K-3 studio test shots now on Imaging Resource

Take a look here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3/pentax-k3A7.HTM

Jpegs look good but by all accounts downloading and processing RAW files are VERY impressive.

At 1600ISO there's nothing between the K-3 and the D600 so
hardly any advantage in FF

Hard to compare with the K-5 due to the difference in image size.


-

Just read their overview of it, interesting reading

Interesting.

As kind of expected ( although I had my fingers crossed to the contrary ) there's hardly any difference between the noise performance at high ISOs between the K-5 and K-3


Bear in mind that just looking at images isn't enough. You have to actually own the cameras being compared before you can make a proper comparison of the images. At least that is what I was told the last time I used Imaging Resource to compare images, so maybe I should refrain from commenting.

Think that'll be good enough for me.

24MP to allow more cropping when needed. No deterioration in noise performance.

Just need a stepped change to AF tracking to be confirmed, then I may put my hand in my pocket

The "extra pixels" for cropping is a bonus no doubt, as is the better AF over the K-5.

I'm still undecided. I might wait until the K-1 or whatever gives some High ISO performance increase. That's what really excites me at the moment.

Problem is the K-5 is so damn good already

I suppose thats a good way to think about it - if they've managed to squeese the extra pixels into the same space without losing anything in the process, thats actually an advance in itself

But (especially if Smeggy is still looking) I should say here and now that I really only have the slightest passing and cursory interest in the differences in noise performance between the K5 & K3 - no, thats not right - really no interest at all in the differences ....

I'm sure everyone else will be glad about that !

Indeed. - personally I would have been happier with another 16MP sensor with a better High ISO/Dynamic Range performance


actually given your landscape penchant I would have thought dynamic range ( iso performance ) would be of interest to you?

My thoughts too. The K-3 remains 14 bit RAW. I note the K-3 sensor is actually slightly smaller than the one on the K-5, despite having more pixels crammed onto it so I'm not convinced the IQ will be improved (we'll find out soon!)

John K

I've printed the IR ISO 51200 K-3 DNG and the corresponding K-5IIs DNG at A3+. I first gave them both the same Lightroom noise parameters: Luminance 50, Colour 25. (No sharpening). The K-5IIs print was OK, although noisy. The K-3 print was dreadful (colour noise mostly).

I had to increase the K-3 noise parameters to Luminance 75, Colour 50, before there was approximate equivalence of print quality.

I don't know whether such different parameters should be expected, but the Lightroom default for Colour is 25, and that is normally enough.

Up to about ISO 6400 I don't think there is much difference between the K-3 and the K-5IIs. Above that things diverge.

I haven't compared RAW files at home yet. I'll download them and put them in lightroom later.

No software noise defaults would be expected to deal with such extreme high iso. It is not unexpected that you`d need much higher corrections. Perhaps your results are not unexpected either?

I apply NR in Lightroom at the end of an editing session multiply to all images using a plugin I've written to apply a develop preset depending upon the Camera used and the ISO.

This is the settings for ISO51200 Develop preset for my K-5s


s = {
id = "C14A0923-3277-4142-AF4C-A6309937EF2A",
internalName = "ISO51200",
title = "ISO51200",
type = "Develop",
value = {
settings = {
ColorNoiseReduction = 21,
ColorNoiseReductionDetail = 50,
EnableDetail = true,
LuminanceNoiseReductionContrast = 0,
LuminanceNoiseReductionDetail = 50,
LuminanceSmoothing = 47,
ProcessVersion = "6.7",
},
uuid = "CCE04726-5279-467C-8F80-0B594F36D4AD",
},
version = 0,
}

When I test the IR DNG's later for K-5 compared to K-3, I'll apply that to both of them first, and see if the K-3 needs anymore as reported by Barry

I have just downloaded the DNG files and edited them in photoshop, obviously there is an increase in pixels but the the ISO 3200 images looks very good to me for my personal needs.

If the AF is a step up from the K5ll and the metering is more accurate together with being able to switch on and off that magical filter, all I can say is very well done Pentax / Ricoh you have earned my money.


With regard to the noise parameter settings, different adjustments for specific types of images will just have to be set to ones needs and tastes which nigel has also stated.

The K3 is a very, very capable camera which I am sure will tempt a lot of people feeling the need to upgrade, I know I am.

I know what you mean. It's kind of obvious that the K3 noise performance will not be significantly better than the K5.... the sensor technology hasn't moved on that much. It's also likely that it will not be significantly worse. All of the image samples I have seen seem to confirm this!

Either way, you know it's going to be 'good enough' (and in your case, a step change over the K7!) It also offers a few subtle enhancements over the K5ii to keep it in line with, and in some cases ahead of, the competition. All good.