[stevebrot]

16 bit is the apsc and FF standard these days...

...Further, my 16mp 12 bit raw files on my EM-1 give me results in 13x19 prints that match up well with my 24mp 16 bit K-3 files. I think I can see subtle differences, but I'm not viewing double blind and comparing that way.

RAW capture on the K-3 is 14-bit, likewise on the K-1, KP, and K-70. Even the Nikon D6 and Canon 1D X MkIII are still 14-bit. No 16-bit capture yet.

Addendum: What the extra two bits on the K-3 as opposed to the EM-1 gets one is better tonal gradation (more colors...a lot more colors) and potential for more graceful editing in PP and gamut coercion when publishing to print or whatever.


Steve

(...prints beautiful 10Mpx images from K10D to 13x19...)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 03-12-2020 at 02:34 PM. Reason: completeness

[luftfluss]

I wouldn't put down 20MP and 12-bit RAW... for most people, it's perfectly fine.

What I don't feel is fair is to compare a just-released camera with the camera that he had previously, which is 2013 technology (the K-3), and a lens from the 2000s (the Tamron 70-200)

The OP has the Pentax 70-200/2.8...

While the Pentax K-3 II and D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 lens has been instrumental to my work...

As far as Pentax is concerned, though, the Oly EM1 Mk III competes with the K-1 on price and the KP on size. The Oly will win on performance, while either Pentax will win on image quality.

[ChristianRock]

The OP has the Pentax 70-200/2.8...

My bad, I read that completely wrong...

[normhead]

I wouldn't put down 20MP and 12-bit RAW... for most people, it's perfectly fine.

What I don't feel is fair is to compare a just-released camera with the camera that he had previously, which is 2013 technology (the K-3), and a lens from the 2000s (the Tamron 70-200) and then saying "Pentax needs to step up". A comparison between the K-new to be released this year with hopefully new lenses (I heard they want to revamp the 50-135 and 16-50), or at least something like the 16-85 for a similar range to what the OP has got.

The motivation of such posts is always dubious.

---

Last edited by MarkJerling; 03-12-2020 at 05:23 PM. Reason: Keeping it friendly.

[WorksAsIntended]

I wouldn't put down 20MP and 12-bit RAW... for most people, it's perfectly fine.

What I don't feel is fair is to compare a just-released camera with the camera that he had previously, which is 2013 technology (the K-3), and a lens from the 2000s (the Tamron 70-200) and then saying "Pentax needs to step up". A comparison between the K-new to be released this year with hopefully new lenses (I heard they want to revamp the 50-135 and 16-50), or at least something like the 16-85 for a similar range to what the OP has got.

The point is, up until the k new is here, the k3 -ii is the closest comparison to the new camera he got himself. The af of the k1 II is only slightly better as the k3 II anyway.
He also wrote he is looking forward to compare to the k new and that he hopes it will close the gap in responsiveness. His combination, the DFA 70-200 and k3-II is as fast as Pentax can deliver right now.

---------- Post added 03-13-20 at 01:06 AM ----------

RAW capture on the K-3 is 14-bit, likewise on the K-1, KP, and K-70. Even the Nikon D6 and Canon 1D X MkIII are still 14-bit. No 16-bit capture yet.

Addendum: What the extra two bits on the K-3 as opposed to the EM-1 gets one is better tonal gradation (more colors...a lot more colors) and potential for more graceful editing in PP and gamut coercion when publishing to print or whatever.


Steve

(...prints beautiful 10Mpx images from K10D to 13x19...)

Can the camera resolve those additional bits? The bit depth is only a digital resolution capability, it does not necessarily mean it actually measures in this resolution, if those last bits are noise anyway.
My bank account can store multiple billions, does not mean I got them.

As my monitor cannot resolve more than 10 bit I cannot make my own comparison.

[Rondec]

The point is, up until the k new is here, the k3 -ii is the closest comparison to the new camera he got himself. The af of the k1 II is only slightly better as the k3 II anyway.
He also wrote he is looking forward to compare to the k new and that he hopes it will close the gap in responsiveness. His combination, the DFA 70-200 and k3-II is as fast as Pentax can deliver right now.

---------- Post added 03-13-20 at 01:06 AM ----------



Can the camera resolve those additional bits? The bit depth is only a digital resolution capability, it does not necessarily mean it actually measures in this resolution, if those last bits are noise anyway.
My bank account can store multiple billions, does not mean I got them.

As my monitor cannot resolve more than 10 bit I cannot make my own comparison.

I think there is a difference. The K-01 and K30 did 12 bits, while the K5 and K5 II did 14 bits and there was definitely a difference in the latitude you had to process files -- dynamic range and color depth.

[WorksAsIntended]

I think there is a difference. The K-01 and K30 did 12 bits, while the K5 and K5 II did 14 bits and there was definitely a difference in the latitude you had to process files -- dynamic range and color depth.

The range is definitely not affected by 12bit or 14bit, just the usual sensor improvements happened there. 10bit is more than enough to cover a range. Color depth is a possibility, but this is where I am not really sure about.
A 10bit bayer sensor delivers 1 073 741 824 colors, there is no issue to get 24 ev resolved in that imho. If you are able to identify 1000 different wavelengths (more than I can as I learned in my optics days working with monochromatic light), which is roughly a difference of half a nm, you still got a million different levels of light intensity for each color.

[normhead]

As has been discussed many times, it's not about what you can see, it's about your ability to bring out detail. in specific areas of the image, especially in the shadows. In the high end 10 bit may be adequate, because the the number of bits available to display the image increases dramatically as you move into the higher ends of the scale.

That being said, I read a paper once (from a Ph.d at the University of Chicago) that made the case, that 14 bit wasn't functionally different than 12 bit, either practically or theoretically.

