K-3 studio test shots now on Imaging Resource

A small sized image for web proves nothing whatsoever. I agree that if one were to do nothing more with an image than to view it/have it viewed at 800 pixels wide then a K3 is pointless, but then so is an MX-1, a cheaper compact or mobile phone would do just fine. I'm unconvinced that shooting JPEG is the best method of noise reduction, I doubt the MX-1 could achieve what AG has demonstrated. A link to a full sized image might help convince.

I agree with Dr. O. Essentially what the camera is doing when shooting in JPEG is taking the RAW image and applying arbitrary processing to it which includes NR and compression. If the camera can do this it is possible to do it yourself on a RAW file in post processing and with the right skills and knowledge a person can do it better.

I also agree that a 800px image on this forum tells us nothing. Where the K-3 is concerned I will only start to make a judgement when we have some real feedback from real users who have shot a variety of images in the real world. We've started to see some of this coming through but not nearly enough.

Regards
David

I just put the idea forward for anyone who's interested to try. It certainly wasn't in my mind to suggest that the K-3 or anything else were pointless, and a cheaper compact certainly wouldn't do. For a start, it wouldn't be shooting at f/1.8 as here. There was a singular lack of light!

I think it's best to keep an open mind and not dismiss any technique until we've tried it ourselves.

I think it's best to link to a full size image to properly justify how good a camera is. I wouldn't go and buy an MX-1 to try it myself based on a titchy image, I don't think anyone with a modicum of photography knowledge would.

Just to pick up this point. I don't think I would describe what is happening here as arbitrary because it has been specifically designed by Pentax to do the job. Whether or not we think we can do a better job, whether we can or we can't, is another matter entirely.

Still, my comment and my picture weren't intended to be a definitive statement, more a gentle musing.

Maybe I used the wrong word with 'arbitrary', what I was trying to say is that the camera is making the decisions. Clearly Pentax have expertise in ensuring that the JPEG output is satisfactory. However, 'you get what you get' when the camera is left to make the decisions whereas with PP in RAW the photographer (or processor) can make a multitude of independent decisions. A skilled processor will probably come out with a better result, but the JPEG route may be better for those who are not as confident / skilled at PP.

Regards
David

We'd better not turn this thread into a RAW vs JPEG one, which has no doubt been done to death many times. That would be better in a new thread if anyone has the stamina for it....

OK, compared the ISO 6400 DNG's of K3 and K-5 from Imaging resource....

Imported into Lightroom 4.2 and applied my standard NR settings for ISO6400 to each. I have to say again the K-5 beats the K-3 hands down.

Luminance NR 20/100
Colour NR 16/100

Here's the full image and 100% pixel peep versions for each ( click on pics to avoid annoying dinosaur 800px restriction )


K3 ISO6400 - full pic





K5 ISO6400 - full pic





K3 ISO6400 - 100% pixel peep





K5 ISO6400 - 100% pixel peep





K-3 v. K-5 ISO51200 Comparuison here

Interesting. There's a lot more colour noise, but that's easier to deal with, and there's quite a bit more detail in the k3 shot too.

You'd expect more detail of course with 24MP v. 16MP

My own (similar) experience with A3+ prints from the Imaging Resource DNGs for the K-3 and the K-5IIs is that there is extra luminance noise and colour noise at high ISOs (I mainly used 51200) with the K-3. When I applied enough extra colour noise reduction to get that under control, I still had to apply extra luminance noise reduction to get that under control too. And the results never became as satisfactory as the K-5IIs. (I had a friend check the prints yesterday to make sure it wasn't just me).

(In all other respects so far, the K-3 is a better camera than the K-5IIs. It is faster in operation, for example 3-image bracketing appears much faster. But unless I find that I've been doing something wrong, or there is something wrong with the Imaging Resource DNGs, I'll probably use my K-5IIs rather than my K-3 for high ISO photography. I'm still testing this).

Yes it's not all just about the sensor IQ. Better features can increase the chances of getting the shot and that's obviosuly important regardless of the noise levels.

However I did expect the IQ of the K-3 to be at least equal to that of the K-5, not worse. It's a shame the marketing power of bigger numbers (24MP) has triumphed over IQ considerations.

It usually does I'm afraid

Wow that's dramatically different.
And that K3 shot comparison is against the K5 right, so not even the k5ii or s ?

Yes original K-5, but note the IQ of the K-5II(s) isn't any different from the original K-5 IQ wise . Except a minuscule and contentious claim the IIs has a tiny bit more detail than the K-5/K-5II resulting in a multitude of zillion page forum threads proving there's no real consensus to show that the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs are any better than each other IQ wise.

Those arguments aside it's clear, IMO, from the current available test shots that the K-3 has suffered in IQ in return for providing the 24MP versus 16MP.