A K3 test pic - not for critique!

Took this last week with the DA*200mm as a quick resolution test.

Full image from DNG file



100% crop



EXIF
Camera Maker: RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model: PENTAX K-3
Image Date: 2013-11-07 12:19:20 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 300mm)
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
Software: Digital Camera Utility 5 Ver.5.0.0


John K

I don't think there is any doubt about the clarity on offer John, due to the 24mp sensor and no AA filter. The jury's out on the noise levels and dynamic range, but I've just picked up a K-3 today and first impressions are very positive.

Cheers
David

Yes time will tell, and we're only on software v1.0. I'm sure that will be tweaked in the weeks to come. Still wonder if they rush released it (not that it really shows) because just days before public release of the camera the public were not allowed to put in a memory card in the test examples of the camera that were available. Cannot believe that the release firmware can have been altered much in the timescales but maybe something was not quite ready. Clearly the camera is capable of excellent images.

John K

I know alot cannot be picked from the size of image here, but have been following these posts closely as I was ready to go for IIs.

But for a system that has increased pixel count by 50% the fact that dynamic range effectively hasn't changed and noise levels may appear to have increased slightly I have pretty much decided I will be waiting until after the new year and picking up a k3, I very rarely go above ISO 3200 and the purchase will be long term, the weather resistance being on the west coast is one of my main reasons for upgrade, I have been impressed by feedback so far. I would like more to mention what PP was carried out, as this I am still working on learning.

I can only speak for the image above which was converted to jpeg from the DNG file using the supplied Digital Camera Utility 5 software in which half a stop brightness was added to the image. No sharpening or contrast change has been applied (or anything else for that matter!)

The crop version was taken from the resulting jpeg using Irfanview's lossless crop plug-in to save any detail being lost in reprocessing the jpeg.

John K

Very obvious high detail on the house in the first one, similar to the in-focus zones in David Storms examples (at Stokesay).

The 2nd here doesn't quite look fully nailed with the focus, although you'd have thought there would have been something for one of the 27 points to latch onto Maybe its an adjustment issue?

It's a crop from the middle of the SAME jpeg - the 1st image is the full picture reduced to 1000 pixels for the forum, the second is the centre portion of the same image cut out and not reduced so it is being seen at full resolution (and it was hand held!)

I just use single centre focus point still as I always have since the ME days.

John K

Sorry, didn't see it was a crop! Looks fine then

Thanks. To make the most of the new sensor will require top grade lenses, the sensor is not now the limiting factor.

John K

Nigel meant the AF Fine tune adjustment. have you checked it for that lens?

It's pretty sharp to me. If I can make out the screw heads on the number sign at 400 metres or more away with a 200mm lens I doubt adjusting The fine adjustment would improve things. That is a crop from the centre of the first image! The only way to get it sharper would be to get closer or use a longer focal length which wasn't the point of the exercise.

John K

That's very impressive, but take note for future posts that
the forum software reduces 1000w pics to 800w, so it's the 800w
we can all see.

--

Actually the cropped version is 796 pixels wide so should have remained unadulterated by the forum software. I reduced the complete version to 1000 pixels so that would have had some further processing by the forum to get it to 800 pixels as you say.

It says something that the cropped version has been mistaken for a full size image albeit with a slight focussing flaw, but no sharpening has been added which would sort that out in any event. The full size image at that resolution would be 7½ times wider.

John K