And the latest, best AF in a Pentax APS-c camera is in the K-P. Not the K-3ii.

The level of factual information remains deplorable.

[luftfluss]

I think there is a difference. The K-01 and K30 did 12 bits, while the K5 and K5 II did 14 bits and there was definitely a difference in the latitude you had to process files -- dynamic range and color depth.

I shot the K-01 and K-5 II side-by-side for a couple years, and while I never made an exacting comparison between the two, it seemed to me the K-5 II RAW files offered more highlight recovery potential.

I wonder what wizardry Olympus employs to get such good noise performance from the 20MP m4/3 sensor...

[Dan Rentea]

I shot the K-01 and K-5 II side-by-side for a couple years, and while I never made an exacting comparison between the two, it seemed to me the K-5 II RAW files offered more highlight recovery potential.

I wonder what wizardry Olympus employs to get such good noise performance from the 20MP m4/3 sensor...

I wonder what tests do DXO to get better high ISO performance from D610 than from D5. In real life D5 simply "kills" D610 at high ISO.

[luftfluss]

I wonder what tests do DXO to get better high ISO performance from D610 than from D5. In real life D5 simply "kills" D610 at high ISO.

DPR shows the D610 as having the edge over the D5 in noise performance at ISO 6400, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OTOH, the same DPR comparison also shows the D5 seems to have more detail than the D610.

[UncleVanya]

Sorry for the confused statement about 16 bit files. The point of link I put into the conversation was that the photographer worked hard to find places where 14 bit improved things and didn't see any differences including shadow recovery. Obviously this only fully applies to his specific sensors but it was enlightening. I feel like on my older m43 cameras the dynamic range is more limited than on my K-3. However in real world printing - this isn't obvious.

[WorksAsIntended]

As has been discussed many times, it's not about what you can see, it's about your ability to bring out detail. in specific areas of the image, especially in the shadows. In the high end 10 bit may be adequate, because the the number of bits available to display the image increases dramatically as you move into the higher ends of the scale.

That being said, I read a paper once (from a Ph.d at the University of Chicago) that made the case, that 14 bit wasn't functionally different than 12 bit, either practically or theoretically.

And the latest, best AF in a Pentax APS-c camera is in the K-P. Not the K-3ii.

The level of factual information remains deplorable.

Right about the first part, and my question was, if the sensor really can differenciate at this scale or if this is, as in many cases, just a pseudo resolution.
Still, dynamic range (not dynamic resolution) is definitly the same with 10 or 16 bit, the other part is what I do not know and why I asked.
The kp may have the faster af, but it still a slow camera. I wrote fast camera, not fast af for a reason. Also, the K1-II is not that much faster in AF speed, I doubt the kp will be much faster than the k1 II.
The kp and k3ii share the same af module, the kp just has a more powerfull processor (or accelerator) to make use of it.

[Dan Rentea]

DPR shows the D610 as having the edge over the D5 in noise performance at ISO 6400, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OTOH, the same DPR comparison also shows the D5 seems to have more detail than the D610.

If you shoot a concert or a football/soccer player with both cameras, D5 images looks way better than the D610 images. In labs on the other hand anything is possible.

---------- Post added 03-13-20 at 03:53 PM ----------

Right about the first part, and my question was, if the sensor really can differenciate at this scale or if this is, as in many cases, just a pseudo resolution.
Still, dynamic range (not dynamic resolution) is definitly the same with 10 or 16 bit, the other part is what I do not know and why I asked.
The kp may have the faster af, but it still a slow camera. I wrote fast camera, not fast af for a reason. Also, the K1-II is not that much faster in AF speed, I doubt the kp will be much faster than the k1 II.
The kp and k3ii share the same af module, the kp just has a more powerfull processor (or accelerator) to make use of it.

Would you like me to provide you a german lab test where everything is possible, at least when comes to Af performance? I had quite a good laugh yesterday and today by looking at individual test results with some of my friends. But, as shown above, we can't live without lab tests. At least some of us.

[normhead]

Right about the first part, and my question was, if the sensor really can differenciate at this scale or if this is, as in many cases, just a pseudo resolution.
Still, dynamic range (not dynamic resolution) is definitly the same with 10 or 16 bit, the other part is what I do not know and why I asked.
The kp may have the faster af, but it still a slow camera. I wrote fast camera, not fast af for a reason. Also, the K1-II is not that much faster in AF speed, I doubt the kp will be much faster than the k1 II.
The kp and k3ii share the same af module, the kp just has a more powerfull processor (or accelerator) to make use of it.

You seriously need to check out the single point AF.s scores on Imagine Resources.
I'll give this another look when you've revised your information, but I won't be holding my breath.

Go here
Pentax KP Review - Performance

Look at the top category "Full Auto Focus"
Search any camera you want to compare."

But just one for example
Full Auto Focus - Pentax .089s
Olympus E-M1 II - .108s

Pick any camera you want, but just a hint, there are about 3 that compete with Pentax on this metric. Many are double the speed.

Just another internet generalization made by ignoring the information that doesn't agree with it.

It's amazing how many times I reiterate, in a line of photographers


it's amazing how often my camera clicks first.
The slowness of Pentax AF depends entirely on the shooting situation and settings used.
But if you know your gear, it's amazing how competitive you can be, with anyone and any camera.
I'v pointed this out often.

I'm tired of listening to everyone expounding on their theories about what is, and ignoring my experience out in the field of what is actually the case, so this is it for today. I'm not defending against the "but, but buts".

Just understand, regardless of what you say, I'll be going with my experience in the field , as opposed to theoretical denials.

Once you start comparing what everyone says to actual field experience, 99% of internet posts just seem silly.