reduction is so good that you can hand hold at significantly lower shutter speeds allowing you to drop the ISO.