Blue Tit K3 v K5

Two shots taken with TAV mode using the DA*300 at 1/250, sec f4, ISO 1250

Neither are cropped. I processed the RAW K3 shot in LR and then copied and pasted the processing steps to the RAW K5 version




Blue Tit K3 by Alan Wennington, on Flickr



Blue Tit K5 by Alan Wennington, on Flickr

Cool pics. Wonder who tagged it.

Both excellent shots Alan. I'm struggling to see much difference in quality on my monitor. If anything I'd vote for the K5.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

The noise in the background is definitely different, can't decide which I prefer though...

There's very little in it,or rather what there is could be explained by the slightly different aspect and lighting. Maybe we'd see differences on an A2 print.

I agree with the above comments. Perhaps the difference would be more apparent in two images of say a stuffed bird or something ? Both nice shots anyway

Both good and not a lot in it at this size.... which is
expected because both shots have lost a lot of pixels.

It might be worth cropping to about half K-5 size (2500x1667)
and then reducing both to about 1000w.... possibly flipping one
to make the bird face the same way and then comparing.

--

The green and blue channels look more saturated in the K3 shot. Maybe the red would be as well if there were any in the image.

Have you found other K3 shots to be more saturated than the K5. It's not necessarily a problem, just my observation.

On 2nd thoughts that wouldn't work They would be
different sized birds. So crops keeping the bird the same
size in the screen print would be needed.

--

Well I can`t put a fag paper between them! Be nice to see more comparison shots. Thanks for these.

They're both very nice pictures indeed, but I'm afraid the downsize to 800px makes them useless as a comparison.

I think (or maybe I imagine) that the K-3 image shows a little more fine detail, but the only way of letting people compare the cameras is to put the DNGs online somewhere.

Have to remember these are two different birds. And as I've only one DA 300, they weren't shot at the same time. They were shot 35 mins apart (which reminds me I need to update the clock on the K5)

They just happened to be two shots that had the same exposure settings in TAV. Which I thought some might find interesting

Here they are together



Blu tits compared K3 left and K5 right by Alan Wennington, on Flickr

As soon as I saw the title I just quickly looked at the images as I didn't want to be prejudiced by knowing which was which. My initial preference was for the second shot (overall cleaner), then I thought the first shot showed more detail on the subject then I looked more closely at the composition and thought that the more side-on view of the first would naturally have an advantage. Then I looked at which was which. And my conclusion is that we are comparing a great camera against a great camera. And at that level the greatest variable is the operator. And my conclusion is that each photographer will have to perform their own comparison to reach any meaningful conclusion. I'm glad a photographer who I respect as much as Alan has posted this comparison. Personally I think that for digital a level has been reached where equipment is not the prinmary factor.

Your embarrassing me now Dr. O. Thank you so much

Blown up, without an AA filter the K3 would be expected to be sharper. But no doubting in my mind the K5 is still a great camera.

Very little between the last two. The white feathers might look
better on the K-3, but white feathers aren't a very good indicator
because they rely on shadows to pick them out.

I think I can hold onto my K-5 for another year or so.

--